For example, when Jesus’ disciples were acclaiming him as he made his way to Jerusalem, the Pharisees said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples,” meaning, in effect, ‘Tell them to stop saying those things.’ Jesus replied that “if these remained silent, the stones would cry out.”​—Luke 19:39, 40.

4. Does a comparison of Matthew 18:15 and Luke 17:3 show that “rebuke” and “reproof” can be used interchangeably?

⁴ For “rebuke” the inspired Gospel writer here used the Greek word e·pi·ti·maʹo. The Greek word corresponding to “reprove” is the word e·lengʹkho. At Matthew 18:15 that word appears when Jesus says that “if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault [Greek, e·lengʹkho; Kingdom Interlinear, “reprove”] between you and him alone.” (Compare Leviticus 19:17.) In a corresponding passage at Luke 17:3 Jesus is reported as saying, “If your brother commits a sin give him a rebuke [Greek, e·pi·ti·maʹo], and if he repents forgive him.” Does that show that “rebuke” and “reproof” are interchangeable and mean essentially the same thing? It would be unwise to assume that on the basis of this single example. The way the Scriptures use the two terms reveals the distinction between them.

5, 6. What examples illustrate that these two terms are really distinct in meaning, and what does this indicate concerning their use in the two texts mentioned earlier?

⁵ In the Christian Greek Scriptures, for example, we find Jesus ‘rebuking’ (e·pi·ti·maʹo) demons, telling them to ‘be silent’ and to ‘get out’ of persons that they were possessing. (Matt. 17:18; Mark 1:25; 9:25; Luke 4:35, 41; 9:42) Nowhere do the Bible writers speak of the demons as being reproved (e·lengʹkho) by Jesus. He also ‘rebuked’ the fever in Peter’s mother-in-law, causing it to leave her; and, on the Sea of Galilee, he ‘rebuked’ the violent winds and raging sea, putting a stop to their threat of capsizing the boat in which he and his disciples were.​—Luke 4:39; Matt. 8:26; Mark 4:39; Luke 8:24.

⁶ It would be most inappropriate to try to substitute the word “reprove” (e·lengʹkho) in the foregoing cases. One can rebuke even an animal. (Ps. 68:30) But, as we shall see, only humans who have the power of reason and qualities of heart and conscience can be reproved. So it appears that the use of the word “rebuke” at Luke 17:3, earlier referred to, simply illustrates that a reproof may be accompanied by or include a rebuke.

7. What was the sense of the Greek word for “reprove” that the inspired Bible writers used, as that term was employed by people of their day?

⁷ To what, then, does the Greek word e·lengʹkho (to reprove) refer? It is true that this word at one time was used in classical Greek to express the idea of “to disgrace” or “to shame.” But Greek lexicons show that this was not how the word was generally used.a And they show that in the Christian Greek Scriptures this is definitely not the dominant thought of the word. Note these definitions of e·lengʹkho (to reprove) from Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon:

To “cross-examine, question, . . . accuse one of doing, . . . to be convicted. . . . 2. test, bring to the proof. . . . 3. prove . . . bring convincing proof. . . . 4. refute, . . . b. put right, correct. . . . 5. get the better of. . . . 6. expose.”

8. What does this show as to the basic reason why reproof was needed?

⁸ These definitions are based largely on the way non-Biblical Greek writings use the word. But one thing is quite clear from these definitions. They all indicate that the person who has to be reproved manifests, if not an outright denial of any wrongdoing, at least an unwillingness to admit the wrong or some degree of failure to recognize the true nature of the wrong and the need to repent of it. Such a one shows that he needs to be “convinced” or “convicted” of the wrong. We will see why this point is an important one to remember.

9, 10. How does the Bible also show that it is failure to recognize and repent of the wrong that makes reproof necessary?

⁹ These definitions are borne out by the Bible’s use of the Greek word. For example, note the text earlier referred to at Matthew 18:15 where Jesus says that “if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault [e·lengʹkho; “reprove (him),” Kingdom Interlinear] between you and him alone.” It is for the very reason that the offender does not recognize or acknowledge his sin and repent of it that the offended one has to reprove him by laying bare his fault.

¹⁰ Other scriptures where this word (e·lengʹkho) is used also describe reproof of those who, up to that point, had not accepted correction, showing this by keeping on in their wrongdoing.​—Compare Luke 3:19; John 3:20; Ephesians 5:6, 7, 11-14; 2 Timothy 4:2-4; Titus 1:9-13; 2 Peter 2:15, 16.

11, 12. (a) What does the Scriptural way for reproving wrongdoers therefore include as an essential feature, and what is this to accomplish? (b) How can the difference between “rebuke” and “reproof” be illustrated in parental discipline of children?

¹¹ By what means, then, are persons reproved? Reproving involves far more than simply making an accusation or expressing condemnation of what someone has done (as in a rebuke); It therefore also involves much more than simply reading off an announcement that someone has engaged in wrong conduct. The Bible shows that reproof requires the presentation of evidence or argument. (Compare Hebrews 11:1, where the noun e·lengʹkhos is translated “evident demonstration” of realities.) So, in highlighting the difference between the Bible terms for “rebuke” and “reprove,” Greek scholar Trench’s Synonyms of the New Testament says:

“One may ‘rebuke’ another without bringing the rebuked to a conviction of any fault on his part; and this, either because there was no fault, and the rebuke was therefore unneeded or unjust [compare Matthew 16:22; 19:13; 20:31]; or else because, though there was such a fault, the rebuke was ineffectual to bring the offender to own it; and in this possibility of ‘rebuking’ for sin, without ‘convincing’ of sin, lies the distinction between these two words. . . . eʹleng·khos [reproof] implies not merely the charge, but the truth of the charge, and the manifestation of the truth of the charge; nay more than all this, very often also the acknowledgment, if not outward, yet inward, of its truth on the side of the party accused. . . .”

¹² This difference might be compared to the parent who is satisfied with scolding a child to get it to stop something as compared to the parent who is willing to take the time to reason with the child and to help it to see why the wrong action is really bad and why the child should really want to avoid it. While rebukes have their place, often the need for reproof is greater.

13. What two purposes does the evidence given in reproof serve?

¹³ The presenting of evidence in giving reproof therefore may serve two purposes: It may be to prove that the person did indeed commit the act or acts of which he is accused, or it may be needed to demonstrate or ‘bring home’ to the individual just how wrong his course was. At John 16:8, 9 Jesus said that God’s holy spirit would “give the world convincing evidence [e·lengʹkho; “reprove,” Int] concerning sin . . . because they are not exercising faith in me.” But as for himself, though his opposers might unjustly rebuke him, Jesus knew that they could never present “convincing evidence” of any sin on his part, and so he said to them: “Who of you convicts [e·lengʹkho; “is reproving,” Int] me of sin?”​—John 8:46.

Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament says: “In earlier classical Greek it signifies to disgrace or put to shame . . . Then [later], to cross-examine or question, for the purpose of convincing, convicting, or refuting. . . . Of arguments, to bring to the proof; prove; prove by a chain of reasoning.” (Italics ours)