The key passage here with regard to fellowship (or more precisely, disfellowship) is Verse 15 through 17:
“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the ecclesia; but if he neglects to hear the ecclesia, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”
It would seem evident in a full consideration of the context, that the sin here is a matter of personal offense, not of doctrinal divergence. (Compare V. 21: “. . . sin against me . . .” and V. 35: ” . . if ye forgive not every one his brother . . .”) However, these verses are often considered to be the guideline to the pursuing and expunging of doctrinal errors from the ecclesia; so let us carefully view the passage in that way.
“If thy brother trespass against thee,” then you—being by Scriptural standard and precept “your brother’s keeper” (Gen. 4:9) — are bound to warn the offender with the express purpose of turning him from his own sin (Ezek. 3:17-21). Your love, actively manifested in an unpleasant task, may “cover a multitude of sins” (1 Pet. 4:8).
In such cases the offender should not be evilly thought of, or spoken of. His status and feelings will be as fully considered and respected as one’s own. Neither will he be confronted from motives and feelings personal to the visitor, but solely and purely for his own good who has transgressed.
With the object of gaining, not of sacrificing his brother, the careful brother should in the spirit of meekness strive to restore the faulty; and he should consider his own imperfections and weaknesses and consequent liability to fall into temptation (Gal. 6:1). Every step which might lead to New Testament disfellowship (or withdrawal) was always intended to facilitate the repentance and reclamation of the offender. The Son of Man himself came with the purpose of saving that which was lost (Matt. 18:11) —and well might we be thankful that he did that very thing!
Note the special precise sequence to be followed:
- Tell him his fault between thee and him How many falter at the very first step who desire to be “peacemakers” or rather “peace-keepers,” veritable sheriffs and marshals in the ecclesias!
- Then — only if he fails to hear you go with one or two others. And should not the one or two others be those who by experience and temperament are best able to rectify the division, not simply best able to support your contention and most likely to take your side no matter what?
The two or three witnesses confirm every word. This is necessary counterbalance to the frequent malicious tendency of the flesh to believe without verification every evil word spoken against another brother. - Finally, all else failing, you must go to the ecclesia. Whose ecclesia, in the case of intereclessial difficulties? Yours or his? His, of course, because it is the one by all rights with jurisdiction in the case. Implicit in the Master’s advice is no doubt the final step: After you tell the ecclesia, you bow out; the ecclesia now being properly informed has sole authority to pursue the matter. (In our modern day interecclesial tangle, with its rapid communications and sometimes volatile differences, this point and the next become very important.)
- One command which is not given, but so often “read into” Matthew 18: “Tell it to the ecclesias (plural) !” This would serve the dubious purpose of taking the “sins” (real or otherwise) of your brother, whom you ostensibly sought to help, and spreading them broadcast to the ends of the world. This is wrong, it is malicious, and it is also a violation of the commandment here and of the Scriptural basis of all relationships between ecclesias (as in Revelation 2 and 3).
We should notice, in any survey of Matthew 18, the related passage in the “Ecclesial Guide,” entitled “Cases of Sin and Withdrawal” (1949 Edition, P 24). From thence we quote:
“There should be a stringent refusal to hear an evil report concerning anyone until the reporter has taken the Scriptural course .. .”
And in another place Bro. Roberts comments on the procedure:
“Nothing tends more to the keeping or the restoring of peace than the observance of this law; and no law is more constantly broken. The universal impulse, when anything is supposed o be wrong, is to tell the matter to third persons. From them it spreads, with the results of causing much bad feeling which, perhaps, the original cause does not warrant and would not have produced if the aggrieved person had taken the course prescribed by Christ, and told the fault ‘between thee and him alone.’ If good men, or those who consider themselves such, would adopt the rule of refusing to listen to an evil report privately conveyed, until it had been dealt with to the last stage according to the rule prescribed by Christ, much evil would be prevented.”
We round out our consideration of this passage by noting how the full and complete context speaks so eloquently, not of judgment, not of condemnation or disfellowship, but rather of reconciliation, reunion, mercy, and forgiveness:
- Verse 14: “It is not my Father’s will that any of these little ones (Compare the children of Vv. 1-6) should perish.” Surely these “fellowship” matters are dynamite, and when wrongly handled they explode and the weak ones and the young ones “for whom Christ died” are most in danger of injury or “death.” How many young ones, it may be asked, ever perished spiritually because of that “dangerous” but little-understood false doctrine or improper action halfway round the world ? But how many truly became disillusioned and ultimately drifted away from the Brotherhood because of the grievous spectacle of envious, small-minded brethren, of internal bickering and accusatory letters?
- How many times should I forgive? “Until seventy times seven” (V. 22). Almost without end! And Jesus adds the parable of the debtors, with the comment that the Father in Heaven will by no means forgive the unforgiving (Vv. 23-35). Notice the extreme contrasts in this parable. How heavily must the balance be weighted on the side of mercy in our cases!
We note pointedly that in Matthew 18 there is no provision for a disgruntled, dissatisfied individual or minority to withdraw from the ecclesia because of a difference in judging a case. The ecclesia, as a body, is assumed to have the greater ability judiciously to weigh the facts and to reach a Scriptural and just decision. Most of our ecclesial “constitutions” contain a provision to this effect: “That we mutually engage to submit to the order and arrangements preferred by the greater number.” (Article 5 of the Birmingham “Constitution”).
Finally, if it be argued that Matthew 18:15-17 applies only to individual cases in one’s own ecclesia, and that it should not be applied to cases in other ecclesias, then we would ask:
- Should it be easier — in view of the doctrine of the One Body and the superlative examples of and inducements to peace and unity — should it be easier, we say, to judge and disfellowship thousands at a distance than individuals at home?
- Or, put negatively, do many brethren deserve less love and consideration than one?
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One