Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them (Rom. 16:17).
This oft-quoted verse was challenged a few days ago in a conversation this writer had with a preacher in the area who will be hosting a man who is well known for teaching a particular error. He said that Paul meant for these words to be applied only for members within the congregation at Rome. He made this claim in the context of all churches being autonomous (and there-fore no one had the right to question their choice of the man they had invited to speak). When asked if Paul would say nothing, then, if Hymenaeus and Philetus had been invited to speak to a congregation with which he was familiar, he immediately changed the subject. Apparently, he knew he was wrong but did not want to admit it. But what about Romans 16:17? What did Paul mean, and how should the verse be applied?
Definitions
Like many Greek words, the word skopeo has more than one meaning. According to Strong (#4868), it means: 1) “to look at, observe, contemplate”; 2) “to mark”; 3) “to fix one’s eyes upon, direct one’s attention to anyone”; 4) “to look to, take heed to thyself.” As it pertains to Romans 16:17, various translations use the following renderings.
NKJ – “note” KJV – “mark”
ASV – “mark” NAS – “keep your eye on”
ESV – “watch out for”
The noun form of the word skopos (#4869) is found only once in the New Testament—in Philippians 3:14, where Paul says: “I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” All but the KJV use “goal.”
It is interesting that we get the English word scope from the Greek word, and in its general sense, it refers to “something aimed at,” “purpose.” In other words, then, Paul is advising brethren to mark, to note, to keep their eye on, to watch out for, to focus their attention on a certain type of individual, and he offers a description of that person.
First, he is one who causes division. The other two times this word is found in the New Testament it is translated “divisions” (1 Cor. 3:3) and “dissensions” (Gal. 5:20). On the latter occasion, Paul includes it as one of many works of the flesh. The former instance referred to the division that existed in Corinth, for which Paul sternly rebuked those brethren. The root word stasis (#4714) can refer to dissension, sedition, and rebellion, as in the case of Barabbas (Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19, 25).
Second, he causes offenses, from the Greek word skandalon (#4625), from which the English word scandal is derived. The use of this word today has degenerated from the original meaning. People wrinkle up their noses and are offended by a whole host of insignificant things, but the Greek word often states what is an offense to God. So serious are these sins that the word is sometimes rendered “stumbling block” (Rom. 11:9; 1 Cor. 1:23, 1 John 2:10; Rev. 2:14).
These divisions and offenses are contrary to the doctrine which brethren had been taught and consequently learned. The apostles’ doctrine began to be taught and is emphasized when the church was established (Acts 2:42). Anything that contradicts New Testament teaching is contrary to that teaching—and therefore contrary to the truth. What society in general and some brethren in particular do not seem to realize is that truth is not the same as error, sound doctrine is not equal to false doctrine, and healthy food is far better than junk food.
The last question concerning definitions is, “What does the word avoid mean? It is only used three times in the New Testament—here and in Romans 3:12 and 1 Peter 3:11. The former of these other texts is translated: “They have all gone out of the way.” It refers to man going away from God, choosing unrighteousness. Man has avoided the good and chosen the evil. The latter passage the KJV translates as: “Let him eschew evil,” whereas the NKJ says, “Let him turn away from evil and do good.” The avoidance in that instance is an affirmation of goodness and a turning away from evil. A choice must be made as to what or who we are going to fellowship. Those who have taught error and refused to repent of it ought not to be fellowshipped.
The Perspective of Commentaries
A brief look at several sources on Romans 16:17 might prove helpful.
The Pulpit Commentary: “The allusion seems to be, not to persons within the Church, but rather outsiders, who come with new notions to disturb its peace” (18: 3:456).
Tyndale: “…the admonition in this paragraph has points of affinity of the Ephesian church in Acts xx. 28ff” (Romans 276).
Barnes: “Probably he refers here to Jewish teachers, or those who insisted strenuously on the observance of the rites of Moses…” (Acts/Romans 2: 329). “Give them no countenance of approbation” (2:330).
Clarke: “let them have no kiss of charity nor peace…. Give them no countenance, and have no religious fellowship with them” (6:164).
Henry: “If truth be once deserted, unity and peace will not last long. Now, mark those that thus cause divisions. There is need of a piercing watchful eye to discern the danger we are in from such people…. A danger discovered is half prevented.” “Shun all unnecessary communion and communications with them, lest you be leavened and infected by them” (1799).
These are what some well-known denominational commentators had to say on the subject. Now let us look at what some brethren have written.
Gospel Advocate Commentaries: “No greater evil, according to the Scriptures, could befall the churches than the divisions arising from the introduction of teaching and practices not required by God” (276).
Roy Deaver: “If they are not brethren, they must be made known, be clearly identified, and their doctrines specified. They must be avoided. If they are brethren, these instructions demand a withdrawal of fellowship. The disorderly must be dealt with. Trying to ignore sin increases sin” (615).
Tom Wacaster (2005): “Are we turning away when we invite them into our midst, or when we attend their workshops and lectures?” (647).
Brad Price: “In a day and time when doctrine is often pushed aside for entertainment, “feel good preaching,” and “just Jesus,” this is a very helpful text. God has doctrine (teaching) that is to be taught, learned by those who do not know it, and obeyed by all” (345).
Dub McClish (Studies in Romans): “There was never a more devilish philosophy than that which teaches that spiritual Truth is unimportant or nonexistent and that doctrinal purity is inconsequential” (311). “False doctrine does not exist independently of false teachers. Therefore, the originators and propagators of the divisive doctrines must be dealt with” (312).
Within or Without?
Do all the comments made thus far sound like Paul is warning in Romans 16:17 against those in the congregation or those who might visit it from outside? Since Acts 20:28 was mentioned by one commentator as being a similar situation, why not take a look at it? Paul desired greatly to meet with the elders of Ephesus before he completed his journey to Jerusalem. He was in a hurry to be in Jerusalem by Pentecost (v. 16). The elders came to him and, among other things, he told them:
“Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He has purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:28-29).
If we learn nothing else from these verses, we learn that one of the jobs of shepherds (pastors, bishops) is to protect the flock. He knew that wolves would come into their midst after he left. It would not be unreasonable that, when Paul wrote Romans, he was, in fact, thinking of the Judaizing teachers that caused such havoc in Jerusalem and among the churches of Galatia, and he perceived that many of them would make their way to Rome, also. False teachers tend to be evangelistic in spreading their doctrine around. Not only was it true in the first century, it is the case today. A number of them have written books, which fortunately have been reviewed in Profiles in Apostasy #1 and #2. Many of those who have published their false doctrines are invited to host workshops all over the brotherhood (as brother Wacaster lamented above).
That Paul was speaking of such men is easy to be seen because in the next verse (Acts 20:30) he said that some of their own men would speak perverse things. Sometimes the error comes from without; sometimes it is from within. In either case, the church must not fellowship them if they refuse to repent.
Church Autonomy
Should one church try to tell another congregation what to do? Of course not. Each eldership is only over its own people; they have but one flock to shepherd and cannot send a list of requirements or standards that other churches must conform to. However, all Scriptures must be taken into consideration. The first thing each congregation can do is to guard and protect itself, as Romans 16:17 and Acts 20:28-30 indicate. 2 John 9-11 also shares this perspective:
Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.
Does anyone think such a person should be invited to speak, host a workshop, or conduct a gospel meeting? All brethren ought to agree on such matters (but obviously do not). But the next question is, “What about when members of churches in a particular area are invited to attend a spiritual event at another congregation? Are all principles taught in the Scriptures to be tossed aside in the name of autonomy? Do the shepherds still not have the same responsibility to shepherd the flock and guard it from wolves?
It is right and good that brethren have fellowship with one another. Paul wrote to the Romans in the verse adjacent to the one under consideration: “Greet one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ greet you” (Rom. 16:16). Yes, fellowship is enjoyable and encouraging, but what happens when a sister congregation brings in a wolf? Shall we send the sheep over with their own sheering implements? Obviously we ought to warn them instead.
Did the congregation who invited a false teacher know that he was a wolf? We might assume the worst and think, “Yeah, they’re just apostate,” which could be the case. But if they have generally been noted for soundness, it might be that they are simply not well-informed. Is providing information a threat to their autonomy? Surely not!
Suppose that some brethren knew that a man held to a false teaching on marriage and divorce. He would not encourage anyone to do so, but he is on record as having said that a Christian can divorce and remarry as many times as he wants to for just any reason. He asserts that he is following the Bible, and he has some scheme by which he has re-defined both marriage and divorce. It may be that the elders were somewhat careless in inviting him to host a workshop. It may be that one of the members recommended him and assured the leadership that he would do a fantastic job. At least one congregation in the area receives an invitation to attend, and the leaders are appalled. They have known about this fellow for years.
Should they be silent because of congregational autonomy, or should they contact that eldership and provide information for them? If they did meet with them and provide information, would they be trying to tell them what to do? Or would they be showing loving concern for them?
Or turn it around. Suppose you are the one who has invited an old friend to come host a gospel meeting. Unexpectedly, because you know the man so well, you get a phone call from someone who has information about him. Maybe that person says that your guest speaker is now preaching for a denomination. “That’s crazy!” you respond. “Why, I’ve known him for years.” Or maybe someone tells you the unfortunate news that your guy has been accused of molesting children or has had an affair and left his wife. One might imagine a number of situations that are unsavory. The question is, “What are you going to do?”
Are you going to dismiss the informant with a wave of the hand and refuse to consider the evidence he said he had? Does that seem wise? How embarrassing might such an approach prove to be in the future? Such has already occurred in a number of instances, although one situation was the reverse of this scenario. A speaker was warned about going to a congregation with liberal practices. Information contained in a packet was mailed to him. He left it unopened on his desk (see no evil?) and fellowshipped the liberal church.
Do people appreciate warnings that a hurricane is headed their way? Do they appreciate it when they are told they must boil their drinking water for a 48-hour period? Then why do so many resist warnings about false teachers? Perhaps the reason is what Dub McClish wrote in his comments on Romans 16:16:
Quite pitifully some (including many elders) are so ignorant of the Truth they are incapable of recognizing error when they hear or see it. (312).
Many have such a lack of knowledge that they do not recognize errors regarding the Holy Spirit when they are apprised of it. They will gladly hear convoluted explanations that defy both logic and plain passages of Scripture and marvel at what a “genius” they have heard. Some confuse being left in a state of bewilderment with awe; the two are not the same.
We enjoy fellowship with other churches, and we would like for that to continue, but we cannot fellowship one who has taught error publicly and refused to repent of it. Furthermore, we wonder why brethren continue to use such men. What other conclusion can we draw when they refuse to consider warnings that include abundant evidence?
Unity, peace, and fellowship are indeed concepts enjoined upon all Christians, and most brethren probably possess a natural desire to have those things, but we must also take into account the warnings God gave us in His Word. They exist for a reason.