THE WITNESSES ARE HOODWINKED BY THE APPLICATION OF 1 CORINTHIANS 5:11 AND 2 JOHN 7-11

WHAT DO THE WORDS “THEY WENT OUT FROM US” MEAN?

The verses in question are 1 John 2:18, 19:

¹⁸ Young children, it is the last hour, and, just as YOU have heard that antichrist is coming, even now there have come to be many antichrists; from which fact we gain the knowledge that it is the last hour. ¹⁹ They went out from us (eks hēmōn), but they were not of our sort (eks hēmōn),; for if they had been of our sort (eks hēmōn), they would have remained with us (meth hēmōn). But [they went out] that it might be shown up that not all are of our sort (eks hēmōn).

I will discuss two questions:

• Who are the antichrists?
• What does it mean that “they went out from us”?

THE IDENTIFICATION OF THOSE WHO ARE CALLED “ANTICHRIST”  

The Greek word antikhristos occurs four times in the first letter of John, and one time in the second letter of John.

The antichrist “denies that Jesus is the Christ…denies the Father and the Son.” (1. John 2:22)

The antichrist “does not confess Jesus.” (1 John 4:3)

The antichrist “is the deceiver” not confessing “Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.” (2 John 7)

The nuances of the Greek text in these verses are important, and both NWT84 and NWT13 have expressed these nuances correctly. The antichrists deny something and they do not confess this thing. I will take a closer look at this?

The words in 2:22 that the antichrist “denies that Jesus is the Christ” indicate that the antichrists accept that there was a person in the land of Israel with the name of Jesus. So, the existence of Jesus as a man is not denied. But what was denied was that Jesus was the Christ. What does that mean?

The apostle John wrote about the situation that existed at the end of the first century CE. And there is one person who lived at the same time as John whose teaching John probably had in mind. His name was Cerinthus, and he belonged to a group that later was called “the Gnostics.” He taught that Jesus was a mere man, though being holy. At his baptism, Christ was sent from heaven and dwelt in the man Jesus. Thus, Jesus had come in the flesh but not Christ. When Jesus was fastened to the stake, Christ had left Jesus, and there was only the man Jesus who suffered and died.

On the background of this information, we can better understand the words in 2 John 7: “not confessing ‘Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh’.” John uses the words “Jesus Christ,” and the truth is that he had come in the flesh.[1] Cerinthus accepted that Jesus had come in the flesh, but not that Christ had come in the flesh. Thus, he and his group did not confess Jesus (4:3), i.e., they did not confess the true nature of Jesus Christ, and that “Jesus is the Christ.” (2:22) The next question is how can it be said that Cerinthus and his group “went out from us,” when this group historically speaking never had been a part of any Christian congregation.[2]

The antichrists may have belonged to the group of Cerinthus, and their teaching was that only Jesus had come in the flesh but not Christ. At his baptism, Christ took residence in Jesus, and before Jesus died, Christ left Jesus.

HOW CAN IT BE SAID THAT “THEY WENT OUT FROM US”? 

The words in the Greek text of 1 John 2:19 are ambiguous, and they can have different references. The understanding of the words by the members of the Governing Body, that they refer to persons who at one time were members of a Christian congregation but then left the congregation, is possible, linguistically speaking. But there is one other interpretation that is linguistically possible  and is much more likely.

I will now analyze the verse in its context. The important Greek words are eks hēmōn. The word eks is a preposition with the meaning “from; out of” and hēmōn is the pronoun “us” in the genitive case This genitive construction occurs four times, and it can mean, 1) “from us,” 2) “from ours (= from something belonging to us),” and 3) “from our sort.” The problem is that regardless of which of the three possible meanings we use, we have a contradiction of terms if we translate the preposition eks in a similar way. I use the examples below:

¹⁹They went from us (eks hēmōn), but they were not from us (eks hēmōn); for if they had been from us (eks hēmōn); they would have remained with with us (meth hēmōn). But it might be shown that not all are from us (eks hēmōn).

¹⁹ They went out from our sort (eks hēmōn), but they were not from our sort (eks hēmōn); for if they had been from our sort (eks hēmōn);  they would have remained with us (meth hēmōn). But it might be shown that not all are from our sort (eks hēmōn).

¹⁹ They went away from what belongs to us (eks hēmōn), but they were not from what belongs to us (eks hēmōn); for if they had been from what belongs to us (eks hēmōn);  they would have remained with what belongs to us (meth hēmōn). But it might be shown that not all are from what belongs to us (eks hēmōn).

For example, it is contradictory to say, “They went from us, but they were not from us.” And similarly to the other two examples. In order to use the preposition eks with the same meaning and at the same time solve the problem with the contradiction, I will carefully analyze the verse. In the light of the context, that I will demonstrate later, I take the words eks hēmōn in the sense “what belongs to us.”

I start with the first part of verse 19:

 They went forth from what belongs to us (eks hēmōn), but they were (eimi) not from what belongs to us (eks hēmōn);

The first verb is ekserkhomai with the meaning “to come or go out or forth” (UBS lexicon). Then I take eks hēmōn with the meaning “from what belongs to us.” What was it that belonged to the apostle John and to those to whom he wrote his letter?  A subject that is dear to the apostle John is “truth” (alētheia). In his gospel, I count this word 25 times, and in his letters 20 times. Let us see how this word occurs in the context of the verse we are discussing. I quote 2:20, 21:

²⁰ And YOU have an anointing from the holy one; all of YOU have knowledge. ²¹ I write YOU, not because YOU do not know the truth (alētheia), but because YOU know it, and because no lie (pseudos) originates with (ek) the truth (alētheia)).  ²² Who is the liar if it is not the one that denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one that denies the Father and the Son. ²³ Who is the liar (pseustēs) if it is not the one that denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one that denies the Father and the Son.

Now we may start to understand the setting of verse 19. Here we can see that “what belongs to us,” is the truth (alētheia).  I quote three scriptures:

2 John 4

⁴ I rejoice very much because I have found certain ones of your children walking in the truth alētheia, just as we received commandment from the Father.

1 John 2:21

²¹ I write YOU, not because YOU do not know the truth (alētheia), but because YOU know it, and because no lie originates (ek) with the truth (estin) [literally: “no lie from the truth is.”].

1 John 3:19

¹⁹ By this we shall know that we originate with the truth (ek tēs alētheia esmen) [literally: “we from the truth are.”]., and we shall assure our hearts before him.

Here we have two constructions that are similar to the construction in 2:19 that we are discussing, and I compare the three:

2:19: they were (ēsan) not from what belongs to us (eks).

2:21: no lie from (ek) the truth is (esmen)

3:19: we from (ek) the truth are (estin).

The preposition “from” can be written as eks or ek. The three verbs ēsan, semen, and estin are forms of the verb eimi (“to be”). On the basis of how John uses the word “truth” (alētheia), and the words that the Christians are “walking in the truth” and “are from the truth,” I conclude that “what belongs to us” in 2:19 is “the truth.” Therefore, I paraphrase 2:19 in the following way:

¹⁹ They went from the truth (eks hēmōn), but they were not from the truth (eks hēmōn); for if they had been from the truth (eks hēmōn); they would have remained with with the truth (meth hēmōn). But it had to be brought to light (faneroō) that not all are from the truth (eks hēmōn).

The conclusion of the discussion of 1 John 2:19 is that the antichrists had never been a part of the Christian congregation. So, they did not go out of the congregation, but they went out from the truth.

[1]. Greek present can be translated by English perfect. So, John’s reference is to the birth of Jesus. Cerinthus accepted that Jesus had come in the flesh, but not that Christ had come in the flesh.

[2]. Regarding Cerinthus see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerinthus.

WHICH PERSONS SHOULD THE CHRISTIANS NOT RECEIVE INTO THEIR HOMES?

I will now analyze the scripture that first and foremost has been used as evidence that disfellowshipped persons must be shunned, namely, 2 John 10, 11:

¹⁰ If anyone comes to YOU and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into YOUR homes or say a greeting to him. ¹¹ For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.

A literal rendering of the first clause is:

If someone comes to you and the teaching (tēn didakhēn) is not bringing.

The important words are “this teaching.” The word didakhē is preceded by the article, and this shows that John refers to a teaching that already is mentioned. To what John is referring is seen in verse 9:

⁹ Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching (tē didakhē) of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching (tē didakhē) is the one that has both the Father and the Son.

The important words are “this teaching.” The word didakhē is preceded by the article, and this shows that John refers to a teaching that already is mentioned. To what John is referring is seen in verse 9. He refers to the true teaching about the Christ. The word “Christ” (messiah) means “the anointed one.” When Jesus was baptized in water, he was also baptized with holy spirit, and by this he became the Christ. The false teaching of Cerinthus and other Gnostics was that Christ was a spirit creature, who became a part of the man Jesus when he was baptized, and Christ left Jesus before he was killed.

These persons only accept that Jesus and not Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and therefore they are “deceivers,” as verse 7 says. So, the meaning of John’s words in verse 10 is clear. He had particular living persons in mind, those who had a false belief in who Jesus Christ was. The word “son” can only be understood in relation to the word “father.” When they deny the true nature of the Son, this means that they take away the part of the nature of God, that he is the Father of Jesus. Therefore, they do not have “both the Father and the Son,” as verse 9 says. These are “deceivers,” as verse 7 says, and it was these “deceivers” that the Christians never should “receive into (their) homes” (verse 10).

WHAT DOES IT MEAN NOT TO “SAY A GREETING TO HIM”?

The expression “say a greeting” is translated from the verb khairō, which has the meaning: “to enjoy a state of happiness and well-being — ‘to rejoice, to be glad’…to employ a formalized expression of greeting, implying a wish for happiness on the part of the person greeted.” (Louw and Nida). In 2 John 4 and 3 John 3, NWT84 translates khairō with “rejoice.” But in 1 John 10, the word evidently is “a formalized expression of greeting.” I will consider this.

The verb khairō occurs 68 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. I will now compare the 9 examples where it is used as a greeting in addition to the two examples in 2 John 10, so we can understand what this means:

Table 1.1. The verb khairō used in greetings

Matthew 26:49	And going straight up to Jesus he said: “Good day (khairō), Rabbi!” and kissed him very tenderly.
Matthew 27:29	and they braided a crown out of thorns and put it on his head and a reed in his right hand. And, kneeling before him, they made fun of him, saying: “Good day (khairō), you King of the Jews!”
Matthew 28:9	And, look! Jesus met them and said: “Good day! (khairō)” They approached and caught him by his feet and did obeisance to him.
Mark 15:18	And they started greeting him: “Good day (khairō), you King of the Jews!”
Luke 1:28	And when he went in before her he said: “Good day (khairō), highly favored one, Jehovah is with you.”
John 19:3	and they began coming up to him and saying: “Good day (khairō), you King of the Jews!” Also, they would give him slaps in the face.
Acts 15:23	and by their hand they wrote: “The apostles and the older men, brothers, to those brothers in Antioch and Syria and Ci·liʹcia who are from the nations: Greetings (khairō)!
Acts 23:26	“Claudius Lysʹi·as to his excellency, Governor Felix: Greetings (khairō)!
James 1:1	James, a slave of God and of [the] Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes that are scattered about: Greetings (khairō)!

The table shows that the verb khairo is used three times for greetings in letters, and six times as an address of honor to someone. On the basis of these examples, we can better understand the words in 2 John 10. I compare the renderings of NWT84 (above), NIV (middle), and my literal rendering (below):

 ¹⁰ never receive him into YOUR homes (oikia) or (kai) say a greeting (khairo) to him.

¹⁰ do not take him into your house (oikia) or (kai) welcome (khairo) him.

¹⁰ not taking him into house (oikia) and (kai) greeting (khairo) him not be saying.

We note that the Greek word oikia (house) is singular and without the article. The expression can be compared with the English expression “taking him home” and not “taking him to the home.” So oikia refers to the places where Christians lived, to their homes. NWT84 translates the singular noun oikia with the plural “homes.” This is correct because the verb “taking” is plural and refers to the Christians and not to the Christian.

One important detail is the Greek conjunction kai (“and”), which is translated as “or” by both NWT84 and NIV. Linguistically speaking, the conjunction kai can be translated by “or.” But this is a rare rendering of this word, and the context should clearly show that this rendering is necessary. There is nothing in this context justifying the rendering “or” for kai. By taking kai in the sense “and,” which is the rendering in almost all occurrences of the word, we understand that “taking him into your homes” and “greeting him” are two sides of the same action. In Hebrew, which was the native tongue of John, this is called “a parallelism,” the same thing expressed in two different ways.

When a guest arrived at the home, he was warmly greeted, and his feet may be washed. And this is the situation that John was speaking about. The NIV is not a literal translation, but its translators have understood the situation by rendering khairō as “welcoming.” This is a completely different situation from the one mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 5:44-48:

⁴⁴ However, I say to YOU: Continue to love YOUR enemies and to pray for those persecuting YOU; ⁴⁵ that YOU may prove yourselves sons of YOUR Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous. ⁴⁶ For if YOU love those loving YOU, what reward do YOUhave? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? ⁴⁷ And if YOU greet (aspazomai) YOUR brothers only, what extraordinary thing are YOU doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? ⁴⁸ YOU must accordingly be perfect, as YOUR heavenly Father is perfect.

Many Jews would not have anything to do with people of the nations; Peter would not at first enter the house of Cornelius, who was a Roman, according to Acts chapter 10. And John says in John 4:9 that “Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.” This view would sometimes prevent the Jews from greeting and speaking with non-Jews. But this was wrong, according to Jesus. We note that the Greek word khairō (“greet”) is not used in verse 46, but aspazomai, a general word for greeting, is used in connection with the greeting of people.

The situation Jesus outlines is very different from the situation mentioned in 2 John 10, 11. Jesus is speaking of treating all persons in the same way. But John is speaking about persons who are deceivers that Christians should avoid. That John was not speaking about saying a greeting when passing someone on the street or when meeting someone at a certain location, is also implied in 2 John 11; NWT84 above and my literal translation below:

¹¹ For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer (koinōneō in his wicked works.

¹¹ who is continuing to say, to continue greeting him, is having a part (koinōneō) in his wicked works.

We note that all the verbs are Greek present, which means that what is made visible, is that the actions are continuing. John is not speaking of a single action, of a single greeting. But he is speaking of a person who continues to invite and greet a deceiver, an antichrist, into his home, and letting the deceiver speak about his wrong viewpoints about Jesus Christ and the Father.

This is corroborated by the last part of the verse “is having a part in his wicked works.” The view of the Governing Body is that if a Witness says a greeting to a disfellowshipped person whom he meets on the street, such as saying “hello” or “goodbye” to him, then the Witness “is a sharer in his wicked works”. This is completely ridiculous!  The meaning of the Greek verb koinoneō is “to join with others in some activity…to share one’s possessions, with the implication of some kind of joint participation and mutual interest.” (Louw and Nida). We note that John speaks about “wicked actions” in the plural. What were these wicked actions? The antichrists were liars because they denied that Jesus is the Christ. In order to be a liar, a person has to tell lies to others. So, the antichrists preached their false message to others.

Joining in the activity of the antichrists and sharing their possessions with them by inviting them into their homes to speak about their wrong doctrines, was the same as having a mutual interest. By continuing to do this — the Greek verbs requires continuing actions — the Christians would have a part, or would be a sharer, of the wicked works of the antichrists.

THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF 2 JOHN 7-11

First, I will present some comments from the Watchtower literature of 2 John 7-11, and then I will show how the verses are practiced and applied.

THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY HAVE UNDERSTOOD TWO BASIC POINTS

Who are the ones that John is speaking about? The Watchtower of August 1, 1974, page 465, shows that the words about not receiving them into your homes or greeting them refer to active propagandists:

Note that in 2 John verse 7, the apostle John says that “many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.” Then John gives the warning to be on guard and not to receive such ones into one’s home, for these are active propagandists of false teachings, deceitful advocates of wrong conduct. They should be given no foothold from which to make further infiltration. One should not even greet them, so as to avoid being a sharer in their wicked works

These comments are correct and they corroborate my study above. Those whom the Christians should not invite into their homes were not disfellowshipped Christians but active propagandists whose goal was to deceive others.

The words quoted above were written 50 years ago. But this correct understanding is still found in the Watchtower literature. In an online article discussing the subject “What is the coming of Christ” some misconceptions about this coming are discussed, and we read:

Misconception; The words of 2 John 7 show that Jesus will come in the flesh.

Fact: The Bible verse states: “Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.”

In the apostle John’s day, some denied that Jesus had come to this earth as a man. They were called Gnostics. Second John 7 was written to refute their false claim.[1]

This is exactly what I have written above, when I referred to Cerinthus who believed that Jesus was a man but Christ was a spirit being that came into Jesus when he was baptized and left him before he died.

The members of the Governing Body have understood two basic truths regarding the words in 2 John 7-11: 1)   Those who Christians should not invite into their homes were the antichrists, who were active propagandists of false doctrine. 2) These propagandists whom John had in mind were the Gnostics.

THE WRONG APPLICATION OF THE RIGHT UNDERSTANDING 

The words in 2 John 7-11 have been used over and over again as proof from the Bible that disfellowshipped and disassociated persons must be shunned; no one must say a greeting to them, and no one must speak with them. This is a false teaching, and the readers have been hoodwinked.

I will now look at some arguments that the members of the Governing Body have used to mislead the readers. The basic method that we see is that the words of John are used as an illustration of something else, and this is not clearly communicated to the reader. Applying an account as an illustration of something else means that the literal meaning of the text of the Bible is not used as the authority, but what the literal text reminds the author of is used. By this use, the authority is moved from the text of the Bible to the personal view of the author, and we must accept the author as the final authority. Let us look at the details. On page 465 in The Watchtower of August 1, 1974, we read:

Do the apostle’s words here necessarily apply to all persons who are put out of the congregation for wrongdoing?…Are, then, all who have been disfellowshipped like the persons described in John’s second letter? At the time that they had to be disfellowshiped they were apparently following a course like such ones or at least manifesting a similar sentiment.

The important word in the quotation is “like.” The author does not say that 2 John 9-11 refers to disfellowshipped persons, which he has said is not true. But the author asks if all disfellowshipped persons are like those who are mentioned in verses 7-11? The answer is that at the time they were disfellowshipped, they were like the deceivers and antichrists. Therefore, the words in 2 John 7-11 can be applied to disfellowshipped and disassociated persons. However, at some time after their disfellowshipping, the situation may have changed, and the disfellowshipped persons are no longer like the antichrists.

The Governing Body claims without any basis in the Bible that those who are disfellowshipped are like the antichrists. Therefore, the words that Christians should not receive the antichrists into their homes and greet them, can be applied to those who are disfellowshipped. The Governing Body has led the Witnesses to believe that 2 John 7-11 directly relates to disfellowshipped persons, and therefore the Witnesses have been hoodwinked.

What we see in The Watchtower of August 1, 1974, is a clear example of the twisting of the Scriptures, the twisting of God’s thoughts. The only way the text of the Bible can be applied correctly is in accordance with the Greek lexical meaning, the grammar, and the syntax of the words in their context. The verses of 2 John 7-11 have only one application, namely, in connection with persons who are antichrists and who denied Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. Applying these verses to disfellowshipped persons is a way of corrupting the Scriptures, a way of twisting God’s thoughts. We see a similar twisting in connection with disassociated persons. The Watchtower of July 15, 1985, pages 30, 31, has a question about 2 John 10:

Did 2 John 10, which says not to receive into one’s home or to greet certain ones, refer only to those who had promoted false doctrine?

In context this counsel concerned the “many deceivers” who had gone forth, “persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.” (2 John 7) The apostle John offered directions on how Christians back there should treat one who denied that Jesus had existed or that he was the Christ and Ransomer. John directed: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.” (2 John 10, 11) But the Bible elsewhere shows that this hada wider application…

John says: “Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.” (2 John 9, 10) Those words certainly would have applied to a person who became an apostate by joining a false religion or by spreading false doctrine. (2 Timothy 2:17-19) But what about those who John said “went out from us”? While Christians in the first century would know that they should not associate with an expelled wrongdoer or with an active apostate, did they act similarly toward someone who was not expelled but who willfully renounced the Christian way?…

 Such ones willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the ‘antichrist.’ (1 John 2:18, 19)

A person who had willfully and formally disassociated himself from the congregation would have matched that description [of the antichrist]. By deliberately repudiating God’s congregation and by renouncing the Christian way, he would have made himself an apostate. A loyal Christian would not have wanted to fellowship with an apostate. Even if they had been friends, when someone repudiated the congregation, apostatizing, he rejected the basis for closeness to the brothers. John made it clear that he himself would not have in his home someone who ‘did not have God’ and who was “not of our sort.”

This text is an excellent example of how the members of the Governing Body have twisted the word of God, have hoodwinked the readers, and have used “two sorts of weights“ and “a cheating pair of scales.”. I will analyze the quotation:

Firstly, it is admitted that “in context” John’s words were applied to “the deceivers” who were not confessing “Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.” This should have been the only conclusion that was drawn — the text could only be applied to these.

Secondly, a deceptive argument follows the correct application of the words in 2 John, “But the Bible elsewhere shows that this had a wider application.” The readers are taught that what the Governing Body says, always is true. But a careful reader may ask, “Where in the Bible do we see a wider application?” An answer to this question cannot be given.

 Moreover, the very words of the Watchtower show how the Governing Body puts their opinion above the text of the Bible. The application of the words in 2 John can only be the literal application in its context, as the first part of the Watchtower article says. There is no other application! The same is true with all the other words in the Bible. They can only be applied according to their context.

In some instances when a text is ambiguous, or when the meaning of a Greek or Hebrew word is not given in the context, other passages in the Bible may help us solve the ambiguity. For example, the way Matthew uses the Greek word porneia, shows that its only meaning is sexual intercourse between two persons who are not married. No other meaning can be construed on the basis of other contexts where porneia is used. This means that some passages may help us understand other passages. But when the text is clear, as in the case of 2 John 7-11, no other text can show that John’s words can have a wider application.

Thirdly, the following words are false: “Such ones willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the ‘antichrist.’” The claim is that anyone who resign from Jehovah’s Witnesses is a part of the antichrist.” This claim shows the dishonest method used by the Governing Body. As I have shown above, and as The Watchtower have agreed with, the antichrists were persons who denied the true nature of Jesus Christ and who were active propagandists. As a matter of fact, most people who resign from Jehovah’s Witnesses, are not like these people. The claim of the opposite is pure nonsense. The claim that they are a part of the antichrist is an attempt to produce evidence so they can be shunned because the antichrists should be shunned.

Fourthly, the following words are deceiving: “A loyal Christian would not have wanted to fellowship with an apostate.” Almost all readers will agree with these words. But the question is what is an apostate? The word apostasia occurs only two times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. And again, it is the Governing Body who defines the word.

Insight On the Scriptures I, page 127, discusses causes of apostasy, and then gives examples of apostasy:

• Treating lightly the teaching and preaching work.
• Rejecting God’s representatives, the visible part of his organization.
• Seeking to make others their followers.
• Willfully abandoning the Christian congregation, and thereby become part of the ‘antichrist’.

Point 2) is a defense of the Governing Body. In this study, I have shown that in connection with disfellowshipping, the Governing Body has twisted texts of the Bible and misled the readers of the Watchtower literature. I have given evidence of this. But as long as I do not accept the deceptive words of the Governing Body, I am by definition an apostate.

Point 4) relates to those who resign from Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are part of the antichrist. I give two examples. A young man in his late teens sent an E-mail to me telling that he was baptized when he was 8 years old. He did not understand what he did, and now he wants to resign. Is he an apostate? Is he a part of the antichrist? A young woman in Australia who gave her testimony before the Royal Commission of Australia was sexually abused by a man in her congregation. The elders handled this in a very bad way, and she became depressed and developed a strong aversion to the congregation. Therefore, she resigned from the congregation. Is she an apostate? Is she a part of the antichrist?

The situation is that the Governing Body has given definitions of what an apostate is, and all Witnesses must follow these definitions even though they have no basis in the Bible.

EXAMPLES OF THE GOVERNING BODY’S TWISTING OF PASSAGES IN THE BIBLE

I have shown above that the Watchtower has admitted that according to the context, those whom 2 John 11 says that the Christians should not receive into their homes and be greeting were the antichrists who denied that Jesus is the Christ. Nevertheless, The Watchtower has in several instances used 2 John 11 as proof that Christians must not greet and speak with disfellowshipped and disassociated persons. This is a way of cheating the readers, using passages against their contexts but pretending that they are used according to their contexts. Below are some examples:

The Watchtower of October 15, 1962, page 632:

But anyone making a practice of sin must be disfellowshiped. (1 Cor. 5:9-13; 2 John 10, 11)

The Watchtower of July 1, 1963, pages 411, 412 (above) and (444 below):

A disfellowshiped person is cut off from the congregation, and the congregation has nothing to do with him. Those in the congregation will not extend the hand of fellowship to this one, nor will they so much as say “Hello” or “Good-bye” to him. He is not welcome in their private homes, even if such home serves as a center of worship for a local group of Jehovah’s witnesses. This is in harmony with Scriptural principles. Second John 9, 10 says: “Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.”

 The excommunicated relative should be made to realize that his visits are not now welcomed as they were previously when he was walking correctly with Jehovah.—2 John 9-11.

The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 25

²⁵ All faithful Christians need to take to heart the serious truth that God inspired John to write: “He that says a greeting to [an expelled sinner who is promoting an erroneous teaching or carrying on ungodly conduct] is a sharer in his wicked works.”​—2 John 11.

The Watchtower March 15, 1986, page 18:

¹² Some who have a critical attitude claim that Jehovah’s organization is too strict about cutting off social contacts with disfellowshipped persons. (2 John 10, 11)

The Watchtower April 15, 1988, pages 27, 28:

⁷ Christians do not hold themselves aloof from people. We have normal contacts with neighbors, workmates, schoolmates, and others, and witness to them even if some are ‘fornicators, greedy persons, extortioners, or idolaters.’ Paul wrote that we cannot avoid them completely, ‘otherwise we would have to get out of the world.’ He directed that it was to be different, though, with “a brother” who lived like that: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that [has returned to such ways], not even eating with such a man.”​—1 Corinthians 5:9-11; Mark 2:13-17.

⁸ In the apostle John’s writings, we find similar counsel that emphasizes how thoroughly Christians are to avoid such ones: “Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God . . . If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting [Greek, khaiʹro] to him is a sharer in his wicked works.”​—2 John 9-11…

¹⁰ We can be just as sure that God’s arrangement that Christians refuse to fellowship with someone who has been expelled for unrepentant sin is a wise protection for us. “Clear away the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, according as you are free from ferment.” (1 Corinthians 5:7) By also avoiding persons who have deliberately disassociated themselves, Christians are protected from possible critical, unappreciative, or even apostate views.​—Hebrews 12:15, 16.

An online article: “What if you commit a serious sin?”

4. How disfellowshipping helps

If a person who has committed a serious sin refuses to follow Jehovah’s standards, he can no longer be part of the congregation. He is disfellowshipped, and we do not associate with him or even speak with him. Read 1 Corinthians 5:6, 11 and 2 John 9-11, and then discuss this question:[2]

All six quotations above apply 2 John 9-11 to disfellowshipped persons, and by doing this, the readers are hoodwinked. A particularly bad example is the quotation from The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, where the words in blue directly say that 2 John 11 refers to disfellowshipped persons.

[1]. https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/jesus-coming/.

[2]. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200270063/6/0.

THE ZIGZAG TURNS OF THE GOVERNING BODY

In the year 1952, the arrangement of disfellowshipping and of shunning the disfellowshipped ones was implemented in all congregations. During the next 22 years, until the year 1974, the disfellowshipped ones were treated like lepers, they were completely shunned. But The Watchtower of August 1, 1974 had two articles that made an U-turn of the treatment of disfellowshipped persons.

The new interpretation of 2 John 7-11 was that family members had the right to visit disfellowshipped members, and that some disfellowshipped persons could be greeted. We read on page 471:

²¹ As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them. What the elders are concerned with is that “leaven” is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshiping with those who had to be removed as such “leaven.” Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honor to a parent, though disfellowshiped, by calling to see how such a one’s physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not a spiritual fellowshiping.

The Kingdom Ministry of November 1974, page 4, referred to the Watchtower article and said:

As pointed out in The Watchtower, of August 1, 1974, page 465, a Christian may greet a disfellowshipped person who is not like those described at 2 John 9-11, but he would certainly not go beyond a word of “hello” or greeting. The Watchtower, August 1, 1974, page 472 suggested that where fleshly relationships are not involved, it would be well to leave to the elders further conversation or exhortation.

This was a U-turn in the treatment of disfellowshipped ones. However, these new viewpoints immediately met resistance.[1] When the Watchtower of August 1, 1974 was published, I had been appointed to be the teacher of 30 two-week courses for all elders in Norway that would occur during a period of 18 months. Because of this, I had close contacts with the members of the branch office. And we discussed the teaching of the elders. On the basis of signals from the Governing Body, I was told that I should basically tell the elders that they should follow the old arrangement of the treatment of the disfellowshipped ones. But if someone followed the mentioned articles of having contact with disfellowshipped family members and greeting other disfellowshipped ones, the elders should allow them to do that.

In the years after 1974, the old arrangement was practiced as if the articles from 1974 had not been written. And The Watchtower of September 15, 1981 had three articles that contained a rejection point by point of the liberal viewpoints presented in The Watchtower of August 1, 1974. We read on pages 22, 25, 29:

¹² Yes, the Bible commands Christians not to keep company or fellowship with a person who has been expelled from the congregation. Thus “disfellowshiping” is what Jehovah’s Witnesses appropriately call the expelling and subsequent shunning of such an unrepentant wrongdoer. Their refusal to fellowship with an expelled person on any spiritual or social level reflects loyalty to God’s standards and obedience to his command at 1 Corinthians 5:11, 13. This is consistent with Jesus’ advice that such a person be considered in the same way as “a man of the nations” was viewed by the Jews of that time. For some time after the apostles died, those professing Christianity evidently followed the Biblical procedure. But how many churches today comply with God’s clear directions in this regard?…

And we all know from our experience over the years that a simple “Hello” to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?…

²⁵ All faithful Christians need to take to heart the serious truth that God inspired John to write: “He that says a greeting to [an expelled sinner who is promoting an erroneous teaching or carrying on ungodly conduct] is a sharer in his wicked works.”​—2 John 11.

¹⁹ Consequently, Christians related to such a disfellowshiped person living outside the home should strive to avoid needless association, even keeping business dealings to a minimum. The reasonableness of this course becomes apparent from reports of what has occurred where relatives have taken the mistaken view, ‘Though he is disfellowshiped, we are related and so can treat him the same as before.’ From one area comes this:

This was a complete U-turn compared with the viewpoints of The Watchtower of August 1, 1974. And these zigzag turns of the interpretation of the members of the Governing Body of the same passages in the Christian Greek Scriptures clearly show that the present treatment of disfellowshipped persons is not based on the Bible. But it is based on the personal viewpoints of the members of the Governing Body.

[1]. Later I learned that these articles were written by Raymond Franz, who was more liberal than the other members of the Governing Body. He was later disfellowshipped.

WHAT DO THE WORDS “QUIT MIXING COMPANY WITH” MEAN?

Paul’s words are found in 1 Corinthians 5:11:

¹¹ But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company (synanamignymi) with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.

The important Greek word in this context is synanamignymi. The application of this word by the members of the Governing Body is the same as using “two sorts of weights” and “a cheating pairs of scales”. The word synanamignymi is, without any biblical or linguistic reason, interpreted in two different ways. And the reason for this is to find support for the extreme procedure of shunning disfellowshipped and disassociated persons, even though this procedure contradicts the text of the Bible.

The word synanamignymi (“mix together”) occurs only three times in the Christian Greek Scriptures, in 1 Corinthians 5:9, 11 (text above) and 2 Thessalonians 3:14 (text below):

9 In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company (synanamignymi) with sexually immoral people…

11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company (synanamignymi) with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.

14 But if (ei) anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked and stop associating (synanamignymi) with him, so that he may become ashamed. ¹⁵  And yet do not consider him an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.

Courses in ancient Greek differentiate between Classical Greek and New Testament Greek. There is a close similarity between the two, but there are differences as well, particularly in the meaning and references of words. Therefore, we cannot just consult a Greek-English Lexicon when we are looking for the meaning of a Greek word and choose one of the meanings that the lexicon presents that fits our viewpoint. Such lexicons both present meanings from Classical and New Testament Greek without distinguishing between them. The only way to find the meaning of a Greek word in the Christian Greek Scriptures is to look at the contexts in which the word occurs. Therefore, in connection with the word synanamignymi we have only three places to look.

I will now compare the situations in 1 Corinthians 5:9, 11 and 2 Thessalonians 3:14. In 1 Corinthians chapters 5 and 6, Paul speaks about disfellowshipping wicked persons. This means that Christians should stop “mixing together with” (synanamignymi) the disfellowshipped persons. Below I will compare the study notes of the two passages in the online NWT13 as well as three articles in The Watchtower. The study note of 2 Thessalonians 3:14 says:

and stop associating with him: A person who was “walking disorderly” in the congregation was not guilty of practicing a grave sin for which he could be disfellowshipped. (2Th 3:11) Still, he was persisting in a course that could reflect badly on the congregation and that could influence other Christians. Paul thus counsels Christians to “stop associating” with him, that is, to avoid socializing with him. (Compare 2Ti 2:20, 21.) This action might help the disorderly one to realize that he needed to conform to Bible principles. Fellow Christians would not completely avoid the person, for Paul advises them to “continue admonishing him as a brother.”— See study note on 2Th 3:15.

The situation that is painted in the note of 2 Thessalonians 3:15 is clearly misleading because the reference is claimed to be concerning those who are “walking disorderly.” True, these words are found in 2 Thessalonians 3:11. But Paul cannot in 3:14 refer to those who are walking disorderly because verse 14 does not refer to a particular concrete situation, i.e., Paul does not refer to something that already has happened. But his words are conditional, something that is seen by his use of the Greek word ei (“if”) at the beginning of 3:14. So what Paul actually says is that “If anyone [is] not obedient to our word through this letter,” then the Christians should “stop associating with him.”

 This must, of course, include anything that Paul mentions in his letter, and not only those walking disorderly by not working and meddling with what does not concern them (3:11). In chapter 2, Paul exhorts the Thessalonians not to accept the words of those who say that the day of the Lord is here (2:2). He also says that they must “maintain your hold on the traditions that you were taught (2:15), i.e., they should not introduce new teachings.

The fact that Paul in 3:4 uses the words “our instructions” in the plural indicates that Paul wanted obedience to everything that he had written in the letter. As we will see, the study note says that those who should be marked were “not guilty of practicing a grave sin.” There is nothing in the context showing that this conclusion is correct! For example, Paul says in 2 Timothy 2:18 that Hymenaeus and Philetus “have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred.” That Hymeneus and Philtus said something showing that they were not obedient to Paul’s word resulted in their disfellowshipping.

If some members of the Thessalonian congregations were not obedient to Paul’s words regarding the day of the Lord, saying that this day “is here” (“is present”) that would be just as grave a sin as the one of Hymenaeus and Philetus. And similarly, if someone did not “maintain your hold on the traditions that you were taught” (2:16), but rejected something or introduced something else, that would be a grave sin as well. So, the attempt of the Governing Body through the study note of 2 Thessalonians 3.15 to show that the possible sins of the Thessalonians were not grave has failed. The motive of this attempt is, of course, to try to show that synanamignymi has a different and less severe meaning in 2 Thessalonians 3:15 than in 1 Corinthians 5:11. But this is a futile attempt because Paul in 2 Thessalonians is not referring to a concrete situation but to a hypothetical situation whose contents is unknown.

I will now return to the evidence showing that the members of the Governing Body use “two sorts of weights” and “a cheating pair of scales.” We can see this by comparing the study note of 1 Corinthians 5:11 (below) with the study note of 2 Thessalonians 3:15, which has been quoted above, as well as three quotations from The Watchtower. The study note of 1 Corinthians 5:11 says:

stop keeping company with: Or “stop associating with.” The Greek word sy·na·na·miʹgny·mai, rendered “keeping company with,” means “to mix together.” (The same Greek verb occurs at 2Th 3:14.) Thus, “keeping company” with others would imply having close fellowship or companionship with them and sharing their views and sentiments. Christians in Corinth had to “stop keeping company with,” that is, refuse to mingle with, any unrepentant sinner. They were to “remove the wicked person from among [themselves].”—1Co 5:13

The Watchtower of July 1, 1963, page 413:

Therefore, the members of the congregation will not associate with the disfellowshiped one, either in the Kingdom Hall or elsewhere. They will not converse with such one or show him recognition in any way. If the disfellowshiped person attempts to talk to others in the congregation, they should walk away from him. In this way, he will feel the full import of his sin.

The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 22:

Yes, the Bible commands Christians not to keep company or fellowship with a person who has been expelled from the congregation. Thus “disfellowshiping” is what Jehovah’s Witnesses appropriately call the expelling and subsequent shunning of such an unrepentant wrongdoer.

Study note to 2 Thessalonians 3:15 said in part:

Fellow Christians would not completely avoid the person, for Paul advises them to “continue admonishing him as a brother.” —See study note on 2 Th 3:15.

The Watchtower of 15 April 15, 1985, page 31:

Paul said, “Stop associating with” the marked one “that he may become ashamed.” Brothers would not completely shun him, for Paul advised them to “continue admonishing him as a brother.” Yet by their limiting social fellowship with him, they might lead him to become ashamed and perhaps awaken him to the need to conform to Bible principles.

A synthesis of the different applications of synanamignymi I will now show that “two sorts of weights” and “a pair of cheating scales” are used by the members of the Governing Body. The comments on the Greek word synanamignymi in 1 Corinthians 5:11 are: 1. Thus, “keeping company” with others would imply not having close fellowship or companionship with them and sharing their views and sentiments. 2. They will not converse with such one or show him recognition in any way. If the disfellowshiped person attempts to talk to others in the congregation, they should walk away from him. 3. Thus “disfellowshiping” is what Jehovah’s Witnesses appropriately call the expelling and subsequent shunning of such an unrepentant wrongdoer. The comments on the Greek word synanamignymi in 2 Thessalonians 3:15 are: 1. Paul thus counsels Christians to “stop associating” with him, that is, to avoid socializing with him. But Fellow Christians would not completely avoid the person, for Paul advises them to “continue admonishing him as a brother. 2. Brothers would not completely shun him. Why is the application of synanamignymi different in 1 Corinthians chapter 5 and in 2 Thessalonians chapter 3? The reason is that the members of the Governing Body, without any biblical reason, have decided that disfellowshipped persons must be shunned.  And here we see the use of “two sorts of weights” and “a cheating pair of scales” — the same Greek word is, without any lexical or contextual reason, applied in diametrically opposite ways in 1 Corinthians chapter 5 and 2 Thessalonians chapter 3. In one place, it refers to shunning but in the other place, it does not refer to shunning. It is no longer God’s thoughts in the Bible that are used as the authority but the thoughts of the Governing Body that are presented as God’s thoughts.

I have stressed that the only way to know the real meaning of a Greek word is to look at the context where the word occurs. The word synanamignymi occurs only three times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The basic meaning of the word is “mixing together,” and in 1 Corinthians 5:11, we learn one side of not socializing with the person is not having a meal with him or her. In 2 Thessalonians 3:15 we learn that Christians can “continue admonishing him as a brother,” and this means that the members of the congregation can speak with him and greet him, while they still must not continue socializing or fraternizing with him. These are the meanings that we can construe on the basis of the contexts where the word occurs. When we compare the study notes from NWT13 and the quotations from The Watchtower we clearly see how the members of the Governing Body use “two sorts of weights” and “a cheating pair scales” in order to support their own viewpoints.

There is absolutely nothing connected with the Greek word synanamignymi showing that it means that a person must be shunned, i.e., treating him or her as if he or she does not exist. Greek-English lexicons that give both meanings from Classical Greek and New Testament Greek agree with this, as I show below:

United Bible Society Lexicon: “Associate with, have dealings with,”

Mounce Greek Dictionary: “To associate with.”

Moulton and Milligan: “‘Mix up together,’ thence metaph. in mid. ‘associate with’.”

Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich: “Mix up together…pass: mingle, or associate with.

When the positive meaning of synanamignymi is “socializing with,” the negative meaning cannot be “shun” in the sense “avoid him completely” but it must be “not socializing with.”

There is no lexical or contextual reason why a disfellowshipped person cannot be treated in the same way as a person who is not obedient to Paul’s word, as this is mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 3:14,15. This means that the members of the congregation can greet and speak with a disfellowshipped person while they are admonishing him to repent.

But what about the word “brother” in 2 Thessalonians 3:15. A disfellowshipped person can hardly be called a brother, or can he? Paul speaks of a hypothetical situation, and he does not say that a person who in the future would not obey his words is a brother. But the use of the Greek adverbial hōs (“as; like”) both before “enemy” and before “brother” shows that the meaning is that the members of the congregation should not treat a person who did not obey Paul’s words in the same way as enemies were treated, but in the same way as brothers were treated.

How are persons admonished (noutheteō) like a brother? There are four Greek words that do not mean exacly the same but have quite similar meanings:

noutheteo: “admonish, warn, instruct.” (Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich)

paideuō: “to provide instruction as to correct behavior and belief.” (Louw and Nida)

epitimia/epitimaō “rebuke, reprove, censure also speak seriously, warn. (Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich)

I will discuss these words in their contexts below. Paul shows how persons can be admonished like brothers in 2 Timothy 2:24-26:

²⁴ But a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil, ²⁵ instructing (paideuō) with mildness those not favorably disposed (antidiatithēmi); as perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, ²⁶ and they may come back to their proper senses out from the snare of the Devil, seeing that they have been caught alive by him for the will of that one.

Who is Paul speaking about? The verb antidiatithēmi occurs only in this place, and the meaning is: “to be of an opposite opinion; to be adverse; opponent, 2 Tim. 2:25.” (Mounce) A related noun is antidikos, which has the meaning “an opponent in a lawsuit; an adversary.” This noun is used in 1 Peter 5:8 with reference to the Devil. The rendering of the NWT84 as “not favorably disposed” may be too weak, and the NIV rendering, “those who oppose” is stronger.” That the verb has a strong negative meaning is shown by verse 26: the opposers are caught alive in snare the Devil.

Because these opposers were caught in the snare of the Devil, they were in a dangerous situation. But these persons should be treated like brothers, they should be “instructed with mildness,” according to verse 25. The instruction, or rather correction, would be applied in two ways. These persons were in the same situation as those who would not obey the word of Paul. The members of the congregation should not fraternize with them, in order to show that their actions were wrong. But at the same time, they should be “instructed with mildness.”

We must not fail to understand the reason why opposers who were caught in the snare of the Devil were instructed with mildness. This is seen in verse 26: “perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth.” These persons were not beyond repentance.

Opposers were instructed with mildness, because of the possibility that “God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of the truth”.

Could this situation that I have discussed above also be applied to persons who have been disfellowshipped? We have good reasons to say yes.

THE MEMBERS OF THE CONGREGATION IN CORINTH ADMONISHED THE DISFELLOWSHIPPED ONE  

When Paul got information about the man in Corinth who lived together with his father’s wife, Paul wrote in his first letter to the Corinthians that he had to be disfellowshipped. The congregation followed the advice of Paul. But the second letter to the Corinthians shows that after a relatively short time the man was reinstated in the congregation. How this man had been treated during the time when he was disfellowshipped is seen in 2 Corinthians 2:5-7:

⁵ Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has saddened, not me, but all (pas) of you to an extent—not to be too harsh in what I say. ⁶ This rebuke (epitimia) given by the majority (polys) is sufficient for such a man; ⁷ now you should instead kindly forgive and comfort him, so that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sadness.

I will now analyze the two important words in verse 6, that are translated as “rebuke” and “the majority.” The study note for the word “rebuke” in verse 6 in the online NWT13 says:

rebuke: Or “punishment.” In his first inspired letter to the Corinthians, Paul directed that a man who had unrepentantly practiced sexual immorality be removed from the congregation. (1Co 5:1, 7, 11-13) That discipline had good effects. The congregation was protected from a corrupting influence, and the sinner sincerely repented. The man performed works befitting repentance, so Paul now indicates that “the rebuke given by the majority [was] sufficient” and that the man be welcomed back by the congregation. This is consistent with the ways of Jehovah, who disciplines his people “to the proper degree.”—Jer 30:11.

The explanation that the man sincerely repented and that he was reinstated is correct. But it fails to show what the word “rebuke” refers to and who those were who made the rebuke. Below I will look at some of the details. We need to consider the words “rebuke” and “the majority,” in order to understand the situation. According to the present procedure invented by the Governing Body, “the rebuke” would be that no member of the congregation in Corinth spoke with the man or greeted him. If he attended a meeting and spoke to someone, they would turn their back to him and not answer him.

However, the words “the majority” speak against this. The Greek adjective polus (“much; many”) is masculine plural, genitive, comparative. The English parsing of the adjective is, positive: much; comparative: “more”; superlative “most.” It is not easy to translate the comparative form of polus into English. The rendering “the majority” is inaccurate because this would be the literal rendering of the superlative form (“most”). The rendering “many” would be a literal rendering of the positive form. The rendering “the more” would be a literal rendering of the comparative form but would not be good modern English. I, therefore, suggest the rendering, “The rebuke given by a great number is sufficient for such a man.”

The important point in verses 5 and 6 is the contrast between “all” and “a great number” (“the more”). All of the congregation members were saddened by the actions of the man, but only a great number of them rebuked him. If the rebuke was shunning, it was required that all members of the congregation would participate in this action. But only a great number (“the more”) participated in the rebuke. This corroborates the view that the rebuke was not his disfellowshipping, but the members of the congregation could greet the man and speak with him while rebuking him, in the same way as the Thessalonians could greet and speak with a man who was marked and admonish him. Let us look at the Greek words.

The Greek noun that is translated as “rebuke” is epitimia, and it occurs only in 2 Corinthians 2:6. This means that we cannot construe the meaning of the word on the basis of the context. NWT84 and NWT13 have the rendering “rebuke” and the study note of NWT13 has the alternative rendering “punishment,” which is the rendering of many English Bible translations. However, there are several reasons why the rendering “punishment” is not fitting. What was the punishment that the man received? According to 1 Corinthians 5:5, the man “was handed over to Satan,” i.e., he was disfellowshipped. This was something that all the members of the congregation who were saddened by his action stood behind. But not all the congregation members but only a great number of them were behind the epitimia that led the sinner to repentance. This indicates that epitimia was not the disfellowshipping of the man and that “rebuke” is a better rendering than “punishment.”

The verb epitimaō corresponds to the noun epitimia, and the meaning of the verb is “rebuke, reprove, censure also speak seriously, warn, in order to prevent an action or bring one to an end…punish.” (Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich) We cannot just take one meaning from a Greek-English Lexicon and insist that this is the meaning of a certain passage. But I will point out that the epitimia of the great number was may have led the man to repentance, and this fits the last part of the definition above: “to rebuke or reprove in order to bring an action to an end.”

The Greek verb that is used in 2 Thessalonians 3:15 with the purpose of causing the man to repent is noutheteō, and the same lexicon defines this verb as “admonish, warn, instruct.” The verbs epitimaō and noutheteō have both different meanings and similar meanings. But both verbs can be used to try to cause a sinner to repent. So, there are good reasons to believe that the use of the noun epitimia in 2 Corinthians 2:6 shows that the members of a Christian congregation could greet and speak with disfellowshipped members while they were rebuking them and admonishing them to repent. This is exactly in the same way that the Thessalonians, according to 2 Thessalonians 3:15, could greet and speak with persons who were marked in order to cause them to repent.

We can also see a parallel between the rebuke given by the great number of the Corinthians and “instructing with mildness the opposers” who were trapped in Satan’s snare, according to 2 Timothy 2:25. The reason for the instruction in mildness was that “God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth.”  The fact that the man in Corinth was reinstated shows that God also may “give repentance” to other disfellowshipped persons who also are caught in the trap of Satan.

So, the demand of the members of the Governing Body that all must shun disfellowshipped and disassociated persons is not only cruel and inhuman, but it also contradicts God’s purpose of “giving repentance” to those who are in the trap of Satan. This is so because God “gives repentance” and an “accurate knowledge of the truth” to sinners when his servants speak the word of God to those who are in the trap of Satan.

CONCLUSION

The basic point of this study has been that the members of the Governing Body are using “two sorts of weights” and “a cheating pair of scales” when they try to justify their extreme viewpoints regarding disfellowshipping.

They have taught the Witnesses that 2 John 7-11 refers to disfellowshipping and how disfellowshipped persons shall be treated, even though they know that these verses have nothing to do with disfellowshipping.

They have also taught that 1 Corinthians 5:11 proves that disfellowshipped persons shall be shunned, while they know that the only meaning of the principal Greek word in the verse is given in the Christian Greek Scriptures is very different from shunning.

The use by the members of the Governing Body of “two sorts of weights” and “a cheating pair of scales” places a strong responsibility on the shoulders of the members of the Governing Body.