Lord’s Day 30c

Question 82: Are those also to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper who by their confession and life show that they are unbelieving and ungodly?

Answer: No, for then the covenant of God would be profaned and his wrath kindled against the whole congregation. Ps. 50:16; Isa. 1:11-17; 1 Cor. 11:17-34

             Therefore, according to the command of Christ and his apostles, the Christian church is duty-bound to exclude such persons by the keys of the kingdom of heaven, until they amend their lives.

Lord’s Day 31

Question 83: What are the keys of the kingdom of heaven?

Answer: The preaching of the holy gospel and church discipline.

              By these two the kingdom of heaven is opened to believers and closed to unbelievers. Matt. 16:19; John 20:21-23

Question 84:How is the kingdom of heaven opened and closed by the preaching of the gospel?

Answer: According to the command of Christ, the kingdom of heaven is opened when it is proclaimed and publicly testified to each and every believer that God has really forgiven all their sins for the sake of Christ’s merits, as often as they by true faith accept the promise of the gospel.

              The kingdom of heaven is closed when it is proclaimed and testified to all unbelievers and hypocrites that the wrath of God and eternal condemnation rest on them as long as they do not repent.

             According to this testimony of the gospel, God will judge both in this life and in the life to come. Matt. 16:19; John 3:31-36; 20:21-23

Question 85: How is the kingdom of heaven closed and opened by church discipline?

Answer: According to the command of Christ, people who call themselves Christians but show themselves to be un-Christian in doctrine or life are first repeatedly admonished in a brotherly manner.

              If they do not give up their errors or wickedness, they are reported to the church, that is, to the elders.

              If they do not heed also their admonitions, they are forbidden the use of the sacraments, and they are excluded by the elders from the Christian congregation, and by God himself from the kingdom of Christ. Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5:3-5; 11-13; 2 Thess. 3:14-15

             They are again received as members of Christ and of the church when they promise and show real amendment. Luke 15:20-24; 2 Cor. 2:6-11

A. Theme⤒🔗

Question 81 of the (original) Heidelberg Catechism asks: “For whom is the Lord’s Supper instituted?” Following on from this, QA 82 raises the issue of admission to Holy Communion. While QA 81 deals with who are to come to the table of the Lord, and in connection with it practise self-examination, QA 82 deals with admission and, with a view to this, to church discipline. In all of this, QA 81 deals with the position of “the hypocrites and those who do not repent” and QA 82 with those who by their confession and life show that they are unbelieving and godless people (see A. 85: “who call themselves Christians but show themselves to be un-Christian in doctrine or life”.)

Answer 82 mentions, among other things, exclusion “by the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. In QA 83 the two keys (that of the proclamation of the Holy gospel and that of the Christian ban) are mentioned, after which the question of the key power is elaborated on both sides separately in QA 84 and 85.

Many interpreters wonder whether there are actually two keys. Does the preaching tolerate a complementary key, as if the seriousness of it only comes to light when the ban (discipline) is applied? Is discipline not a way of concretizing the preaching? A.A. van Ruler states: “Of course one cannot attach too much importance to the distinction of these two functions as two separate keys. The plural ‘keys’ appears to refer much more to a two-fold operation of these services.” However, there is a different dominance to be recognised: in the preaching QA 84 shows respectively the prospective opening and closing of the kingdom of heaven; while in the case of discipline as discussed in QA 85 the order is the other way around.

The minister can choose for the Scripture readings from the passages from which the texts mentioned in the Catechism answers are taken. Furthermore, he may consider Isaiah 22:15-25, Matthew 23, Revelation 3:7-13 (with QA 83); Mark 16:9-20, Luke 10:1-20, John 3:22-36 (with QA 84); Matthew 7:1-6, John 7:53 - 8:11, Romans 15:14-33, 2 Corinthians 10:12 - 11:6, Galatians 1: 6-10, Colossians 3: 5-17, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, 2 Thessalonians 3, Titus 3: 1-15 (with QA 85).

B. First impressions←⤒🔗

There will be church members who, at first hearing, associate the matter of admission to the Holy Supper with the problem of “participation in the Lord’s Supper” rather than with that of church discipline. Nevertheless, no matter how important the discussion about “the place of young people in a listening and celebrating church” may be, anyone who wants to focus their thoughts and actions on Scripture and confession cannot ignore that which is discussed in QA 82.

When considering the meaning of QA 84, the question occurred to me whether my own preaching sufficiently addresses the (opening and) closing the kingdom of heaven. Is the “matter” always of such serious concern, and is that always necessary? For the preacher who takes his office seriously, the answers to these questions are inevitable.

The theme of the disciplinary exercise appears to be controversial, although this does not seem to apply to some denominations within the Reformed churches. At least, that is the impression I got when reading “The Elder and the Ministry of Discipline” by the Liberated Reformed Dr. A.N. Hendriks. In any case, in the larger churches with a Protestant signature, there is some embarrassment and even a sense of powerlessness with regard to discipline. How can one accomplish anything with this in our time of “freedom and happiness...”?

C. A summary explanation←⤒🔗

QA 82 concludes the discussion on the Lord’s Supper, which started with Lord’s Day 28. It also marks the transition to Lord’s Day 31: the matter of the power of the keys as raised in answer 82 is further elaborated in QA 83 to 85. Lord’s Day 31 is the final chord of the symphony of the deliverance. Unlike in the Belgic Confession, where church discipline is addressed in the discussion of the notae ecclesiae (marks of the church, in art. 29,see art. 32), in the Heidelberg Catechism the matter of excommunication is therefore discussed in the framework of the Lord’s Supper and our deliverance.

QA 82 deals with the position of the church members who by their confession and life show themselves as unbelieving and godless people. The verb “show” indicates purposeful behaviour. This is therefore not about what is indicated in the form or baptism with the formulation “and if we sometimes through weakness fall into sins”. Rather, we should think of the people who are qualified in the catalogue of sins in the form for the Lord’s Supper as “all those who know themselves to be guilty...of offensive sins”. The misconduct of such people is not without consequences: “...this profanation of the covenant also arouses God’s displeasure and wrath against the whole congregation”.

With regard to the concept of “covenant” it should be noted that this term hardly occurs elsewhere in the Heidelberg Catechism. The fact that it is mentioned here obviously has everything to do with the Holy Supper as a meal of the new covenant (see Matt. 26:28, 1 Cor. 11:25). Naturally, the Host determines the appropriate “table manners”. In view of the profanation of the covenant, two verses from 1 Corinthians 11 (20 and 34) are presented as evidence in answer 82; Verses 28 and 29 from this chapter had already been referred to in answer 81.

In this context it should be noted that many contemporary exegetes (also) think of neglecting (the communion in) the church as the body of the Lord when they “do not discern the body of the Lord” in 1 Corinthians 11:29, which fits very well with the phrase about God’s wrath on “the whole congregation”: if one or more of its members misbehave, the church herself is at stake! (The other texts mentioned with A. 82 deal in a more general sense with human behaviour and conduct with a view to communion with the Lord God.)

In answer 82, in addition to the concept of “covenant”, the phrase “the kingdom of heaven” also stands out. This NT key word is hardly used elsewhere in the official confessional writings. In answer 82 there is by no means any identification of the church with the kingdom of heaven. On the other hand, a direct link is established between the two through the power of the keys, which is also the case in answer 85.

The exclusion is not presented as a definitive measure in answer 82: for the time being the possibility of amendments in life is noted, which is also the case in answers 84 and 85 is (respectively in the formulations “...as long as they do not repent...” and “...when they promise and show real amendment”. It is unfortunate that in answer 82 (and A. 84) God’s wrath is discussed (explicitly), but not his long-suffering...

QA 83 makes a reference to Matthew 16: 18ff and 18:15-18 when it deals with the meaning of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. In Matthew 16:13-20 Peter (the rock) is called the foundation of the church. This disciple is thereby referred to as the “key bearer” of the kingdom of God. (This image may have been taken from Isaiah 22:22, a text that has received a Messianic interpretation in Revelation 3:7: Jesus Christ is the Key Bearer par excellence.)

The power of the keys is further described in Matthew 16:19 as the power to “bind” and to “loose”. These are rabbinic concepts: the lawyers and scribes made binding statements regarding the interpretation and application of the law. However, they went so far in issuing disciplinary punishments that they shut down the kingdom of heaven (see Matt. 23:13, Luke 11:52). According to Matthew 18:18, the power of the keys has not only been given to Peter, but has been promised to more people: the power granted to Peter also applies to the other apostles. Thus, (the confession of) Peter is indeed the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18), but according to Ephesians 2:20 it is in principle built on the foundation of apostles and prophets; Matthew 18:18 agrees with this. It is also clear from the context of the latter verse that the keys have been given to the church. In John 20:22-23 a variation of the “binding” and “loosing” of Matthew 16:19 can be found. In the Johannine version it is about remission and imputation of sins (granting forgiveness and withholding it). The passive verb forms used unmistakably point to divine empowerment. The similarity with Matthew 16:19 (and 18:18) is so great that the attribution of sins must mean the imposition of the exclusion. This excommunication corresponds to what will be pronounced in the last judgment.

It is a pity that Peter Dathenus translated the German word “bußzuche” in Q. 83 (and Q. 85) into Dutch as “the ban”. This term has a purely negative connotation, while excommunication is actually nothing more than the conclusion of the disciplinary procedure: only if, after all attempts at brotherly admonition, there is no conversion, exclusion is initiated. (In the Emden editions of 1563 and 1565 of the HC, Q. 83 reads: “What is the office — italics mine, JDW — of the keys?” This still reflects something of the serving aspect of the use of the key.) Dathenus’ word choice may wrongly suggest that discipline does not have a positive goal (namely: salvation). It is worth mentioning that etymologically “discipline” has everything to do with training, bringing people into line).

QA 84 consider what might be called the eschatological scope of the preaching. At its core, the preaching is about presenting two different and divergent paths: on the one hand “forgiveness of all sins to each and every believer” on the other hand “the wrath of God and eternal condemnation to all unbelievers and hypocrites”. Believers are ultimately granted forgiveness for all their sins; this is true, “as often as they by true faith accept the promise of the gospel’’. No appeal is made here to any inner experience: true faith is decisive, just as in answer 81 “trust” is spoken of as a “condition” (J.G. Woelderink). It also seems to me that the words “each and every believer” do not argue for any form of “distinctive” preaching: rather, it expresses the general and personal character of the proclamation. The words “as often as” point to the need for constant reminders. The unbelievers and the unrepentant are ultimately presented with the wrath of God and eternal damnation. This is entirely in accordance with the New Testament testimony (see Mark 16:16; Luke 10:16; John 3:36; Rom. 2:16).

A question I would like to ask (nevertheless) about all this is: are the two roads not wrongly regarded as two similar entities in A. 84? In other words: is it not true that God’s wrath must always be seen in light of his love...?

QA 85 concerns the matter of Christian discipline. This measure is to be applied to “those who teach or live in an un-Christian way under the Christian name”; here the public confession and walk of church members are at stake. So it is about “outward” sins, and not about what is going on “internally” in the church as a corpus permixtum (a description by Augustine, meaning the intermingling of saints and sinners). It is the Lord God who judges that (see Matt. 13:24-30).

It must be emphasized that excommunication is (well) presented in QA85 as a last resort: salvation is the goal (see 1 Cor. 5:2-5, which is also used as textual evidence). This is first expressed in question 85, where after the closing of the kingdom of heaven, it is also discussed about opening it up; secondly, this is evident from the closing sentence of the answer: when the apostates promise and prove true conversion, they must be accepted again as members of Christ and his church. (See also the forms used for excommunication and readmission). In this way, discipline is indeed focused on the salvation of the sinner! In other words: excommunication is like a medicine, not a measure of elimination...

There is therefore certainly no question of a rigid “procedure”. The process as presented in answer 85 testifies of loving care. The need for frequent fraternal admonition is pointed out, and only when this pastoral appeal remains ineffective should the unconverted be “reported”. In all of this, the responsibility of the congregation as a whole is striking. First of all, the church members have a role in admonishing; they then decide (indirectly, through the office-bearers) about the exclusion. This corresponds with the New Testament data about mutual “admonition and correction” as it should take shape in the Christian church. The Bible texts mentioned in answer 85 speak for themselves; in addition, Romans 15:14, Colossians 3:16, 1 Thessalonians 4:18, 2 Thessalonians 3:13-15 and Titus 3:10 could be pointed out.

Without a doubt, QA 82 - 85 involve an implicit polemic with Rome. First of all, one can think of the Reformed rejection of the Pope as God’s vicar on earth. In the Protestant view, the key power is not in the hands of the one successor of Peter, but of “the Christian church” (A. 82); as stated above, the congregation is both the object and the subject of the disciplinary exercise. But not only does Protestantism differ traditionally from Rome in the answer to the question to whom the key power belongs, but also in the view of its administration there was (and is) a major difference. In the Roman church this took (and still takes) place in the confessional, where the priest pronounced the “ego te absolvo’ with divine authority. In the Lutheran tradition, the confessional has never actually been abolished altogether. It has been given another position there, as a means of nurture in pastoral care. The power of the keys found its way in a certain “sacralisation” of the preacher’s office, as a result of which the Lutheran church could be called a “minister’s church”. The notion of a presbytery did not develop in Lutheranism. This has had particular consequences for the administration of discipline: it hardly takes place in Lutheran circles. With Calvinism this is essentially different. Calvin wrote extensively about discipline, especially in his Institutes IV, chapter 12. In this chapter he pays extensive attention to the meaning of Matthew 18:18, while in the preceding chapter he devotes considerable attention to the administration of the key power in the preaching (including on the basis of Matt. 16:19 and John 20:23). The Pope bears the brunt of Calvin’s criticism! In the Calvinist tradition, the supervision of the confession and conduct of the members of the congregation has traditionally been a topic of discussion during home visits, especially also with a view to the celebration of the Holy Supper.

D. Exposition←⤒🔗

In light of what is discussed in QA 84 and 85, the question arises as to the practice of the power of the keys in the Protestant churches.

With regard to the preaching, it must be noted that its eschatological significance is often insufficiently recognized, both by hearers and by preachers themselves. With regard to the latter category: even in modern homiletics there is sometimes a clear distance from the far-reaching significance of preaching as the opening and closing of the kingdom of heaven, for example by G.D.J. Dingemans. He rejects any form of what he calls “kerygmatic preaching”. He writes: “The sermon is about questions of human faith experiences and clarification of one’s own relationship to the faith tradition... The actual issue in the preaching is how one can even make mention of God within the listeners’ field of questions at a time when God is anything but self-evident. After all, God can no longer be discussed through the official and institutionalized teaching authority of the office-bearer. Nowadays, this kind of authority no longer has any self-evident authority. ...The sermon is the ideal means of discussing faith experiences in a way in which people can make use of them selectively, that is to say: for their own lives, and learn to deal with them.” The title of the paragraph from which this quote is taken is telling: “how to make God relevant in our time”; in other words: not “God speaks.”

Those who want to stay with the tradition of the Reformation (and who wish to talk not about “selectivity”, but about the ultimate decision of faith in the sense of the “choice” for eternal good or bad) would rather read what R. Bohren has to say. He states: “He who preaches binds and looses. One may demand clarity from the preacher. What is promised to him is that by preaching the gospel he will say something definitive. ...I speak of binding and loosing, but I only quote the 'Ego te absolvo', so I mean absolution first. In it the gospel is concentrated for the listener, in it the entire gospel shows its commitment. The absolution shows the essence of the gospel in one sentence, just as the gospel also shows itself as absolution.”

With regard to the matter of discipline, I will limit myself to a few comments regarding the state of affairs in the Dutch Reformed (Nederlands Hervormde) church and in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, because there it is most problematic: the second key of the kingdom of heaven is rusted or even broken. As a result of the “re-organization of the church” of 1816, little disciplinary action could be taken. Nevertheless, this has happened. For instance, a pastoral letter from 1943 took a strong stand against National Socialism; a section of it, written by Th.L. Haitjema regarding church discipline was included. A.W. Kranenburg notes that there were no sensational disciplinary cases in the Dutch Reformed Church after 1951; despite what is said in Article X.6 of the Church order: “the church repels all that denies her confession”. The general synod has been alert through pastoral writings and guidance. In addition, the censura morum traditionally functions (in certain sectors of the church) prior to the celebration of the Holy Supper. In this context, synod’s ruling of June 15, 1989 needs to be mentioned, which rejects church disciplinary measures in matters of homosexual orientation and lifestyle of members of the congregation. (Incidentally: this ruling was interpreted on November 24, 1989 as an appeal to the authorities competent to supervise; not to take measures as mentioned above.) In conclusion, the application of the provisions of ordinance 11 (where release from office as well as of the removal from office are arranged) should be pointed out. P. van den Heuvel writes about this: “From the lengthy and careful procedure, one senses the fear that certain modalities would be excluded from the community of the church through disciplinary doctrinal processes. ...However, there was never any question of discipline on a grand scale. Rather, there is an inhibition of actually addressing each other in the church about the basic questions of faith and confession.”

Much disciplinary action has been practised in the Reformed Churches in the past, with all of its consequences: an almost proverbial “repetitive” process. In recent times (especially since the ecclesiastical schism of 1944) there has been a lack of disciplinary action. G. Dekker reports: “The number of those who, according to statistics, are ‘excommunicated from the community of the church’ has fallen to virtually zero in recent years and the forms for excommunication and re-admission have not been revised since 1955, and no longer appear in the Orders of Service revised in 1980!” This does not alter the fact that much of what was said and done in the confessional church of the past was not able to withstand the test of criticism (in the sense of: the judgment of God).

E. Directions for the preaching←⤒🔗

The preacher who wants to address the material of QA 82 - 85 will need to make a selection. QA 82 could well be discussed in a preparatory sermon with a view to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. A solution must be found for the problem that the formulation of the answer is one-sided and dismissive: the opening functioning of the keys is not discussed, while that is of course what it should be about.

The image of the keys lends itself particularly well to theme preaching. The preacher may or may not treat the two keys separately. The preacher could begin with an explanation of the meaning of the keys. If he ever lost his own keys and as a result found himself standing in front of the closed door of his parsonage, he will be able to do so in an empathetic manner. Another possibility is to start with the fact that there are many jokes about Peter at the gates of heaven. Subsequently, the seriousness of the matter could be discussed. With this I do not mean an explanation of the position of the Pope. Rather, it will have to be about man’s eternal state as it is at stake in the preaching and in the excommunication!

In the thematic discussion of the power of the keys, its eschatological scope should be at the centre.

With regard to the preaching: the minister is called to impress upon his hearers that a sermon is more than an exegetical treatise, a religious reflection, an edifying reflection, a moral “pep talk”; and that the preacher is more (in the sense of: “he has a different position”) than (that of) being a “hearer among hearers”: he is authorized by God to proclaim the holy gospel. Ultimately this means that the Lord God must the main Speaker, through his Word, in the sermon. Preaching is an expression of God’s speaking (see H. Bullinger: “Praedicatio verbi Dei est verbum Dei”; K. Barth: “I have nothing to say except to repeat what God has said; without knowing anything”, K.H. Miskotte: “Preaching is incidental repetition of the kerygma”). This idea can be developed polemically in two directions. It needs to be said to some: when the preacher offers his own (all too human) thoughts and ideas to the church people for consideration in a completely non-committal way, then what he “proclaims” can no longer be called “preaching” and then he has essentially lost his official authority... To others it has to be pointed out: when in the consistory room, after the church service, prayers are offered for the Holy Spirit to do his work as a “follow-up preacher”, then this wrongly suggests that the Lord God was silent during the ministry of the Word... Fundamentally, the preaching has to be about the opening and closing of the kingdom of heaven. When in the preaching the matter of the kingdom being closed is no longer being dealt with, we can no longer speak of “the proclamation of the Word” in the biblical sense. The formulation at the conclusion of answer 84, “according to this testimony of the gospel, God will judge both in this life and in the life to come” conveys clearly that accepting or rejecting the message has far-reaching consequences. A caution should be expressed here: it would be unbiblical when the opening and the closing of the kingdom of heaven are presented side by side as two equivalent attributes. This impression might arise from the wording of answer 84. The proclamation is above all about the opening of the kingdom. It is not superfluous to stress this point. When from the pulpit we encounter what is sometimes called “hell and damnation preaching”, then the aspect of the kingdom being closed is unfortunately more prevalent. In that case a consideration of the anathema of J. Koopmans (in a sermon outline on Matt. 25:1-13) is not redundant: “Cursed be the ease with which some preachers speak of heaven and hell, of ‘eternal prosperity and woe’”. (It goes without saying that the use of the second key — where the first one is not being used correctly — is certainly inappropriate...!)

A preacher who does not shy away from raising the issue of disciplinary exercise can begin by pointing out the state of affairs in his own and in other churches. Illustrations of the fear of exercising discipline abound. However, there is little point in elaborating on this in length, unless it is done with a view to humiliation. However, it seems to me much more appropriate and wiser to also emphasize the positive goal of discipline: ultimately it is about salvation. It also needs to be stressed how discipline is a matter for the church as a whole — and not just for certain individuals. In any case, the members are called to brotherly and sisterly exhortation. That does not alter the fact that this is a precarious “undertaking”. This applies in the first place to the assessment of other people’s “teaching” or “doctrine”. As for that “confession”: who will determine what exactly belongs to the articulae stantis et cadentis ecclesiae [the articles by which the church stands and falls]? Yet it is possible to say something about this, for example in accordance with the clarity that Paul provides in his letter to the Galatians. He writes that he proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen One; and he states: anyone who preaches another gospel, let him be accursed (see Gal. 1:8; 2 Cor. 11:4). The matter of discipline becomes even more difficult in matters relating to “life” or “walk”. Who can say what is and what is not permitted? On the other hand: the attitude of “everything should be permissible” means nothing other than a degeneration of the spiritual responsibility of the church! Yet I am not advocating for a rigid form of discipline. Not only because little “benefit may be expected from Donatist-like purges”: they reduce the catholic church to the level of a sectarian association. There are more important considerations. In general, we are faster to detect the splinter in our brother’s eye than the beam in our own eye (see Matt. 7:1-6). And: what to think of the longsuffering (i.e., the steadfast love) of the Lord God (see Ps. 103) as it is particularly expressed in the Lord Jesus Christ who does not reject the sinner but who rather seeks him or her out (see Jn. 7:53-8:11)! The preacher should consider the following words of Calvin: “It ought not however, to be omitted that the church, in exercising severity, ought to accompany it with the spirit of meekness. For, as Paul enjoins, we must always take care that he on whom discipline is exercised be not ‘swallowed up with overmuch sorrow’ (2 Cor. 2:7): for in this way, instead of cure there would be destruction” (Institutes IV.12.8).