But if he do not hear [thee], take with thee one or two besides, that every matter may stand upon the word of two witnesses or of three.
Jesus has just told the wronged disciple to go in private to the brother who sinned against him. When that private appeal fails, the Lord adds a second step, and the question is what those extra witnesses are for.
The move from one to three is a small one. Love still works to keep the matter quiet, but it will not leave the sin alone.
They are a jury of appeal. Their aim is to make him feel how serious his sin is, not to prove that it is true. This step stands midway between the private talk and the full publicity of the assembly. Love would still spare the person, though it cannot spare the sin, and that is why this step is taken.
Many read the phrase about every charge being established as if guilt were still in doubt. One writer argues the opposite: what these witnesses put beyond dispute is the offender's answer.
The verse says "that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses." This does not mean the person's guilt is still in question. His guilt is already settled. What must be made clear is how the offender answers this genuine effort to restore him. If this bears good fruit, then only two or three besides the offender have known about the matter. If the offender honestly judges his sin, the matter is dropped and forgotten.
The verse does not say who the extra people should be. Their character has to match the errand.
The two who go along in this second step to restore a brother must have the same spiritual character as the brother who came to him first. Their coming brings still greater love to bear on him. At the same time it shows him that unconfessed sin, sin not put away, cannot be tolerated in a brother.
These witnesses come on Christ's behalf. They carry the same appeal the first visit carried, only through more voices.
Is it possible that he may resist one or two who come to him as witnesses of the love of Christ? He has refused Christ pleading through one; can he refuse Christ now that He pleads through more? It may be, sadly, that he will.
The second step also puts the first visit under review. The one who went first may have got it wrong.
How do I know that my way of dealing with him was not the cause of my failure? Perhaps our conversation showed him how I saw things. He may feel I read his conduct unfairly, or credited him with motives he knows he never had. In that case I would only have given him what he judges a fair reason for resisting me, and left him harder than I found him.
The rule of two or three witnesses appears right through Scripture. It stands as a guard against judgment built on feeling.
We must not let our own impressions guide us. We all know that mere impressions are very unreliable. They may be right; they may be completely false. Nothing is believed and passed on more easily than a false impression. So any judgment based on mere impressions is worthless. We need solid, proven facts — facts confirmed by two or three witnesses, as Scripture so plainly commands. (Deut. 17:6; Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19.)
There is a limit to what these two or three can do.
The two or three in verse 16 are the brother sinned against and the one or two others he was to take with him. They cannot act on behalf of the assembly in such a matter.
- Love moves. Love sends the extra witnesses. It has not stopped seeking the person, and it will not spare the sin.
- Love multiplies. They come as witnesses of the love of Christ. The man who refused His plea through one voice now hears it through more.
- Love verifies. Their task is to establish the answer the offender gives. Facts settle such a case, never impressions.
- Love contains. If he responds, only two or three ever knew, and the matter is dismissed and forgotten.
- Love submits. These two or three confirm a case; they cannot act in place of the whole assembly.
But if he will not listen to them, tell it to the assembly; and if also he will not listen to the assembly, let him be to thee as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer.
Matthew 18 gives steps for a wrong done to one believer: go to him alone, then with witnesses, then before the whole assembly. This verse says what happens when he refuses even that, and it raises two questions — which "church" is meant, and what the offended believer must now do.
Humility does not cancel faithfulness about sin.
This spirit of lowliness must not push aside the faithfulness that will maintain the honour of the Lord. Faith and meekness can rebuke sin… Notice in passing how opposite these directions are to the legal spirit in which some would apply this scripture. The object is to win, not to condemn. Every means is exhausted, even to leaving the case in the hands of the assembly.
The word does not point to an office, a hierarchy, or a denomination. It points to the believers gathered in that same town, the ones all three parties belong to.
The church means the assembly of God in the place to which these all belong… So the assembly hears of the guilty person's fault. The matter has been investigated and pressed home. The church warns and pleads with this man, but he refuses to hear.
That also answers those who use the phrase "hear the church" to claim teaching authority:
"Hear the church" in Matthew 18:17 is a favourite appeal for those who look for scriptural support for church pride, or, as they would say, its teaching office. But the context here is plain. It is only a question of local discipline in a case of personal trespass, not of teaching-authority.
The offence that starts all this may be small. What ends the process is not the size of the sin but the hardness of the man. These steps fit a private wrong, not open sin.
The verse before calls him a brother; now he is like a Gentile and a tax collector. We are not to suppose that the man was a drunkard or a thief. What he has shown is a hardness of self-will and a spirit of self-justification. It might have arisen out of small circumstances. But on the ground of this unbending pride about himself and his own fault, God may pronounce that you are to regard him as a Gentile and a tax collector. That is, you no longer acknowledge him as a Christian while he stays impenitent… In the case of drunkenness, or anything of that kind, there would be no need for this way of dealing with it. If no one had the least question about the sin, the duty of the church is clear: the person is put away… This way of dealing is only for a case where the wrong is unknown to anyone but the person it was done against.
Both names the Lord uses marked people a devout Jew kept at a distance.
A Gentile no Jew would admit to any religious privileges (Acts 21:28-29); with a tax collector no Pharisee or scribe would associate. So the offender's position is clear, and what 1 Corinthians 5:13 sets out would be the only course open for the assembly. From how small a beginning such grave results might flow.
The word behind "Gentile" here is used in an unusual way — not as a comment on culture, but on position:
In Matthew 18:17 the word has a particular application: if an offending brother will not hear the church, the instruction is "let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector," that is, as an outsider, the Gentile being outside the privileges of Israel, as one to be avoided.
Commentators differ on how far the verse reaches. Stuart, above, links it to the assembly's action in 1 Corinthians 5. Darby keeps to the exact wording:
This is a question of wrong done to a brother. The passage never says that the church is to put out the one who did the wrong. It says, "Let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." This may afterwards have to be the case as to the church, but that is not its character here. It is simply, "Let him be to you" — have nothing more to do with him… What it prescribes is a course of individual conduct.
The Lord guards the line in both directions:
He is the Head of His body, the church, and He is our personal Lord and Master and Saviour. He will not let us raise personal matters into church questions, or lower church questions into personal matters.
This authority does not depend on the size of the gathering.
To accept these is to accept their discipline. The Lord's sanction of the gathering is the express sanction of their discipline… But these "two or three" do have authority for discipline. Woe to anyone who resists its rightful use! The words "if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector" apply to just such feeble gatherings as these.
- Aim — The goal is to win the man back, not to condemn him. Every gentler step comes first.
- Assembly — "The church" here is the company of God's people in that place, not a teaching office or a clergy to appeal to.
- Self-will — What forces the final step is not gross sin but unbending pride that refuses correction from anyone.
- Outside — Both names the Lord uses picture a man kept at a distance. You no longer acknowledge him as a Christian while he stays impenitent.
- Personal — The Lord says "to you." Do not inflate personal matters into church questions, or shrink church questions into personal ones.