David:  Before anyone may be charged or accused the principle of "two or three witnesses" should come into play, IMHO.  A study of this principle and its application throughout Scripture will establish that they must be "eye-witnesses".  Second-hand will not do.  In cases where attempts at personal reconciliation have failed, the individual trespassed against is directed by Scripture to take the second step of attempting reconciliation with 2-3 others.  These then become eye-witnesses of the lack of repentance on the part of the trespasser should that occur in their presence.  This is what is necessary before the issue may be made public, i.e., brought before the church.  

Also, IMHO, there is no exegeticaljustification for defining "church" here as elders, or for requiring that the 2-3 witnesses brought in stage 2 be elders.  If Christ had intended "elders" here, He would have made that explicit.  I detect no legitimate usage of "church" that may be understood as being limited in meaning to "elders of the church" which would provide a warrant for this understanding (misunderstanding?).  There appears to be no exegetically tenable basis for "short-circuiting" the congregation in matters like this by leaving the decision up to the leadership, or requiring that the witnesses be elders.  The failure to take such action by the Corinthians is not blamed on the elders, or directed to them, but is dropped in the lap of the entire congregation by the Apostle Paul.

The pattern from our Lord here is as follows:

1.  Whenever offenses/trespasses can be dealt with privately make every attempt to do so.  Keep personal sin at a personal level unless and until reconciliation proves to be impossible or unworkable in that context.

2.  Prior to making offenses/trespasses a corporate issue, they must be documented by 2-3 eyewitnesses.  The church should never face a "he says...she says" issue.  Accusations may not be received as true at this level unless the Scriptural demands for proof have been met.  Hopefully, the addition of the 2-3 would prove to be successful as a reconciliation effort, rather than as witness-bearers, so care should be taken both in selecting these witnesses, and in the manner in which the offender is approached.

Soli Deo Gloria,

John T. "Jack" Jeffery

<< 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? >>