Should Congregations Vote to Discipline?
Several weeks ago a pastor called, heartbroken and wondering what to do next. The church he pastored (Southern Baptist) had voted down a church discipline matter. The facts were plain: a man in the church had been privately confronted multiple times in accordance to Jesus’ words in Matthew 18, but had only become more rude and more arrogant toward those calling him to repentance. He interrupted the preaching, held secret meetings and slandered those in leadership. Yet, when the matter was brought to the congregation as instructed in Matthew 18:17, the majority of those present voted against calling on the man to repent.
The pastor, who had been at the church less than a year, resigned soon after the vote. The vote proved to him that the majority of church members distrusted the leaders and himself, and did not want to call the individual to repentance. In fact, the man who was exonerated by vote enjoyed a reputation in the church as a significant leader in his own right, thus explaining why they trusted him more than their new pastor. The pastor believed the majority did not want to follow him or the Bible, and now, along with a group of ex-members, has agreed to their request to plant a new church.
What went right
If the pastor was more politically-minded than shepherding-minded he might have encouraged others to simply ignore the rude behaviors and arrogance of the man than privately confront him. But the pastor knew that Jesus’ teaching requires private confrontation, and when a matter of sin is certain and an individual remains impenitent then the matter is to be brought to the church (Matthew 18:15-16). The facts of the situation show that he and others in the church were doing right by being faithful to the church member and the Lord.
What went wrong
When it came to their fellow member and the charge of sin, the members of the church were being asked to act as this man’s judge and jury. Their vote would reveal if they believed him guilty or innocent of the accusation of sin, and either result in an end of the discipline, or a continuation of it. As judges and juries are inclined to do in this world, they judged wrongly. They exonerated a sinning member while losing a pastor who was willing to take a confrontational stand on an issue of sin and righteousness.
Does Matthew 18 teach that the congregation has authority?
Those who believe that the congregation should vote in church discipline cases (a popular practice called congregationalism) insist the entire church is the final authority in judging cases of church discipline because the two phrases in Matthew 18:17, “tell it to the church” and “if he refuses to listen even to the church.”
From these words two conclusions are drawn. First, Matthew 18:15-17 shows an ascending authority from one-to-one confrontation (v. 15) to small group confrontation (v. 16) that ends with church confrontation (v. 17). Therefore, the congregation has the greatest authority. The second claim is that the unrepentant offender can be put out of the church only after the entire church has been involved. In other words, no one can be put out of the church by only a few in the church, such as the leaders. Therefore, the only rightful authority in excommunication is the entire church.
But a careful reading of Matthew 18:17 shows that the church is not called to a higher authority—that is, to judge the person’s guilt or innocence. Instead, the Lord calls the church to submit to the prior judgment of the two or three witnesses since they have “established the evidence” (v. 16). Nowhere in Matthew 18 does Jesus ask the congregation to approve or disapprove on the evidence of the witnesses and thereby on the guilt and innocence of the offender. Rather, He commands the church members to respond to the certain evidence of the witnesses by submissively confronting the unrepentant member.
The Lord Himself placed the determinative authority of church discipline in the judgment of the two or three. He tasks them, and not the church, with the responsibility to prove unrepentant sin in Matthew 18:16. In the passage, Jesus further explains that He and the Father determine the guilt or innocence in concert with the two or three witnesses before the congregation ever hears it:
If two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. (Matt. 18:19–20).
The “two or three” refer back to the agreement of the “two or three witnesses” of verse 16. God the Father and God the Son affirm and defend the work of the two or three witnesses in establishing the factuality of impenitence. Since the first two persons of the Godhead affirm the evidence of the witnesses, what need is there for a church to vote and rule on that which the first two persons of the Trinity have already ratified? Jesus did not say, “If the church agrees about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven,” but “If two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.” Thus He exalts the judgment of the witnesses so that the church may hear the witnesses’ testimony as exactly reflecting His own. Jesus did not command the church to establish any facts or to rule or judge on the testimony of the witnesses. The Son of God gave this responsibility to the two or three witnesses alone.
Creating Further Sin
Sadly, men’s ways can get involved in these matters and really make a mess of things. For example, congregational voting in the case of an unrepentant member could create a serious breach of faith with Christ. What if a church decides to discipline out an impenitent member by vote, but some in the church vote not to remove him? Those who vote not to remove the unrepentant member have sinned against the Lord by establishing their own verdict of innocence that opposes what the Lord already ratified (Matt. 18:20). In such a case they have sinned against the Father’s established judgment (Matt. 18:18–19), Jesus’ established evidence (Matt. 18:20), their fellow church members (1 Cor. 1:10), and the two or three witnesses who went through the difficult labor of establishing the evidence (Matt. 18:16). Or, in the case referred to above, the majority of members simply vote contrary to the evidence and annul the discipline process. Based on Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 18, they now need to be called to repentance for their sinful vote, not just privately, but before the whole church.
What God Does Want the Church to Do
The difficult ministry in church discipline is not holding a church vote but rather ensuring that the evidence of hardened and unrepentant sin is “true and certain” (Deut. 17:5). That difficulty is followed by another – telling the congregation to fulfill its obligation to the erring member. That congregational obligation is enjoined upon the members to go and tell the impenitent member to repent of the sins they were told about – the sins announced to the congregation that were established as factual.
Like the individual of Mat. 18:15 and the witnesses of Mat. 18:16, the members of the congregation should go and speak to the member, asking him to repent. Jesus teaches the church that if he “will not listen” he is to be put out (v. 17). “Listen” in verse 17 means the same thing as it does in verses 15 and 16. It is the unrepentant man “personally hearing and turning” from his sin. The congregation is not called by Jesus to be the man’s judge and jury, but, as brothers and sisters in Christ, they are to go and try to reclaim a lost sheep (Matthew 18:12–14).
Most of Matthew 18:16 blends Deuteronomy 17:6 and Deuteronomy 19:15, showing that our Lord expects the two or three witnesses to understand their role in light of Old Testament teaching. In those texts, the Old Testament Israelite people were commanded to put to death anyone convicted by only two or three witnesses for sins such as idolatry or homicide. It was not the people’s responsibility to vote on whether the witnesses had performed due diligence and full discovery in establishing the factuality of the accusations. God Himself required the witnesses to do that hard work in submission to local judges (Deuteronomy 16:18), just as Christ tells New Testament witnesses in the New Testament church to “establish the evidence,” who then submit their evidence to the church’s elders.
Having a congregation vote on matters of sin and righteousness is a recipe for disaster. The complexities of people’s sins are intricate and thorny matters that defy public meetings. Church members simply don’t have the heart or time to investigate such matters thoroughly before rendering a judgment, nor do they often have the Christian maturity to do so. This is why witnesses must establish the facts of impenitence under the care of qualified leaders for they are acting to defend the holiness of Christ and His purifying power in the congregation. They establish the facts so we don’t have to.
You see, if we make voting decisions on intricate matters without the enormous amount of effort that Jesus expects of the two or three witnesses we end up practicing the sin of presumption on other people’s guilt and innocence. We also imply that the two or three witnesses were unfaithful to Christ because we, their fellow church members, must approve or disapprove their findings with our vote. In part that is why so few congregational churches practice church discipline—voting makes the process tangled, convoluted, and political.
The role of church leaders
Jesus doesn’t refer to church leadership in Matthew 18, but that doesn’t mean that church discipline should be decided on by just any two or three people in the church. Beginning in Matthew and finishing in Revelation, Jesus reveals the church in “progressive revelation.” What is only sketched out briefly in Matthew 18 is filled in by Acts and the New Testament letters. The apostolic letters always work within the framework of Jesus’ teaching, and their teaching on discipline is no different. Later New Testament passages fully rely upon Matthew 18 but add the details of elder involvement (e.g., 1 Tim. 5:19–22, Titus 1:5–16, 1 Thess. 5:12–14, 3 John 10). At the time of Jesus’ teaching on the church in Matthew 18 no one but Him even knew what a local church was. So He doesn’t give us the details of church leadership in His first teaching on it, but instead gives us the essentials of how to restore a wandering Christian, and how to put an unrepentant person out of His church. Jesus thought it best to leave to the epistles to explain the role of leaders in the process.
In the epistles the elders are called by Christ to oversee and shepherd the flock (1 Tim. 3:1, 1 Tim. 5:17, 1 Peter 5:1), so the witnesses must meet with one or more elders to inform them of the situation. Prior to telling the church of someone’s sin, the elders will look into the matter themselves according to the nature of the situation and the skill of the witnesses. Their role requires them to make certain of impartial evidence and proper confrontation as described by the Lord in Matthew 18 and other New Testament passages.
Conclusion
Jesus doesn’t ask for a vote in Matthew 18 because in matters of sin and righteousness voting is worthless. He doesn’t want you be your brother’s judge and jury but to be involved in the godly work of restoring him as a wandering sheep. Actually, Jesus is merciful to involve you in the restoration process by telling you to go and confront your errant brother. He doesn’t need or want your vote nor is Jesus concerned with the “voice of the congregation.” Instead, His voice tells us to call our wandering brother to repentance. It isn’t obedient to answer Him, “we’ll vote on it.”
Ted Bigelow Bio
Ted Bigelow earned the MDiv and ThM at The Master’s Seminary and has a doctorate in expository preaching from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He pastors Grace Church in Hartford, CT and has been married to Deena since 1987. They are blessed with 4 children who, by God’s mercy, love the Lord: Katie (20), Karryn (18), Daniel (15) and David (13).
[Dan Miller] ok, I’m still not clear on how you relate Matt 18 to Deut 19.I tried in the other post. How about if you just share what you see to be the potential error or inconsistency in my teaching?
Try this way:
1. The judge in Deuteronomy has this modern equivalent: ________________.
2. The “2 or 3” in Deuteronomy has this modern equivalent: ________________.
Quote:
If the pastor was more politically-minded than shepherding-minded he might have encouraged others to simply ignore the rude behaviors and arrogance of the man than privately confront him. But the pastor knew that Jesus’ teaching requires private confrontation, and when a matter of sin is certain and an individual remains impenitent then the matter is to be brought to the church (Matthew 18:15-16).
Ted, did I say this?
If the pastor was more politically-minded than shepherding-minded he might have encouraged others to simply ignore the rude behaviors and arrogance of the man than privately confront him. But the pastor knew that Jesus’ teaching requires private confrontation, and when a matter of sin is certain and an individual remains impenitent then the matter is to be brought to the church (Matthew 18:15-16).
Ted, did I say this?
Jeff Brown
J,
I would disagree with you that the point is about whether voting is in the text or not. I don’t think anyone writing here for the view that the ekklesia makes the dicision would argue that a vote has to be taken. You and Ted have made the issue about voting, and thus if there is no vote, there can be no congregational decision. But I really don’t think that is legitimate at all. As Bob mentioned, and as I have written repeatedly, groups have various methods of making a decision. The Bible is not so Byzantine as to mandate voting procedures. But because it does not, cannot mean that the congregation sits passive (or as you have described, one or two or so afterward tell the sinner to repent whenever they might see him).
I think that I have understood you both to say, essentially, “If there is not vote mandated, there is no congregational rule.” If this is what you are saying, I think most Bible students would say, please prove it.
Thus: there are no elders visible in the Matthew passage. There is an ekklesia visible, which makes the final decision. Does the interpretation depend upon your polity? Not necessarily. Note what Henry Alford, an Anglican says about Matt. 18:17.
the ekklesia is “the congregation of Christians; i.e. in the early times, usch as in Acts 4:32, the one congregation - in after times, that congregation of which thou and he are members. That it cannot mean the Church as represented by her rulers, appears by vv. 19,20 - where any collection of believers is gifted with the power of deciding in such cases.” Greek New Testament, I.88.
So, J, this is my answer to how it is interpreted.
Addressing me by my first name is just fine. Most everyone on this website does, as does everyone in my church.
I would disagree with you that the point is about whether voting is in the text or not. I don’t think anyone writing here for the view that the ekklesia makes the dicision would argue that a vote has to be taken. You and Ted have made the issue about voting, and thus if there is no vote, there can be no congregational decision. But I really don’t think that is legitimate at all. As Bob mentioned, and as I have written repeatedly, groups have various methods of making a decision. The Bible is not so Byzantine as to mandate voting procedures. But because it does not, cannot mean that the congregation sits passive (or as you have described, one or two or so afterward tell the sinner to repent whenever they might see him).
I think that I have understood you both to say, essentially, “If there is not vote mandated, there is no congregational rule.” If this is what you are saying, I think most Bible students would say, please prove it.
Thus: there are no elders visible in the Matthew passage. There is an ekklesia visible, which makes the final decision. Does the interpretation depend upon your polity? Not necessarily. Note what Henry Alford, an Anglican says about Matt. 18:17.
the ekklesia is “the congregation of Christians; i.e. in the early times, usch as in Acts 4:32, the one congregation - in after times, that congregation of which thou and he are members. That it cannot mean the Church as represented by her rulers, appears by vv. 19,20 - where any collection of believers is gifted with the power of deciding in such cases.” Greek New Testament, I.88.
So, J, this is my answer to how it is interpreted.
Addressing me by my first name is just fine. Most everyone on this website does, as does everyone in my church.
Jeff Brown
[Jeff Brown] J,Thanks for clarifying Jeff, I appreciate it!
So, J, this is my answer to how it is interpreted.
J,
It is legitimate for you to ask me to answer about this. I could not get to it earlier, and rather forgot about it. Please let me answer this way:
The disciples are the ones spoken to. From 18:1, it appears to be the twelve only. So these are the ones address as “you.” The whole of 18:15-20 has no meaning except in the context of the church. Exegetes often mention that there is no explanation of the meaning of ekklesia. But that is not because the disciples had no notion of the meaning of ekklesia (Gk) or kenshita (Ara), whichever Jesus used on that occasion. The disciples understood themselves as the Messianic community, awaiting the day when Jesus would be recognized by the whole nation. That is how they grasped the meaning then. To assume they thought of the ekklesia as an assembly that remains passive in a judiciary matter would have been unlikely.
Likewise the disciples were very well aware of disciplinary proceedings. People were, when the situation demanded it, excluded from synagogues (and they expected to punished there, Matt 10:17). Preserving their existence demanded in those days that synagogues practice excommunication. But, as Emil Schürer (History of the Jewish People, Vol. 2 and Strack and Billerbeck Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 1:787 (these are very well established authorities in Jewish-Christian studies) point out, The way in which the fully assembly of the Christian church and the full assembly of the Qumran community decided on discipline, is entirely distinct from synagogue discipline. In synagogue discipline, the Elders decided disciplinary action.
Now to the passage: in v.17, Jesus tells the 12 disciples that when the sinner does not accept the correction of the first brother plus one or two others, they are to tell it to the ekklesia, which they would have understood as the Messianic Community. The entire Messianic community makes the decision. Why? The answer is in v.18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Now, either this was meant for only the 12, or it was meant for any assembly of Christians. It is the church which is His body. It is Jesus who is head of the Church. They have heavenly authority. The actual reason why they were so capable of deciding as the final arbiter of discipline would be revealed later. They were all indwelt, baptized, and led by the Holy Spirit.
Coming to vv.19-20, I do not want to be so dogmatic. It is interpreted various ways. To me it makes the most sense to take it like Henry Alford did (and like many others after him). The “two or three of you” was in that moment two or three of the 12 disciples, but with obvious reference to all Christians in view of the later of the formation of the Church. Whatever size the gathering, the church, large or small, even as two or three, has heavenly authority, because Jesus is its head and the Holy Spirit indwells it as His temple.
It appears to me, that you say instead, it is the two or three who have heavenly authority, but not the church. Or (since you have already said that the 2 or 3 come to the elders who speak to the church), it is the elders only who have heavenly authority, not the church. Or have I misunderstood you?
It is legitimate for you to ask me to answer about this. I could not get to it earlier, and rather forgot about it. Please let me answer this way:
The disciples are the ones spoken to. From 18:1, it appears to be the twelve only. So these are the ones address as “you.” The whole of 18:15-20 has no meaning except in the context of the church. Exegetes often mention that there is no explanation of the meaning of ekklesia. But that is not because the disciples had no notion of the meaning of ekklesia (Gk) or kenshita (Ara), whichever Jesus used on that occasion. The disciples understood themselves as the Messianic community, awaiting the day when Jesus would be recognized by the whole nation. That is how they grasped the meaning then. To assume they thought of the ekklesia as an assembly that remains passive in a judiciary matter would have been unlikely.
Likewise the disciples were very well aware of disciplinary proceedings. People were, when the situation demanded it, excluded from synagogues (and they expected to punished there, Matt 10:17). Preserving their existence demanded in those days that synagogues practice excommunication. But, as Emil Schürer (History of the Jewish People, Vol. 2 and Strack and Billerbeck Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 1:787 (these are very well established authorities in Jewish-Christian studies) point out, The way in which the fully assembly of the Christian church and the full assembly of the Qumran community decided on discipline, is entirely distinct from synagogue discipline. In synagogue discipline, the Elders decided disciplinary action.
Now to the passage: in v.17, Jesus tells the 12 disciples that when the sinner does not accept the correction of the first brother plus one or two others, they are to tell it to the ekklesia, which they would have understood as the Messianic Community. The entire Messianic community makes the decision. Why? The answer is in v.18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Now, either this was meant for only the 12, or it was meant for any assembly of Christians. It is the church which is His body. It is Jesus who is head of the Church. They have heavenly authority. The actual reason why they were so capable of deciding as the final arbiter of discipline would be revealed later. They were all indwelt, baptized, and led by the Holy Spirit.
Coming to vv.19-20, I do not want to be so dogmatic. It is interpreted various ways. To me it makes the most sense to take it like Henry Alford did (and like many others after him). The “two or three of you” was in that moment two or three of the 12 disciples, but with obvious reference to all Christians in view of the later of the formation of the Church. Whatever size the gathering, the church, large or small, even as two or three, has heavenly authority, because Jesus is its head and the Holy Spirit indwells it as His temple.
It appears to me, that you say instead, it is the two or three who have heavenly authority, but not the church. Or (since you have already said that the 2 or 3 come to the elders who speak to the church), it is the elders only who have heavenly authority, not the church. Or have I misunderstood you?
Jeff Brown
Ted, perhaps you could point out to me exactly where I said that the witnesses’ first activity is to accuse, or only responsibility is to accuse and not examine.
But to say that “witnesses” in the biblical sense on such an occasion accuse, of this I am rightly accused.
But to say that “witnesses” in the biblical sense on such an occasion accuse, of this I am rightly accused.
Jeff Brown
Thanks for sharing about your experience and response, Bob. Anyone of us reading the story can profit from it.
Jeff Brown
[Ted Bigelow] I tried in the other post. How about if you just share what you see to be the potential error or inconsistency in my teaching?Ok, but I’ll have to post twice. First, I’ll address what you said in the opening Article:
[Ted Bigelow, Article] But a careful reading of Matthew 18:17 shows that the church is not called to a higher authority—that is, to judge the person’s guilt or innocence. Instead, the Lord calls the church to submit to the prior judgment of the two or three witnesses since they have “established the evidence” (v. 16).In Deuteronomy, although the matter is established by the testimony of the 2 or 3, the matter is NOT judged by the 2 or 3. It is judged by the judges. You’re making the testimony into the judgment.
…
The Lord Himself placed the determinative authority of church discipline in the judgment of the two or three.
…
Thus He exalts the judgment of the witnesses so that the church may hear the witnesses’ testimony as exactly reflecting His own. Jesus did not command the church to establish any facts or to rule or judge on the testimony of the witnesses. The Son of God gave this responsibility to the two or three witnesses alone.
It would then seem you hold that there is no real judgment - at least no judgment beyond what the 2 or 3 say. In other words, the accuser (2 or 3) testifies to the church about the sin. Perhaps the subject (accused) speaks on his own behalf. And then no other determination [judgment-declaration] of guilt is made. Indeed, since you hold that the accusation of the 2 or 3 is the judgment, it would seem that there would be little else to say.
Maybe this is what you teach? or…
In post #26, however, you suggest the NT elders bear the mantle of the “judges” of Deuteronomy 19.
The “2 or 3” of Deuteronomy 19 are equivalent to the “2 or 3” of Matthew 18.
The “judges” of Deuteronomy 19 are NOT equivalent to the “2 or 3” of Matthew 18. Instead, they are equivalent to the elders of the church.
This would be at odds with the original Article, but would make more sense.
[Ted Bigelow, post 26] Excellent distinction, Jeff. You would propose the congregation be the in the place of the judges. I would propose it is the elders, who are specifically tasked to be “elders” (c.f. Deut. 19:12) “overseers” and “shepherds” by the word of God.So, this would look like this:
The “2 or 3” of Deuteronomy 19 are equivalent to the “2 or 3” of Matthew 18.
The “judges” of Deuteronomy 19 are NOT equivalent to the “2 or 3” of Matthew 18. Instead, they are equivalent to the elders of the church.
This would be at odds with the original Article, but would make more sense.
[Jeff Brown]Hey Jeff,
Coming to vv.19-20, I do not want to be so dogmatic. It is interpreted various ways. To me it makes the most sense to take it like Henry Alford did (and like many others after him). The “two or three of you” was in that moment two or three of the 12 disciples, but with obvious reference to all Christians in view of the later of the formation of the Church. Whatever size the gathering, the church, large or small, even as two or three, has heavenly authority, because Jesus is its head and the Holy Spirit indwells it as His temple.
Thanks for addressing my question. I now understand your interpretation of v.19-20 in context with v. 15-18. So in my reading of the passage, v. 19-20 parallels very well with v.16 and the witnesses, rather than v.17 with the assembly.
It appears to me, that you say instead, it is the two or three who have heavenly authority, but not the church. Or (since you have already said that the 2 or 3 come to the elders who speak to the church), it is the elders only who have heavenly authority, not the church. Or have I misunderstood you?Right, so I see v. 19-20 as affirming the two or three witnesses’ testimony in v. 16 - which has been affirmed by the elders prior to bringing the unrepentence to the church. The evidence of unrepentence is investigated by the witnesses and then brought to the elders because of the elders’ role of servanthood authority in the church. The elders then would do a thorough investigation of the facts, to guard against false testimony, paralleled with the role of judges in Deut. 19, and then present the unrepentence to the church, if the charges are substantiated. In this way, the elders can be held accountable for this church-wide action (Hebrews 13:17), yet are only affirming the evidence of unrepentence brought about by the witnesses, which makes sense in context of v. 19-20. In this manner, the burden of the investigation lies with the witnesses and then is confirmed by the eldership, without requiring a church wide investigation of the facts. The church is simply required to submits to the elders’ account and confront the unrepentence in the hopes of bringing about repentence, out of obedience to Christ. If repentence does not occur, then the person is to be a tax-collector/Gentile.
Thanks for bearing with me Jeff!
J
[Jeff Brown] Ted, perhaps you could point out to me exactly where I said that the witnesses’ first activity is to accuse, or only responsibility is to accuse and not examine.Back in post 8: “So the point of Jesus in Matthew 18 is to have the original offended take one or two with him, to make the point a serious one (usually church discipline ends here. Being confronted by more than one person in the church has a strong impact).”
But to say that “witnesses” in the biblical sense on such an occasion accuse, of this I am rightly accused.
My position is that the witnesses do not “go to accuse” but to establish the facts (Mat. 18:15). Only if and when the facts are established are they to accuse - privately explaining their conclusion of established factuality of sin to the allegedly impenitent member, and calling for repentance. If none comes in a timely manner, it is time to explain the matter to an elder, who is tasked in Scripture to oversee the flock (1 Pet. 5:2). That means the elder(s) oversee (have spiritual reponsibility) both the witnesses, and the accused.
Have you looked at 1 Corinthians 6 in this regard? Two members are involved in a law suit, and Paul does not want the congregation deciding the matter, but one man from the congregation (“Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren?”, NKJ, v. 5). The judgment the man is to provide is a summary judgment the congregation, and the two members, must submit to.
[Dan Miller]This is what I originally wrote in the article:[Ted Bigelow] I tried in the other post. How about if you just share what you see to be the potential error or inconsistency in my teaching?Ok, but I’ll have to post twice. First, I’ll address what you said in the opening Article:[Ted Bigelow, Article] But a careful reading of Matthew 18:17 shows that the church is not called to a higher authority—that is, to judge the person’s guilt or innocence. Instead, the Lord calls the church to submit to the prior judgment of the two or three witnesses since they have “established the evidence” (v. 16).In Deuteronomy, although the matter is established by the testimony of the 2 or 3, the matter is NOT judged by the 2 or 3. It is judged by the judges. You’re making the testimony into the judgment.
…
The Lord Himself placed the determinative authority of church discipline in the judgment of the two or three.
…
Thus He exalts the judgment of the witnesses so that the church may hear the witnesses’ testimony as exactly reflecting His own. Jesus did not command the church to establish any facts or to rule or judge on the testimony of the witnesses. The Son of God gave this responsibility to the two or three witnesses alone.
It would then seem you hold that there is no real judgment - at least no judgment beyond what the 2 or 3 say. In other words, the accuser (2 or 3) testifies to the church about the sin. Perhaps the subject (accused) speaks on his own behalf. And then no other determination [judgment-declaration] of guilt is made. Indeed, since you hold that the accusation of the 2 or 3 is the judgment, it would seem that there would be little else to say.
Maybe this is what you teach? or…
“God Himself required the witnesses to do that hard work in submission to local judges (Deuteronomy 16:18), just as Christ tells New Testament witnesses in the New Testament church to “establish the evidence,” who then submit their evidence to the church’s elders.”
[Dan Miller] In post #26, however, you suggest the NT elders bear the mantle of the “judges” of Deuteronomy 19.Dan, have you looked at Mat. 18:16 in the Greek? Check out the “hina” clause, which I take as a result clause - i.e., “take 1 or 2 more for the result that every fact may be confirmed.” Even if you take it as a purpose clause it still yields the same sense. IOW, ‘establishing evidence” is what Jesus wants the witnesses doing. So they act in a judge-like manner - being impartial, not-prejudging a person before they have confirmed all the evidence to establish if sin has occurred and the accused has also violated Mat. 18:15.[Ted Bigelow, post 26] Excellent distinction, Jeff. You would propose the congregation be the in the place of the judges. I would propose it is the elders, who are specifically tasked to be “elders” (c.f. Deut. 19:12) “overseers” and “shepherds” by the word of God.So, this would look like this:
The “2 or 3” of Deuteronomy 19 are equivalent to the “2 or 3” of Matthew 18.
The “judges” of Deuteronomy 19 are NOT equivalent to the “2 or 3” of Matthew 18. Instead, they are equivalent to the elders of the church.
This would be at odds with the original Article, but would make more sense.
Surely you’ve been in situations where the first accuser is wrong and the one accused is innocent. By following our Lord’s words, and calling in one or two persons whose immediate goal is not to “to make the point a serious one” (as Dr. Jeff says in post 8) but to restore a potentially wandering brother, the 1 or 2 meet with both the original accuser and the accused, but can go in saying “we’re not here to gang up on you, but to see if there any sin in any of us that needs to be repented of in order to honor Christ.” By following Christ’s wise words of v. 16 they can provide an open environment for discussion, while discussing difficult matters in an environment of Christian love that “believes all things, hopes all things.” Mat. 18:16 witnesses should go into a 2nd step situation with a mindset hoping to find that no one has sinned, but there has only been misunderstanding.
The emphasis of our Lord’s words in Mat. 18:15-20 is not “who are the human judges” but ascertaining the factuality of impenitent sin in order that our judgment mirror that of heaven (vv. 17-20). We must establsih the factuality of of sin and impenitence before bringing in the congregation.
Congregationalists don’t trust Mat. 18:16. They are unwilling to allow others to “establish the evidence,” but believe the congregation must do that, and do that by, of all things, voting. Since they can’t trust the witnesses’ testimony and respond rightly to it by confronting the member for the sins the witnesses have established as factual, they end up blowing away Mat. 18:16.
Congregationalists rarely try to employ Mat. 18:15-17 because it is so unwieldy in that polity - because they truly believe the congregation is the final court - and believe Jesus wants the whole church to establish the evidence (make a binding judgment on a person’s sin). Truth is it takes more than a single meeting to establish evidence - it usually takes hours of discussion, separate following up of assertions and claims and fact-checking. Elder polity assures that all of this can be done while protecting privacy of all involved, but congregationalism requires all of this to be public – they are the final court.
The Lord’s words in Mat. 18:16, if truly obeyed, allow the congregation to submit righteously to the testimony of the 2 or 3 - they alone are commanded in Mat. 18:16 to establish the factuality of the sin. This is why Jesus can refer to their verdict as reflecting not only his own, but the Father’s as well (Mat. 18:19-20).
[Ted Bigelow]… IOW, ‘establishing evidence” is what Jesus wants the witnesses doing. So they act in a judge-like manner - being impartial, not-prejudging a person before they have confirmed all the evidence to establish if sin has occurred and the accused has also violated Mat. 18:15.That is where you appear to be confused. The act of witnessing and the act of judging are different. You think they are the same and you call them “establishing.”
The matter is “established” by the judges with the evidence of the witnesses.
[Ted Bigelow] Congregationalists don’t trust Mat. 18:16. They are unwilling to allow others to “establish the evidence,” but believe the congregation must do that…Ridiculous attack. Why do you insist on being insulting? Are we not here discussing what Matthew 18 means?
[Ted Bigelow] Congregationalists rarely try to employ Mat. 18:15-17 …Again, ridiculous attack. Why can’t you discuss the Word without attacking people?
As a matter of principle I’m not against pragmatic arguments where they’re relevant. And, other things being equal, the argument that “voting brings disaster” is a relevant one.
In this case, though, I think we should agree to take the pragmatic argument off the table, for one simple reason: for every story of congregational disaster involving a vote, we could probably dig up a story of disaster involving elder rule.
Even if that’s not the case, we have no way if really counting up cases and coming up with an accurate comparison.
In the end, the stories of voting disaster—that is, the pragmatic argument—is not decisive and we have to rely on what is being taught. I don’t think the Scriptures claim that there is a method of polity that results in only good decisions all the time.
So maybe it simplifies things to omit the horror stories as evidence one way or the other. They just don’t count for much.
As for whether congregationalists follow Matthew 18, that’s kind of tautological if you believe Matt.18 is an anti-congregationalist text. That is, if you understand it that way, only non-congregationalists follow it, by definition.
So that particular generalization is immaterial in the debate as well.
In this case, though, I think we should agree to take the pragmatic argument off the table, for one simple reason: for every story of congregational disaster involving a vote, we could probably dig up a story of disaster involving elder rule.
Even if that’s not the case, we have no way if really counting up cases and coming up with an accurate comparison.
In the end, the stories of voting disaster—that is, the pragmatic argument—is not decisive and we have to rely on what is being taught. I don’t think the Scriptures claim that there is a method of polity that results in only good decisions all the time.
So maybe it simplifies things to omit the horror stories as evidence one way or the other. They just don’t count for much.
As for whether congregationalists follow Matthew 18, that’s kind of tautological if you believe Matt.18 is an anti-congregationalist text. That is, if you understand it that way, only non-congregationalists follow it, by definition.
So that particular generalization is immaterial in the debate as well.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Ted, I understand your position. My question was where I have said that the role of witnesses is first of all, or most of all to accuse. I am not sure that I ever said or implied either.
Jeff Brown
Ted, here is my take on this one:
The subject does not have to do with sin, or church discipline. It has to do with personal offenses against one-another (say, one brother did not adhere to the contract the two had made). The term used in verse 1 is not one for “sin” but “a matter” (pragma. You have no idea who, or if anyone has sinned until it is dealt with by someone. This is not brushed aside, but given over to a judge in the church.
Paul describes this judge as anything other than an Elder. He is one of those “of least account” (exouthenemenoi. Thus, the very least qualified in God’s church are in fact qualified to judge in matters between brethren. This is, of course, hyperbole. Practically we know a freshman in college is not going to be a good arbiter in a business dispute between two older men. The point is that the average person in the church can be called upon to judge in these kind of non-disciplinary matters, depending on the situation. The outcome will be much better for the church than for unsaved judges to decide the personal dispute of two brothers (even if the expertise used in the decision is less than found in a secular court).
Note also, that the church body appoints the judge: “you appoint” (v.4). Up to this sentence, Paul has been talking to the Church. He has not in this context addressed any elders.
The subject does not have to do with sin, or church discipline. It has to do with personal offenses against one-another (say, one brother did not adhere to the contract the two had made). The term used in verse 1 is not one for “sin” but “a matter” (pragma. You have no idea who, or if anyone has sinned until it is dealt with by someone. This is not brushed aside, but given over to a judge in the church.
Paul describes this judge as anything other than an Elder. He is one of those “of least account” (exouthenemenoi. Thus, the very least qualified in God’s church are in fact qualified to judge in matters between brethren. This is, of course, hyperbole. Practically we know a freshman in college is not going to be a good arbiter in a business dispute between two older men. The point is that the average person in the church can be called upon to judge in these kind of non-disciplinary matters, depending on the situation. The outcome will be much better for the church than for unsaved judges to decide the personal dispute of two brothers (even if the expertise used in the decision is less than found in a secular court).
Note also, that the church body appoints the judge: “you appoint” (v.4). Up to this sentence, Paul has been talking to the Church. He has not in this context addressed any elders.
Jeff Brown
If a church is going to refuse to vote for discipline, they are also going to refuse to confront as Ted (appropriately) says they must do, according to Matthew 18.
Ted is right that Matthew 18 clearly teaches that the church must confront. The exact nature of that confrontation, where the sinning brother hears (or refuses to hear) the church, is simply not delineated in the text. We can go back and forth whether the message is to be sent by a vote, by a letter from elders, by personal confrontation by elders and/or church members, etc, etc, etc. All the text says is that the church is to be told, and that the person is to be given a chance to hear the church. That’s it. It doesn’t tell us how the church is to communicate.
But I guarantee that a church that won’t vote for discipline also won’t communicate that repentance is absolutely required — so you have a broken church.
One other matter. Ted draws the parallel to stoning. I would note that in the Old Testament the entire congregation took part in the punishment (death by stoning). Congregationalists believe that the entire congregation takes part in the punishment (excommunication). In both cases, the congregation accepts and actively participates in carrying out the God-ordained judgment. Do you have to have a Roberts Rules of Order vote for this to happen? No. But if the congregation does not actively accept and participate in enforcing it, you do not have church discipline.
Matthew 18 teaches nothing about congregationalism vs. elder rule. The passage can and is abused under both models, and is carried out faithfully under both models. If you believe the Scriptures teach congregationalism elsewhere, you will probably feel Matthew 18 fits better with congregationalism. If you believe they teach elder rule elsewhere, you will probably feel it fits better with elder rule.
I’m convinced elder rule vs. congregationalism is somewhat a false dichotomy which has been exacerbated, on the one hand, by the political voting methods churches have adopted, and on the other hand by domineering elders. So I’m convinced Matthew 18 fits better with a somewhat hybrid approach to church governance. But then, I have this bad habit of tending to think I’m right.
Ted is right that Matthew 18 clearly teaches that the church must confront. The exact nature of that confrontation, where the sinning brother hears (or refuses to hear) the church, is simply not delineated in the text. We can go back and forth whether the message is to be sent by a vote, by a letter from elders, by personal confrontation by elders and/or church members, etc, etc, etc. All the text says is that the church is to be told, and that the person is to be given a chance to hear the church. That’s it. It doesn’t tell us how the church is to communicate.
But I guarantee that a church that won’t vote for discipline also won’t communicate that repentance is absolutely required — so you have a broken church.
One other matter. Ted draws the parallel to stoning. I would note that in the Old Testament the entire congregation took part in the punishment (death by stoning). Congregationalists believe that the entire congregation takes part in the punishment (excommunication). In both cases, the congregation accepts and actively participates in carrying out the God-ordained judgment. Do you have to have a Roberts Rules of Order vote for this to happen? No. But if the congregation does not actively accept and participate in enforcing it, you do not have church discipline.
Matthew 18 teaches nothing about congregationalism vs. elder rule. The passage can and is abused under both models, and is carried out faithfully under both models. If you believe the Scriptures teach congregationalism elsewhere, you will probably feel Matthew 18 fits better with congregationalism. If you believe they teach elder rule elsewhere, you will probably feel it fits better with elder rule.
I’m convinced elder rule vs. congregationalism is somewhat a false dichotomy which has been exacerbated, on the one hand, by the political voting methods churches have adopted, and on the other hand by domineering elders. So I’m convinced Matthew 18 fits better with a somewhat hybrid approach to church governance. But then, I have this bad habit of tending to think I’m right.
[Jeff Brown] Ted, I understand your position. My question was where I have said that the role of witnesses is first of all, or most of all to accuse. I am not sure that I ever said or implied either.Jeff, that’s how I read your post in #8:
“So the point of Jesus in Matthew 18 is to have the original offended take one or two with him, to make the point a serious one (usually church discipline ends here. Being confronted by more than one person in the church has a strong impact).”To me your words there appeared to convey to me that the witnesses primarily accuse.
Perhaps you agree with me on the “hina” clause of Matthew 18:16 shows that the witnesses do not go initially to confront, but to ascertain facts? Only if the facts are certain are they to confront.
[Jeff Brown] Ted, here is my take on this one:Jeff, perhaps I could ask you to reconsider this one. It gets to the heart of this thread, which is congregational authority. This is the reason I asked you in post 61 to consider 1 Corinthians 6:1-7.
The subject does not have to do with sin, or church discipline. It has to do with personal offenses against one-another (say, one brother did not adhere to the contract the two had made). The term used in verse 1 is not one for “sin” but “a matter” (pragma. You have no idea who, or if anyone has sinned until it is dealt with by someone. This is not brushed aside, but given over to a judge in the church.
Paul describes this judge as anything other than an Elder. He is one of those “of least account” (exouthenemenoi. Thus, the very least qualified in God’s church are in fact qualified to judge in matters between brethren. This is, of course, hyperbole. Practically we know a freshman in college is not going to be a good arbiter in a business dispute between two older men. The point is that the average person in the church can be called upon to judge in these kind of non-disciplinary matters, depending on the situation. The outcome will be much better for the church than for unsaved judges to decide the personal dispute of two brothers (even if the expertise used in the decision is less than found in a secular court).
Note also, that the church body appoints the judge: “you appoint” (v.4). Up to this sentence, Paul has been talking to the Church. He has not in this context addressed any elders.
You claim the church body “appoints the judge.” I want to examine that in my next post. But I don’t want you to lose sight of the trees for the forest here. The issue here is congregational authority.
You claimed in post 8 that the congregation is “the final arbiter.”
But if the Corinthian congregation had the authority from Jesus Christ to be the final arbiter, why were they not granted the authority to overrule the one man’s decision (1 Cor. 6:5)? Why did they have to submit to it?
I hope you don’t answer “they have the authority to appoint.” If they have authority to appoint, they would also have the authority to take back the appointment. All it takes is enough people in the congregation rejecting the one man’s judgment.
[Jeff Brown]Do I understand you to be saying that Paul wasn’t judging the two parties at variance with each other as having done sin by going to public court?
The subject does not have to do with sin, or church discipline. It has to do with personal offenses against one-another (say, one brother did not adhere to the contract the two had made). The term used in verse 1 is not one for “sin” but “a matter” (pragma. You have no idea who, or if anyone has sinned until it is dealt with by someone. This is not brushed aside, but given over to a judge in the church.
Paul describes this judge as anything other than an Elder.The Corinthians didn’t have elders in the church at the time of writing.
He is one of those “of least account” (exouthenemenoi. Thus, the very least qualified in God’s church are in fact qualified to judge in matters between brethren. This is, of course, hyperbole.Your interpretation relies on a poor translation in verse 4, found in the NIV and KJV translations. Those 2 translations render Paul’s words in v. 4 as a command to appoint the “least esteemed in the church” to be the judges over the two members involved in the lawsuit (1 Cor 6:4, KJV). But the verb “appoint” is awkwardly distanced from its direct object in the Greek, making the much stronger choice in translation an indicative (“do you appoint” ESV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, CSB) rather than imperative (“appoint!” NIV, KJV).
Further, this translation has real problems. It confuses Paul’s words in verse 4 with those in verse 5. Is he commanding the church to appoint multiple people (and not just anyone, but the “least esteemed”) in verse 4, but then changing his mind and asking for only one person (“a wise man”) to be appointed in verse 5?
Worse is this. Are there really people in the church who an entire congregation should be recognized, even in hyperbole, as the “least-esteemed,” and if so, who are they? Calling the “least esteemed” the “average” doesn’t alleviate the text from the tension such words convey. Who is least esteemed in my church? Or just ‘average?” Is that what we consider children, or freshmen?
The NIV and KJV translations reflect a sinful attitude that should never be allowed to exist in the church, much less promoted as a point of settled polity for the Christian church. To consider any Christian “least esteemed” reflects pride and arrogance. Our beloved Apostle Paul instructs to be the opposite - to be like Christ: “in humility count others more significant than yourselves” (Philippians 2:3). Jesus taught that the least among us is great (Luke 9:48). There are no “average” Christians in Christ’s eyes, and there should certainly not be any “little esteemed” in ours.
Moreover, your translation of exouthenemenoi as “least esteemed” is far too mild. The Greek really should be translated with words something like “that which is to be regarded with contempt” (as in Luke 18:9). No, Paul is not referring to how he would like us to treat each other in the governance of Christ’s church in 1 Cor. 6:4, but to the lowly esteem we should attribute to this world’s law courts in the light of eternity. The ESV, NASB, NKJV translations properly show that Paul is describing a godly disdain toward the insignificant value of this world’s law courts in verse 4.
Finally, Jeff, you write,
Note also, that the church body appoints the judge: “you appoint” (v.4).Since these two men from the Corinthian church were going before the law courts in Corinth they were using the Roman legal system. In what way could it be said the congregation appointed the world’s judges when history is clear that judges in the Roman province of Achaia were appointed by the Roman Emperor? That’s another reason why the indicative (do you appoint?) is a better translation choice.
[JG] Ted is right that Matthew 18 clearly teaches that the church must confront. The exact nature of that confrontation, where the sinning brother hears (or refuses to hear) the church, is simply not delineated in the text. We can go back and forth whether the message is to be sent by a vote, by a letter from elders, by personal confrontation by elders and/or church members, etc, etc, etc. All the text says is that the church is to be told, and that the person is to be given a chance to hear the church. That’s it. It doesn’t tell us how the church is to communicate.JG, have you considered the function of Jesus’ choice of words in Mat. 18:17 as reflecting His commanded instructions in v. 15 and 16?
In these three verses He increases the confrontation from 1 person, to 2 or 3 people, to the church. And what advances the impenitent one to the next confrontation? It’s always the same: “if he will not listen.” So actually Jesus does delineate how the congregational confrontation goes - the church performs the same pattern of confrontation that the 1 person does, and the 2 or 3 persons do, all in obedience to Jesus.
One other matter. Ted draws the parallel to stoning. I would note that in the Old Testament the entire congregation took part in the punishment (death by stoning). Congregationalists believe that the entire congregation takes part in the punishment (excommunication). In both cases, the congregation accepts and actively participates in carrying out the God-ordained judgment. Do you have to have a Roberts Rules of Order vote for this to happen? No. But if the congregation does not actively accept and participate in enforcing it, you do not have church discipline.Good point, JG. By “enforcing it” do you mean continuing confrontation for impenitent sin after the person has been removed from the church?
[Ted Bigelow] JG, have you considered the function of Jesus’ choice of words in Mat. 18:17 as reflecting His commanded instructions in v. 15 and 16?I’m sorry, I don’t see your point.
In these three verses He increases the confrontation from 1 person, to 2 or 3 people, to the church. And what advances the impenitent one to the next confrontation? It’s always the same: “if he will not listen.” So actually Jesus does delineate how the congregational confrontation goes - the church performs the same pattern of confrontation that the 1 person does, and the 2 or 3 persons do, all in obedience to Jesus.
If the congregation sends a letter to the sinning person, the congregation has confronted him. If instead, they go en masse to see him, they have confronted him. If they go as separate individuals at separate times, they have likewise done the same. If they send a delegation of selected members who are authorized by the church to say, “The church has heard your matter and calls on you to repent,” they have still confronted him. Which of these methods is forbidden or commanded in this text? None of them. This text tells the church to act, it doesn’t specify the methodology. A person’s understanding of church polity will (and should) inform their view of this text and how it should be applied, but to find any particularly methodology in this text is eisegesis.
I personally am persuaded there is good reason that the methodology is not specified. Not everyone’s situation is the same. In some cases, especially in the case of a small church and a sinning pastor, it may have the greatest impact if the entire church goes as a body to plead with the man.
[Ted Bigelow]Generally this would be the case, although Proverbs warns against the “forcing of strife”, and sometimes continuing confrontation simply becomes that. But it certainly means obedience to the command not to keep company with the erring brother, and to treat him as an unbeliever. Without this, you do not have real church discipline. If you kick someone out of formal membership but everyone in the church goes on with him just as before, as if nothing has changed, all you’ve done is taken a political action.One other matter. Ted draws the parallel to stoning. I would note that in the Old Testament the entire congregation took part in the punishment (death by stoning). Congregationalists believe that the entire congregation takes part in the punishment (excommunication). In both cases, the congregation accepts and actively participates in carrying out the God-ordained judgment. Do you have to have a Roberts Rules of Order vote for this to happen? No. But if the congregation does not actively accept and participate in enforcing it, you do not have church discipline.Good point, JG. By “enforcing it” do you mean continuing confrontation for impenitent sin after the person has been removed from the church?
From my view of church polity, I believe the congregation also must by consensus assent to the discipline. I also think there is good reason for this.
In the OT, the person who has actively taken part in stoning an adulterer, having thrown a stone himself, and seen the man die, has received an innoculation against temptation to adultery. He may not be immune, but it helps. Likewise, the person who has formally given his assent to church discipline of an erring brother is going to have the seriousness of sin impressed upon him, and be somewhat protected against falling prey to rebellion. There is a reason God commanded for the whole congregation to stone in the OT, and a reason Paul told them to put the man in Corinth out “when ye are gathered together”.
Whatever your church polity, it is a wise policy, and fits best with Scripture, for the entire congregation to formally assent to discipline. In a congregational church, a vote accomplishes this. In an elder rule church, you can accomplish the same by having the congregation verbally covenant together to uphold their responsibilities towards the person who has been disciplined.
[JG] I’m sorry, I don’t see your point.Hey JG, I’m with you – I get where you’re coming from!
If the congregation sends a letter to the sinning person, the congregation has confronted him. If instead, they go en masse to see him, they have confronted him. If they go as separate individuals at separate times, they have likewise done the same. If they send a delegation of selected members who are authorized by the church to say, “The church has heard your matter and calls on you to repent,” they have still confronted him. Which of these methods is forbidden or commanded in this text? None of them. This text tells the church to act, it doesn’t specify the methodology. A person’s understanding of church polity will (and should) inform their view of this text and how it should be applied, but to find any particularly methodology in this text is eisegesis.
But eisegesis? And an assertion that “This text tells the church to act, it doesn’t specify the methodology”? Let’s look at that together from Mat. 18:15 to 17.
Mat. 18:15
If the accuser in Mat. 18:15 sends a letter to the brother he thinks has sinned, does that fulfill Jesus’ words go and show him his fault, just between the two of you (NIV)? Or do Jesus’ words require personal face to face meeting?
In your reading of Mat. 18:15, is the “listening” that the accused is supposed to hear – is that based on something less than a “go and show him his fault” confrontation?
IOW, are Jesus’ words “go” and “show” negotiable and flexible so they could mean, send an email, write a letter, place a call, etc? Should the fact that the words “go” and “show” are imperatives matter to one’s obedience to the words “go” and “show”? Can writing a letter be a substitute for going?
Moving on to Mat. 18:16.
Given the “send a letter” scenario from v. 15, has the condition in v. 16 been satisfied: ”if he does not listen to you”? IOW, if the accuser has not made the confrontation private and personal, can the 1 or 2 others of v. 16 be justly asked to join the confrontation? Or does “listen” in v. 16 rely upon the accuser of v. 15 first “going” and “showing?”
Let’s apply the “send a letter” scenario to the 2 or 3 witnesses of v. 16. If Does that action (sending a letter) fulfill Jesus’ words, “”But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you” Or are they required to personally meet and confront the accused?
IOW, are Jesus’ words “take one or two more with you” negotiable and flexible so they could mean many things like send an email, write a letter, place a call, etc? Should the fact that the word “take” is an imperative matter to one’s obedience to the word “take”? Could the word “take” be recast to mean, “write a joint letter?”
If the accused only receives a letter, phone call, or notification of a vote having taken place - can it be said that the accussed has listened?
Moving on to Mat. 18:17.
If the church is told of the accused’s sin(s) by the 2 or 3, but the 2 or 3 only sent a letter, can they justly tell the church that the accused isn’t “listening’ to them? This is important b/c Jesus prohibits the church from ever getting involved until they know that the accused “refuses to listen to them” (v. 17).
Let’s assume the church hears the witnesses, votes, and sends a letter to the accused. Can the church know now treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector because they can know the accused has refused to listen even to the church (v. 17)?
If you agree that the word “listen” in v. 15 and 16 does requires personal confrontation in faithful response to Jesus’ imperatives, go, show, take, and those imperatives are not satisfied in those two verses by sending a letter, on what basis do you take His use of the word “listen” to allow the sending of a letter in v. 17? Is not the meaning of “listen” in v. 17 so well established by v. 15 and 16 that personal confrontation of the accused should be understood by the same word, “listen” in v. 17?
If they send a delegation of selected members who are authorized by the church to say, “The church has heard your matter and calls on you to repent,” they have still confronted him.JG, I like flexibility in policy and ministry, A lot. But let’s reconsider this very specific issue here since it seems to me that Jesus is quite specific in His words. On what basis can the words of Jesus, “and if he refuses to listen even to the church” (v. 17) be recast to mean “authorized representatives of the church”? If Jesus allowed for that, wouldn’t there be someplace in the NT that would show that the apostles allowed for that kind of modification of v. 17?
Ted wrote: By “enforcing it” (church discipline) do you mean continuing confrontation for impenitent sin after the person has been removed from the church?
[JG] Generally this would be the case, although Proverbs warns against the “forcing of strife”, and sometimes continuing confrontation simply becomes that. But it certainly means obedience to the command not to keep company with the erring brother, and to treat him as an unbeliever. Without this, you do not have real church discipline. If you kick someone out of formal membership but everyone in the church goes on with him just as before, as if nothing has changed, all you’ve done is taken a political action.JG – consider something else here for a second. If enforcing church discipline means what you say: “obedience to the command not to keep company with the erring brother,” then who is he – an erring brother, or a Gentile and tax collector (Mat. 18:17)?
If “enforcing church discipline” means to not have friendly relationships with the one who has been put out, then on what basis does Paul identify such a fully disciplined man (i.e., no longer in the church) as one who is “outside” – and one whom we should say with Paul, What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? (1 Cor. 5:12-13)? Which is it – we continue to treat him as one under discipline – i.e., an errant brother, or as we regard him as being outside the church and therefore we have no business “judging” him?
Whatever your church polity, it is a wise policy, and fits best with Scripture, for the entire congregation to formally assent to discipline. In a congregational church, a vote accomplishes this. In an elder rule church, you can accomplish the same by having the congregation verbally covenant together to uphold their responsibilities towards the person who has been disciplined.JG, which do you think will work more grace and sanctification among a congregation – telling them to go confront the wandering brother for sins X and Y, or holding a vote?
Ted, I really don’t understand why you concluded that I said that the witnesses first and major task is to accuse. Is it because I did not write, like you, that “they are to make a full investigation”? To me that is understood from the text, and I sensed no disagreement with you on that point. I do not write absolutely everything about a subject when I discuss it. I try to make my point faithfully, relevantly, and succinctly. Here was my conclusion in post 8:
“So the point of Jesus in Matthew 18 is to have the original offended take one or two with him, to make the point a serious one (usually church discipline ends here. Being confronted by more than one person in the church has a strong impact). If the person then refuses to repent, the offense is taken to the whole ekklesia. They are, indeed the final arbiter. They do not simply submit to the statements of two or three church members.”
In my conclusion I did not even use the word “accuse.”
But I do indeed affirm that “witnesses” in a biblical sense, in some contexts, including Matthew 18:15ff accuse. Note: 1 Timothy 5:19 “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.”
In the ESV, NASB, and NIV, the Deut 19:16 passage about witnesses is rendered “accuse.”
And here is my disclaimer, When I make a point about a subject in Scripture, this does not mean that I understand this to be the ONLY POINT about the subject, or even the MAIN POINT.
“So the point of Jesus in Matthew 18 is to have the original offended take one or two with him, to make the point a serious one (usually church discipline ends here. Being confronted by more than one person in the church has a strong impact). If the person then refuses to repent, the offense is taken to the whole ekklesia. They are, indeed the final arbiter. They do not simply submit to the statements of two or three church members.”
In my conclusion I did not even use the word “accuse.”
But I do indeed affirm that “witnesses” in a biblical sense, in some contexts, including Matthew 18:15ff accuse. Note: 1 Timothy 5:19 “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.”
In the ESV, NASB, and NIV, the Deut 19:16 passage about witnesses is rendered “accuse.”
And here is my disclaimer, When I make a point about a subject in Scripture, this does not mean that I understand this to be the ONLY POINT about the subject, or even the MAIN POINT.
Jeff Brown
[Ted Bigelow] But eisegesis? And an assertion that “This text tells the church to act, it doesn’t specify the methodology”? Let’s look at that together from Mat. 18:15 to 17.:)
Mat. 18:15
If the accuser in Mat. 18:15 sends a letter to the brother he thinks has sinned, does that fulfill Jesus’ words go and show him his fault, just between the two of you (NIV)? Or do Jesus’ words require personal face to face meeting?
Obviously, the first two steps are personal meetings. The second one requires that the two or three go together, right? So if those two steps are normative for the methodology of the third, then the entire church must go together, logically. Of course, this might be a problem in a church of 500 people…. :)
[Ted Bigelow]The church cannot know that unless they have taken sufficient action to ascertain that the accused has refused to hear. There are multiple ways to address this — personal followup being generally preferable. I’m not advocating a letter as the best way, in general.
Let’s assume the church hears the witnesses, votes, and sends a letter to the accused. Can the church know now treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector because they can know the accused has refused to listen even to the church (v. 17)?
[Ted Bigelow] If you agree that the word “listen” in v. 15 and 16 does requires personal confrontation in faithful response to Jesus’ imperatives, go, show, take, and those imperatives are not satisfied in those two verses by sending a letter, on what basis do you take His use of the word “listen” to allow the sending of a letter in v. 17? Is not the meaning of “listen” in v. 17 so well established by v. 15 and 16 that personal confrontation of the accused should be understood by the same word, “listen” in v. 17?Two responses. The first I gave above “take with you” (v. 16), if we’re making that normative, implies that the whole church should go together, which is often not practical. But there’s a second reason. Christ gave specific methodology for steps 1 & 2. He gave no explicit specific methodology for step 3. Why not? You say it is implicit. I say it is because He had specific reasons for the specific methodologies he gave, but once that has been fulfilled, no specific methodology for “hearing from the church” is required for step 3.
He doesn’t even explicitly tell the church to communicate with the accused. It’s obviously implied, but He just doesn’t address it directly at all. And I think we need to be very careful with our “Thus saith the Lord” when the Lord chose to remain silent.
[Ted Bigelow]Look at Acts 15. A letter was sent from the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:23 makes clear it was from the entire church), and designated representatives took it to Antioch. This was a serious matter, refuting false doctrine that had been claimed by its teachers to have come from the church at Jerusalem. The entire church signs off on a letter saying, “Not so.”If they send a delegation of selected members who are authorized by the church to say, “The church has heard your matter and calls on you to repent,” they have still confronted him.JG, I like flexibility in policy and ministry, A lot. But let’s reconsider this very specific issue here since it seems to me that Jesus is quite specific in His words. On what basis can the words of Jesus, “and if he refuses to listen even to the church” (v. 17) be recast to mean “authorized representatives of the church”? If Jesus allowed for that, wouldn’t there be someplace in the NT that would show that the apostles allowed for that kind of modification of v. 17?
Who wrote the letter? James and/or other elders, obviously, as representatives of the church, but it was a letter from the whole church. Of course designated/authorized representatives can speak for a church. The individualism that pervades Western thought has no place in the church. To say that every individual of the church must do this, rather than that the church can send the message through elders or other designated individuals, misses the whole point of the unity of the church. We should speak with one voice on such things, and that message hardly needs to be carried by every person individually for it to have full impact.
[Ted Bigelow] JG – consider something else here for a second. If enforcing church discipline means what you say: “obedience to the command not to keep company with the erring brother,” then who is he – an erring brother, or a Gentile and tax collector (Mat. 18:17)?I understand that the relationship between I Corinthians 5, Matthew 18, and II Thessalonians 3 is a point of difference among believers. I’ll just say that I understand these all to refer to church discipline matters, that I Corinthians 5 matters do not, by my understanding, always require exactly the same procedure as does a personal wrong (Mt. 18), but that in either case you end up in the same place. The person is put out of the church, and fellowship with them ends, as far as anything remotely approaching Christian fellowship.
If “enforcing church discipline” means to not have friendly relationships with the one who has been put out, then on what basis does Paul identify such a fully disciplined man (i.e., no longer in the church) as one who is “outside” – and one whom we should say with Paul, What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? (1 Cor. 5:12-13)? Which is it – we continue to treat him as one under discipline – i.e., an errant brother, or as we regard him as being outside the church and therefore we have no business “judging” him?
That kind of drifts off topic, I think, so I’ll defer any further comment on it.
[Ted Bigelow]False dichotomy. Can I choose both? Actually, I won’t choose a vote, so you’ll be happy about that. But I will choose formal assent that this is what the church is doing in obedience to Scripture, and a covenant together to treat the person as Christ commanded. You would do well to call on your people to covenant together in this way as well. It will strengthen them. And if anyone won’t do it, then you’ve got another issue in your congregation you need to address.Whatever your church polity, it is a wise policy, and fits best with Scripture, for the entire congregation to formally assent to discipline. In a congregational church, a vote accomplishes this. In an elder rule church, you can accomplish the same by having the congregation verbally covenant together to uphold their responsibilities towards the person who has been disciplined.JG, which do you think will work more grace and sanctification among a congregation – telling them to go confront the wandering brother for sins X and Y, or holding a vote?
Perhaps I should add this, Ted: in post ( I was responding to two statements in your article, including this one,
But a careful reading of Matthew 18:17 shows that the church is not called to a higher authority—that is, to judge the person’s guilt or innocence. Instead, the Lord calls the church to submit to the prior judgment of the two or three witnesses since they have “established the evidence” (v. 16).I was saying that the witnesses are not the judges, but the accusers. I had no conflict with the statement that they were to make a thorough investigation.
Jeff Brown
[Jeff Brown] Ted, I really don’t understand why you concluded that I said that the witnesses first and major task is to accuse. Is it because I did not write, like you, that “they are to make a full investigation”? To me that is understood from the text, and I sensed no disagreement with you on that point. I do not write absolutely everything about a subject when I discuss it. I try to make my point faithfully, relevantly, and succinctly. Here was my conclusion in post 8:Thanks Jeff. My apologies for the confusion. Thank you for the interaction.
“So the point of Jesus in Matthew 18 is to have the original offended take one or two with him, to make the point a serious one (usually church discipline ends here. Being confronted by more than one person in the church has a strong impact). If the person then refuses to repent, the offense is taken to the whole ekklesia. They are, indeed the final arbiter. They do not simply submit to the statements of two or three church members.”
In my conclusion I did not even use the word “accuse.”
But I do indeed affirm that “witnesses” in a biblical sense, in some contexts, including Matthew 18:15ff accuse. Note: 1 Timothy 5:19 “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.”
In the ESV, NASB, and NIV, the Deut 19:16 passage about witnesses is rendered “accuse.”
And here is my disclaimer, When I make a point about a subject in Scripture, this does not mean that I understand this to be the ONLY POINT about the subject, or even the MAIN POINT.
Obviously, the first two steps are personal meetings. The second one requires that the two or three go together, right? So if those two steps are normative for the methodology of the third, then the entire church must go together, logically. Of course, this might be a problem in a church of 500 people…. :)It’s very apparent you have thought a lot about these things. Thanks for the agreement that it ought to work more grace among the congregation to confront an impenitent man rather than to vote on him.
I also think your point that since the 2 or 3 are together in their confrontation suggests then the church should also be together in their confrontation is well-taken. One thing you can check out (to give you another thought on that point) is Jesus’ use of the singular “you” at the end of v. 17. IOW, in His words He shows awareness of individualization within the congregation. One could also argue that members of the congregation, either individually or in groups of 2 or 3 at most, ought to go and confront the impenitent member as a reflection of Mat. 18:15-16. From a practical POV, this would be better since the goal is repentance and restoration, not “ganging up.”
[JG] Christ gave specific methodology for steps 1 & 2. He gave no explicit specific methodology for step 3. Why not? You say it is implicit. I say it is because He had specific reasons for the specific methodologies he gave, but once that has been fulfilled, no specific methodology for “hearing from the church” is required for step 3.JG, I still think you need to consider that the word “listen” in v. 15 and 16 requires the specific methodology of personal interaction from the church to the accused in v. 17. If you want to change the methodology of behind “listen” in v. 17, I think the burden is upon you to show a disjunction at that point. The lack of verbs (“go” “show’ and “take”) in v. 17 are not enough since those practices, once initiated in the process, need not be repeated since the accused is always under obligation to listen. I think if the word “listen” if properly accounted it might make you reconsider what you wrote here:
He doesn’t even explicitly tell the church to communicate with the accused. It’s obviously implied, but He just doesn’t address it directly at all. And I think we need to be very careful with our “Thus saith the Lord” when the Lord chose to remain silent.The Lord was silent? He said “if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” I don’t see how the church can “let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” unless the man has refused to listen to them, nor can I see how the accused can refuse to “listen” to the church if it’s people haven’t explicitly communicated with him.
Look at Acts 15. A letter was sent from the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:23 makes clear it was from the entire church), and designated representatives took it to Antioch. This was a serious matter, refuting false doctrine that had been claimed by its teachers to have come from the church at Jerusalem. The entire church signs off on a letter saying, “Not so.”It does? Perhaps you are reading Acts 15:22 instead of Acts 15:23, because Acts 15:23 claims only the apostles and elders were responsible for the letter’s content: “”The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings” (ESV). If the congregation really was responsible (even partly) for the contents of the letter, or its authority, then Paul and Timothy misrepresented it to the churches planted during the first missionary journey (Acts 16:4).
[Jeff Brown] Perhaps I should add this, Ted: in post ( I was responding to two statements in your article, including this one,And my words could have been clearer on the distinction, which you wisely pointed out!But a careful reading of Matthew 18:17 shows that the church is not called to a higher authority—that is, to judge the person’s guilt or innocence. Instead, the Lord calls the church to submit to the prior judgment of the two or three witnesses since they have “established the evidence” (v. 16).I was saying that the witnesses are not the judges, but the accusers. I had no conflict with the statement that they were to make a thorough investigation.
[Ted Bigelow] It’s very apparent you have thought a lot about these things. Thanks for the agreement that it ought to work more grace among the congregation to confront an impenitent man rather than to vote on him.What pastor hasn’t thought about them? I don’t think I agreed with you on that point, though. I called it a false dichotomy. :) I am convinced that formal, explicit endorsement of the discipline is extremely valuable, as I stated above. It’s not an “either or” but “and”.
[Ted Bigelow]Context, brother, context. I was talking about methodology. The Lord is not silent on the need to communicate (though it is implicit rather than explicit). He is silent on the methodology. You see Him endorsing a particular methodology here. I see Him as having been very explicit on methodology for the first two steps, but requiring no specific methodology for the third.He doesn’t even explicitly tell the church to communicate with the accused. It’s obviously implied, but He just doesn’t address it directly at all. And I think we need to be very careful with our “Thus saith the Lord” when the Lord chose to remain silent.The Lord was silent? He said “if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” I don’t see how the church can “let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” unless the man has refused to listen to them, nor can I see how the accused can refuse to “listen” to the church if it’s people haven’t explicitly communicated with him.
The church at Jerusalem numbered in the thousands. It is not likely that everyone in the church knew everyone else in the church. Was the accused to receive personal visits from hundreds or even several thousands of people that he didn’t even know? Is that really what Christ commanded? Or did He specifically leave the methodology unspecified because different churches have different circumstances?
[Ted Bigelow]Textual variant. In the KJV/NKJV/TR/MT, it is “apostles and elders and brethren” in vs. 23.Look at Acts 15. A letter was sent from the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:23 makes clear it was from the entire church), and designated representatives took it to Antioch. This was a serious matter, refuting false doctrine that had been claimed by its teachers to have come from the church at Jerusalem. The entire church signs off on a letter saying, “Not so.”It does? Perhaps you are reading Acts 15:22 instead of Acts 15:23, because Acts 15:23 claims only the apostles and elders were responsible for the letter’s content: “”The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings” (ESV). If the congregation really was responsible (even partly) for the contents of the letter, or its authority, then Paul and Timothy misrepresented it to the churches planted during the first missionary journey (Acts 16:4).
The difference matters fro a proper understanding of this particular text, but I’ll defer that discussion. I don’t need that text to prove the point I was making. Jephthah’s letter wasn’t a personal letter, it was written on behalf of a corporate group. I’m sure there are other examples in Scripture, but in any event, this is just the way life works. Shareholders choose an executive, and he communicates on behalf of the corporation. You write letters for your church. They aren’t personal letters. The whole church stands behind them. In Joshua 24, the children of Israel had a message for Joshua. Leaders stood up and spoke to him on behalf of the people. I highly doubt that every single man in the nation came personally to Joshua and said these things.
If the mandate is to communicate something, there is nothing that says every single person must do the communicating individually. It’s a corporate mandate (“the church”).
The individual mandate is in the response to a failure to hear. Every individual on an individual basis is to respond in a particular way to the one who refuses to hear.
Ted, I’m short on time, I have work and ministry responsibilities. I suspect that we’ve both pretty reasonably described our understanding of this passage and how we believe it should be applied. In actual practice, we may not be all that far apart, though our underlying philosophy is somewhat different. In any event, I hope the discussion has been profitable for both of us, but I’ll probably drop out of it at this point.
Ted,
Sorry to take a while to get back and answer this one.
I will accept your translation of exouthenemenoi as legitimate in this instance, as well as kathizete being in the indicative, rather than the imperative.
Most English translations agree with you. German translations are evenly divided on 1 Cor 6:4, which is perhaps why I would tend to follow the NIV. Likewise, Bauer’s Gk-Dt. Lexicon (on which BDAG is based) translates exouthenemenoi as “lowly esteemed” in 1 Cor. 6:4.
Where are you going with your translation?
Sorry to take a while to get back and answer this one.
I will accept your translation of exouthenemenoi as legitimate in this instance, as well as kathizete being in the indicative, rather than the imperative.
Most English translations agree with you. German translations are evenly divided on 1 Cor 6:4, which is perhaps why I would tend to follow the NIV. Likewise, Bauer’s Gk-Dt. Lexicon (on which BDAG is based) translates exouthenemenoi as “lowly esteemed” in 1 Cor. 6:4.
Where are you going with your translation?
Jeff Brown
[Jeff Brown] Ted,Thanks for your consideration on 1 Cor. 6.
Sorry to take a while to get back and answer this one.
I will accept your translation of exouthenemenoi as legitimate in this instance, as well as kathizete being in the indicative, rather than the imperative.
Most English translations agree with you. German translations are evenly divided on 1 Cor 6:4, which is perhaps why I would tend to follow the NIV. Likewise, Bauer’s Gk-Dt. Lexicon (on which BDAG is based) translates exouthenemenoi as “lowly esteemed” in 1 Cor. 6:4.
Where are you going with your translation?
As for me, I would just take “lowly esteemed” as referring to the believer’s proper perspective of this world’s law courts in light of eternity. But I would likely translate it a bit more sharply, as “contemptible” or something like that (Luke 18:9). This translation better represents the moral outrage Paul that I see in Paul here, “I say this to your shame…” (v. 5).
This results, of course, in 1 Cor. 6:4 as not being a command to the church appoint one or more persons in the church to oversee the two aggravated parties. It also has the advantage of delivering us from interpreting Paul as teaching that every believer can do a better job of dealing with law suits among believers than a highly trained judge of this world. We wouldn’t apply that rationale (the Christian can do it better) to any other field (medicine, agriculture, retail, insurance, etc) so why legal matters? I don’t know about your church, but in my church are many dear believers who would be not only be tempted into great frustrations in such a scenario, but they would likely render a really bad ruling on the case, thus aggravating the already existing problems. As a shepherd I hope I would protect them from such activities as being likely harmful to them.
If I’m right, then it might likely mean the two aggrieved parties will not necessarily get a judgment such as a Roman court might give them - and perhaps a more equitable judgment per the realities of this world. But in light of our privilge to “be wronged” and “be defrauded” in this world (1 Cor. 6:7), this one man’s decision could gain for both parties eternal praise from the Lord, who Himself endured so much injustice from sinners against Himself.
So, I take v. 5 as a command/request for one man in the Corinthian church who has wisdom (i.e. some godly discernment, [sophos, 1 Cor. 3:18] ) to volunteer himself (“Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough,” ESV) to make a summary judgment (diakrino, BDAG #4) that not only binds the two parties to his decision (no matter what), but that everybody in church must also go along with (i.e., they don’t have power to overrule, or even weigh in on his judgment. In the U.S. we call it “binding arbitration.”
How does that relate to eldership vis a vis Congregationalism? It goes against both. Just as the church of Corinth didn’t have a plurality of elder-qualified men yet to oversee them, so too the congregation wasn’t given the power of ultimate judgment. I cover it in my book, chapter 13 I think.
Here’s the question I have for congregationalists. If the congregation has the ultimate authority, and obtains this authority from Christ, isn’t Paul sinning against both the Corinthian church and Christ by removing this authority from them and giving it to one man?
I don’t think it’s wise to take such a dim view of “the world’s law courts.” They are appointed by God as His instruments, imperfect though they are. Romans 13:1-4. We are to honor the king (1Pet.2:17)
The point of 1 Cor. 6 is that the Corinthians should have been ashamed to take matters before unbelievers that they themselves were far more qualified the judge.
The question that raises is—in the absence of the apostles, where does their authority go? The answer is, the Scriptures—definitely not the elders of the church or the congregation. The congregation’s authority derives from the Scriptures, just as the authority of elders does.
(Let’s not forget that Paul told elders what to do, also, and—through a delegate, no less—held them accountable. 1 Tim.5:19-20)
So the arrangement of authority is hierarchical in the church (as it is in all of creation- e.g., Eph.6:12; 1Cor.11:3) and all levels derive their authority from Christ via the apostles/the Scriptures.
Nobody believes congregations outrank the apostles or the Bible.
The point of 1 Cor. 6 is that the Corinthians should have been ashamed to take matters before unbelievers that they themselves were far more qualified the judge.
[Ted] Here’s the question I have for congregationalists. If the congregation has the ultimate authority, and obtains this authority from Christ, isn’t Paul sinning against both the Corinthian church and Christ by removing this authority from them and giving it to one man?This is not difficult. The apostles are the foundation of the church and were able to speak with the authority of Christ Himself. (Eph.2:20, 1Thess. 2:6, etc.). If we had them around today, it would be entirely appropriate for them to step into local churches and say “Hey, you messed up here. Here’s what you need to do.”
The question that raises is—in the absence of the apostles, where does their authority go? The answer is, the Scriptures—definitely not the elders of the church or the congregation. The congregation’s authority derives from the Scriptures, just as the authority of elders does.
(Let’s not forget that Paul told elders what to do, also, and—through a delegate, no less—held them accountable. 1 Tim.5:19-20)
So the arrangement of authority is hierarchical in the church (as it is in all of creation- e.g., Eph.6:12; 1Cor.11:3) and all levels derive their authority from Christ via the apostles/the Scriptures.
Nobody believes congregations outrank the apostles or the Bible.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Thank you for continuing to interact with this thread.
Ted wroteHere’s the question I have for congregationalists. If the congregation has the ultimate authority, and obtains this authority from Christ, isn’t Paul sinning against both the Corinthian church and Christ by removing this authority from them and giving it to one man?
What I am claiming is that Paul’s approach to the Corinthian law suit matter is not ad hoc, but is in line with apostolic doctrine on congregational authority. If I’m correct, my question has yet to be answered.
I just have to say your comment “The congregation’s authority derives from the Scriptures, just as the authority of elders does” made my day. Absolutely love it!
[Aaron Blumer] I don’t think it’s wise to take such a dim view of “the world’s law courts.” They are appointed by God as His instruments, imperfect though they are. Romans 13:1-4. We are to honor the king (1Pet.2:17)No, you’re quite right. I think what Paul is arguing for in 1 Cor. 6:5 is having a “contemptible” view of the results of human law courts in light of eternity. As believers, we might say, “in light of Christ’s perfect judgment, that will stand forever, the decisions of worldly courts mean nothing.” For example, many Christians are judged guilty of crimes in this world’s law courts and even sentenced to death.
The point of 1 Cor. 6 is that the Corinthians should have been ashamed to take matters before unbelievers that they themselves were far more qualified the judge.I certainly agree with the first part, but it is the second part that I would like to liberate you from :8) It’s in post #83, in the paragraph that begins, “This results, of course….”
Ted wroteHere’s the question I have for congregationalists. If the congregation has the ultimate authority, and obtains this authority from Christ, isn’t Paul sinning against both the Corinthian church and Christ by removing this authority from them and giving it to one man?
This is not difficult. The apostles are the foundation of the church and were able to speak with the authority of Christ Himself. (Eph.2:20, 1Thess. 2:6, etc.). If we had them around today, it would be entirely appropriate for them to step into local churches and say “Hey, you messed up here. Here’s what you need to do.”My answer to your thoughtful post is that the apostles themselves were submitted to Scripture and didn’t lead churches autonomously, or “in addition” to them. Your argument is essentially that 1 Corinthians 6 is an occasional matter that Paul is dealing with as an apostle on an ad hoc basis. Eventually that approach will steal away the doctrinal basis we lean on Scripture for.
The question that raises is—in the absence of the apostles, where does their authority go? The answer is, the Scriptures—definitely not the elders of the church or the congregation. The congregation’s authority derives from the Scriptures, just as the authority of elders does.
(Let’s not forget that Paul told elders what to do, also, and—through a delegate, no less—held them accountable. 1 Tim.5:19-20)
So the arrangement of authority is hierarchical in the church (as it is in all of creation- e.g., Eph.6:12; 1Cor.11:3) and all levels derive their authority from Christ via the apostles/the Scriptures.
Nobody believes congregations outrank the apostles or the Bible.
What I am claiming is that Paul’s approach to the Corinthian law suit matter is not ad hoc, but is in line with apostolic doctrine on congregational authority. If I’m correct, my question has yet to be answered.
I just have to say your comment “The congregation’s authority derives from the Scriptures, just as the authority of elders does” made my day. Absolutely love it!
Ted, much of your answer is not clear to me.
My laptop battery’s about to go dead so I’ll just say this for now:
The authority of the Scriptures and the authority of the apostles both derives from God Himself. Though the apostles were certainly under the authority of the Scriptures that were in existence at that point, they were in the process of creating more Scriptures.
So it isn’t really valid to put them “under” the authority of what they were still creating.
Simply put, their office included the prophetic office and they were able to speak and write with the same authority as the Scriptures.
Consequently, the idea that Paul was responding “ad hoc” as you put it is not a problem. Much of what’s in the epistles is an apostolic response to particular problems and the interpretive process involves discerning how their handling of particular problems relates to the problems we encounter today. As they deal w/particular problems, they reveal timeless principles.
But there is nobody in the apostolic office today to take their role, so the interpretive process has to account for that.
Since you liked it so much I’ll repeat: the authority of both the congregation and the elders derives from Scripture. Nobody disputes that.
My laptop battery’s about to go dead so I’ll just say this for now:
The authority of the Scriptures and the authority of the apostles both derives from God Himself. Though the apostles were certainly under the authority of the Scriptures that were in existence at that point, they were in the process of creating more Scriptures.
So it isn’t really valid to put them “under” the authority of what they were still creating.
Simply put, their office included the prophetic office and they were able to speak and write with the same authority as the Scriptures.
Consequently, the idea that Paul was responding “ad hoc” as you put it is not a problem. Much of what’s in the epistles is an apostolic response to particular problems and the interpretive process involves discerning how their handling of particular problems relates to the problems we encounter today. As they deal w/particular problems, they reveal timeless principles.
But there is nobody in the apostolic office today to take their role, so the interpretive process has to account for that.
Since you liked it so much I’ll repeat: the authority of both the congregation and the elders derives from Scripture. Nobody disputes that.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] Ted, much of your answer is not clear to me……I was trying to be brief, but as you’ll see below, we actually agree.
Though the apostles were certainly under the authority of the Scriptures that were in existence at that point, they were in the process of creating more Scriptures.I think if your laptop battery were better behaved you might like to revise this statement to say something more along the lines of “they received revelation from Christ” rather than “they were in the process of creating more Scriptures.”
But that get does get to my point in the previous post – that you might be implying that the apostles dealt with church problems in an ad hoc manner. I think you would agree they did not “create” Scripture, but acted in submission to the doctrine they received from Christ (John 16:13-15). We do believe in inspiration 0:)
….. “their office included the prophetic office and they were able to speak and write with the same authority as the Scriptures” As they deal w/particular problems, they reveal timeless principles.More specifically, some of their writing, was Scripture, but not all of it, 1 Cor. 5:9. They also sinned and could make errors, something not true of Scripture. Therefore, only some of their speaking and writing was Scripture - there was nothing autonomous in it - which I why I wrote to you: “the apostles themselves were submitted to Scripture and didn’t lead churches autonomously, or “in addition” to them.”
“As they deal w/particular problems, they reveal timeless principles” is all I’m arguing for.We agree. :D
But that still leaves you with a problem. 1 Corinthians 6 shows Paul solving a local church problem with the “timeless principle” that the congregation is not the final arbiter in church matters, nor the highest human authority. Allow me then to repost my question from post 83, with a parenthesis added for clarity:
If the congregation has the ultimate authority (and this is a timeless principle), and obtains this authority from Christ, isn’t Paul sinning against both the Corinthian church and Christ by removing this authority from them and giving it to one man?
[Ted] But that still leaves you with a problem. 1 Corinthians 6 shows Paul solving a local church problem with the “timeless principle” that the congregation is not the final arbiter in church matters, nor the highest human authority. Allow me then to repost my question from post 83, with a parenthesis added for clarity:I think I need to put my argument in different terms, perhaps.
First, the writers of Scripture, both OT and NT wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Though little is revealed about that process, what we find is that the apostles, like the OT prophets, were able to speak and write and direct matters with God’s authority. They were not personally infallible, but whenever inspired spoke or wrote infallibly. Some would insist that only writing prophets were “inspired,” but the point is that they received their message either directly from God and quoted it or received it in a more mysterious way in which they responded to problems they observed, did their own thinking, used their own thoughts and vocabulary yet wrote the very words of God.
The apostles did more than repeat the teaching of Christ (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:12). They did create Scripture (though not on their own, of course).
But we’re off topic really. It’s probably not that releveant. What happens in 1 Cor. 6 is that someone at a level of authority, let’s call it level B, stepped into the Corinthian church and commanded the congregation to act. His instructions to them were from his own authority as an apostle, given to him by Christ. Who has authority level B today? Not a person, but the Scriptures—the teaching of the apostles in written form.
So the timeless principle is: “congregation has the task of acting in accordance with Scripture,” not “congregation acts as directed by some elders.” There are no elders in 1 Cor. 6. This is consistent with 1 Cor5.4-5 where Paul instructs the church to gather and act to discipline the immoral professing brother. Why didn’t he simply say “I have judged him, tell him I said he is delivered to Satan”? He doesn’t do that. It’s true he says “I have judged him” but Paul goes out of his way to tell the church to gather and act in concert. They were all fully aware already of what was going on—so they did not have evidence to weigh, etc. But it’s quite significant that the apostle instructs the body to gather and do what it should have already done without him.
Again, no elders mentioned. The body is supposed to do it.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
So the timeless principle is: “congregation has the task of acting in accordance with Scripture,” not “congregation acts as directed by some elders.” There are no elders in 1 Cor. 6. This is consistent with 1 Cor5.4-5 where Paul instructs the church to gather and act to discipline the immoral professing brother. Why didn’t he simply say “I have judged him, tell him I said he is delivered to Satan”?Glad you brought 1 Cor. 5 into the conversation. I would like to discuss that, but let’s stick with 1 Cor. 6 for now.
You certainly have the right principle: “congregation has the task of acting in accordance with Scripture.” I agree, and that’s the point of the posts. Don’t understand why you brought elders into it: “not congregation acts as directed by some elders,” but again, it’s off topic.
In 1 Cor. 6 Paul counsels the church in concert with Scripture that is 100% written by Paul and 100% written by God, right? Why then, if the congregation is the final arbiter in all matters as the Congregationalist claims, are they not given that role in 1 Cor. 6? If your answer is because that’s what Scripture teaches, then I think you have correctly interpreted the passage.
From there it’s only a matter of recognizing this principle as Scripture’s own, and glorifying God by bringing your church into submission to it.
I’m afraid I’m lost as to what you’re trying to say.
Nobody teaches that congregations have more authority than Scripture. In 1Cor.6, Paul instructs them to use their authority in obedience to Scripture.
1Cor.5 is relevant because ch.6 is going to be consistent with it.
Nobody teaches that congregations have more authority than Scripture. In 1Cor.6, Paul instructs them to use their authority in obedience to Scripture.
1Cor.5 is relevant because ch.6 is going to be consistent with it.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Ted Bigelow]… Why then, if the congregation is the final arbiter in all matters as the Congregationalist claims, are they not given that role in 1 Cor. 6? …I do not think that you understand congregationalism.
Ted, you seem to think that if in one instance a decision is made in a church which is not made by the whole congregation (1 Cor. 6 - a personal dispute between two Christians), it nullifies congregational government. I find that reductionist. It is the same as saying congregational government has never existed. If so, why are we even talking about it?
I also think that you are equating 1 Corinthians 6 with Matthew 18. If so, I reject your view. I think most of us commenting would also.
Or did you mean something else?
I also think that you are equating 1 Corinthians 6 with Matthew 18. If so, I reject your view. I think most of us commenting would also.
Or did you mean something else?
Jeff Brown
[Jeff Brown] Ted, you seem to think that if in one instance a decision is made in a church which is not made by the whole congregation (1 Cor. 6 - a personal dispute between two Christians), it nullifies congregational government. I find that reductionist. It is the same as saying congregational government has never existed. If so, why are we even talking about it?In #61 I asked you:
Have you looked at 1 Corinthians 6 in this regard? Two members are involved in a law suit, and Paul does not want the congregation deciding the matter, but one man from the congregation (“Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren?”, NKJ, v. 5). The judgment the man is to provide is a summary judgment the congregation, and the two members, must submit to.
The thread can be followed from there.
I also think that you are equating 1 Corinthians 6 with Matthew 18. If so, I reject your view. I think most of us commenting would also.Where did I do that?
[Aaron Blumer] I’m afraid I’m lost as to what you’re trying to say.Let’s take it 1 step at a time.
Nobody teaches that congregations have more authority than Scripture. In 1Cor.6, Paul instructs them to use their authority in obedience to Scripture.
1Cor.5 is relevant because ch.6 is going to be consistent with it.
1) Do you believe the Scripture grants the congregation the final authority in church matters, or as Jeff well puts it, is “the final arbiter?”
The meaning of 1 Corinthians 6 appears quite clear on its face. Paul is admonishing the entire Corinthian assembly regarding the way they have allowed civil disputes to be taken to law in the existing court system. In so doing he reminds the entire assembly (church) of the differences in the viewpoint and destiny that exists between the unbelievers of the world and the washed and sanctified (set apart) believers. He then uses the hypothetical to further shame them in their present practice. That hypothetical is to ask if in light of who they all are before God why are they acting as if there is not even one among them to handle such disputes.
First, this is not an instruction to appoint one but admonishment that is concerning the entire assembly by use of such a hypothetical statement.
Second, even if one were to ignore the obvious meaning for a more obscure meaning, it must be acknowledged that it would be the entire assembly, who are being addressed. The assembly therefore would make such an appointment of such an arbitrator.
Third, it must be noticed and understood that Paul is not addressing Elders here but the entire assembly of the saints. They are washed and sanctified and given authority based upon their position as believer Priests. This is part of what is called theologically the “Priesthood of believers.”
This passage actually appears to affirm the assembly of the saints as having authority in Christian decision making. There are many passages of scripture that give such decision making involvement as belonging to the assembly of the saints.
It is the assembly of saints who observe the qualities necessary to be considered as being present in men who desire to be Elders. It is the assembly of saints who observe any misconduct of an elder and have final authority. The Elders have authority over the saints. However, it is subject to the authority of scripture and the observation and practical acceptance of the Priesthood of believers of the assembly. No one believer or group has authority over the Elders who are their Shepherds. However, the entire assembly acting together has authority over Elders. Individual believers are to submit. The assembly as a whole has authority.
It is to be recognized that here in North America we have very worldly and often untaught assemblies of saints. This has produced many dysfunctional congregational situations. However, this does not change the emphasis of scripture for individual Christians or for assemblies (Churches).
Numerous scriptures have been cited by posters on this thread, and prior threads, that indicate that the assembly is a final authority and involved in decision making. They, like 1 Corinthians 6, have often been explained away. This appears to sometimes involve interpretations far off the understanding of most commentators. While some may sincerely hold to an opinion that congregational decision making is not scriptural, it does seem extreme to characterize such congregational views as involving sin and not submitting to the will of God. Such statements appear strange for differences over the doctrines of “church polity.”
First, this is not an instruction to appoint one but admonishment that is concerning the entire assembly by use of such a hypothetical statement.
Second, even if one were to ignore the obvious meaning for a more obscure meaning, it must be acknowledged that it would be the entire assembly, who are being addressed. The assembly therefore would make such an appointment of such an arbitrator.
Third, it must be noticed and understood that Paul is not addressing Elders here but the entire assembly of the saints. They are washed and sanctified and given authority based upon their position as believer Priests. This is part of what is called theologically the “Priesthood of believers.”
This passage actually appears to affirm the assembly of the saints as having authority in Christian decision making. There are many passages of scripture that give such decision making involvement as belonging to the assembly of the saints.
It is the assembly of saints who observe the qualities necessary to be considered as being present in men who desire to be Elders. It is the assembly of saints who observe any misconduct of an elder and have final authority. The Elders have authority over the saints. However, it is subject to the authority of scripture and the observation and practical acceptance of the Priesthood of believers of the assembly. No one believer or group has authority over the Elders who are their Shepherds. However, the entire assembly acting together has authority over Elders. Individual believers are to submit. The assembly as a whole has authority.
It is to be recognized that here in North America we have very worldly and often untaught assemblies of saints. This has produced many dysfunctional congregational situations. However, this does not change the emphasis of scripture for individual Christians or for assemblies (Churches).
Numerous scriptures have been cited by posters on this thread, and prior threads, that indicate that the assembly is a final authority and involved in decision making. They, like 1 Corinthians 6, have often been explained away. This appears to sometimes involve interpretations far off the understanding of most commentators. While some may sincerely hold to an opinion that congregational decision making is not scriptural, it does seem extreme to characterize such congregational views as involving sin and not submitting to the will of God. Such statements appear strange for differences over the doctrines of “church polity.”
Thank you for correcting me on my wrong assumption, Ted.
I think that we have interacted sufficiently on 1 Cor. 6. But I wonder why the matter of congregational / no congregational involvement comes in here. Where does it say that one member judges and reports to the congregation? One judges, yes. That is all.
I think that we have interacted sufficiently on 1 Cor. 6. But I wonder why the matter of congregational / no congregational involvement comes in here. Where does it say that one member judges and reports to the congregation? One judges, yes. That is all.
Jeff Brown
Thanks Jeff, I’m so with you.
[Ted Bigelow]I do believe that, in a local church, the congregation has the final authority in making decisions that apply Scripture to the situations they face. “Final authority” does not mean “final authority above Scripture to decide matters of faith and practice,” but rather—because Scripture must be applied to conditions on the ground, the congregation has the authority to make decisions about that together.[Aaron Blumer] I’m afraid I’m lost as to what you’re trying to say.Let’s take it 1 step at a time.
Nobody teaches that congregations have more authority than Scripture. In 1Cor.6, Paul instructs them to use their authority in obedience to Scripture.
1Cor.5 is relevant because ch.6 is going to be consistent with it.
1) Do you believe the Scripture grants the congregation the final authority in church matters, or as Jeff well puts it, is “the final arbiter?”
(Of course, a congregation must also decide what it believes Scripture to mean doctrinally. They own some kind of confession of faith together that defines what binds them together.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]OK. I’m tentatively taking that as a “yes” to my question. What I read you saying is yes, the congregation is the final authority in all matters that effect the congregation, but does not have authority to disobey Scripture. Am I correct?[Ted Bigelow]I do believe that, in a local church, the congregation has the final authority in making decisions that apply Scripture to the situations they face. “Final authority” does not mean “final authority above Scripture to decide matters of faith and practice,” but rather—because Scripture must be applied to conditions on the ground, the congregation has the authority to make decisions about that together.[Aaron Blumer] I’m afraid I’m lost as to what you’re trying to say.Let’s take it 1 step at a time.
Nobody teaches that congregations have more authority than Scripture. In 1Cor.6, Paul instructs them to use their authority in obedience to Scripture.
1Cor.5 is relevant because ch.6 is going to be consistent with it.
1) Do you believe the Scripture grants the congregation the final authority in church matters, or as Jeff well puts it, is “the final arbiter?”
(Of course, a congregation must also decide what it believes Scripture to mean doctrinally. They own some kind of confession of faith together that defines what binds them together.)
Sounds like you’re understanding me, yes.
I’d only qualify it by saying that the authority of Scripture and the authority of the apostles is the same authority. The NT Scriptures are “the tradition” of the apostles (2Thess.2.15, 3:6).
I’d only qualify it by saying that the authority of Scripture and the authority of the apostles is the same authority. The NT Scriptures are “the tradition” of the apostles (2Thess.2.15, 3:6).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Featured Resource
Discussion