“Moreover if thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he neglect to hear them, tell it unto the ecclesia: but if he neglect to hear the ecclesia, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican” (Matthew 18:15-17).
Following our periodic reviews of various publications which entail the exposing of doctrinal error, a few correspondents have expressed the concern that the principles of the Lord Jesus as expressed above have not been upheld. It is felt that rather than to give a public refutation, the procedure outlined by our Lord ought to be followed, that reconciliation might be found with our erring brethren and the matter be laid to rest. To give open rebuke to those who lead folk astray from the paths of wisdom and life is allegedly “unChristlike.” Far better, we are told, to follow the procedure outlined by Christ, and approach the offender quietly and alone to resolve things.
But however attractive such a proposition might sound in an age where it is greatly frowned upon to adversely comment upon the beliefs of another; when mutual toleration and respect must be shown by all to all, to follow such counsel would not be to rightly apply the Word of Christ. In the passage cited above, it is important to note the circumstance in which our Lord states the procedure should be followed: “if thy brother shall trespass against thee”. The case is to do with personal offences, either open or private, whereby a brother has committed a trespass in whatever form against another brother. This is not the same as when affronts are made against the Truth by the promulgation of false doctrine. This is a different circumstance; and the Scriptures indicate that different procedures should be implemented.
An example of where a brother began to lead others astray can be found in Peter, who out of fear of the Jews, disassociated himself from the Gentiles. The consequence of such action was that “the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation” (Gal 2:13). What was to be done? A highly respected brother – one of such great standing as Peter the Apostle was actually causing the brethren to be “carried away”! To follow the advice of our critics, Paul should have taken Peter to one side, and had a quiet word with him in private. That, however is not what he did. What good would that do to those who were being “carried away?” How would it deal with the damage already done? No, his actions were far better; he gave a public and open repudiation: “when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, if thou, being a Jew livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Gal 2:14). He “withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Gal 2:11). He did not follow the procedure outlined by the Lord Jesus – because it did not apply. It was a different set of circumstances, when a different form of action was required. As Paul, under inspiration, wrote to Timothy, “them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear” (1Tim 5:20). This is a precedent in Scripture for dealing with such situations – and is the divinely appointed procedure which we endeavour to follow.
APPLYING MATTHEW 18:15-17
But what then of the words of the Lord Jesus? How should they be applied? A point to be noted, is that they are not given as mere advice – optional guidance which a person might follow if we so wish. It is a command which must be followed when major personal differences arise. “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother”. Notice here also, the Master does not stipulate that the trespass must be private – in the event of any personal trespass, either public or private, he has appointed this procedure to be followed. These are personal differences or grievances, not the open promulgations of false teachings.
The first point therefore – a point often made, but seldom heeded, is that before the offence is spoken of to even a single person; the offender must be seen first, alone (see also Prov. 25:9). Then, ideally, the situation may be resolved between the two parties, without the need for any outside involvement. All too often people air their personal grievance without actually approaching the offender first – a practice to be avoided at all costs. Notice that in the Lord’s command, there is no provision for such – at all. “Speak evil of no man” (Tit 3:2) is the way of Christ, whether there is factual evil to be spoken or not.
Notice this also – the whole point of the exercise is not to “thrash out the issue” – but specifically to find reconciliation. To gain one’s brother who has been lost to us by the nature of offence. Again, it is not uncommon for brethren to discuss their differences with the motive of personal justification, rather than a desire for reconciliation. That I might show myself to be right – and that my brother might recognise that I am right! Such is not the purpose of the exercise. The offence must be pointed out for the benefit of the offender, that he might repent, not for the offended that he might be vindicated. Finally, even before this procedure be implemented, the gravity of offence needs firstly to be determined. The end result shows this – the issues are important matters of fellowship. The ‘trespass’ is one so great that if the offender refuses to hear, it warrants his expulsion from the ecclesia.
But there are times when it is far better to exercise forbearance, and let the matter drop altogether. “Above all things have fervent love among yourselves: for love shall cover the multitude of sins” (1Pet 4:8). That is the way of Christ, and the way of his brethren: “grudge not one against another” (Jas. 5:9), and extend love, not condemnation – if the issue is actually not that serious, i.e. a personal slight, or some other minor issue.
There is also the situation where people – even members – behave maliciously towards brethren who are upholding the Truth. When doctrinal differences emerge, it is easier to engage in “character assassination” than to use the Scriptures to demonstrate error. This is a common approach: an endeavour to discredit the contender, attacking them personally, instead of reasoning from the Scriptures. The example of David is relevant here, speaking of those who opposed him:
“… they also that seek after my life lay snares for me; and they that seek my hurt speak mischievious things, and imagine deceits all the day long. But I, as a deaf man, heard not; and I was as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth. Thus I was as a man that heareth not, and in whose mouth are no reproofs. For in thee, O Yahweh do I hope: thou wilt hear, O Lord my God” (Psa. 38:12-15).
Notice how David dealt with those who spoke “mischievous things” against him: How did he respond? He ignored them, as if he had not heard their slander. He did not issue a railing accusation against them, or try to justify his position in any way – he remained silent, and comitted himself to God in whom he put his trust. This was also the example of Moses (cp. Num. 16:1-4) – and it was also the example of the Lord Jesus Christ:
“… Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered he threatened not; but comitted himself to him that judgeth righteously” (1 Pet. 2:21-23).
Here is the supreme example of loving one’s enemies (Lu. 6:27, 35). Messiah was despised and rejected of men, yet his example of graciousness towards his accusers powerfully illustrates how his brethren should deal with their enemies.*
But similar principles need to be applied vice-versa by those who know that their brother has a grievance against them: “if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way: first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift” (Mat. 5:2324). Notice that the whole point of the exercise is to “be reconciled”. All things must be done decently and in order, to the glory of God, not the vindication of man.
Christopher Maddocks
* The present writer has always held that if the debate is brought to a personal level, or a personal attack, the issue ceases to be important. Unless a matter of Scriptural teaching or practice is being denied, personal issues are not relevant. Rather than to engage in such debates, we must use the shield of faith to deflect the fiery darts of the wicked (Eph. 6:16), and disregard them as irrelevant to our walk in Christ.
