With regard to 1 Tim 5:19, I think the point is leaders especially can be
subject to false accusation.
If there aren't at least 2 or 3 to reputably corroborate the likelihood of
that sin in the elder's life (whether or not they are eye-witnesses to an
individual event), then corrective action or public confirmation of the sin
cannot be made, although it does not preclude the others from observing the
elder more closely to test him.  The thrust seems to be not allowing the
accusation of a single person to get too much attention or carry too much
weight.  None-the-less, if it's found that others can attest to separate
instances of the same problem, the church cannot just 'brush it off'.  I
think 1 Tim 5 is not applying a different criteria than Mat 18, though it is
emphasizing the carefulness needed to not short circuit Mat 18 just because
the accused is a leader in the church.  You don't let folks run straight to
the body, or even the entire elder board to accuse leaders.  And if they do,
you don't let the accusation generate action without appropriate
corroboration.

I'm not sure I get your question regarding a contrast between Mat 18 and
1Tim 5.
I think the same principal is present in both passages.  Both require
reputable corroboration, though not eye-witness.

Let me explain by way of example.
A good friend of mine, whom I thought was a believer, was separated from his
wife.
It was nasty, and he turned out to be a rather skillful deceiver, even of
pastors and elders.  He was particularly good at averting accusation by
blaming his wife before anyone, including she, had a chance to accuse him.
This ingeniously caused a stalemate on issue after issue after issue.  It
always looked like she was just fingering him to divert the blame from
herself, and even when it was clear he was guilty, there was always doubt of
her innocence, so it was difficult for people to discern what to do short of
disciplining both, and that likely would have resulted in disciplining
someone unjustifiably.  In hindsight he was a master con-artist.

Anyway, he eventually filed for divorce.
The pastor's position was always to discipline the filing party if they
would not listen to one, then 2 or 3, and finally the church leadership.

My friend claimed his wife filed, and he was believed by many.  He was
trying to get her disciplined, even if it meant discipline himself too.

I researched the court records, state divorce law, etc., and found him to be
blatantly lying.
I confronted him on it (both the divorce filing and the lie), and he refused
to admit his wrong.
I went back with 2 witnesses.  I felt bound by the passage to choose 2 who
were at least partially familiar with the situation, and his propensity to
twist the truth.  By God's grace I chose one who knew it by personal
experience, and one who also questioned the wife's credibility.  They were
balanced witnesses.  Not prejudiced against the offender.

The witnesses provided three things.
1) They were familiar enough with him and his situation to help corroborate
his deceptiveness both to him and later to the church, including his
reaction to the confrontation.
2) They were familiar enough with me and my closeness to the situation to
objectively evaluate the evidence (for likelihood, not absolute proof)
3) They were unbiased enough to make sure the confrontation was gentle,
caring, for the right purpose, and likely legitimate, thereby making an
informed decision about whether it needed to proceed to step 3.

I think Deut 19 contains the same principle.
Witnesses lend credibility for evaluating the truthfulness of an accusation.
They do not have to be eye-witnesses to the particular act of offense.  

What is the thrust of each passage?
Isn't it to avoid false accusation?
Eye-witnesses add to the accuser list, and make the accusation pretty rock
solid.
Circumstantial witnesses don't accuse, and thus don't make one person's
accusation rock solid, but they corroborate the likely credibility of the
accusation, which is supposed to help the brother see that maybe he is wrong
and repent from it.
Even when it comes to the church, the church serves as witnesses.  Not
eye-witnesses, but circumstantial corroborators that there's reputable
reason to believe you are wrong and in need of repentance.

I hope that answers your questions.



-----Original Message-----
From: hircock [mailto:hircock@...] 
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 1:44 AM
To: soundofgrace@...
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Matthew 18:15-17


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.

--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com

To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...

To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace