Should Matthew 18 Stand Alone?

Matthew 18:15-17 is the most common Scripture referenced today regarding how to resolve church conflict. It’s clear, easy to implement, and thorough. In it, Jesus lays out a 4-step process for dealing with interpersonal sin:

1. “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.”
2. “But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more.”
3. “And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church.”
4. “But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.”

There’s no doubt that this is a helpful and practical text. My purpose in this article, however, is not to explore this text’s use, but rather its misuse. First, I will consider three ways the text is misused, then we’ll consider other New Testament passages and think about how they balance and fill out Matthew 18. This is necessary because we’ve sometimes stretched Matthew 18 beyond its original scope, using it as a one-size-fits-all text for dealing with sin in the church. Because other New Testament texts also address how we should respond to sin, we need to study them alongside Matthew 18 to build a holistic framework.

Matthew 18 and Its Misuses

What is Matthew 18 addressing? I don’t think it is fundamentally about a rigid process but rather teaches essential principles for addressing sin. The main principles are: (1) we should address serious sin in the lives of other believers, (2) we should address sin discretely if possible, (3) we must address sin corporately if necessary, and (4) those who refuse to repent must be excluded from the church. The 4-step process illustrates how we implement these principles.

With this in mind, I want to consider some ways this text is misused. It is commonly misused in three ways: (1) to punish repentant sin, (2) to limit openness and control information, and (3) to conceal sin. Regarding the first: this text is about restoration, not punishment. It follows the parable of the lost sheep for a reason. In that parable, God pursues the lost sinner to restore him to the fold. Verses 15-17 instruct us to follow God’s example by going to our brothers and sisters who have fallen into sin. And when they repent, they should be restored to fellowship. This doesn’t mean that the consequences go away nor that they should be restored to their former positions of influence. However, the purpose is to restore, not to punish. It is a misuse to use this to punish someone after he has confessed his sin and repented of it.

Second, this text should not be used to limit openness and control information. Jesus’ command gives an obligation to go talk to others when they sin. But it does not prohibit talking to anyone else about it. It is not gossip to talk to other people who are affected by the sin, nor is it gossip to ask for advice from someone who isn’t directly involved. When Matthew 18 is used to prevent communication between people who are connected to the situation, I believe it is being misused. The scope of openness should match the scope of the offense. Those who are affected by a sin have a right to know what happened.

Third, this text should not be used to conceal sin. The primary point of the passage is that sin should be brought to light so it can be addressed. There’s a secondary principle that, when we address sin, we should do it discretely if possible. But it is against the grain of this text to use it to keep sin from being addressed. Ironically, this text is a favorite in abusive systems, where concerns are dismissed if someone fails to follow the process. The person and his process are addressed rather than responding to the actual concern. This is ironic because Jesus gave us this passage because he wants sin to be brought to light. Instead, it gets used to conceal sin. This is a misuse of Matthew 18:15-17.

In summary, these verses instruct us to be willing to confront sin when it crops up. By implication, it also instructs us to be willing to receive correction when we are the ones in sin. But this is not the only text that shapes how we should respond to sin.

Other Scriptures on Responding to Sin

Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. — Luke 17:3

Luke’s account is shorter than Matthew’s, only including the first step. He does not include the escalation to the church level, nor any requirement of excommunication. The passages are not in conflict, Luke’s is just simpler.

Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. — Galatians 6:1

Paul’s instructions here are consistent with Jesus’ in Matthew, though he didn’t give the same sequence. Since “you who are spiritual” is plural, it would roughly fit in steps 2-3 of Matthew. Like Luke, this passage doesn’t include excommunication. 

When you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one (who is being sexually immoral) to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. — 1 Corinthians 5:4-5, parentheses mine

What’s interesting about this text is that it circumvents the Matthew 18 process. Paul goes straight to excommunication. Presumably this is because this sin is public, because it calls into question the man’s salvation, and because it has already been discussed at a church level (and incorrectly gloried in). Apparently, there are situations which warrant setting aside Matthew 18 to deal with a sin more directly.

Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. — 1 Timothy 5:19-20

This text is similar in that it talks about addressing sin, but it is different in that it is about responding to sin in church leaders. Since the sins of leaders affect the whole church, Paul says their sins should be rebuked “in the presence of all”. This seems to exclude the private step, requiring instead that the sins of leaders be confessed before the whole body. This balances Matthew 18, which is sometimes incorrectly used to conceal the sins of leaders. Because an elder is supposed to model Christian obedience for the rest of the church, and because he has more influence as an elder, the church must be informed when an elder commits a serious sin.

I don’t think this means that the church must know about every shortcoming, mistake, or even every sin in an elder’s life. Rather, these are serious sins which disqualify him from ministry (1 Tim. 3, Titus 1) or of a sort that would require excommunicating a member (1 Cor. 5:11).

When Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed.
When I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all…
— Galatians 2:11, 14a

This text operates on the same rationale as 1 Timothy 5. Peter had acted in a way that was out of step with the gospel, so Paul responded by confronting him in front of everyone who had witnessed Peter’s failure. His response was to the same group which had been affected. Those present were fellow church members who either had participated in the sin or had been sinned against.

I’ve seen two kinds of errors regarding who is informed when sin is confronted. In the one, information is withheld from people who ought to know what happened. In the other, situations are dealt with on social media as a kind of public court-of-appeal. In my perspective, neither matches the biblical pattern. Sins should be addressed on the same level as they were committed. Individual sins merit individual confrontation. Church-wide sins merit church-wide confrontation.

Conclusion

Here’s the takeaway. The New Testament includes many texts that tell us how to confront sin when necessary. We will struggle if we try to put them all together into a one-size-fits-all procedure for responding to sin. Some of them don’t require personal confrontation before group confrontation. One goes straight to excommunication; others don’t talk about excommunication at all. Many of them don’t tell us how to respond (with a specific process), only that we must. But I don’t think God intends us to extract a rigid process that we follow in every situation. The various texts function less like formulas and more like illustrations of different ways we can apply the same basic principles. We should be cautious about taking any of them (Matthew 18 in particular) as the exclusive way to respond to sin. 

Which brings me back to the main point of this article. When we separate Matthew 18:15-17 from the rest of the New Testament, we often act in ways that are off-balance. Matthew 18 is a significant text for dealing with sin in the church, but it should not stand alone. Rather, we need to think carefully about everything God has revealed in the New Testament.