Bible versions disagree about whether Matthew 18:15 is about “If a brother sins….” or “If a brother sins against you…”. The implications are quite huge and important. But while I’ll explore all that elsewhere, the purpose of this president article is to examine whether the camps that say it’s about “conflict resolution” are doing what it says, or whether they are disobeying it.
For the record, here’s a pretty straight-forward translation of the passage in question, with the late insertion in red:
Matthew 18:15 “Now if your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that on the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be confirmed. 17 And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, he is to be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”
You can see a list of the English translations here.
And here are my questions about obedience to these directions, assuming they are indeed the directions Jesus gave:
- How often do Christians in this camp go to the having-sinned-against-them believer to “show him his fault”?
- How often do they do it in private?
- How often are they really listened to in that meeting ― which is to ask, how often do they truly win their brother over?
- When they do not win their brother over in that first meeting, how quickly do they obey and go find one or two others to witness a second attempt at hashing the matter out? How often does it get put off? And how often is it put off indefinitely? How often do they disobey this step, say, by reason of “Oh, I actually forgave the offense.”?
- Does it really say, “…but don’t confront him if you forgive it.”? Or is that just a popular assumption by which we let ourselves off the hook?
- Hypothetically speaking, what would happen in a church culture that habitually “forgave” these things, and did not press the matter so that the offending brother was pressured to repent of them, as in the instructions?
- When the one or two others do go along, how often does it happen that they actually confront him themselves, such that he should “listen to them” as it says ― and how often are they just silent observers?
- Do those chosen as witnesses consider themselves under a Jesus-appointed obligation in this matter? Is this a regular occurrence in their Christian lives, or a rare one? Should it be regular?
- In the event that the offender does not repent in the second meeting, how often do the two or three confronters actually take it to the assembly?
- When it is taken to the assembly, is the matter actually heard by the congregants? And do they actually speak to the offender? Or is this part typically co-opted by church leadership, who step in to “represent” the assembly as proxies? If the latter happens, how is it that the offender ever gets to a chance to hear what the assembly says?
- I notice that there is no mention of voting in this text. How many camps assume that it calls for voting the offender in or out?
- What did it mean to “treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector”? Does anyone even know? Do modern Christians look this up and find out, or do they never get this far?
- Does this shunning equate to what the Didache says here?:
Didache 15:3 Rebuke one another, not in wrath but peaceably, as ye have commandment in the Gospel; and, but let no one speak to any one who walketh disorderly with regard to his neighbour, neither let him be heard by you until he repent. - Is this command in Matthew 18:15-17 the same thing Paul is writing about here?:
1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church[b] whom you are to judge? 13 God judges[c] those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” - Is it the same thing Paul is writing about here?:
2 Thessalonians 3:13 As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good. 14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. - Is it the same thing Paul is talking about here?:
Titus 3:10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
I have never once in my life seen any church anywhere make a regular and authentic practice of this passage ― whether they think it should contain the insertion or not. I think that the insertion is popularly used to keep the passage from being about sin in general, but even then, then some brother does sin “against them”, they still won’t obey the instructions even in that situation! It’s just a shallow attempt at dodging their Jesus-commissioned responsibility in the matter.
The result of this neglect is an assembly filled with members who are conditioned to think that as long as somebody “forgives” their offenses, they don’t have to repent of anything or improve themselves in any way whatsoever.
In short, I see a world of churches who simply do not want to live this responsibly, and who opt instead for some sort of spin on this passage, so as to pretend that it’s OK not to do what the Master commanded.
And I ask you: even if the insertion is excluded, what’s the harm in that? What’s the harm in teaching the Christian to abandon every sin and error? Would that be so bad? Indeed, the word here for sin (hamartia) simply means “to miss the mark”. It’s an archery term, about that commonplace occurrence of failing to hit the bullseye when shooting. And what would be the harm of training all Christians to hit the mark in living the Christian life?
Do we really think we know better than do obey Jesus in this?
If you want to insist on the “against you” insertion, then fine; you have absolved yourself from having to get involved in anybody’s sin if it is not lodged directly “against you”. But I’m not sure how much this helps you, since in this world, believers will sin against nearly every day ― and if not that, certainly every week. Why, then, do you not handle it as directed when it does happen?
Why cheat the Lord’s instructions and pretend that “forgiving” the sin is a reason not to confront it as directed? Why neglect the edification and correction of that brother, and leave him out in the cold to improve himself without your Jesus-commanded assistance?
Doesn’t that kind of behavior smack of this?
Luke 10:29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”
I don’t think this parable was really about literal wounds from robbers; I think it was about helping one’s neighbor in need, whatever the trouble. And I don’t think that Jesus was applauding the behavior of those who would “pass by on the other side”. Rather, I think he condemned it.
So I don’t see how you’re helping yourself, friend, when you claim that this passage is not about sin in general, but only about “conflict resolution”, when you won’t even obey it faithfully in that instance. I think it shows a problem with your heart if you are not driven to obey the Master.
Jesus wanted his followers to follow him in every principle. He wanted them to have help with everything, no matter how small, how large, or how often they had to address it before they finally got it right, and could obey it habitually. That was the way of life he handed down to his ekklesia. But this is so not the kind of life taught in the churches today.
James 5:19 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, 20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
Who will do this work for Jesus in such faithless churches?
Much could be said about this, of course, but it has already been said, and by Jesus and his own apostles. Why, then, should one such as I bother to say it again on his own watch? Are not the scriptures sufficient?
