1. Matthew 18 applies when unrepentant sin is involved. The passage begins with the conditional statement, “IF
your brother sins against you....” This passage is referring to
cases where clearly identifiable wrongdoing against another in the
church is involved. If sin is not involved, then this passage
should not be used.
2. Matthew
18 applies when there are at least two or three witnesses of the sin,
not the conversation between the two disputants (see further below).
When witnesses to the sin do not exist, the process cannot move
forward. Note the Old Testament text from which Jesus quoted.
Deuteronomy 19:15
A
single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for
any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on
the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be
established.
A single eyewitness, even to murder, was not sufficient evidence or testimony to charge a person with a crime or offense.
Numbers 35:30 (see also Deut. 17:6)
If
anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the
evidence of witnesses. But no person shall be put to death on the
testimony of one witness.
The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible under the entry of "Witness" tells us:
"In
the judicial procedure outlined in the OT one witness was not adequate
for personal testimony against anyone, but two or three witnesses were
required (Deut. 17:6, 19:15). This principle was ingrained in
Jewish law and is reiterated in the NT (cf. Mat. 18:16, 2 Cor. 13:1).
In his scholarly commentary on Matthew, and specifically Mat. 18, Craig Keener states,
"although
disciples seek reconciliation, they must gather evidence in the proper
order in case they later need proof of what transpired (Mat. 18:16)....
The requirement of two witnesses remained standard judicial procedure in
early Christianity (2 Cor. 13:1-2, 1 Tim 5:19-20)."
For
some inexplicable reason, some writers identify the two or three
witnesses, not as eyewitnesses of the sinful act being charged, but only
as witnesses of the allegation. This concept of a witness for
confirming truth is foreign to the Old Testament text from which Jesus
is quoting, Matthew 18 itself, and the way the word "witness" is used
and understood throughout the Bible. (See 1 Kings 21:5-14, Mark
14:55-64, Acts 7:8-14).
For
example, if Susan charges Debbie with sin and Debbie denies the
allegation, what good are witnesses to the conversation? How would
such a process protect against false accusations? Having a person be a
witness of a conversation where a charge is leveled but not be a witness
to the alleged wrongdoing does nothing to uncover or establish the
truth. Such accusations cannot be acted upon. Indeed, the
protection against false witnesses was so important that it was
incorporated into the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:16, Deut. 5:20; see also
Mk 10:19; Luke. 18:20). Even Jesus was afforded this protection at his
trial (Mark 14:55-64).
In
the same way the disciples were to preach the gospel having been actual
eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry on earth (Luke 24:36-48, Acts 1:21-22),
so must the witnesses discussed in Mat. 18:16 be actual eyewitnesses to
the wrongdoing that is being alleged. Without such witnesses, the
process as outlined in Mat. 18 cannot proceed. Dr. J. Carl Laney,
speaking on Matthew 18:15-17, wrote:
“In
legal process, the absence of witnesses or the existence of only one
witness makes securing a conviction difficult. The biblical
requirement of additional witnesses safeguards the judicial process
against false accusation, slander, and wrongful incrimination. In
the disciplinary process, those who have observed a sin in the life of a
believer are able to strengthen the rebuke by confirming the charges.
The witnesses may also serve to bring new objectivity to the situation
by helping the truth to surface, and could be called upon to testify if
the case comes before the congregation.”
In like manner, the apostle Paul wrote:
1 Timothy 5:19
Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
John Stott, in his commentary, wrote:
"That
is, it must be substantiated by several people. In the Old Testament
two or three witnesses were required to sustain a charge and secure a
conviction, especially in regard to a capital charge. The same principle
applies in New Testament times (e.g. 2 Cor. 13:1; cf. Mat. 18:16) in
particular when Christian leaders are being accused. ... This practical
regulation is necessary for the protection of pastoral leaders, who are
vulnerable to slander."
Because
of the seriousness of making a charge of sin against an elder of the
church, the word of just one person is not enough. Two, and
better, three people testifying to the veracity of the charge
sufficiently confirm its truthfulness. Without such eyewitnesses,
the charge should not even be entertained.
Summary.
When the word “witness” is used in a legal sense, as in the
formal church proceeding described in Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 5,
witnesses step forward to offer first hand knowledge of events that
occurred in the past. Being witnesses of an allegation being made
after the fact are not the kind of witnesses of which the Bible speaks.
Conclusion
Matthew
18 is a critically important passage which instructs the church on how
to deal with sin serious enough to remove an unrepentant member from
fellowship. The passage outlines the judicial process for church
discipline. Accordingly, before someone can be expelled from a
church, clear evidence of the wrongdoing must be secured through the
testimony of eyewitnesses to the sin. To use this passage in any
other way than it was intended is to misuse and misapply it. [For a
fuller exposition of this passage, see Chapter 6 in Dr. Newberger's
book, "Hope in the Face of Conflict"].
© Copyright 2012 Dr. Ken Newberger. All Rights Reserved.
Permission to make copies of this information for use in your local church is granted provided that it is
distributed free of charge and all copies indicate the copyright and source as listed above.
For any other use, advance permission must be obtained.
