In the Old Testament, Israel was to be guided by the lex talionis (Latin for “the law of retaliation”). In modern usage, we might know this as the principle of an eye for an eye.
But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:23–25)
Application of this principle had two purposes. Namely, it kept punishment from being either too severe or too lenient. In other words, the punishment should fit the crime. There should be neither overreaction, nor underreaction. While we typically think of the former application of prohibiting making a mountain out of a molehill, many are perhaps surprised to see that Scripture also warns us of the temptation to show injustice by means of lessening the penalty for sin. To under-respond to sin is also a miscarriage of justice.
For instance, see Deuteronomy 19:16-21 which reads:
If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD…and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:16–21)
Notice that here the law of retaliation isn’t merely prohibiting an excessive reaction, but is also prescribing the proper minimal response. The LORD specifically forbids pity in this case and demands an appropriate reply to the sin of malicious testimony against another. An eye for an eye doesn’t simply provide the upper limit, but also the lower limit of justice.
[By the way, anytime you talk about lex talionis you need to understand it in light of Christ’s word in Matthew 5:38-42. To be sure, Jesus corrects our misunderstanding of the principle, but people often misunderstand exactly what He is doing there. Sometimes people assume that Jesus is abolishing the Mosaic principle of “an eye for an eye,” but such a reading is irresponsible in that Jesus Himself said that He wasn’t abolishing the law in Matthew 5:17-20. He corrects a misapplication of the Law, but doesn’t completely abrogate it. In the case of “an eye for an eye,” Jesus is talking about personal retaliation. This doesn’t mean that a nation shouldn’t punish evildoers (Romans 13) or that a church shouldn’t discipline members (Matthew 18). To use Matthew 5 in a way that would contradict Matthew 18 or 1 Corinthians 5 would be to abuse the original authorial intent.]
So, the principle of lex talionis in Deuteronomy 19 not only prescribes the maximum and minimum penalties, but also provides the purpose. It isn’t merely to punish the wrongdoer, but also to edify and warn the corporate body. The goal is that “the rest [of the congregation] shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you.” In other words, there is a civic or social dimension to the punishment.
We see this same pattern not only in the Old Testament instructions to Israel, but in the New Testament commands to the body of Christ, namely with instructions about church discipline (Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13). In fact, the same instructions that Moses gives to Israel to “purge the evil” from the body is picked up and repeated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:13. God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:13)
Some sins are simply not private affairs and need to be dealt with publicly. But which sins and in what cases?
Theologians have long said that private sin can be confessed privately, but that public sin must be confessed publicly. As John Piper says, “repentance should be roughly as broad as the effect of the sin.” For instance, if you stole a large sum of money from a single individual, you might only need to confess and repent to that individual, but if you were to steal that money from the church, then you should confess to the whole church (see how Zacchaeus seeks to make amends with anyone he had defrauded in Luke 19). In other words, everyone who is affected by your sin should, as a general rule, be included in your confession and repentance.
Likewise, in general, private sin can be rebuked privately (at least initially according to Matthew 18), but public sin demands public rebuke. Not all sins demand public rebuke, but, as Jonathan Leeman notes, “churches should publicly address those sins which are simultaneously outward, significant, and unrepentant.”
Though 21st century evangelicals might balk at such a concept today, this is actually the historic position of the church. For example, consider the following quotes from early Reformers:
“Where the sin is public, the rebuke also must be public that everyone may learn to guard against it.” (Martin Luther)
“The injunction which Paul gave to Timothy to rebuke those openly who sin openly, he himself followed with Peter (Gal. 2:14). For when Peter sinned so as to give public offence, he did not admonish him apart, but brought him forward in face of the Church. The legitimate course, therefore, will be to proceed in correcting secret faults by the steps mentioned by Christ, and in open sins, accompanied with public scandal, to proceed at once to solemn correction by the Church.” (John Calvin)
This is the clear pattern that pastors and theologians have preached and practiced. But is it biblical?
Public Rebuke in Scripture
The idea of public rebuke for public sin is well attested in Scripture. Here are just a few of the arguments to be made for this principle:
- The aforementioned Old Testament passages that mention a corporate purpose to discipline (Dt. 13:11, 17:13, 19:16-21, and 21:21, et al). The Bible expects for certain sins to be dealt with publicly so that the rest of Israel might “hear and fear.” Not only that, but the OT also expects for the assembly to participate in the punishment. For instance, Deuteronomy 21:21 commands that the people themselves carry out the punishment of stoning.
- The New Testament passages about church discipline assume a corporate and public dimension to dealing with sin. In Matthew 18, Jesus commands us to “tell it to the church” and in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul commands discipline “when you are assembled.” Rebuke is, again, presented in corporate dimensions. The 1 Corinthians example is particularly instructive because Paul had already privately “pronounced judgment” on the person (1 Corinthians 5:3), but such private judgment was not sufficient. There needed to be public rebuke and the corporate judgment of the body to purge the evil person from the body (vs. 13).
- Paul specifically commands public rebuke in the case of unrepentant elders (1 Timothy 5:20). This is especially pertinent because Paul grounds this command in the hope that “the rest may stand in fear” showing an allusion to the Old Testament context mentioned earlier. Thus, it stands to reason that while Paul commands public rebuke in this case, it seems likely that other cases involving non-elders would also apply given the allusion to the Old Testament context. In other words, though rebuke of elders in particular is all that is explicitly commanded, it seems reasonable to conclude the same principle would implicitly apply in at least some other cases.
- This principle was not only commanded, but practiced by the apostles in multiple cases. The clearest example of this is probably when Paul rebuked Peter “before them all” in Galatians 2:11-14. Interestingly, he seems to have skipped the first two steps of Matthew 18 in this instance given the public nature of Peter’s office and the public nature of his sin. Other examples would include the public criticism of individuals like Alexander the Coppersmith, Hymenaeus, Philetus, and Diotrephes in Scripture.
So the general pattern, practice, and principle of Scripture is that public sin demands either public confession or public rebuke. In such cases, public rebuke is not only acceptable, but even commanded. But what exactly constitutes public sin?
What is Public Sin?
So, what constitutes public sin? It seems like a combination of two factors: the public nature of the sinner and the public nature of the sin itself. Sometimes both factors might be present, but either is sufficient. Let’s look at each in turn.
A Public Sinner
As mentioned earlier, there is an explicit command to publicly rebuke unrepentant elders. But even in cases where there is repentance, there will often be the need for public discipline. For instance, if a normal member of the church were to cheat on his wife and genuinely confess and repent, the entire church wouldn’t generally be notified. But if I were to cheat on my spouse, not only would the church be notified, but I would lose my position as an elder, no matter how genuine my repentance.
Now, this does not mean that every single sin that a public officer commits is worthy of public rebuke. One careless word should generally not cost an elder his dignity or vocation. While some sins are so egregious that they demand corporate consequences regardless of repentance (as in the case of adultery, abuse, assault, etc.), others are not inherently of that nature, but could rise to that level if there is no repentance (1 Timothy 5:20 speaks of persisting in sin).
Again, the general idea is that for certain more public persons (particularly church officers), public rebuke would be more readily applied, but even for non-public persons, there are instances where it would be wise and necessary.
A Public Sin
The other factor that demands public rebuke is for public sin. This could either be due to the nature of the sin itself (someone steals from the church, someone flauntingly brings their mistress to services with them, a member is on the front page of the local newspaper for murder, a fist fight breaks out in the potluck line after services, gossip or slander is taking place, etc.) or because the Matthew 18 process has escalated a private sin into the public domain. In such a case, the preferred response would be voluntary public confession by the sinner, but public rebuke would be appropriate when such confession is not proffered.
Notice how Peter’s sin at Antioch (Galatians 2:11-14) involves both factors. As an apostle, he’s certainly a very public figure and his failure to eat with Gentiles is certainly a publicly visible sin. We might also consider here John the Baptist’s rebuke of Herod. Given that Herod was a public figure and that he was committing public sin by broadcasting his affair with his brother’s wife, he was publicly reprimanded by the Baptizer.
Obviously, a great deal of caution and prudence are demanded as elders seek to determine if a sin has risen to a level necessitating public rebuke, but the principle must be maintained even if there is some legitimate question as to appropriate instances.
Back to the Purpose
In any one act, God is doing hundreds or thousands or millions of things that we can’t always see.
Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! (Romans 11:33)
His ways are good and perfect, though the counsel of His will far exceeds our capacity to understand. So it is with public rebuke. There isn’t just one purpose, but many complementary goals being accomplished in that one act.
On one level, the goal is to provoke repentance in the case of the accused. Paul hands over sinners to Satan (1 Corinthians 5) and Jesus escalates the sphere of discipline (Matthew 18) in order to shame and pressure a sinner into repentance. The way to deal with any conflict or any sin is to expose it to the light. We should never fear the light. It is only the love of darkness that causes us to hate the healing power of the light (John 3). The amount of light that is necessary will correspond to the degree of the sin and public rebuke necessarily drags sin into the light where there is the greater chance of healing.
In other words, public rebuke isn’t necessarily mean, gossipy, vindictive, nasty, or cruel. Sometimes it is the most compassionate, gracious, loving, biblical kindness you can demonstrate. So that’s one purpose of public rebuke.
But a sinner’s repentance isn’t the only motivation or goal.
In addition to the good of the individual, public rebuke also serves the corporate body.
And all Israel shall hear and fear and never again do any such wickedness as this among you. (Deuteronomy 13:11)
The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall purge the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear and not act presumptuously again. (Deuteronomy 17:12–13)
As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. (1 Timothy 5:20)
Public punishment is not only necessary to compel repentance, but sometimes simply to present a warning to the people of the dangers of presumptuous sin. God protects and preserves His people in part by commanding public rebuke and discipline as a pedagogical tool. The fear of such punishment serves as a helpful deterrent against others committing those same sins. It is a reminder to the people that God will not be mocked and that the church takes sin seriously.
In other words, at least part of why God demands a public response to public sin is so that the rest of the people might fear falling into that same sin. When a church fails to abide by this principle of Scripture, we not only allow potential division and dissension to fester, but minimize the call for holiness and trivialize the dangers of unrepentant sin. This is why God explicitly prohibited Israel from showing pity in such cases (Dt. 19:21). What is truly compassionate and gracious isn’t to pacify and ignore sin, but to respond to it in obedience to the word, even when uncomfortable and culturally-insensitive.