Your story, Steve, is horrific. But if you found no problem with 1 Tim 5:19
why should you find a problem if the 2 or 3 in Mat.18:16 describes witnesses
to the original offence?

Anyway

Shouldn't exegesis precede application? I asked about the relevance of the
quotation from Dt.19:15. Didn't that require more than one witness to the
original offence?

And is 1Tim.5:19 making a special case for elders whereas other believers
have less rights; or is it applying the general rule to elders?

David



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Fuchs (on MSN)" <SteveF_MS@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 5:01 PM
Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] Matthew 18:15-17


Depends on whether you insist they be what our judicial system would call
'eye witnesses'.

So I think they play both roles, for a single purpose.  To corroborate and
establish credence for the accusation, making sure it's legitimate.
But it doesn't seem they necessarily be 'eye-witnesses' of a particular
event.

If that were the requirement, many heinous sins could not be dealt with by
the church.
Our local community had a very large church with a fairly famous pastor come
under accusation of inappropriate sexual touching.  As things unfolded,
numerous people came forward with stories spreading over a decade or more.
The elders of that church tried to dismiss it on the grounds that though
there were numerous accusations of a similar sin, there were no independent
witnesses for any particular incident.  Each of the offended stood alone
without eye-witnesses to corroborate the particular offense against them.

You can imagine the mess that turned into (it made national news). And why
their interpretation was flawed.







-----Original Message-----
From: hircock [mailto:hircock@...]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 1:23 AM
To: soundofgrace@...
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Matthew 18:15-17


I mainly lurk, and that not too well, so please excuse me if this has
already been raised under this thread.

Who are the 2 or 3 taken along in verse 16 and, especially, to what are they
witnesses?

I have generally heard them described as witnesses to the confrontation
between accuser and accused. Doesn't the reference to Dt.19:15 (and paralel
instruction regarding elders in 1Tim.5:19) rather suggest that they should
be witnesses to the alleged offence?

David.