#3 On the Application of Matthew 18 to Public Sin

Rev. Brian M. Abshire

When it comes to Matthew 18:15ff, most Christians just cannot seem to find the balance. On the one hand, when it suits their purposes, the principles and procedures of Matthew 18 are largely ignored in the average American church, even Reformed ones. To go privately to a brother, when one is offended, or when one believes the brother to be in sin is personally threatening and uncomfortable. Hence, the most common response is to gossip behind the person’s back, conduct “prayer” sessions for the offender, or even to ask the pastor or elders to confront the person. But rarely will the average person actually go to the person in private and deal with the issue.

On the other hand, when certain sins ARE confronted in public, almost the first cry will be “Was Matthew 18 followed?” I have witnessed this personally for years at Presbytery in the PCA. No matter how grievous the sin, or how public the matter; presbyters will still insist that the court can take no action unless Matthew 18 was first followed. Sadly, these same men, themselves will often not go privately to someone to resolve differences, speak the truth in love or deal with an offense. It seems the real, underlying motivation is not to have to deal with “messy” situations, either personally or corporately. The end result is that often, Biblical justice is subverted, the truth obscured, and unwitting people are led astray because the mechanism that God has given for dealing with sins, offenses and problems is just not understood or followed.

In previous essays in this series, we have examined in detail the purpose of Matthew 18 and its use in resolving personal offenses and individual sins privately. But are we ALWAYS required to go privately to a brother? I would argue, “no.” The basic principle is that private sins are confronted privately, but public sins may need to be rebuked, or corrected publicly. The question is, “what constitutes a public sin?”

First, let us consider the situation in 3 John 9-10, where the Elder says of Diotrephes, “For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words. And not satisfied with this, neither does he himself receive the brethren and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.” Diotrephes was the elder (or pastor) of a local church. He was slandering the Apostles and their representatives. Furthermore, he went so far as to forbid support for traveling missionaries and even excommunicated those who did. The Apostle John did not confront Diotrephes personally and privately, but based on testimony, he rebuked him in a public letter. Of course, we assume that two or more witnesses could verify the accusations against Diotrephes (1 Tim 5:19), but the fact is that John judged this situation in absentia, without even giving him a chance to respond. John could only do so if the sins were well known for everyone to see. Diotrephes’ actions were public, and therefore, his rebuke was public as well. The principle here would appear to be that a man may be rebuked without following the first step of Matthew 18 if his public actions endanger the reputations of others or the welfare of the church.

Consider a second example from Galatians where the Apostle Paul says of his encounter with the Apostle Peter, “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabus was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that there were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all” (Gal 2:11-14).

In this situation, the gospel of Jesus Christ was under attack. A party within the early church wanted Gentile converts to keep the ceremonial law. Peter did not believe this, and even spoke against it at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:7). But he was afraid to offend the party of the Pharisees and so, he held himself “aloof” from eating with the Gentile Christians. Paul realized that more than just a personal issue was at stake here but rather the very gospel itself. Peter was in effect, “adding” to the gospel by acting as if the ceremonial law was still in force. Therefore, when Peter committed a public sin against the gospel, Paul confronted that sin, “in the presence of all.”

One must assume this was at least embarrassing for Peter, who had been at the Lord’s right hand during his earthly ministry. Peter was the acknowledged leader of the early church, a first among equals. Yet, because of his very position, he had a much greater responsibility. Peter was leading other men into hypocrisy and sin by his example. And so, this public sin, received a public rebuke. The application here would appear to be that sins may be confronted publicly without following Matthew 18 if the essence of the gospel is in danger, especially by a leader of the church who can lead others into error.

The third example comes from 1 Timothy 1:20 and 2 Timothy 2:17-18 wherein the Apostle Paul publicly condemns the words and actions of Hymenaeus and Alexander. Apparently, these men had been ordained and were recognized as teachers. But then they went astray from the truth, denying the resurrection (1 Tim 1:17). There is no record of a personal confrontation or even ecclesiastical trial; the Apostle Paul simply makes a public statement, to Timothy that they had been “handed over to Satan.” The reason was that their dangerous heresies were spreading like gangrene (2 Tim 2:17). Their errors needed to be condemned, because it was in danger of infecting others. Hence, it would appear that the first step of Matthew 18 does not need to be followed if public heresy, which could leads others astray, needs to be rebuked.

The common thread to all these “exceptions” to the first step of Matthew 18 is that there is more than the individual sinner’s welfare is at stake. This actually makes sense in the context of Matthew 18:15. The Majority Text of verse 15 adds the words “against you.” Our Lord’s words should perhaps be best understood in reference to personal offences, rather than public sins. In the three “exceptions” we have been looking at, never is it a personal offence, but a public sin that affects the spiritual health and well being of the broader church. In the 3 John situation, the integrity of the Apostolic message was being damaged and people were being intimidated or thrown out of the church by an ecclesiastical tyrant. In Galatians, Peter was in danger of splitting the Antioch church apart because of his own bad example. Hymenaeus and Alexander were spreading heresy that endangered whole churches. In each case, the danger was more than to the individuals themselves. Furthermore, neither John nor Paul found it to be contradictory to our Lord’s command to privately rebuke those in error.

Now however, simple charity means that normally speaking, if a teacher, elder or other influential person makes a mistake, we ought to go to them before denouncing them to the world. I have (and I am sure you have as well) occasionally sat in Sunday School classes (or in my case, even some seminary classes) where the teacher did not understand his material all that well. Nobody likes a “know it all” who challenges the teacher and corrects him in public. Generally speaking, if a man makes an inadvertent “slip of the tongue” and the issue is not serious, a kind, compassionate word to the man in private after the class is certainly the best way to handle the situation.

But what if the man is in fact a heretic who is promulgating serious error? Do we just quietly sit by when not only the honor of our Lord, but the souls of others are in danger? Though probably apocryphal, this story is too good not to pass on. In a first year seminary class where I attended, the professor stated that the purpose of his course on Form and Redaction Criticism was to discern the “authentic words of Christ from the inauthentic words of Christ.” One student stood up, stated that he had a red-letter edition of the Bible, and asked if he could get advanced credit! The point is; this first year student had more integrity, and courage than most. He publicly took a stand against the Higher Criticism heresy at an evangelical seminary (and eventually suffered for it). But at stake was the integrity of the Word of God. People STILL talk about that student, decades after he left, and according to some accounts, his stand here, (and on several other issues) brought about a house cleaning at that seminary. For years, students had gone privately to their professors, administrators and others, and no one would do anything about the theological liberals who were destroying a once fine institution. (By the way, I personally went to this same professor privately as per Matthew 18, heard him state his theologically liberal views, wrote them down, took it to the administration and was rebuked because “we don’t teach those things here!”) But because one man publicly confronted heresy, the word got out to the donors, and change occurred.

If pastors, elders, seminary professors or others speak and write publicly, then they should be held accountable for their words. Heresy is dangerous and must be confronted. James puts it this way, “Let not many of you become teachers brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment (Jas 3:1).” When a man ascends to the pulpit (or when he writes articles for the general public) and declares, “Thus says the Lord” he had better be sure that it IS the Lord’s words, and not his own invention. If his words are contrary to sound doctrine, then it is not only the right, but the responsibility of other Christians to call him to account, publicly (after all, that’s why most publications have a “Letter to the Editor” column!)

It is interesting to note that even the PCA’s book of church order, though insisting that the steps of Matthew 18 MUST be followed (BCO 27-5) does allow for one exception to the first step of personal confrontation; when the court itself institutes process (BCO 31-7). Apparently, the reasoning is that a court of the church does not institute process unless a sin is already public, or of such a grievous nature that the souls of others are in danger (though even in these cases, a private confrontation, though not required, is also considered not inappropriate).

Therefore, let us be charitable when a man makes an honest mistake (”For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he ways, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well.” Jas 3:2). However, if a man is leading others astray, if his words or actions are contrary to the gospel, if his actions are a public scandal, then he must be rebuked “in the presence of all.”