See part 1 for the first step in church discipline
The second step is a semi-private reproof. “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed” (Matt 18:16). The semi-private meeting only happens if the private meeting fails to bring about restoration. The choice of the wayward brother determines whether or not the process escalates. He can stop the process at any time by repenting. The word take is the third of five commands in Matt 18:15–17. The first two were go and reprove. This process demonstrates the love of the Lord for his people and the local church. God is so concerned about his people that he does not give up after one attempt, nor does he want his church to give up after one try.
God is serious about the church seeking to restore the wayward brother. This process is a continuation of the procedure laid down by Moses. “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed” (Deut 19:15). Jesus said the purpose of this second meeting with two or three is “so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed” (Matt 18:16). The need to confirm every fact has several components. First, another witness would confirm that the brother had been rebuked clearly and properly. This process is necessary for two reasons. The wayward brother may not have understood the first time. Sometimes, people have difficulty understanding others or struggle to communicate clearly. Also, remember these are challenging situations in which the lack of complete honesty is not uncommon. Therefore, this serves as a protective measure for the rebuked to ensure that he clearly understands the issue.
It also serves to protect the rebuking brother. His goal is to redeem; thus, he will be thankful for any help to achieve this goal, even if it means being corrected. In addition, he knows that if the wayward brother refuses to repent, the next step is to take it to the church. Thus, it will benefit the first individual to have confirmation that what he did and understood was correct.
Secondly, this additional step will make sure that the wayward brother is adequately informed of the full scope of the situation and where unrepentance leads. Although this process begins with just a brother coming to him, if the wayward does not repent, this heretofore private issue will become very public. This information could have a strong impact on the wayward. The first meeting can produce repentance based on the desire to walk with Christ and keep it private, but the semi-private meeting can be a stronger encouragement for repentance because of the increased formality of the meeting. If there was any hope that the reproving brother would not take it to the church, that bit of hope is dashed by the semi-private meeting.
The importance of the selection of these second and third witnesses cannot be overstated. Apparently, at this step, there is some discretion as to who the other two witnesses can be. For example, if it is a private issue, the initial accuser can now choose the two he wants to go with him. Serious consideration should be given to selecting individuals who will not be unnecessarily offensive to the wayward. Also, choosing men or women of recognized integrity and esteem in the church will prove invaluable in dealing with the wayward and also the church if the case has to come before them. These two or three will be the ones bringing the charge to the church, provided the brother does not repent. It is important to give due consideration to make them people that the wayward respects and would be most inclined to receive a reproof from.
These must be people who will handle the situation in a Christian manner regardless of the wayward brother’s response. They need to be people who can keep their temper under control. They also need to maintain confidentiality about the situation if the person repents or until the time it needs to come before the church. Further, they need to be individuals who can be strong enough to confront and humble enough to forgive and live with the facts of the sin. This selection will take substantial consideration since, regrettably, not every Christian has these qualifications.
Regardless of whether it is a situation like the one just described or one where others, like deacons or elders, are deciding who should go, it is essential to select people who can cope with the pressure of discipline. If the discipline process is at the initial stage and only one person knows about it, then the person to go is the one with the knowledge. If the sin is already known beyond the private one-on-one level before the first encounter or if the discipline is at the second level where two or three go, I would strongly advise choosing men or women who are not only respected by the church but strong enough to endure the potential fallout. It is to a pastor’s peril if he ever forgets that temple cleansing is a tough business.
If deacons are what they are supposed to be in the church, they make excellent people to send. They are servants who have been set apart by the church to assist pastors in caring for the church. However, not all deacons are qualified for this task. Yes, they should be, but that does not mean everyone serving as a deacon is. Even among deacons who are truly serving as deacons, there will be some who are better suited to this challenge.
When I have had the chance to send a deacon, there are always some I prefer not to send since they can hardly make a decision about any difficult issue or express themselves forthrightly on any subject. They may be valuable in other areas, but in the area of discipline, they can cause enormous harm and confusion. The ones that go may be criticized, lied about, turned against by friends, and have their families hurt. If they collapse under the pressure at any point in the process, the church, the pastor, and his family will suffer profoundly. This point cannot be overemphasized. A pastor should seek someone he believes will endure to the finish. Whether elders, deacons, or laymen are used, remember that some are better suited for hospital visits, while others are better suited for discipline. This selectivity is not intended to absolve some from their responsibility of participating in church discipline. However, it is wise to send the best-suited one when the opportunity allows. We would do the same in any other area of church life. The primary objective of this step is to provide another opportunity for repentance and to confirm the facts.
The third step is a public reproof. “And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church” (Matt 18:17). This step is often erroneously combined with the fourth step, but it is a distinct step, a third attempt to bring the brother to repentance. This phase involves informing the church of the situation and bringing the entire body into the disciplinary process. By the time it reaches this level, it is crucial to have the pastors and deacons aware of the situation to give leadership to the body. This leadership is a critical point in the process. If handled properly, it can increase the chance of reclaiming the wayward or bringing unity to the church body if disfellowshipping becomes necessary. If mishandled, it can erupt into an unstoppable church split. The communication to the church needs to come from the pastor and other leaders or at least be conveyed in a way that signifies to the church that he and the other leaders support the action.
Informing the church requires a delicate balance between providing sufficient information and withholding non-essential details. Sufficient information must be communicated to both clarify and corroborate the exact charge, while avoiding any interesting but non-essential details. The goal is not to obscure the seriousness of the sin, but it is also not intended to produce fodder for the gossip or to seek recognition by the tabloids. For example, if someone is guilty of being involved in repeated adulterous affairs over an extended period, habitual lying, and profound deception, the church should be informed of such while avoiding an exposé of every non-essential, dreadful detail. The truth should be told, but not the lurid details.
On the other hand, using something as vague as “caught in immorality” leaves people speculating about what kind of immorality, which can make the situation worse. I made that mistake when I first began practicing church discipline. Consequently, make it clear but not titillating.
The obvious purpose of telling the church is to maximize the number of people going to the wayward brother. There is no higher court of appeal than the local church. At this point, depending on the size of the church, there may be hundreds of people aggressively pursuing this brother and asking him to repent. It may be easy for some who name the name of Christ to ignore the pleas of one or two, but ignoring the whole church is quite another matter. Church discipline is not merely a pastoral or deacon issue but a church issue. This step is important for several reasons: first because it is biblical. Second, numerous people aggressively reproving and confronting may produce repentance where other attempts have failed. I have seen this in the life of the body, and it is powerful for the wayward to know that the church will, over the next week or so, be standing on his doorstep. That they care enough to be involved in his life cannot be ignored or written off as a personal vendetta of the first individual who comes.
Third, it also teaches the entire congregation about their responsibility to care for their brothers and sisters. Fourth, if disfellowshipping becomes necessary, this step provides an enormous safeguard against trouble at the time of the final disfellowshipping of the member. If the people go and plead for him to repent, and he has refused their pleas, they will be less inclined to oppose the fourth step to disfellowship because they have seen firsthand his unwillingness to repent. His recalcitrance is undeniable. They know firsthand that everything that could be done has been done.
If, after the third step is completed, someone ends up opposing disfellowshipping the wayward brother at the time of the vote, then the first question to ask the person is whether he went to the wayward brother. If he did not go, and many others did, then the question is, why did he not do what the Bible says to do, and how could he know how to vote if he had not been? If he did go, he should be asked to share what happened when he met with him that influenced his vote against disfellowshipping. In other words, if he repented, then the church needs to know that and pursue that course of action. If the wayward did not repent, how can he biblically vote against discipline, Jesus?
Further, he can be asked during the meeting, “If you did not go to him, how can you oppose the conclusion of the others who loved him enough to go to him?” Although there may be someone who opposes the discipline—probably someone who has not followed the biblical instruction thus far—when the entire church has had the opportunity to see his resistance firsthand, it makes the church more unified and the vote much more decisive. It is unlikely that anyone will have the nerve to oppose at this point, although it is possible. This step also helps believers deal with sin in their own lives and the body as seriously as Jesus intended.
I am often amazed at the cruel caricatures made by other churches of the churches that practice church discipline. A popular one is that little time or concern is invested by churches that practice “kicking people out.” I mean, how long could it take to kick someone out of church? Maybe a few hours, or at the most a week, and then just kick the person out. In reality, most discipline cases actually take around six months from the time the sin becomes known to the time of disfellowshipping.
Sometimes, a discipline case can take a year, and I have spent as long as three years. Part of the reason that it usually takes six months or more is to provide time to confirm the facts before approaching a brother, report back on the situation, fully inform the principals, and pray sufficiently between each step or revelation. We usually spend three to four weeks between each step praying that God will grant us wisdom and change the wayward brother’s heart. Arranging for a suitable time to go to the person’s house can also require significant time. Six months can transpire very quickly. If discipline is handled properly, and that is the only way it should be handled, discipline requires quite an investment of time and energy despite the plethora of caricatures.
The presentation before the church of the person’s name and sin needs to be done with much prayer, humility, love, and concern. The demeanor of those presenting will help to either unify or divide the church. We take this step very seriously. What is and is not said, as well as how it is said, is seriously considered. These are somber moments in the life of a church. Sadness normally characterizes those of us presenting the information. Enough detail, including time frame, attempts to seek repentance, as well as Scripture, must be included. I consider it essential that more than one person who has been a part of the discipline be involved in the presentation to the church. The challenge to the church is for each church member to contact the unrepentant. We give cards with contact information and normally give a couple of weeks for this step to be completed. We strongly encourage face-to-face contact, but at times, that is not easily done; consequently, we include all contact information.
God has used our time of fulfilling this third step to convict people of their own sin. We have seen two people come to Christ during the time we were presenting the sin, the unrepentance of the member, and Scripture related to discipline. These were salvations in two different discipline cases. Each of them said it was the tender spirit and love in which we dealt with the unrepentant, the seriousness of sin, the holiness of God, and the terribleness of unrepentance that God used to draw them toward Christ.
The first one was a young lady in her twenties who had a tragically difficult life and died six months after that night of discipline and salvation. She died of multiple sclerosis. The other one remained a member for a long time and then moved away after she got married.
The fourth and final step is removal. “And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer” (Matt 18:17). This step is the public removal of the unrepentant “so-called brother” (1 Cor 5:11) from the fellowship, encouragement, blessings, and membership of the church. “Let him be” serves as the fifth command in this passage. The previous four are: go, reprove (verse 15), take (verse 16), and tell (verse 17). He is to be viewed as a “Gentile” and a “tax-gatherer.” The Gentile was a heathen who had no part in the Jewish covenant.
The tax-gatherer was even worse because he was born a Jew and became a traitor to his Jewish brethren by aligning with Rome. He was regarded as a thief. Both imply that they are to be treated as someone outside the Christian community or covenant. It is similar to the Old Testament practice of “cutting” someone “off” from the assembly of Israel (e.g., Gen 17:14; Ex 12:15, 19; 30:33, 38). The “you” in “let him be to you” is plural in number, meaning this is a command that everyone is responsible for obeying.
Simply put, the wayward chooses to live like an unbeliever, and discipline affords him that opportunity. As an unbeliever, he is not allowed into the fellowship of the church. This exclusion reiterates the New Testament teaching and the importance of a regenerate church membership. The appellation “tax-gatherer” seems to highlight the wayward brother’s potential and willingness to harm the church. The same idea of separation is clearly communicated by the apostle Paul when he said,
I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus . . . Clean out the old leaven . . . I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one . . . Remove the wicked man from among yourselves (1 Cor 5:5, 7a, 9–11, and 13).
The message is clear. The person is to be treated as an unbeliever who potentiates harm to himself and the church. Because he does not demonstrate characteristics commensurate with possessing the new life, he must be separated from the body of Christ. Paul said, “But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one” (1 Cor 5:11). Interpreters debate whether that means he is to be excluded from the Lord’s Supper or from sharing a regular meal. It seems like both are in view.
If he is to be removed from the fellowship and treated as an unbeliever, then there could not be Christian fellowship with him at a common meal, and removing him from the fellowship of the church automatically precludes him from partaking of the Lord’s Supper. If you factor in the ideas of “Gentile” and “tax-gatherer,” the meaning is clear. No Jew would have considered spiritual fellowship with a Gentile or tax-gatherer in or outside of the assembly. Logically, he must be treated differently than when he was a moral believer, as an immoral person, or else all of the New Testament distinctions between lost and saved, brother and Gentile, in and out, evaporate. Thus, it appears that both are in view.
Clearly, and maybe most poignantly, the unrepentant is barred from the privilege of partaking of the Lord’s Supper. I have practiced mentioning the most recently disciplined person by name when the church gathers to partake of the Lord’s Supper. This mention reminds us of the seriousness of sin as well as our responsibility to pray for our estranged brother or sister. When someone whom the church has disciplined repents, he is welcomed back into the fellowship and to the Lord’s Table. I mention the restoration to the fellowship at the beginning of the Lord’s Supper. When a person remains unrepentant, we should be diligent to pray. But when one repents and returns, we should rejoice and celebrate.
Paul also gives a much-needed reminder that this “so-called brother” is not an enemy. “And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that man and do not associate with him, so that he may be put to shame. And yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thess 3:14–15). We are not to hate him but grieve for him. There is a time to associate with someone who has been disfellowshipped, and that is when there is an opportunity to “admonish him as a brother.” God never tires of calling his people to repentance, and neither should we. On the other hand, to begin to accept him without repentance is to minimize his sin and facilitate his continued walk of deception.
After the instruction of verses 15–17 comes the wonderful promises. “Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst” (Matt 18:18–20). This passage has been abused so often and for so long that the misinterpretation has become the accepted popular interpretation. One reason for the widespread acceptance of the misinterpretation is that the desire to maintain the power of God and the promise of self-fulfillment is strong even if the desire for holiness is not.
Unfortunately, the trendy misinterpretation consigns these wonderful verses to the cliché status of many other Scriptures that have been extricated from their context at the expense of their original beauty and richness. The Church of Rome claims these verses give them the authority to forgive sin. This belief has facilitated the perpetuation of their colossal perversions concerning their teachings on sacraments, salvation, and forgiveness.
A rather large segment of charismatics and the faith movement are well known for claiming these three verses as carte blanche for whatever one wants. Thus, it is common to hear expressions like binding Satan or binding demons, sickness, poverty, nicotine, and a galaxy of other unwanted problems. Of course, there is also the positive side of protection against losing one’s health or prosperity. Little thought is given to the real meaning indicated by the context, which limits it to church discipline, not to mention other Scriptures, such as 1 John 5:14, and the experience of every believer who has sought to make it mean anything.
How many believers will be honest enough to admit that they do not get everything they pray for when quoting (misquoting) these verses as a guarantee? The context limits the term “whatever.” It means “whatever” in relation to following Jesus’ commands concerning church discipline. We use terms like whatever, all, and everything regularly, and we would be appalled if someone took it for an absolute limitless word like is done so often with the Word of God.
For example, if someone comes to your office and asks to borrow some things, and you respond, “Sure, get whatever you need.” It would probably not sit well with you if they took all your furniture, supplies, and computer. The context limited your “whatever.” In like manner, this wonderful promise is limited by the context. For those who practice church discipline, the real blessings of these promises are of incalculable comfort. In light of the context of what Jesus had just said, in the light of common rabbinical expressions of that day, and in light of the grammatical construction of the text, it is clear that he was not teaching that God’s power can be bent to man’s will. He was not saying that men could force heaven to do things. Quite to the contrary, his promise was that when his people bend their wills to his, he will endorse and empower their act of obedience.
John MacArthur succinctly notes, “Jesus was here continuing His instruction about church discipline. He was not speaking about petitioning God for special blessings or privileges, and even less was He teaching that the church or any of its leaders has power to absolve the sins of its members. He was declaring that the church has a divine mandate to discipline its members when they refuse to repent.”[1] Another commentator says the words “about anything are restricted by the context and by the phrase peri pantos pragmatos, which should here be rendered ‘about any judicial matter’: the word pragma often has that sense.”[2]
Equally lamentable is the fashionable distortion of verse 20, which has also been extricated from its context. This verse is quoted almost every time people gather for prayer, worship, or a conference. In reality, it actually has nothing to do with any of those situations. Those who seem to gain such wonderful comfort by using the promise of verse 20 to assure that Jesus is with us when two or more gather together to pray or worship must, at some point, think about the implications of what that means when they are alone. Whatever comfort is gained by the blanket understanding of Jesus’ presence when two or more are gathered together is overshadowed by the emptiness that must follow when people leave and go their own ways. To wit, what happens when we leave the gathering?
Rightly understood, it is not about assuring us that he is with our gatherings because we know he is. He said, “I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you” (Heb 13:5). Thus, if he is with us when we are alone, he is most assuredly with us when we are together for prayer, study, or worship. The Bible has many verses that address the issue of general prayer and worship, but this is simply not one of them.
Now that some of the prevalent misinterpretations have been dispelled, we are in a better position to see what these verses actually teach. When Jesus says, Truly I say to you, the “you” is plural. Then it referred to all of the disciples, and now it applies to the local church, which verses 15–17 demonstrate is the highest court of appeals. It can also be the “you” of the two or three that have pursued the discipline case. Binding and loosing (verse 18) were common rabbinical expressions, which meant forbidden or permitted according to the revealed will of God in his Word. In heaven was another way to refer to Jehovah God.
Another important grammatical note on these verses is that shall be bound and shall be loosed are periphrastic, future, perfect, passive participles, which are better rendered shall have already been bound or shall have already been loosed.[3] Resultantly, this verse does not teach that God is waiting to conform to what the church does, but rather God has already decided what he will do when people obey his Word regarding church discipline. And when the church obeys, in this case concerning church discipline, she does so with God’s full blessing and authority.
In other words, the church clarifies and carries out heaven’s business rather than heaven waiting to ratify the church’s decisions. Even though many scorn those who exercise discipline, the church that follows God’s commands has heaven’s approval, which, in the final analysis, is all that matters. John 20:23 also uses perfect passives concerning forgiveness, which does not grant the church the power to absolve sins. It means if someone does what the Bible says, either as an unbeliever repenting and trusting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior or as a believer who confesses his sin, we can assure them of God’s forgiveness because he has already established that in heaven and recorded it in his Word.
Verse 20 is a reference to verse 17. After two or three went to the wayward brother, and he refused to listen, those same two or three must take it to the church. This task can be a daunting experience. The fear of how it will be received and what you might be accused of can be sufficiently intimidating to cause even the boldest to have second thoughts. Thus, our all-knowing Lord Jesus gives the absolute assurance of his presence in this very difficult endeavor. For we do not know what will come, but we do know that he is with us and confirms the actions and decisions of the ones who follow his will in church discipline.
That the Lord saw the need to supply this promise reminds us of the difficulty of church discipline. Even our Lord knows that discipline is extremely difficult; therefore, he gives a blessed special promise of his presence. During these times, your feelings and some people’s responses will communicate that you are all alone, but Jesus promises that you are not. I can tell you that this blessed promise can bring comfort beyond measure to your soul.
It is indeed sad that this verse can be so oft-quoted and yet so misunderstood. Even many commentators see it as a general promise, but those who have actually practiced church discipline see it for the blessed promise that it is. The blessedness of this verse is lost to the church because the church fails to walk the corridors of church discipline. When we do what God wants in the way he wants, he acts, empowers, and confirms those decisions.
This promise is also a reminder to those who criticize people who practice discipline that the Lord is on the side of those who follow him in church discipline. “This was in keeping with Old Testament precedents, as in Deuteronomy 19:15. The apostles would have been familiar with these words. Albert Barnes notes, ‘The witnesses in the Old Testament were to be the first to execute the judgment of the court (Deut 17:7); here they are the first to pray.’”[4]
The significance of the words in My name is pointed out by Adam Clark when he says, “In my name—That is, By my authority, acting for me in my church. See John 10:25; 16:23 . . . assembled in obedience to my command, and with a desire to promote my glory.”[5] Gathering in his name is not merely to speak his name but to do his will. The desire to promote God’s glory outweighs the desire for self-preservation. These words also speak of the deity of Jesus Christ. “There am I in the midst—None but God could say these words because God alone is everywhere present, and these words refer to his omnipresence. Wherever—suppose tens of thousands of assemblies were collected in the same moment, in different places of the creation, (which is a very probable case), this promise states that Jesus is in each of them. Can any say these words, except that God who fills both heaven and earth? But Jesus says these words: ergo—Jesus is God.”[6]
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who lived in Germany during the time of the Third Reich, spent time in the concentration camps for his faith and was eventually “executed by special order of Himmler at the concentration camp at Flossenburg on April 9th, 1945, just a few days before it was liberated by the Allies.”[7] Although he was liberal in his theology, he understood the cost of discipleship and believed in the necessity of church discipline.
Sin demands to have a man by himself. It withdraws him from the community. The more isolated a person is, the more destructive will be the power of sin over him, and the more deeply he becomes involved in it, the more disastrous is his isolation. Sin wants to remain unknown. It shuns the light. In the darkness of the unexpressed it poisons the whole being of a person. This can happen even in the midst of a pious community. In confession, the light of the gospel breaks into the darkness and seclusion of the heart. The sin must be brought into the light. The unexpressed must be openly spoken and acknowledged. All that is secret and hidden is made manifest. It is a hard struggle until the sin is openly admitted, but God breaks gates of brass and bars of iron (Ps 107:16).
Since the confession of sin is made in the presence of a Christian brother, the last stronghold of self-justification is abandoned. The sinner surrenders; he gives up all his evil. He gives his heart to God, and he finds the forgiveness of all his sin in the fellowship of Jesus Christ and his brother. The expressed, acknowledged sin has lost all its power. It has been revealed and judged as sin. It can no longer tear the fellowship asunder. Now the fellowship bears the sin of the brother. He is no longer alone with his evil for he has cast off his sin from him. Now he stands in the fellowship of sinners who live by the grace of God and the cross of Jesus Christ. The sin concealed separated him from the fellowship, made all his apparent fellowship a sham; the sin confessed has helped him define true fellowship with the brethren in Jesus Christ.[8]
[1] John MacArthur, Matthew 16–23: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Moody Press, 1983), 137.
[2] Frank E. Gaebelin and J.D. Douglas, eds., “Matthew, Mark, Luke” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8 (Zondervan, 1984) Matthew 18:19, 403.
[3] For a more detailed study of this topic, see The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Matthew 18:18.
[4] Craig S. Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 2nd Ed. (InterVarsity Press, 2014) Matthew 18:15–20.
[5] Adam Clarke, Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the New Testament, 1st Ed. (Parsons Technology, Inc.), Matthew 18:20.
[6] Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, Matthew 18:20.
[7] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (Touchstone, 1995), 22.
[8] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together, trans John W. Doberstein (Harper & Row, 1954), 112–13.
