There is no basis in the text of the Bible for shunning and totally isolating those who have been disfellowshipped and resigned from the congregation. This article shows that the Greek words mē synanamignymi that is translated as “quit keeping company with” and is used to justify total isolation, indicates that Christians will greet the disfellowshipped ones, speak with them, and admonish them like brothers. But Christians will avoid social recreational contact and companionship with them in their spare time in order to show that they have to change their course.
The members of the Governing Body write that the words mē synanamignymi in 2 Thessalonians 3:15 has the meaning “not to associate with him for social occasions or recreation.” This is correct, and this article demonstrates that mē synanamignymi in 1 Corinthians 5:9, 11 has the same meaning and indicates that Christians shall not associate with those who practice the mentioned serious sins for social occasions or recreation.
The words mē synanamignymi “quit mixing company with” in 1 Corinthians 5:9, 11 do not refer to disfellowshipped persons, but to congregation members that practice the serious sins mentioned by Paul. How disfellowshipped person must be treated is not mentioned anywhere in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
INTRODUCTION
Do we find any example in the Bible where Jehovah has used force and pressured humans to repent their sins and serve him? No such example is found. But it is the experience of Jehovah’s goodness that leads humans to repentance, as we read in Romans 2:4. When the members of the Governing Body use shunning and total isolation to force disfellowshipped persons to repent, they follow a course that is contrary to Jehovah’s goodness. Shunning and total isolation are cruel and inhuman actions that have been invented by persons who do not know Jehovah and who do not understand who he really is.
THE MEANING OF “QUIT MIXING COMPANY WITH (SYNANAMIGNYMI)”
The Governing Body’s requirement that disfellowshipped ones be shunned and completely isolated is based on the Greek words mē synanamignymi (“quit keeping company with”) at 1 Corinthians 5:9, 11. At the time Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians, no one had yet been disfellowshipped from that congregation. Therefore, these two Greek words cannot apply to disfellowshipped ones. However, the words mē synanamignymi (“quit keeping company with”), according to the context, apply to individuals who practiced the serious sins mentioned by Paul.
When we now are looking to find the reference mē synanamignymi (“quit keeping company with”), it is not to find out how disfellowshipped persons should be treated. But it is to find out how members of the congregation who practice particular serious sins should be treated. The basic meaning of synanamignymi is “to mix together,” and the UBS lexicon defines it as “associate with, have dealings with.” Paul shows that there are some persons Christians should not “mix together with” (synanasmignymi). The important question is what this means in practical life.
The noun occurs three times, and I will now see what we can learn from these occurrences regarding its meaning:
1 Corinthians 5:9:
9 In my letter I wrote YOU to quit mixing in company (synanamignymi) with fornicators.
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.
2 Thessalonians 3:14
14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with (synanamignymi) him, that he may become ashamed.
15 And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.
CHRISTIANS SHOULD “QUIT MIXING COMPANY WITH” (SYNANAMIGNYMI) PERSONS WHO PRACTICE PARTICULAR SERIOUS SINS
The words “quit mixing company with” are found in chapter 5 of 1 Corinthians, and I quote verses 9-13:
9 In my letter I wrote YOU to quit mixing in company (synanamignymi) with fornicators. 10 not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world. 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. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do YOU not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves.”
The last clause of verse 13 shows that Christians should not “quit mixing company with” (synanamignymi) persons who practice the particular serious sins that Paul mentions. But the question is, what is the meaning of the expression “quit mixing company with”?
SECOND THESSALONIANS SHOW THAT “QUIT MIXING COMPANY WITH” (MĒ SYNANAMIGNYMI) DOES NOT MEAN SHUNNING AND TOTAL ISOLATION
This issue needs a detailed analysis because the members of the Governing Body are clouding it in order to try to fit it into their own doctrine of the treatment of disfellowshipped persons. The members of the Governing Body claim that those whom the Christians should stop associating with (synanamignymi), according to Paul’s words in 2 Thessalonians 3:14, are persons who do not want to work to support themselves and who are meddling in the affairs of others. These are petty sins. But I will show that Paul speaks about serious sins, so serious that they can prevent a person from getting everlasting life.
THE NATURE OF THE SINS PAUL DESCRIBES
The situation is described in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15:
6 Now we are giving YOU orders, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother walking (peripateō) disorderly (ataktōs) and not according to the tradition (paradosis) YOU received from us. 7 For YOU yourselves know the way YOU ought to imitate us, because we did not behave disorderly among YOU 8 nor did we eat food from anyone free. To the contrary, by labor and toil night and day we were working so as not to impose an expensive burden upon any one of YOU. 9 Not that we do not have authority, but in order that we might offer ourselves as an example to YOU to imitate us.
10 In fact, also, when we were with YOU, we used to give YOU this order: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” 11 For we hear certain ones are walking disorderly among YOU, not working at all but meddling with what does not concern them. 12 To such persons we give the order and exhortation in [the] Lord Jesus Christ that by working with quietness they should eat food they themselves earn.
13 For YOUR part, brothers, do not give up in doing right. 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.
I will analyze parts of these verses:
Walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition you received from us.
The word “walking” is translated from the verb peripateō with the meaning “to live or behave in a customary manner.” (Louw and Nida) This verb is modified by the adverb ataktōs with the meaning “to do nothing; pertaining to refusing to work” (Louw and Nida); “disorderly, irresponsible.” (Mounce). Because ataktōs modifies peripateō, it cannot refer to refusing to work. But it must have the meaning “disorderly or irresponsible,” and the rendering “walking disorderly” is fine.
So, the meaning is “to behave disorderly or irresponsible” in relation to the customary manner, to what Christians usually do.” And what was it that the Galatians customarily did? They were following “the tradition” (paradosis) they had received from Paul. The noun paradosis means “the content of traditional instruction.” (Louw and Nida) The word paradosis is also used in 2 Thessalonians 2:15:
15 So, then, brothers, stand firm and maintain YOUR hold on the traditions (paradosis) that YOU were taught, whether it was through a verbal message or through a letter of ours.
In this verse, we understand that the word paradosis (“traditions”) refers to all the Christian doctrines and the Christian way of living that Paul and other traveling elders had taught the Galatians verbally or in writing. In this verse, Paul admonishes the Galatians to follow the Christian truth that they had been taught, and in 3:6 he says that they should “withdraw” from any brother who does not follow the Christian truth that Paul had taught them.
| THE SIN: Not to behave and live according to Christian traditions, Christians doctrines and Christian conduct. |
Not (being) obedient to our word (logos) through this letter
To what does the Greek word logos refer? The meaning of logos is “word, speech, message, argument, book, volume.” (Accordance lexicon) The basic meaning of logos is “word,” but in Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians, it refers to the good news about God’s kingdom and Jesus Christ. I quote 1 Thessalonians 1:5 (above) and 2 Thessalonians 3:1 (below):
5 because the good news (evangelion) we preach did not turn up among YOU with speech alone but also with power and with holy spirit and strong conviction, just as YOU know what sort of men we became to YOU for YOUR sakes; 6 and YOU became imitators of us and of the Lord, seeing that YOU accepted the word (logos) under much tribulation with joy of holy spirit.
1 Finally, brothers, carry on prayer for us, that the word (logos) of Jehovah may keep moving speedily and being glorified just as it is in fact with YOU;
The antecedent of logos (word) in 1 Thessalonians 1:6 is “the good news we preach” in 1:5. In 2 Thessalonians 3:1 “the word (logos) of Jehovah” is an expression of “the good news we preach.” The Greek text has “the word of kyrios (“lord”).” The word kyrios can refer to either Jehovah or Jesus, so the translators must make a decision of what to choose.
The sin Paul defines is not being obedient “to our word (logos) through this letter,” and logos refers to “the good news we preach,” the good news about Jesus and Jehovah. Is this a minor or a major sin? We find the answer in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9:
7 but, to YOU who suffer tribulation, relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance upon those who do not know God and those who do not obey (hupakouō) the good news (evangelion) about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength.
Paul refers to those who do not obey (hypakuō) his word (2 Thessalonians 3:14), and his “word” is “the good news about God’s kingdom (1 Thessalonians 1:5, 6). Paul also says the those who do not “obey the good news about our Lord Jesus” will “undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction.”[1] This shows that the sins Paul speaks about in 2 Thessalonians 3:4 are not some petty actions but very serious actions.
| THE SIN: The words “the tradition,” “our word,” and “the good news” are synonyms. The serious sin was not to be obedient the to God news about God’s kingdom and Jesus Christ. |
PAUL SPOKE ABOUT HYPOTHETICAL SINS AND NOT OF SINS SOME IN THE CONGREGATION HAD COMMITTED
The members of the Governing Body say that the sins of those whom Christians should not keep company with are found in 2 Thessalonians 3:11, 12:
11 For we hear certain ones are walking disorderly among YOU, not working at all but meddling with what does not concern them. 12 To such persons we give the order and exhortation in [the] Lord Jesus Christ that by working with quietness they should eat food they themselves earn.
The Watchtower August 2024, page 7 expresses the view of the members of the Governing Body:
Paul noted that some in that congregation were “walking disorderly.” They were disregarding inspired counsel. During a previous visit, he gave this order: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” Yet, some were still refusing to work to support themselves, although able to do so. Also, they were meddling in the affairs of others. How were Christians to treat such disorderly ones?—2 Thess. 3:6, 10-12.
“Keep this one marked,” said Paul. The Greek word suggests taking special notice of this person. Paul addressed this directive to the whole congregation, not just the elders. (2 Thess. 1:1; 3:6) So individual Christians who might have noticed a fellow Christian disobeying inspired counsel would choose to “stop associating with” the disorderly one.
The important point is that the sins to which the members of the Governing Body refer are sins that have been committed — “we hear certain ones are walking disorderly among you”— while the sins that Paul speaks about have not been committed but are hypothetical. Let us see:
I quote 2 Thessalonians 3:6 one time more:
6 Now we are giving YOU orders, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother walking (peripateō) disorderly (ataktōs) and not according to the tradition (paradosis) YOU received from us.
When Paul says that the Thessalonians should withdraw from those who did not follow the truth they had been taught, he did not refer to brothers who already were walking disorderly and not following the truth. The verb paripateō is Greek present, and present can refer to the past, present, and future. However, there is one pronoun indicating that the situation is hypothetical and not something that has happened, and that is pas (“all, every, any”). The use of pas in the expression “every brother” indicates that the reference is not to particular brothers who have not followed the truth, but the situation is hypothetical. The Jerusalem Bible makes this even more clear with the translation:
6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we urge you, brothers, to keep away from any of the brothers who lives an undisciplined life, not in accordance with the tradition you received from us.
The rendering “any of the brothers” accords with the meaning of the Greek words,[2] The hypothetical nature of the situation is also seen in 3:14:
14 But if (ei) anyone (tis) is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed.
The conjunction ei means “if” and the indefinite pronoun tis means “anyone.” So, the expression “any of the brothers” in 3:6 is parallel with the expression “if anyone” in 3:14. Paul says that the Galatians should “withdraw” (3:6) and “stop associating with” (3:14) brothers who would be acting in a certain way and not brothers who already had acted in a certain way.
It is ironic that the actions Paul mentions are disfellowshipping offenses today, according to the members of the Governing Body. The book “Shepherd the Flock of God” chapter 12, point 39 (4) says:
Causing Divisions, Promoting Sects: (Rom. 16: 17, 18: Titus 3:10, 11) This Would be deliberate action disrupting the unity of the congregation or undermining the confidence of the brothers in Jehovah’s arrangement. It may involve or lead to apostasy.—it-2 p 886.
A Witness today who would disagree with the members of the Governing Body on one or more issues and would not change his or her mind when the elders demanded such a change would be disfellowshipped with the pretext that he or she has disrupted the unity of the congregation.
Those whom Christians should not keep company with were not those who committed the petty sins of refusing to work or meddling in the affairs of others. But Christians should avoid brothers or sisters who would not live according to Christian norms and who refused to obey the tradition, our word, and the good news of the kingdom that was preached by Paul.
These are serious sins. |
[1]. The words “everlasting destruction” do not necessarily refer to everlasting annihilation without any hope of a resurrection. But they refer to an early death by the judgment of Jesus Christ. See my article “The devaluation and the restriction of the ransom sacrifice IV An analysis of passages supposed to deal with everlasting annihilation,” in the category “Bible study.”
[2]. For those who want to dig deep into the text, I refer to 1 Thessalonians 5;14, 2 Thessalonians 1:11, 2:17 and 3:2 where the pronoun pas does not refer to particular known objects.
THE APPLICATION OF THE WORDS “NOT KEEPING COMPANY WITH (MĒ SYNANAMIGNYMI)”
I start with quoting the two relevant passages, 1 Corinthians 5:11, 15 (above) and 2 Thessalonians 3:15 (below):
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.
2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15
14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with (synanamignymi) him, that he may become ashamed.
15 And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.
The following points from the passages above show what the meaning of the Greek words mē synanamignymi (“quit mixing company with”) is:
- Not eating with the person. (5:11)
- Take special note of the person. (3:14)
- Not considering the person as an enemy. (3:15)
- Admonishing him as a brother. (3:15)
Point 1) was written in a situation dealing with people who practice serious sins. It does not tell us anything about the Christian’s relationship except that the Christian should not share a meal with the person who practice these serious sins. If we share a meal with a person, we are socializing with him, mixing company with him in our spare time, which we should not do.
Point 2 relates to those in Thessalonica who would not obey the words of Paul. The rendering “keep this one marked” has unfortunate connotations, as if we have put a mark on the person, at least in our mind. The Watchtower of August 2024, page 7, says that the meaning of the Greek word is “taking special notice of this person,” and this would have been an excellent rendering.
Point 3) indicates that the members of the congregation in Thessalonica should have a positive view of the person. They should not view him as an enemy.
Point 4) gives the clearest understanding of what “quit mixing company with” means in practical life, namely, to admonish the person the way a brother is admonished. The Greek word noutheteō has the meaning “to provide instruction as to correct behavior and belief.” (Louw and Nida) It does not refer to technical instruction, but it may include strong positive feelings toward the one that is admonished. Paul admonished the elders in Ephesus day and night with tears.
The application of the words is as follows:
| 1) The idea of “not mixing togehter” is applied to two groups: Those who have practiced particular serious sins, and those who do not follow the Christian tradition, the teachings and principles for Christian living.
2) Christians should not fraternize[1] with these people, for example share a meal with them. 3) Christians should greet them, speak with them, and admonish them to change their lives in order to live as Christians. And Christians should treat them in a cordial way, as they treat all people. |
In order to see the situation in the right perspective I quote the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:43-48:
43 “YOU heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 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 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.
The situation shown by the Christian Greek Scriptures is simple: Christians will treat persons who practice particular serious sins and those who do not obey the words of the Scriptures in a cordial and friendly way, exactly in the same that they treat all people. The only difference in the treatment of the two mentioned groups is that Christians will not have social recreational contact with those who are not obedient to God’s instructions in their spare time, such as inviting them to parties and gatherings of friends.
The purpose of this treatment, according to 2 Thessalonians 3:15, is “that he may become ashamed.” The Greek word is entrepō with the meaning, “to show respect to a person on the basis of his high status,” (Louw and Nida) “make ashamed; pass. respect, regard; be ashamed, be made ashamed.” (UBS lexicon)
The verb of entrepō is aorist passive, which has a causative meaning — cause someone to be or to do something. In addition to the idea of “shame” is the idea of “respect.” An example of the last meaning is Hebrews 12:9:
9 Furthermore, we used to have fathers who were of our flesh to discipline us, and we used to give them respect (epitrepomai). Shall we not much more subject ourselves to the Father of our spiritual life and live?
Both those who practice particular serious sins and those who have refused to follow the Scriptures have disrespected God and his laws and principles. Being deprived of the privilege of having recreational social contact with Christians that may cause them to feel shame, i.e., to realize that they have acted inappropriately, and that may cause them to begin to respect God and his laws and principles.
This is a mild form of discipline because only a small part of what they find delightful is taken away from them. The contrast is the shunning that is demanded by the members of the Governing Body, where the person completely loses most of what is valuable to him, his family and his friends, and he is totally isolated. This is cruel and inhuman treatment, representing a strong pressure on him or her. This is a treatment that collides head on with Jehovah’s personality and his principles. Jehovah will never force anyone to serve him, which is exactly the objective of the treatment demanded by the members of the Governing Body.
| The negative meaning of mē synanamignymi is found in 1 Corinthians chapter 5: not mixing together by eating with the disobedient one.
The positive meaning is found in 2 Thessalonians chapter 3: Not mixing together with the disobedient one, but treating him with love, in the way Christians treat all people, greeting him, speaking with him, and admonishing him to do the right things. All these things are included in the meaning and reference of mē synanamignymi. And this is the diametrical opposite of the view of the members of the Governing Body, that disfellowshipped and resigned ones must be shunned and completely isolated. |
[1]. The word “fraternize” means: “to associate socially or romantically with people considered inappropriate company, often due to a difference in status, as between managers and subordinates, or professors and students.” (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fraternize).
THE MEMBERS OF THE CONGREGATIONS IN CORINTH AND THESSALONICA SHOULD BE TREATED IN THE SAME WAY
Paul says that Christians should “stop associating with” some persons in Corinth and Thessalonica. The members of the Governing Body claim that the situations in Corinth and Thessalonica were different, and that Paul’s words mean that the persons in Corinth should be shunned and totally isolated, while Christians should only avoid social contact in their spare time with the persons in Thessalonica.
I will show that this conclusion is utterly wrong, and that Christians should greet, speak with, and admonish both the persons in Corinth and Thessalonica. But they should not have social contact in their spare time with any of the members of each group. I make the following comparisonS:
THE SAME GREEK WORDS MĒ SYNANAMIGNYMI (“NOT MIXING TOGETHER”) ARE USED BOTH PLACES
The mentioned Greek words only occur in 1 Corinthians 5:9, 11 and 2 Thessalonians 3:14. There is no linguistic or contextual reason to give the words different meanings, and most translations use the same renderings in both places. NWT84 has “quit mixing company with” in 1 Corinthians 5:9, 11, and “stop associating with” in 2 Thessalonians 3:14. These renderings have the same meanings.
The different treatments of the two groups are something invented and introduced by the members of the Governing Body, and it has no biblical basis whatsoever.
THE WORDS “KEEP THE ONE MARKED” AND “STOP ASSOCIATING WITH” WERE ADDRESSED TO ALL THE CONGREGATION MEMBERS
Previously, the members of the Governing Body believed that the words “keep the one marked” in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 were written to the elders. Therefore, the elders should “mark” a person and indicate this to the members of the congregation, so, they could “stop associating” with him. The present view is that the mentioned words were written to all the members of the congregation in Thessalonica. And each member will decide if they would mark someone. This is a correct view.
To whom were the words in 1 Corinthians 5:9 “stop associating with” written? 1 Corinthians 1:2 says that the letter was addressed “to the congregation of God that is in Corinth”. This means that the words “stop associating with” both in 1 Corinthians chapter 5 and in 2 Thessalonians chapter 3 were written to each congregation member of the two congregations and not only to the elders.
NONE OF THE MEMBERS IN CORINTH OR THESSALONICA HAD BEEN DISFELLOWSHIPPED
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:13: “Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves.” This is the only place in The Christian Greek Scriptures where disfellowshipping is mentioned. Paul’s words refer to the man who is mentioned in verse 1, who lived with his father’s wife. The words in 2 Corinthians 2:1-11 show that this man was disfellowshipped but that he had been reinstated.
When Paul wrote his first letter, the man was not yet disfellowshipped, and there is no account of anyone who had been disfellowshipped in the Christian Greek Scriptures. This means the words “quit mixing company with” in 1 Corinthians 5:9, 11 cannot, on the basis of the context, be applied to disfellowshipped persons. According to 5:11, the words refer to “anyone called a brother” who practices particular serious sins.
The same is true with the words “stop associating with him” in 2 Thessalonians 3:14. As I have demonstrated above, these words refer to persons in the congregation who would practice serious sins. This means that the words “quit mixing company with” do not refer to disfellowshipped persons, but to persons the congregation members saw practised serious sins.
THE SINS CAUSING THE QUITTING OF COMPANY HAD NOT YET BEEN COMMITTED
Paul’s words show that he does not refer to disfellowshipped persons and how these should be treated. But he refers to situations where members of a Christian congregation would practice particular serious sins: I quote 2 Thessalonians 3:14 (above) and 1 Corinthians 5:11 (below):
14 But if (im) anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed.
11 But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company 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 word “if” points to a hypothetical situation. If someone does this, then the reaction will be that… The second example does not have the word “if.” But the pronoun “anyone” shows that this situation is hypothetical as well. If someone who is called brother does this, then the reaction will be that…
THE HYPOTHETICAL SINS IN BOTH SITUATIONS ARE OF THE SAME SERIOUS CATEGORY
As Jesus shows in Matthew 5:43-48, Christians shall love all people, even their enemies. This indicates that when Christians must stop associating with a member of the congregation, the situation must be serious. This is the case in both situations.
Related to God’s truth, the letters to the Thessalonians use three expressions that refer to the same thing from different angles: the good news, our word/the word, and the tradition. I quote three passages where “the good news” and “our word” and the tradition are used as synonyms, 1 Thessalonians 1:5, 6 (above), 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14 (middle), 1 Thessalonians 1:7-9 (below):
5 because the good news (evangelion) we preach did not turn up among YOU with speech alone but also with power and with holy spirit and strong conviction, just as YOU know what sort of men we became to YOU for YOUR sakes; 6 and YOU became imitators of us and of the Lord, seeing that YOU accepted the word (logos) under much tribulation with joy of holy spirit.
6 Now we are giving YOU orders, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw (stellō) from every brother walking (peripateō) disorderly (ataktōs) and not according to the tradition (paradosis) YOU received from us.
14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed.
7 but, to YOU who suffer tribulation, relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance upon those who do not know God and those who do not obey (hupakouō) the good news (evangelion) about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength.
The serious sin that would lead Christians to stop associating with a person is “not being obedient to our word” (3:14) which is a synonym of “not being obedient to the good news” (1:5, 6), and “walking disorderly according to the tradition you received from us.” (3:6). Those “who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus Christ” may lose their everlasting life (1:8). Thus, the hypothetical sin leading to the stop of association is serious.
The sins that are mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:11 (above) and 6:9. 10 (below) are serious as well:
11 But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company 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.
9 What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.
As 1 Corinthians 6:10 shows, those who practice the serious sins that causes other Christians to quit mixing company with them, also are prevented from inheriting the kingdom of God. This is a clear parallel to the letters to the Thessalonians. Second Thessalonians 3:14 shows that the sin that causes other Christians to quit company with them, is not to be “obedient to our word,” which is “the good news our Lord Jesus,” First Thessalonians 1:8, 9 shows that those who “not obey the good news,” not being “obedient to our word” will experience “the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction.” This is the same as not to “inherit the kingdom of God.
WHAT IS THE MEANING OF “KEEP THIS ONE MARKED”?
The issue here is the meaning of the Greek verb semeioō. This verb is made from the noun semeion with the meaning “mark, sign.” But this does not mean that the idea is to put a mark on something. The verb occurs only one time in the Christian Greek Scriptures, and it does not occur in the Septuagint. So, we cannot construe its meaning on the basis of different contexts. The UBS lexicon har the meaning “take note of,” and Louw and Nida have the meaning “to pay special attention to something for the sake of a future recall and response.” I quote the NIV rendering of 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15
14 If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note (sēmeioō) of him. Do not associate (mē synanamignymi) with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 15 Yet do not regard (ēgeomai) him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.
There is a parallel verb in verse 15 that helps us understand that putting a mark on someone is not the idea of the verb semeioō, and this is the verb ēgeomai. The meaning of this verb is “consider, regard, think, lead, rule according to the UBS lexicon and “to hold a view or have an opinion with regard to something according to Louw and Nida. So, the idea is: Take a special note of him, but do not take a special not of him (not regard him) as an enemy.
The object of both the verb semeioō and ēgeomai is “him,” and this is any person who would not accept the instruction of Paul in this letter. The reason why the members of the congregation in Thessalonica should “take special note” of anyone fitting this description, is that he or she should be treated in a particular way, which is expressed by mē synanamignymy (“not associating”) with such a person.
This is exactly the same situation as Paul described in 1 Corinthians 5:11:
11 But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company (mē 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.
This verse has the words mē synanamignymi (“not associating”), and the words “take special note of him” are implied. How can I say that? In 2 Thessalonians 3:14,15 Paul does not specify the serious sins, but he uses the words “not obey our instruction in this letter.” He admonishes the congregation members to take special note of what this instruction includes and of those who are violating this instruction, with the result of mē synanamignymi, not associating with such persons.
In 1 Corinthians 5:11, Paul describes in detail which actions are serious sins, and he admonishes the Corinthians to mē synanamignymi (“not associating”) with those who are practicing one of these serious sins. Some of these sins are practiced in secret. And in order to identify congregation members who are practicing one of these serious sins overtly or covertly, one has “to take special note (semeioō) of” each sinner. So, the situations that Paul discusses in Thessalonica and Corinth are exactly similar, which particularly are indicated by the use of the words mē synanamignymi both places.
The Watchtower of August expresses a new understanding of the word semeioō (“take special note of”) in 2 Thessalonians 3:15. Previously, the members of the Governing Body argued that it was the elders who should mark (semeioō) particular persons, and on this basis, the members of the congregation should mē synanamignymi (“not associating”) with those the elders had marked. The letter was written to the congregation members and not to the elders. The new and correct view is that each congregation member has the opportunity to mark (semeioō) or rather “take special note” of those who would not obey Paul’s instruction through his letter. This is not for the elders.
Regarding Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, the members of the Governing Body still have the wrong view. In the same way as the letter to the Thessalonians were addressed to the members of the congregation in Thessalonica, the letters to the Corinthians were addressed to the members of the congregation in Corinth.
However, the members of the Governing Body say that the elders will “take special note of” persons who practice the serious sins mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians chapters 5 and 6, and when a judicial committee of elder disfellowship a congregation member, then the other members must mē synanamignymi (“not associating”) with them, meaning that they should shun and totally isolate the disfellowshipped ones.
It is true that 1 Corinthians 5:13 says that the congregation member who lived with his father’s wife should be removed from the congregation (be disfellowshipped). But neither chapter 5 nor chapter 6 say that the congregation members should mē synanamignymi (“not associating”) with someone whom the elders had removed from the congregation. Neither any role of the elders, nor removal from the congregation is mentioned in 1 Corinthians chapters 5 and 6.
We have exactly the same situation in Corinth as in Thessalonica. Paul directed his words to each member of the congregation, and not to the elders. He listed a several serious sins, and he admonished the congregation members “to take special note” of congregation members who overtly or covertly practiced one of the serious sins he mentioned. And on the basis of what they saw, they should mē synanamignymi (“not associating”) with those who practiced serious sins.
| There is no difference between the situations described in 1 Corinthians chapter 5 and 2 Thessalonians chapter 3:
1. The Greek words mē synanamignymi (“mix together”) is used both places. 2. The Greek words mē synanamignymi are translated as “stop associating with” and “quit mixing in company with” which are synonymous expressions. 3. None of the members in Corinth or Thessalonica had been disfellowshipped, and the words “stop associating with” do not refer to the treatment of disfellowshipped persons. 4. The words both places were addressed to all the members of the congregations and not only to the elders. 5. Both places Paul refers to hypothetical sins and not to sins that have been committed. 6. Both places the sins are serious and can led to everlasting destruction. 7. Congregation members both in Thessalonica and in Corinth should “take special note of” those who committed serious sins and stop associating with them. |
The conclusion to this section is that there is no difference between the sins mentioned in 1 Corinthians chapters 5 and 6 and the sins mentioned in 2 Thessalonians. All are serious sins that can prevent a person from inheriting the kingdom of God. Second Thessalonians 3:14, 14 shows that the words mē synanamignymi (“not associating with”) means that the congregation members should greet, speak with and admonish those who committed serious sins. But they should not associate with them in their spare time. Those who made serious sins in Corinth should be treated in the same way. They should not be shunned and totally isolated. This is a treatment that has no basis in the Bible.
THE GOVERNING BODY’S CRUEL AND INHUMAN TREATMENT OF DISFELLOWSHIPPED PERSONS
As we so often see, the members of the Governing Body speak with twisted tongues.
I quote the Watchtower of August 2024, page 7 (above) and page (15 below):
The apostle Paul wrote to the Christians in Thessalonica, saying: “If anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked.” (2 Thess. 3:14) Previously, we said that this was direction to the elders. If someone continued to ignore Bible principles in spite of repeated counsel, the elders might give a warning talk to the congregation. Thereafter, individual publishers would not socialize with the marked one.
5 Read 1 Corinthians 5:13. Under divine inspiration, Paul wrote a letter directing that the unrepentant sinner be removed from the congregation. How were faithful Christians to treat him? Paul told them “to stop keeping company” with him. What did that mean? Paul explained that this command included “not even eating with such a man.” (1 Cor. 5:11) Sitting down to a meal with someone can easily lead to having further association with him. Clearly, then, Paul meant that the congregation should not socialize with that man. This would protect the congregation from his corrupting influence. (1 Cor. 5:5-7) Additionally, their avoiding close contact with the man might cause him to realize how far he had strayed from Jehovah’s ways, and he might feel shame and be moved to repent.
The interpretation of mē synanamignymi (“stop keeping company with”) is fine. The definition “not socializing with” is the meaning that I have argued in favor of above, that the only privilege the mentioned persons lose is to have social contact with the members of the congregation in their spare time.
However, according to the members of the Governing Body the words “not socializing with” are applied differently in connection with disfellowshipped persons compared with those mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 3:15. This is also seen by their translation of “mē synanamignymi” in 1 Corinthians 5:9 as “quit mixing in company with” and in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 as “stop associating with.” There is no linguistic or contextual reason for translating mē synanamingymi differently in the two places.
So, the members of the Governing Body write one thing and do a completely different thing.
The book “Keep yourselves in God’s Love” (2016), pages 43 and 267, say:
At times, we are called upon to withdraw our fellowship from one who has been a member of the congregation.
Is strict avoidance really necessary? Yes for several reasons.
The literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses shows that family members[1] and members of the congregations shall not greet disfellowshipped persons, speak with them, or have any contact with them. They will be completely isolated. This is something very different from not “socializing with” disfellowshipped persons in the normal sense of the word.
The Greek words mē synanamignymi is used in 1 Corinthians 5:9, 11 in connection with disfellowshipped persons, and it is used in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 in connection with those who would not follow the Christian tradition and do not obey the words of Paul. There is no passage in the Christians Greek Scriptures showing that the two groups shall be treated differently. But the members of the Governing Body make one shot: The Watchtower of August 2024, page 27 says:
“Keep this one marked,” said Paul. The Greek word suggests taking special notice of this person. Paul addressed this directive to the whole congregation, not just the elders. (2 Thess. 1:1; 3:6) So individual Christians who might have noticed a fellow Christian disobeying inspired counsel would choose to“stop associating with” the disorderly one. Did this mean that the person was treated as someone who was removed from the congregation? No, for Paul added: “Continue admonishing him as a brother.” So individual Christians would still associate with the marked one at meetings and in the ministry, but they would choose not to associate with him for social occasions or recreation. Why? “That he may become ashamed,” said Paul. As a result of the marking, the disorderly Christian might become ashamed of his conduct and change his ways.—2 Thess. 3:14, 15.
One reason given why the members of the Governing Body apply mē synanamignymi, “(stop) associating with” differently in the two cases, is Paul’s words “continue admonishing him as a brother.” Exactly what the meaning of the members of the Governing Body is when they refer to the words “admonishing him as a brother” is unclear. If their meaning is that Paul, in this case, says that those who are not obeying his words are brothers while disfellowshipped persons are not brothers, and therefore, the two groups must be treated differently, this is an error. Paul does not say that those who do not obey his words are brothers or not are brothers. But he says that these persons must be treated as brothers are treated. A fine comparison is 1 Timothy 5:1, 2:
1 Do not severely criticize an older man. To the contrary, entreat (parakeleō, “encourage or console”) him as a father, younger men as brothers, 2 older women as mothers, younger women as sisters with all chasteness.
In this text, “brother” and “sister” evidently refer to one’s fleshly brothers and fleshly sisters, and Timothy should treat the mentioned persons as he would have treated his brothers and sisters by encouraging them and consoling them.
The Watchtower of August 2024, page 27, says that we should view the disfellowshipped one “as a strayed sheep and not as a lost cause.” These are wise words, and it is obvious that we should try to help a lost sheep by treating him as we would treat our brother. So, the view that those who did not obey the words of Paul in Thessalonica should be treated differently from those who were removed from the congregation in Corinth has no basis in the Bible.
The Watchtower of August 2024, which I have quoted above, makes one small change in the treatment of disfellowshipped persons. We read on pages 30, 31:
14 Does what we have considered mean that we would completely ignore a person who has been removed from the congregation? Not necessarily. Certainly, we would not socialize with him. But Christians can use their Bible-trained conscience in deciding whether to invite a person who was removed from the congregation—perhaps a relative or someone they were close to previously—to attend a congregation meeting. What if he attends? In the past, we would not greet such a person. Here again, each Christian needs to use his Bible-trained conscience in this matter. Some may feel comfortable with greeting or welcoming the person to the meeting. However, we would not have an extended conversation or socialize with the individual.
On page 29 of the magazine, it is admitted that 2 John 10, 11, which has been used as proof that the members of the congregation should not greet disfellowshipped ones, has been wrongly applied. Therefore, the members of the Governing Body now have allowed the congregation members to invite a disfellowshipped person to a meeting and to greet the person if he attends the meeting. But an extended conversation is not allowed. The first words of the quotation say, “Does what we have considered mean that we would completely ignore a person who has been removed from the congregation? Not necessarily.” These words show that in all other situations, they shall “completely ignore” disfellowshipped persons.
| Shunning and totally isolating disfellowshipped persons, as is the demand of the members of the Governing Body are invented by them and have no basis in the Christian Greek Scriptures |
[1]. The Watchtower of August 2024 introduced a small change in the treatment of disfellowshipped ones. Now it was allowed to invite a disfellowshipped one to a meeting, and say a short greeting to him. But it was still forbidden to have an extended conversation with him.
THE WORDS OF 2 CORINTHIANS 2:6 SUGGEST THAT THE CHRISTIANS CAN GREET AND SPEAK WITH DISFELLOWSHIPPED PERSONS
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 as a brother, admonishing him to repent. One reference to this is 2 Corinthians 2:5-7:
5 Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has saddened, not me, but all of you to an extent—not to be too harsh in what I say. 6 This rebuke (epitimia) given by the majority 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.
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 of the study note is correct, except the use of the word “punishment.” But it fails to show what the word “rebuke” refers to. And it fails to show who those are who made the rebuke. Below I will look at some of the details.
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 its context. NWT13 has the rendering “rebuke,” but the study note has the alternative “punishment.” 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 according to Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich 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.” The corresponding verb epitimaō occurs 29 times and, therefore, it is easier to define. In none of the 29 occurrences, is the sense “to punish.” But in all examples, the meaning “rebuke” or “reprimand” is the natural rendering. I give the following three examples, Matthew 16:22 (above), Matthew 19:13 (middle), and 2 Timothy 4:2 (below):
22 At this Peter took him aside and commenced rebuking (epitimaō) him, saying: “Be kind to yourself, Lord; you will not have this [destiny] at all.”
13 Then young children were brought to him, for him to put his hands upon them and offer prayer; but the disciples reprimanded (epitimaō) them.
2 preach the word, be at it urgently in favorable season, in troublesome season, reprove, reprimand (epitimaō), exhort, with all long-suffering and [art of] teaching.
In all three examples, epitimaō has the meaning “rebuke/reprimand” and not “punishment.” Paul’s words in 2 Timothy 4:2 are close to the use of epitimia in 2 Corinthians 2.6. Timothy should “reprimand/rebuke” other Christians with all long-suffering and teaching.
There are also other important words in 2 Corinthians 6:2, namely, “the majority.” According to the present procedure invented by the Governing Body, “the punishment” 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 on 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 Greek 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 was 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 that the great number admonished the man to change his course. In order to do that, the “great number” had to greet the man, speak to him, and treating him as a brother.
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 in Corinth could greet and speak with the disfellowshipped member while they were rebuking him and admonishing him to repent, exactly in the same way that the Thessalonians, according to 2 Thessalonians 3:15, could greet and speak with a person who was marked in order to cause him to repent.
| The words of 2 Corinthians 2:6 that a great number of the members of the congregation in Corinth rebuked the man who was disfellowshipped show that Christians can greet and speak with disfellowshipped persons while they rebuked or admonished them. |
CONCLUSION
During the 21st century, more than 1.5 million Witnesses have been disfellowshipped. The way these have been treated has led to tens of thousands of ruined lives, of which the members of the Governing Body bear the responsibility.
In this study, I have demonstrated that the treatment of disfellowshipped persons demanded by the members of the Governing Body have been invented by them, and has no basis in the Bible.
The same noun synanamignymi has been used both in connection with disfellowshipped persons (1 Corinthians 6:9, 11) and those who would not obey the words of Paul. (1 Thessalonians 3:14, 15) And there is nothing in the contexts suggesting that both groups should not be treated in the same way.
This means that the only privilege both those who practice the mentioned serious sins and those who would not obey the words of Paul would lose, would be social recreational fellowship with the members of the congregations in their spare time. In all other respects, both groups would be treated like all other members of the congregations who were brothers and sisters. This means that the congregation members can greet the members of both groups, speak with them, and admonish them to live Christian lives.
A detailed analysis of 2 Corinthians 2:6 suggests that a great number of the members of the congregation in Corinth greeted the disfellowshipped man, spoke with him, and admonish him to stop living with his father’s wife.
Jehovah God will never force anyone to serve him, but this is what is done when disfellowshipped persons are shunned and totally isolated. But Jehovah has instructed his servants through his word to use the mild form of discipline of losing social recreational contact with the congregation members in their spare time. This can help the sinner to realize his situation, be ashamed, and starting to show respect for Jehovah and his laws again.
APPENDIX
A group whose lives are at stake in connection with shunning and total isolation are disfellowshipped drug addicts. I wrote an article about this group in the newspaper Dagen on April 10, 2025. Below is an English translation of this article.
DISFELLOWSHIPPING IS NOT A LOVING ACT
The important issue in the Court of Appeal was how the Jehovah’s Witnesses treat disfellowshipped and disassociated ones. The Witnesses claim that disfellowshipping is a loving act. However, in my 56 years as an elder, I have seen how disfellowshipping has led to ruined lives and broken families. I will point to one group that has been particularly hard hit, namely, those who have been disfellowshipped for the use of narcotics, many of whom have been youths.
When someone uses hard drugs, it leads to “a chronic, relapsing brain disorder” that makes it very difficult to quit. An article from the American Addiction Center states:
When people become addicted to heroin, their craving for the drug is so strong that even though they know the consequences of using heroin, they find it impossible to stop using it. Often, those struggling with heroin addiction experience many relapses on the road to overcoming the addiction.
This shows that it is extremely difficult to quit. But there are five things that can help:
- The addict must have a strong desire to quit the abuse.
- Various therapists must help during the withdrawal process.
- Continuous support from family members.
- Continuous support from friends.
- The medication methadone.
In professional articles, it is constantly emphasized how important it is for family and friends to continuously support the drug addict during the withdrawal period. The Court of Appeal pointed out that the requirement for the Witnesses is that all disfellowshipped persons should be shunned and that the Witnesses should have nothing to do with them. This means that since the year 1952, when the Watchtower banned all contact with disfellowshipped persons, it has been forbidden for family and friends to provide help to drug addicts.
In the year 1973, another ban was introduced that has prevented the necessary help. The Watchtower of October 1 of that year banned the use of methadone. Heroin and other hard drugs act on specific receptors in the brain, which leads to a strong craving for the drug. Methadone acts on the same receptors in the brain as heroin, and therefore the craving stops, and relapses are prevented. That is why the ban on methadone was so disastrous.
Maintenance doses of methadone do not get you high, but you are allowed to drive a car. A letter from The Watchtower to the elders of August 5, 2003, showed that the ban was still in force. It was not until a letter to the elders of February 6, 2013, that the ban was lifted. The ban on methadone had then been in place for 40 years. The fact that the medicine can be used today is positive. However, family and friends are still prohibited from helping disfellowshipped drug addicts.
It is with great sadness that I must say that since 1973 a large number of disfellowshipped drug addicts have died far too early because the leaders have forbidden them to get the help they needed. Many of these people wanted to quit, but to do so, they needed continuous help from friends and family, and they needed access to methadone.
I have experienced this myself. While the ban on methadone was in effect, I was contacted by a father who had a young son who was a drug addict. The son had called and said that he was determined to quit his abuse. “What can we do,” the father asked. The elders in the congregation agreed that in this case, we would defy the leaders’ demands for total isolation of the disfellowshipped one, and we would help him.
I was assigned to be his contact person, and the young man knew that he could contact me at any time of the day or night if he needed help. Over the course of a few months, he made a great effort and cut down. Finally, he was able to quit completely. He was reinstated in the congregation and functioned well for almost a year. But then he died, according to the police, of an overdose. Because methadone stops the cravings that lead to relapse, it is very likely that this young man would not have died if he had been able to use methadone. But this was forbidden by the leaders.
Jehovah’s Witnesses writes that disfellowshipping is an act of love. But I quote a study by Swiss researchers from 2023 of 424 disfellowshipped and resigned Witnesses. (Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 26, 2023, Issue 7):
Regarding coping after the exit, after the contact with the faith community ended, 31% of participants reported that they depended on professional support and 38% reported that they got into a crisis and did not know what they should do with their life anymore (multiple answers possible, see Table 2 for an overview). Furthermore, 33% reported that they had thoughts about taking their own life and 10% attempted to take their own life following the exit. However, 37% reported that they enjoyed their lives to the fullest and did things that they were not allowed to do before, and 58% formed new friends/contacts and reactivated previous contacts.
Based on this report, which is completely consistent with what I have seen myself and what contacts in different countries have told me, it is not possible to agree that disfellowshipping is a loving act!
