The epistle to the Hebrews presents the necessary action of rebuking for a father to his children and in such God rebukes Christians, and Paul urged Christians not to become weary from rebuking from God (Heb 12:5). Jesus put it nicely, “Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent” (Rev 3:19). Evidently, rebuking can be an act of love especially from the Lord toward those whom He loves. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to rebuke the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8–11). By the revealing of the Word, the Law of Christ rebukes people because of their sin (Jas 2:9). Rebuking in itself is not bad and even necessary. God’s rebuking is also upon the ungodly as a just wrath. Jude 14b–15 reveals,
“Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to rebuke all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
On the last day, God will come rebuking. When facing the accusations of the Pharisees, Jesus asked, “Which one of you rebukes me of sin” (John 8:46)? Jesus proved Himself by asking who rebuked Him and for what, and this forced the Pharisees to expose their perception and accusations of Jesus as being a Samaritan and as having a demon. Rebuking in itself is not bad and even necessary. God’s rebuking is also upon the ungodly as a just wrath. The question is: “Do Christians have the right and responsibility to rebuke others?”
<p value="<amp-fit-text layout="fixed-height" min-font-size="6" max-font-size="72" height="80">Looking to the Scriptures, Christians do have the responsibility to rebuke. Jesus commanded, "<strong>And if your brother sin against you, go, rebuke him between you and him alone: if he hears you, you have gained your brother</strong>" (Matt 18:15). This rebuking could progress to go before the congregation (Matt 18:16–17). The Holy Spirit revealed in Ephesians that Christians are to rebuke evil deeds, which in doing this, those who sin are rebuked will become exposed by the light (Eph 5:11–13). Such rebuking is not always direct and private. In the assembly, the speaking revelation rebukes the non-believing and ignorant, so that the secrets of their hearts would be manifest and he will confess that God is truly among them (1 Cor 14:24–25). Rebuking is not the cause for most non-believers do not accept the Faith. They do not want their evil deeds to come to light and those works to be rebuked (John 3:20). As 1 Corinthians 14 affirmed, rebuking was to be done in public and open teaching (2 Tim 4:2). Now at the same time, the Spirit commanded direct and public rebuking "in the presence of all" of those who continue in sin (1 Tim 5:20). Because of what the grace of God teaches, one is to rebuke with all authority (Titus 2:15). In some instances, Christians are to sharply rebuke those who are false teachers and are divisive (Titus 1:13). The harshest word for "rebuking," which appears only once in Scripture, means to rebuke in such a way as to strike someone with words, which it is in 1 Timothy 5:1 that teaches that one is not to harshly rebuke one's elders.Looking to the Scriptures, Christians do have the responsibility to rebuke. Jesus commanded, “And if your brother sin against you, go, rebuke him between you and him alone: if he hears you, you have gained your brother” (Matt 18:15). This rebuking could progress to go before the congregation (Matt 18:16–17). The Holy Spirit revealed in Ephesians that Christians are to rebuke evil deeds, which in doing this, those who sin are rebuked will become exposed by the light (Eph 5:11–13). Such rebuking is not always direct and private. In the assembly, the speaking revelation rebukes the non-believing and ignorant, so that the secrets of their hearts would be manifest and he will confess that God is truly among them (1 Cor 14:24–25). Rebuking is not the cause for most non-believers do not accept the Faith. They do not want their evil deeds to come to light and those works to be rebuked (John 3:20). As 1 Corinthians 14 affirmed, rebuking was to be done in public and open teaching (2 Tim 4:2). Now at the same time, the Spirit commanded direct and public rebuking “in the presence of all” of those who continue in sin (1 Tim 5:20). Because of what the grace of God teaches, one is to rebuke with all authority (Titus 2:15). In some instances, Christians are to sharply rebuke those who are false teachers and are divisive (Titus 1:13). The harshest word for “rebuking,” which appears only once in Scripture, means to rebuke in such a way as to strike someone with words, which it is in 1 Timothy 5:1 that teaches that one is not to harshly rebuke one’s elders.Now, rebuking is often a necessary and rebuking is a responsibility of Christians. For many Christians this is a hard thing. Christians must remain very careful in rebuking others since erring in this action can cause much strife. Rebuking is not an act of tolerance, but tolerance is not a virtue when one tolerates evil and abuse. Like John the Baptist, the rebuked may persecute even unto death (Luke 3:19). Rebuking does not always produce a positive outcome for the one rebuked, but according to Scripture, this is a necessary part of spiritual welfare of those rebuked and for the spiritual welfare of the church as a whole.
The Breath of God 
This is just a thought to promote discussion…
while we are commanded to rebuke reprove and exhort… that is a matter of Christian holiness right? which is imperative to our faith, Israel was chosen to be different that they could be a light, set apart, and we are call to be holy like God is holy, but is there a larger focus to be taken into account? I mean if we are true believers, we are regenerated and filled with the Holy Spirit, and along with this comes personal conviction… if we are living like we are ‘supposed’ to (ie. picking up our cross daily, loving God with all our heart,mind,soul,and strength, loving others as ourselves) then holiness should follow. does this mean we are perfect? no. of course not and there is a time for everything, (rebuking) but shouldn’t our focus be the advancement of the gospel of God? which is salvation through Christ by faith, a give of grace? I think that the American church (as a whole pretty much all denominations, and obviously this is a generalization. so please forgive me for that) is more focused on attacking our personal sin rather than loving God…. does this leave leniency for sin? BY NO MEANS! If we are properly loving God, and loving others in place of, or ‘as’ ourselves… then holiness should follow. Surely no man who truly fears and loves the Lord our God would ever sin against him…. meanwhile as we attack our own sin instead of loving God, we neglect the gospel.
I think of it like two forks… one you hold the prongs…. you take a bunch of your own sins and try to fix them but you can’t pick up any of the fruit on the plate… the other fork you hold properly, with loving God in your hand, you pick off your own sins with the fork to throw away and you can also grab the souls of men at the same time…. one way is us focused and the other is God focused…. does that make sense?
just some thoughts to promote discussion…
Matt,
I assume you agree that John 8:24 is correct that beliefs may be rebuked such as belief in who Christ is. What is also clear is that belief is a work? When we do God’s work, it includes belief being a work of God.
Let’s not back away from the resurrection either. Romans 10:9, “because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” This is clearly another salvation issue of belief and confession. I don’t understand what exact dichotomy of 1 Cor. 15 that changes the rebuking of this chapter from belief to work (though belief is a work, an action). False beliefs certainly affect our work in the Lord and then read “…how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor. 15:12). Concerning 1 Cor. 15:58, how can anyone “be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord” without having a belief of what the work of the Lord is? As you said, “All of these have to do with action.” That’s exactly what I proved before.
What beliefs “unrelated to the Lordship” are you referring to? Because I really can’t think of any beliefs or works that are “unrelated to the Lordship” since all works of the Church are established by Christ’s authority as Lord. If we know Him, then we’ll keep His commandments (1 John 2:3-5). Those not related are traditions of men and should not be a point of rebuking. I’m thinking that you believe that much of the practices of the New Testament Scriptures are “unrelated to the Lordship”, so please clarify.
Regarding grace, “if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” This is the extent of grace. The grace in Christ that I know is salvation apart from works that no man could boast (Eph. 2:8-9).
I think I understand that you are simply asking, “How far does rebuking go regarding beliefs?” How do we know anyone’s beliefs without their further action of teaching them? Teaching false beliefs is clearly an action to be rebuked even sharply when divisive (Titus 1:13).
First Corinthians is a letter of rebuking where Paul rebuked regarding doctrines and practices even rebuking those who divide from not agreeing in having the same mind and judgment (1:10). The essential doctrines in this epistle cover hermeneutics, the Assembly, the acts of the Assembly, spiritual gifts, church discipline, lawsuits between brethren, causing others to stumble, marriage, idol worship, the resurrection of Christ, and most importantly love. Clearly, God’s grace does not exclude rebuking. It is because of this rebuking that the Corinthians kept their salvation (2 Cor. 7:10).
Again, the extent of grace is clear in 1 John 1:7. What person cannot clearly see the invisible things of God like His power and divinity in the creation of world which is made? What person cannot understand the Gospel to be saved? What person cannot understand what is written to be saved? Should not each Christian examine the other?
Ephesians 4 makes it clear what Christ’s Church was and what it must be united on. Ephesians 4:4-6 presents one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God the Father.
What do you believe the Gospel includes?
Sorry if I ignore the rabbit that was chased in the last few posts and go back to the question I posed in the first comment. And I apologize for my tardy response.
Taking the whole of John into consideration, I am not quite ready to equate “works” in Johannine thought to the “actions” of modern American religious (specifically Church of Christ) language. I do not think they are necessarily talking about the same thing. in John we are dealing with the concept of believing in Christ as being from God. The issue is deity and Lordship. It is not talking about specific beliefs that have to do with eccelsiology, soteriology, or pneumatology. And given that those are the “hot button” issues in Churches of Christ that typically warrant rebuke, I think this is a necessary clarification.
It seems like the whole argument regarding the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 (and consequently the dichotomy between earthly and heavenly bodies later in the chapter) is leading up to the pragmatism of 15:58. Also in Titus, grace encourages us to holy action (vs. 12ff).
All of these have to do with action.
So I guess what I am saying is that I see no instance where beliefs unrelated to the Lordship of Christ are to be rebuked by Christians. Is there no grace in theology? If there is not, then we are all certainly condemned. Right? I mean, do any of us have it all completely right? I don’t know anyone who would say that.
So what is the “point of no return”? I am saying that it is Jesus and the cross. If it is anything more in depth than the belief in the Lordship of Christ (and his deity as proved by the Passion and resurrection), then I do not see how any of us can trust in our salvation.
So can you ever rebuke a “brother’s” belief?
What does that mean for modern Churches of Christ in the American South? I think it is pretty clear what I think it means. So what do you think it means? Or do you even agree?
Make sense?
If a brother is teaching falsely, then rebuke in private.
I’m with you on all of that.
But, what if the false teacher IS a brother?
Braden,
I agree almost completely. It is good to first confront a brother in private (Matt. 18), but false brethren and divisive false teachers are not brethren and sometimes leave no room for hesitation in teaching error before the weak and doubtful. Did Christ meet privately with all the Pharisees before rebuking them publicly (Matt. 23)? The public rebuking done can confidently be of the teaching and not that person (Eph. 5:11). Regarding brethren, divisive ones should be refused after 2 warnings (Titus 3:10), which is in clear agreement with Christ in Matthew 18:15ff. As presented in the post in 1 Corinthians 14, there are those who are rebuked by just teaching the Gospel in the Assembly. This is public and without private meeting, but this is also not direct and personal. It is simply the sword stabbing the heart. What about the false brethren who will not meet with you?
I know of brethren who have sharply rebuked rightfully, but wrong in doing so in public. I have heard numerous false brethren who have given backhanded public rebukes with smiles on their faces, and then there were 3 ministers in Montgomery who marched down aisles rebuking (in the wrong doctrinally too) a good minister in lecture at Faulkner.
I’ve rebuked false teaching publicly, and may God forgive me if I rebuked the person without pursuing a private meeting.
You know, I got into a discussion with a certain individual I consider to be on the dogmatic side concerning this topic. He believed it was sometimes necessary to rebuke false teachers or erring brethren in front of all, even prior to a personal one-on-one address. I don’t think the Scriptures teach that. I think public rebuke should be performed only after personal rebuke, but I could be wrong. Your thoughts?
Most believers of a dogmatic persuasion are all too ready to jump in and rebuke someone and I think that’s extremely unfortunate. I consider people like that to be arrogant and devoid of humility. Frankly, I see them as the ones who need to be rebuked.
But on the flipside, sometimes we are too timid to step on someone’s toes and as a result, we do them the disservice of not rebuking them.
Bottom line: I believe every rebuke should be well-reasoned and deeply considered before being carried out.
Thanks Matt for the question. It caused me to do some further contemplation on the subject, so it is a good one. Believing is an action, a work (John 6:29), but that’s not the best answer to your question.
I know of such an instance in John 8:24 where Christ rebuked the non-believing Jews. Then, there is the account of Paul to some in Corinth concerning the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:11-14. Then, there are some above that imply such like 2 Timothy 4:2 in reference to sound teaching in verse 3 and Titus 2:15 in reference to grace in verse 11. These are some and I may comment again and present more.
Please, elaborate if you have any further thoughts. I’m interested.
Scott, how is faith (believing) and action? If it’s an action then it can be viewed by others as an action. Belief is a state of consciousness, not an action. Think about this and see if it not true?
Is there ever an instance in scripture when beliefs are rebuked, or is it only actions?