by Michael Rudolph
Old Covenant Background
God's standards for acceptable conduct under the Old (ie. Mosaic) Covenant are set forth in detail in the books of Exodus through Deuteronomy. Therein is contained a system of criminal and civil law, replete with defined offenses, prescribed penalties for transgression, and means by which man could atone.1,2,3 Also found in the law are procedural rules for adjudication; for example:
"One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established." (De 19:15)
We also read, in Numbers 12, of "murmuring", a behavior highly offensive to God, and never to be used to bring accusations against leaders or anyone else.
When Yeshua was asked "which is the greatest commandment in the law?", he quoted two -- to love God4 (De 6:5), and to love one's neighbor (Lv 19:18). Yeshua then stated:
"On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (Mt 22:40)
In this one sweeping statement, Yeshua expressed what the New Covenant teaches regarding our relationships to God and to each other.
As in the Old Covenant system of justice, two categories of offenses are also recognized as possible within the New Covenant body of believers; these are: (a) private offenses, analogous in the Mosaic Law to civil offenses,5,6 and (b) public offenses, analogous in the Mosaic Law to criminal offenses.7,8 Private offenses are sins committed by individuals against other individuals. Public offenses are sins committed by individuals against the entire congregational community or even the universal body of believers. A single wrongful act may constitute both kinds of offense simultaneously.
Private Offenses and Their Remedies9
Private offenses often result in unreconciliation between believers, a state which cannot be allowed to continue in a biblical community. There are only two permissible ways for a believer to deal with an offense committed against himself by a brother or sister in the Lord; they are:
(a) Overlook the offense (Pr 19:11)
(b) Attempt reconciliation under the authority of Matthew 5:23-24 and 18:15-17.
Whether or not to overlook an offense is a serious matter. Once overlooked, an offense may not be brought up again, and it cannot be internalized to become a root of bitterness or unforgiveness; one must not overlook the offense if one cannot do these things. Another consideration in regard to "overlooking an offense" is whether, if one were to do so, the offender would continue in his sinful conduct, to his own detriment and to the detriment of others. If that is the case, then out of a motive of love, one should not overlook the offense, but should seek repentance and reconciliation.
The procedure set forth in Matthew 18 for private offenses involves three stages. In stage one,10 the offended party goes to his brother (or sister) alone, and tells him his fault. Scripture states: "If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear you, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established"; this is the second stage.
It is important to note that the first stage does not contemplate any persons, other than the two persons involved, knowing that an accusation of sin has been made. In the second stage,11 only the witnesses are to become aware of what is transpiring, but their knowledge should come only from what they hear during their official participation, unless they are themselves eyewitnesses to the alleged offense. It is an understandable temptation for an aggrieved party to want to share his hurt or his observations with a friend or fellow congregant, but to do so is nothing less than the sin of gossip. Even if the rationale for sharing is to get advice or to pray for the offender, the result is still gossip, and such sharing is biblically prohibited.
The stage-two witnesses should be mature, discipled believers -- preferably leaders of the congregation who have no advanced knowledge of the matter from secondary sources. Their duty is to listen to the verbal exchange between the disputants so that they become witnesses to what is said at the meeting. In then judging what they have heard and observed, the witnesses should consider their own advanced knowledge, if any, their understanding of Scripture, and any revelation they have received from God. Armed now with a biblical point of view as to the dispute, they are to attempt to minister repentance and reconciliation to the disputing parties. Once again, if reconciliation is achieved, the matter is at an end.
However, the Scriptures further state: "And if he refuses to listen to them," (ie. the complainant and the witnesses), "tell it to the church". This is the third stage of the Matthew 18 process.12 It is an adjudication stage where the congregation's leaders sit in judgment of the evidence presented by the disputants and their witnesses. In obedience to the wisdom of De 19:15, no complainant can be heard at such a hearing, unless joined by at least one other witness (who may either be an eyewitness or a Matthew 18 stage-two witness). The congregation's leaders, sitting as judges, hear both sides of the dispute, render a decision, and issue appropriate directives. If the decision goes against the defendant and he does not repent and reconcile, he is to be declared out of the fellowship of believers -- that is, declared to be an unbeliever and in need of hearing the basic Gospel. This decision must be announced to the entire body.
A question sometimes asked is whether a person adjudicated to be an unbeliever may continue to attend worship services and other events of the congregation. The answer to this hypothetical is "technically, yes", provided (a) the person is not walking in immorality while calling himself a believer (1 Co 5:9-13), and (b) the person's conduct is such that it is not divisive or otherwise harmful to the body (Tit 3:10-11). Unfortunately, many persons who do not repent at a third stage Matthew 18 tribunal, manifest behavior that also requires their exclusion from further congregational attendance and even from private fellowship with former friends and other believers until the congregational leaders determine that repentance has occurred. The obligation of a believer not to associate with persons banned by the congregation's leadership is a most challenging and unpleasant duty, but one which must be taken seriously. It is through the unified body standing strongly against a rebellious former member, that hope for future reconciliation exists.
Public Offenses and Their Remedies
Public offenses pose a danger to the community of believers. The primary task of congregational leadership, when public offenses are committed in its midst, is not primarily to promote reconciliation between the offender and the community, as in the case of private offenses and Matthew 18 proceedings, but rather to protect the community from danger while ministering correction to the offender. It is with these goals in mind that the Apostle Paul wrote:
"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles -- that a man has his father's wife! And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you." (1Co 5:1-2)
"deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Co 5:5)
There are three categories of public offense for which a person must be banned from any fellowship with believers:13,14
(1) A person calling himself a believer, while walking in unrepentant immorality (1 Co 5:9-13).
(2) A person calling himself a believer who is in gross doctrinal error and not in accord with the Gospel and Apostolic foundations in Scripture (2 Jn 9-11; Pr 22:10; Gal 1:8-9; 1 Ti 1:19-20).
(3) A divisive person who has been warned twice (Ro 16:17; Tit 3:10-11).15,16
In the first two cases, the danger to the body comes from the offender holding himself out to be part of the body -- a believer, yet significantly off in sin and/or doctrine. While either or both behaviors are expected of unbelievers, a professing believer with such traits brings public discredit to the bride of Messiah. Such behavior from a professed member of the body can also present a stumbling block for new believers who are not yet fully discipled, and whose discernment is not yet fully developed. The third case applies to all persons sowing discord, whether or not they are members of the body. Whether divisiveness is intentional or caused by a dark spirit, it is both deceptive and contagious in the community of believers. In all three cases, repentance restores the offender's eligibility to fellowship. However, restoration is not automatic, but is rather a matter of judgment on the part of the congregation's elders.
A congregant who witnesses a public offense committed by another has the same vested interest in its correction as do the leaders of the congregation. Therefore, the congregant is authorized to confront the offending brother with his sin, and to demand repentance on behalf of the congregation. He may also seek to help the offending brother, for Scripture teaches:
"Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted." (Gal 6:1)
A witness to a public offense has another option -- to bring his testimony to the congregation's leaders in the form of an official accusation. He may only do so, however, if he is accompanied by at least one other witness to the event who is also willing to testify (De 19:15).17 It should be understood that one may not search the congregation for a second witness by revealing the substance of the accusation for which confirmation is sought. To do so would allow gossip to run rampant.18
Bringing an accusation against an elder requires the same standard of witness confirmation as with anyone else. Consider the following verses of Scripture:
"Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from19 two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear." (1 Ti 5:19-20)
Some believe that the above verses of Scripture establish a more stringent standard for
bringing an accusation against an elder; otherwise, it might be asked, why were these
verses written by Paul? A plausible answer is that the verses which precede verse 19 speak
of the awesome responsibility which leaders have to their flock; the flock is therefore
exhorted to obey their leaders so as to assist them in performing their function with joy.
Because leaders are highly visible and their actions sometimes controversial, they are
specially vulnerable to gossip and criticism in the form of whispered or casual comments
passed between individuals. Such criticisms are damaging to a leader's reputation and
ability to lead, and so the above verses of Scripture are a reminder to us that we must
apply to our elders the same high standard that we apply when bringing public accusations
against others.
1. C. B. Chavel, translator, The Commandments (English translation of " Sefer haMits`vot " by M(o)sheh bar May`mon, ca. 1170 c.e.)(New York: The Soncino Press Ltd., 1967).
2. C. Wengrov, translator, " Sefer Hakhinuch` " (ascribed to Aaron haLevi of Barcelona, 1523 c.e.) (Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, 1978).
3. A. Buchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First Century (New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1967).
4. R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian Reformed Publishing Company, 1973), p. 15.
5. I. Herzog,, The Main Institutions of Jewish Law (London: The Soncino Press Limited, 1980), vol. 1, pp. xxiv-xxvii.
6. S. Berman, "Law and Morality", Encyclopaedia Judaica, 10, 1482-1483.
7. Herzog, pp.xxiv-xxvii.
8. Rushdoony, pp. 615-616.
9. J. E. Adams, Handbook of Church Discipline (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986).
10. Adams, pp. 45-55.
11. Ibid., pp. 57-65.
12. Ibid., pp.67-7 5.
13. D. C. Juster, Growing to Maturity, 3rd ed. (Gaithersburg: Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations Press, 1987), pp. 147-148.
14. Rushdoony, pp. 657-658.
15. In Ro 16:17, the NKJV word "avoid" appears in the Textus Receptus as ecclinate. This word is catalogued in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Greek Dictionary as ekklino, Strong's Number 1578. Vine defines ekklino as "avoid, eschew, go, turn, way" (W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985), p. 714). Thayer defines the same word as "to turn away from, keep aloof from, one's society; to shun one" (J. H. Thayer, The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1981), p. 196b). Bauer defines the word ekkleio as "shut out", "exclude", "someone in the sense of withdrawal from fellowship" (W. Bauer, A greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 240).
16. In Tit 3:10, the NKJV word "reject" appears in the Textus Receptus as paraiteo. This word is catalogued in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Greek Dictionary as paraiteomai, Strong's Number 3868. Thayer partially defines this word as "to shun, avoid" (J. H. Thayer, The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1981), p. 482). Bauer defines the word paraiteomai as "discharge, dismiss, drive out, reject, avoid", (W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 616).
17. According to Nu 35:30, the Mosaic Law required at least two witnesses in order to sustain a conviction for a capital offense. By his prescribing the same standard in noncapital cases (De 19:15), God demonstrated the extraordinarily high value he placed on justice when it impacted human dignity. If the Old Covenant established a standard requiring two witnesses to make a public accusation, then it is unthinkable that the New Covenant, which is a better covenant, would relax the previously established high standard by requiring fewer witnesses.
18. If the witness perceives that an alleged public offense is also a private offense against himself, he may elect to proceed under Matthew 18 without a second eyewitness.
19. The NKJV word "from" appears in the Textus Receptus as the Greek word epi. Most English translations of 1 Ti 5:19 are similar to the NKJV in suggesting that the complaint has to be made by at least two witnesses. The KJV, the Darby translation and the Douay-Rheims translations are exceptions in suggesting that a complaint may be made by one eyewitness testifying in the presence of one or two other witnesses. Epi is catalogued in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Greek Dictionary as Strong's Number 1909. Thayer partially defines this word in such ways as allow for either interpretation, to-wit: "upon which anything rests", "resting on the declaration", "in the presence of one as spectator or auditor (J. H. Thayer, The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1981), pp. 231-236). This paper agrees with the majority view, since no logic is seen in applying a lesser standard for an accusation made against an elder than for an accusation made against a non-elder in a congregation.
© Michael Rudolph
July 14, 1988