WHAT TO DO WHEN CONFLICT ARISES - III

Titus 3:9-11; Mt. 18:17
Bob Bonner
August 30, 2009

Ever since the Fall in the Garden of Eden, we human beings have found a way to hurt or be a problem to one another. Sometimes as individuals or as a group of individuals, we have found ways to work out our problems. But more often than not, the hurt is so deep or the problem so complex that it requires someone independent to bring judgment on the matter.

With the exception of Cain killing Abel and God Himself pronouncing the judgment, Biblical and extra-Biblical history reveal that there has usually been a body of counselors who have been a part of adjudicating disputes. Sometimes it would have been the sole responsibility of a king or the head of a clan to make a final decision, but typically they would have a group of advisors. In Genesis 50:7, the Pharaoh of Egypt had just such a group of advisors who gave him counsel on a variety of matters. Those advisors were called “elders.” After the Law had been given and Israel had become a nation, their adjudicators were sometimes called priests, judges, elders, or council members, such as the council of Sanhedrin in Jesus’ day.

Today in the United States, we have an elaborate legal system that goes from local and state court judges, to federal district court judges, to federal appellate court judges and on up to those sitting on the Supreme Court. Their job is to adjudicate conflicts. But for Christians, whether here or elsewhere, God has an additional system in place for resolving conflicts between Christians. For the past two weeks we have been looking at what Jesus says Christians are supposed to do when one Christian sins against another.

We have taken on this series concerning the resolving of conflicts with each other because, in order for us to fully grasp Paul’s instructions to Titus in Titus 3:9-11 as to how the church leadership or elders were to deal with factious people, people who were rebelling against their church leadership, we determined we needed to understand the foundational Biblical principles that Paul’s words in Titus 3:9-11 are built upon. In order to do that we have chosen to temporarily leave our study of Titus and go to other passages of Scripture to get a fuller understanding of the basics of how God wants us to resolve our conflicts with one another.

For the past two weeks, we have taken a close look at Matthew 18:15-16, which contains Christ’s words to his disciples on how to deal with common conflicts between believers. We have chosen this chapter as a place to begin our study, because Christ quotes and bases His instruction on the teachings of Deuteronomy 19, which was a well-known Old Testament passage to the Jews and, I presume, to the twelve disciples Jesus was meeting with in Matthew 18.

As we continue our study of Matthew 18 and Deuteronomy 19 and other passages, we will quickly review the first two of the four basic steps to correcting a believer who has clearly sinned against another. Then we will conclude by introducing the third step to correcting and “winning” a fellow Christian. Please join me as we read together Matthew 18:15-17. On the northernmost seashore town on the Sea of Galilee, Capernaum, and probably in Peter’s home, Jesus is meeting with just His twelve disciples with some up-close-and-personal leadership training of the future leaders of the church. These first three verses begin a section of Scripture that concludes with Matthew 18:35, dealing with correction and forgiveness of one who has sinned against someone. Jesus instructs the twelve and us:

“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to

you, you have won your brother. 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. If he refuses to listen to them,

tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let

him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

As we have learned in the past two weeks, verses 15-16 contain the first two moves to correcting someone who has wronged you, with the hope that the corrected brother will be forgiven and will grow through the experience. In verse 15, Jesus instructs the injured party to personally confront his offender.

In this step, we were reminded that this confrontation only takes place when there is a sin involved. Furthermore, we showed that just because we feel angry or hurt or offended, that does not necessarily point to the fact that sin is involved. But if there is sin, we also noted from this verse that we are to physically go meet the one who has wronged us, not send him a letter or call on the phone. And the goal is not revenge or justice for having been wronged, but to “win our brother” or to do ultimate good toward him. And that ultimate good is to lead him to repentance so that he can continue to learn and grow in his relationship with Christ, knowing that he has been forgiven both by God and man.

But if we feel we didn’t get anywhere with this one who wronged us, and if there were two eyewitnesses to the wrong done to us, we are to take those two eyewitnesses to confront the sinner. If we don’t have two eyewitnesses, we are to drop the matter, allowing God to deal with this brother.

Now if the brother who wronged us still chooses to ignore the correction of two eyewitnesses, then we move to the third step to conflict resolution, which is found in verse 17. It states, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

Personally, I believe that the key to correctly understanding and applying this third step is to understand what Jesus meant and what the disciples would have understood Jesus to be saying when Jesus referenced the “church.” Today, most Christians think that Jesus’ teaching here demands that if two or three witnesses have tried to correct a sinning Christian, and that sinning Christian refuses to repent, then the next thing you do is make the sinner and his situation known to the whole church family, regardless of the sin. I don’t understand that to be Jesus Christ’s instruction here in Matthew 18. More specifically, I believe that the correct understanding of His use of the term “church” supports my view. 

To be honest with you, the explanation I’m going to share with you is not shared by anyone else I know. I have spent the better part of twenty years wrestling with this one verse, checking out every resource I could to get clarity on the subject. I have checked numerous journals, examined Greek scholars’ works whose sole purpose is to study how terms have been used, had several discussions with seminary professors and pastors, and read more than fifteen of the best commentators, all of whom share the same point of view. No one I have found interprets this verse the way I do. 

At the same time, those with whom I have conversed could not explain to me the reasoning of how they came to hold their view of what Christ meant by “church” in this verse. Some admitted to me that their view is based on an assumption that they cannot support from Scripture, yet nonetheless, they hold to it. As well, when it comes to the written commentators that I have read, none excepting one of them explains how it is that they have come to understand the term translated here “church” to mean what we understand the term church to mean today. And the one who does try to explain his understanding of the use of this term does not have research in harmony with noted Christian Greek etymologists of our day, who have put together one of the finest Greek scholarly works entitled The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, to which I will refer later on in this message.  Other than this one commentator, whom I commend because at least he is trying to present why he believes what he does, it’s almost as though the others are all reading from the same script, with no step-by-step explanation of how they came to their conclusion.  They simply state their conclusion that “church” refers to church as we understand the term today.

In one sense, this makes me feel a little uneasy to present my understanding of this verse in light of all the greater minds that have preceded me who do not agree; yet, I’m confident that you will see, when we are finished, that my view is more than just a little plausible, in light of the evidence. Furthermore in the end, the only real difference between my view and the general view is that I see an additional step involved in this correction process, a step that provides a needed ingredient of wisdom and grace to the whole process, and that if ignored could possibly cause more harm than help to the spiritual well-being of the church.

Just this past week I was speaking to one of you about this very subject and verse and the personal heartache you have been a part of because of the prominent view and application of this, and how it did unnecessary harm to the ones you know. Your testimony was that, had this additional step been applied, the local church would have been better served and grown through the conflict, rather than being hurt.

As we continue our study this morning, I think it is necessary for me to explain some of the basic principles behind Biblical interpretation. I believe that to properly interpret this verse and to what this term “church” refers, one must at least consider three basic principles of interpretation. The first is to keep in mind not only the literary context of the passage surrounding Matthew 18, but also that chapter in the Old Testament upon which Jesus bases His instruction for Matthew 18, Deuteronomy 19.  The failure to do this, I believe, is what led the one commentator I referred to earlier to come to a faulty conclusion.

Secondly, to properly interpret any passage, one must consider the historical context and the immediate audience’s understanding of what Jesus meant in His usage of this term “church.” In other words, did the twelve disciples, when they heard Jesus use the Greek word here translated as “church,” think in terms of what we understand the church to be today?

Thirdly, one must understand historically how this term was used in the past, its possible changes of meaning, and when they might have occurred. In other words, this third criteria of interpretation takes into consideration the etymology or the historical study of the various uses of the term and its development.

For instance, when I say this word, what’s the first meaning that comes to your mind? “Gay.” Today, when we hear the use of the term “gay,” it almost exclusively refers to homosexuality. If you were to study the historical usage of that term, you would not find it used in reference to a homosexual lifestyle before 1959, less than 50 years ago, according to Webster’s Dictionary. According to the earliest Webster’s dictionary I could find, the term gay was first listed as a slang usage to refer to homosexuality in 1971. But according to the 1959 edition of Webster’s, the sole definitions describing “gay” mentioned the state of being happily excited, merry, exuberant, bright, lively, and high spirited. So in this case, the most popular understanding and usage of an old word, “gay,” changed relatively overnight.

So you see, when you try to understand a statement, you must correctly grasp what the original audience would have understood words to mean, based on when certain meanings of those terms came into being. Or, when did the understanding of the term in question first take on its questioned meaning?

These three interpretive criteria of audience and historical context, present and past literary context, and how individual terms would have been understood by the audience have always been the basis upon which any and every passage of scripture is to be interpreted, along with theological light that other passages of Scripture shine on the subject matter.   

So, having stated that I’m going out on a theological interpretive limb here, allow me to walk you through how I have come to the conclusion before you too quickly saw off my limb! 

Let’s begin by first dealing with the audience who heard Jesus’ words in the immediate context of Matthew 18. It is presumed by all the commentators, and I agree with them, that Jesus’ audience in Matthew 18 is the twelve disciples. This is very important to keep in mind, as well as the fact that these disciples were all Jews.  Why? Because as Jews who had civilly based their jurisprudence for 1500 years on Deuteronomy 19, they would have understood the historical foundation of Jesus’ teaching being from that passage and would have thought of Jesus instructions in the terms that were expressed in it. 

Secondly, although Jesus (being all knowing) would have understood that the term he used here would one day refer to the church as we know it today, the disciples would not have understood it that way. The church as we understand the use of that term had not existed nor was it talked about nor was the term used this way until after Acts 2.  Hence, I don’t believe Jesus would have used a term here that the disciples would not have understood in its future meaning. He would have used a term that had an explanation that they would have understood on that day.

So then, of what did the disciples think when Jesus mentioned this Greek term “ekklesia,” translated in your Bibles as “church” in Matthew 18:17, if indeed it did not refer to the church as we use the term today? Up until Acts 2, the Greek word “ekklesia” was always literally translated in Roman and Jewish works as an “assembly.” So the obvious question here is, “What assembly did Jesus and the disciples have in mind when Jesus used this word?” 

In order to answer that question, let’s go back to the Old Testament and learn about how this term was used there. When one studies the Septuagint, that is the Greek translation of the Old Testament that was readily available in Jesus’ day and had been used by the Jews for the previous 300 years, it is seen that this term “ekklesia” was used some 78 times. In all but six of those times, or 72 times, it referred to a judicial assembly such as priests, judges, military commanders, and elders who governed disputes between people. The six times it was used in reference to other than a judicial assembly were rare occasions referring to the Jewish people uniquely answering God’s call. It was never used in the sense of a people being a congregation. [The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. 1, pp. 291-296]

Whenever the Septuagint specifically wanted to refer to the total Jewish community or whenever Jesus wanted to refer to an assembly of believers or to a Jewish congregation as determined by the law and the temple, the preferred Greek term was “synagogue.” [The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. 1, pp. 291-296]  In other words, if Jesus had intended his present audience of disciples to understand “ekklesia” to mean the general assembly of believers, he would have chosen the Greek word most commonly used for such, “synagogue” not “ekklesia.”

Secondly, when you consider that Jesus just quoted from Deuteronomy 19, which is a chapter that dealt with jurisprudence and the assembly of elders, judges, and priests ruling in civil cases, that context strongly supports the use of “ekklesia” referring to those who make up an assembly of leadership. For example, let’s look at two passages from this chapter from which Jesus quotes. The first passage is Deuteronomy 19:11-13.  Before we read it, let me set the context. The subject matter up to this point in Deuteronomy 19 has been what to do if someone has accidently killed someone. If it were truly an accident, then the one guilty of manslaughter could run to one of six “cities of refuge” for protection from the dead person’s family. If he arrived safely in the city of refuge and indeed was found innocent of murder but only guilty of accidentally killing someone, that person was not to be put to death. However, he had to live in that city of refuge until the reigning high priest died. When the high priest died, the man guilty of accidentally killing another was free to return home, with no fear of being put to death by the family of which he had accidentally killed the loved one.

However, what would happen if someone intentionally killed someone and sought refuge in one of these cities of refuge? That question is answered here in Deuteronomy 19:11-13. It says:

¹¹But if there is a man who hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him

and rises up against him and strikes him so that he dies, and he flees to

one of these cities, ¹²then the elders of his city shall send and take him

from there and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that

he may die. ¹³You shall not pity him, but you shall purge the blood of

the innocent from Israel, that it may go well with you.

The reason for citing this passage is to highlight who is in charge of determining whether or not this man was guilty or innocent of sin, deserving of death or acquittal.  The ones in charge of this task were the elders of the city in which he originally lived. They were the assembly of leaders who tried such cases at the gates of the city. This was not the job of the congregation.

In the same chapter of Deuteronomy, following the verses that Jesus referred to in Matthew 18:16, we find these words in verses 16-20.  Notice in these verses who the “assembly” of leaders are who are governing civil disputes. 

¹⁶If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of

wrongdoing, ¹⁷then both the men who have the dispute shall stand

before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who will be in office

in those days. ¹⁸The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the

witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, ¹⁹then

you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus

you shall purge the evil from among you. ²⁰The rest will hear and be

afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you.

In this case, the assembly of leaders who investigated and judged civil cases were the judges and priests of the city who, by their very nature, would have also been called elders. When they became aware of an issue between two people, they were charged with the responsibility of investigating the situation. Sometimes there may not have been two or three witnesses, and the injured party would still go to the elders to have them check out the situation. As in the situation of one man murdering another, there may or may not be witnesses to the murder, but it was their job to find out the evidence. If they could not conclusively prove the offender guilty, the matter was dropped. But if the guilty party were found to be wrong or admitted to the wrong doing, then the elders had to act responsibly and deal with him. In this case, the end goal of the elders was to purge the evil from among the citizenry of the Jews and to cast a serious warning to the rest that God does not tolerate such wickedness.

In both these cases and, in fact, the whole of the subject matter being addressed in Deuteronomy 19 is the civil disputes and who is to oversee them, who are the people to turn to when one person has sinned against another. Isn’t it interesting that this is the exact same subject in Matthew 18? Like Matthew 18, the stress of the context in Deuteronomy 19 is the leadership of the people, not the people or the nation of Israel as a whole. Ultimately, it is to help the nation as a whole, but the context here is pointing to the guidelines for leadership in ruling certain cases. 

Furthermore, when we return to Matthew 18:18-20 and look at what follows this statement about the “ekklesia” or the assembly, we notice what and who the subjects are. ¹⁸“Truly I say to you . . .” Who’s that? Who’s the “you” Jesus is referring to here? Could he be referring to the church as we know it today? I doubt it, since neither has that subject been taught to the disciples up to this point, nor does Deuteronomy 19 speak of the church. An obvious answer, as it has been all along, points to the “you” as being the disciples right there in the room with Jesus. And the purpose for Jesus giving them this instruction is that these men were to be the future assembly of leaders or apostles, or first elders of the church who will oversee disputes between believers.  And in regards to their rulings, Jesus goes on to say:

“Whatever you [disciples, future elders] bind on earth shall have been

bound in heaven; and whatever you [future elders] loose on earth shall

have been loosed in heaven. ¹⁹Again I say to you [future elders], that if

two of you [future elders] agree on earth about anything that they [you

as the elders] may ask [pray for guidance concerning judgments to be

made], it shall be done for them [you future elders] by My Father who is

in heaven. ²⁰For where two or three [elders] have gathered together in

My name, I am there in their midst.” 

Contrary to how often people quote this verse in reference to prayer, this verse has nothing to do with calling the church to prayer, nor does it deal with anything other than the elders coming together to pray about judicial moral decisions needed to be made on behalf of believers in conflict. 

Now those of you who have been reading closely may be wonder why Jesus goes from using the pronoun “you” to using the pronouns “they,” “them,” and “their.” He does this for the purpose of instructing the disciples and letting the reader know that this judicial authority to oversee conflicts did not end with the original disciples. It was Jesus’ intention that these disciples would pass on this instruction to the future leaders of the church, the elders of today.

Hence, Jesus is telling these future apostles and the elders in the future to come, “I want you to understand that when you elders unanimously agree on a disciplinary action that must take place, as long as it does not violate scripture, you have my stamp of approval. “’Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.’ Furthermore, those whom you lead had better understand that ‘I am there in their midst.’” In other words, Jesus is hinting here that there were going to be times when these Apostles and other future elders were going to make a decision that others would not like. But the believers needed to submit to those elders’ decisions, because Jesus stands with them in it.

Hence, Jesus is giving these future apostles and elders of the church instructions about how to carry out the adjudication of civil disputes between believers. Furthermore, this assembly of leaders is God’s final earthly court in deciding someone’s innocence in a matter. 

Thus, it is my position that Jesus’ disciples would have understood all along who Jesus had in mind when He used the word “ekklesia,” and it would not have been our idea of “church.” Jesus was referring to the assembly of elders, who in the disciples’ day and in the future church would be the authoritative assembly who would decide how conflicts were to be resolved when they got past the second step in verse 16. Therefore, as I see it, the third step to the resolving of a conflict with another Christian is the injured party’s requesting the help of the elders. Does this mean that the church, the assembly of believers, has no role in the discipline process? No. Step four, which we will eventually come to, reveals that there are certain times and points when the church needs to be made aware of what the elders have been dealing with in adjudicating conflicts. We are not now able to cover this, but we will. But for now, it is best understood that step three only involves the elders.

So, what exactly were the elders to do? Are they to bring every believer’s sin before the church? Not necessarily. Why? And if when, what would be their reasons for doing so? What options do they have in such situations? All those questions are excellent questions, and we will start looking at them next time. 

But here is one additional thought I hope you take away with you from this study. When we ask you to pray for the elders and that God would give the elders wisdom in the decisions they face, this is one reason for the request. Oftentimes we face heart-rending and sometimes very complex situations that, to some, seem simple to resolve, but with a knowledge of the Word of God are not as simple as they first appear. Sometimes knowing the truth makes certain decisions a little more challenging to make, because we know that those decisions won’t exactly make others happy, or they may not understand. Elders are to nonetheless be committed to making the correct Biblical decision, regardless of whether or not it wins them popularity.

back to top