You know Jack, I do believe you are right. The emphasis is on
reconciliation/repentance, not the original act.
But these witnesses must play some role in determining legitimacy. They
can't merely assume the accuser is correct, and the accused by saying 'but I
didn't do what you say' is refusing repentance.
-----Original Message-----
From: JACKJEFF@... [mailto:JACKJEFF@...]
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 9:36 AM
To: soundofgrace@...
Subject: [soundofgrace] Re: Matthew 18:15-17 - Jack to David
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? >>
--
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