Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 18:16
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.
But if he will not hear thee … – That is, if he spurns or abuses you, or will not be entreated by you, and will not reform.
Take with thee one or two more – The design of taking them seems to be,
- That he might be induced to listen to them, Mat 18:17. They should be persons of influence or authority; his personal friends, or those in whom he could put confidence.
- That they might be witnesses of his conduct before the church, Mat 18:17. The law of Moses required two or three witnesses, Deu 19:15; 2Co 13:1; Joh 8:17.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 16. 2. Take with thee one or two more] Men whom he esteems, who may then confirm and enforce what thou sayest; and afterwards, if need require, bear witness of what was spoken. If even this do not succeed, then, and not before,
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
But if he will not hear thee,….. But will either deny the fact, or extenuate and excuse it, or defend it, or at least is obstinate and incorrigible, shows no signs of repentance, but is angry, gives hard words, and ill language:
then take with thee one or two more; members of the church, and perhaps of weight, reputation, and character, who either know some thing of the matter, and so can confirm, by their testimony, what has been alleged, in order to bring the person to conviction and acknowledgment; or if they do not, and which seems rather to be the sense, they may, by hearing what is said on both sides, judge where the truth lies, and join with the offended person in the admonition, that it may fall with the greater weight, and become more effectual:
that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established, referring to De 19:15. So that should the matter be brought before the whole church, these witnesses would be able to testify the truth of the case, and report the steps that had been taken, and what effect they had had; so that things being thus prepared, the case would appear plain and easy, and without difficulty. The whole of this is very agreeable to the rules and customs of the Jews, and is founded on the law, in Le 19:17, upon which they form rules very much like to these. They represent God himself taking such a method as this, with the sons of men m:
“When the holy blessed God reproves a man, he reproves him in love, privately: if he receives it, it is well; if not, he reproves him among his friends: if he receives it, it is well; if not he reproves him openly before the eyes of all; if he receives it is well; if not, he leaves him, and reproves him no more.”
And this is an instruction to men, how they should reprove their friends. They say n, “he that sees anything in his friend that is not becoming, he ought to reprove him.” And which is elsewhere more o largely expressed:
“he that seeth his friend walking in a way that is not good, he is bound to reprove him, even a disciple his master; and this he shall do for his good, and in order to bring him to the life of the world to come, or eternal life; and “if he takes it of him, it is well”: but if not, he must reprove again, “a second and a third time”; and so he must reprove him many times, if, or until he hears him.”
And this they require to be done, in the most private manner:
“reproof out of love (they p say) is secret from the children of men; whoever reproves his friend in love, seeks to secrete his words from the sons of men, that he may not expose him thereby to shame and reproach.”
That is, as the gloss q on it observes,
“he seeks to reprove him in secret, so that he may not be put to shame before many.”
If this way does not succeed, they allow of a public reproof, for so it is said r;
“thou mayest not reprove him with hard words, till his countenance changes; for whoever causes the face of his friend to turn pale publicly, has no portion in the world to come; but thou mayest reprove in the words of heaven, or God; and if he does not return privately, thou mayest make him ashamed publicly, and expose his sin before him; and reproach and curse him, until he returns to do well; so did all the prophets to Israel.”
They plead also for a second reproof, from the text in Le 19:17 s.
“From whence does it appear, that he that sees anything in his friend unbecoming, ought to reprove him? As it is said, “thou shalt in any wise rebuke”, c. if he reproves him, , “and he does not receive it”, (he does not take it kindly, or, as here, he does not hear him,) from whence is it manifest, that he must return and reprove him (or repeat the reproof)? from what is said, reproving thou shall reprove.”
The whole of this is very fully expressed in a few words, by one t of their best writers, and in great agreement with these rules of Christ:
“He that sees his friend sinning, or going in a way not good, he is commanded to cause him to return to that which is good and to let him know, that he sins against himself by his evil works; as it is said, “thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour”: he that reproveth his friend, whether for things between him and himself, or whether for things between him and God, “ought to reprove him”,
, “between him and himself”; and should speak to him mildly, and in tender language; and let him know that he does not speak to, him, but for his good, and to bring him to everlasting life; “and if he receives it of him, it is well, and if not, he must reprove him”, “a second and a third time”; and so a man must continually reprove, until the sinner strikes him and says”, I will not hear.””
Buxtorf has produced a passage out of one of their writers u, in the very language in which Christ here delivers himself:
“The wise man says, if thy friend does thee an injury, reprove him between him and thee alone: if he hears thee, thou hast already gained; if he does not hear thee, speak to him before one or two, who may hear the matter, and if he will not hear reckon him a “worthless friend”.”
One would almost be ready to think, that this writer should mean Christ by the wise man, were it not for the implacable enmity they bear unto him. The above author has cited also the following passage out of the same w writer, pertinent to the present purpose:
“A friend that declares to thee thy faults, “between him and thee”, whenever he meets thee, is better to thee than a friend, that whenever he meets thee, gives thee a golden penny.”
m Raya Mehimna in Zohar, in Lev. fol. 35. 4. n T. Bab. Betacot, fol. 31. 1, 2. o Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora pr. Affirm. 11. p Zohar. in Lev. fol. 19. 3. q Imre Binah in ib. r Milzvot Tora, pr. neg. 6. s T. Bab. Erachin, fol. 16. 2. t Maimon. Hilch. Deyot. c. 6. sect. 7. u Mischar happeninim apud Buxtorf. Florileg. Heb. p. 297. w Ibid.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Take with thee ( ). Take alone () with () thee.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
In the mouth [ ] . Better Rev., “at/the mouth,” or on the testimony of.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
16. But if he shall not hear thee. The second step is, that he who displayed obstinacy, or refused to yield to one man, should be again admonished in presence of witnesses Here some object, that it will serve no purpose to call witnesses, if we have to deal with an obstinate and rebellious man, because their presence will be so far from leading him to acknowledge his guilt, that he will only make a more wicked denial. But this difficulty will be speedily removed, if we distinguish between denial and evasion He who explicitly denies the fact, and declares that he is falsely and calumniously accused, must be left alone; for it would be ill vain to press him by calling witnesses But as, in most cases, men shamelessly evade, or impudently excuse, the improper and unjust actions which they have committed, till greater authority is employed, towards such persons it is useful to observe this method.
That Christ’s discourse ought to be understood in this sense is evident from the word used, ἔλεγξον, reprove, or argue; for to argue is to convince by demonstration. (555) And how could I argue with a man (556) who boldly denies the whole matter? for he who has the effrontery to deny the crime which he has committed shuts the door against a second admonition.
We now perceive for what purpose Christ proposes to call witnesses. It is, to give greater weight and impressiveness to the admonition. As to the slightly different meaning to which he has turned the words of Moses, it involves no absurdity. Moses forbids sentence to be pronounced on a matter that is unknown, and defines this to be the lawful mode of proving, that it be established by the testimony of
two or three witnesses. At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established, (Deu 19:15.)
Alluding to that law, Christ says that, when two or three witnesses shall rise up to condemn the obstinacy of the man, the case will be clear, at least till the Church be prepared to take cognizance of it; for he who refuses to hear two or three witnesses (557) will have no reason to complain that he is dragged forth to light.
Tell it to the Church. It is asked, what does he mean by the term Church? For Paul orders (1Co 5:5) that the incestuous Corinthian shall be excommunicated, not by a certain chosen number, but by the whole assembly of the godly; and therefore it might appear to be probable that the power of judging is bestowed on the whole of the people. But as at that time no Church as yet was in existence, which acknowledged the authority of Christ, and no such order had been established, and as our Lord employs the ordinary and received forms of expression, there can be no doubt that he alludes to the order of the ancient Church, as in other places also he accommodates his modes of expression to what was known and customary. (558) When he commands that:
the offering, which we intend to present, shall be left at the altar, till we are reconciled to an offended brother, (Mat 5:23,)
he unquestionably intends, by means of that form of the worship of God which was then in existence and in force, to teach us, that we cannot in a right manner either pray, or offer any thing to God, so long as we are at variance with our brethren. So then he now looked at the form of discipline which was observed among the Jews; for it would have been absurd to propose an appeal to the judgment of a Church which was not yet in existence.
Now since among the Jews the power of excommunication belonged to the elders, who held the government of the whole Church, Christ speaks appropriately when he says that they who sinned must at length be brought forward publicly to the Church, if they either despise haughtily, or ridicule and evade, the private admonitions. We know that, after the Jews returned from the Babylonish captivity, a council was formed, which they called Sanhedrim, and in Greek Synedrion, ( συνέδριον) and that to this council was committed the superintendence of morals and of doctrine. This government was lawful and approved by God, and was a bridle to restrain within their duty the dissolute and incorrigible.
It will perhaps be objected that, in the time of Christ, every thing was corrupt and perverted, so that this tyranny was very far from deserving to be accounted the judgment of the Church But the reply is easy. Though the method of procedure was at that time depraved and perverted, yet Christ justly praises that order, such as it had been handed down to them from the fathers. And when, shortly afterwards, he erected a Church, while he removed the abuse, he restored the proper use of excommunication. Yet there is no reason to doubt that the form of discipline, which prevailed in the kingdom of Christ, succeeded in the room of that ancient discipline. And certainly, since even heathen nations maintained a shadowy form of excommunication, it appears that, from the beginning, this was impressed by God on the minds of men, that those who were impure and polluted ought to be excluded from religious services. (559) It would therefore have been highly disgraceful to the people of God to have been altogether destitute of that discipline, some trace of which remained among the Gentiles. But what had been preserved under the Law Christ has conveyed to us, because we hold the same rank with the ancient fathers. For it was not the intention of Christ to send his disciples to the synagogue, which, while it willingly cherished in its bosom disgraceful filth, excommunicated the true and sincere worshippers of God; but he reminded us that the order, which had been formerly established in a holy manner under the Law, must be maintained in his Church
Let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican. What is here added as to heathens and publicans confirms the interpretation which I have given. For heathens and publicans having been at that time regarded by the Jews with the greatest hatred and detestation, he compares to them unholy and irreclaimable men, who yield to no admonitions. Certainly he did not intend to enjoin them to avoid the society of heathens, of whom the Church was afterwards composed; nor is there any reason at the present day why believers should shrink from associating with publicans But in order that he might be more easily understood by the ignorant, Christ borrowed a mode of expression from what was then customary among his nation; (560) and the meaning is, that we ought to have no intercourse with the despisers of the Church till they repent.
(555) “ Car arguer signifie convaincre par argumens, et remonstrer par bonnes raisons;” — “for to argue signifies to convince by arguments, and to show by good reasons.”
(556) “ Or comment pourroit on arguer ou convaincre un homme, que ce qu’il a fait est mauvais ?” — “Now how could we argue or convince a man that what he has done is wrong?”
(557) “ Veu qu’il n’a pas voulu recevoir l’admonition qui luy a este faite en prive par deux ou trois;” — “since he did not choose to receive the admonition which was given to him in private by two or three.”
(558) “ Comme aussi en d’autres passages il s’accomodi a ce qui estoit lors ordinaire, et use des termes communes;” — “as also in other passages he adapts himself to what was then customary, and employs common terms.”
(559) “ Ne devoycnt estre receus a participer aux choses sacrees appartenantes au sarvice de Dieu;” — “ought not to be admitted to take part in the sacred things belonging to the service of God.”
(560) “ A use d’un terme convenable a la coustume du pays;” — “used a term in accordance with the custom of the country.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
B. GET OTHER HELPERS AS WITNESSES (18:16)
Mat. 18:16 But if he hear thee not. If God Himself cannot make people hear Him against their will, how much more problematic is it when a disciple attempts to recover his sinning brother? If his will is left free, he can continue to refuse to be convinced. No compulsion can force him. However, the war is not lost merely because of an unfavorable first skirmish. Take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. Curiously, Jesus did not specify the duties of these witnesses, perhaps intending to leave His statement general enough to permit flexibility according to the circumstances:
1.
Since Jesus reason is practically a verbal quotation of Deu. 19:15 (LXX), it would seem that these witnesses must have seen the sin committed which requires this effort, The Mosaic Law required a plurality of witnesses against anyone incriminated. (Deu. 17:6; Num. 35:30; cf. 2Co. 13:1; 1Ti. 5:19) Pauls reprimand of the Corinthians was based on such a plurality of witnesses. (1Co. 1:10 f; 1Co. 5:1; 1Co. 7:1; 1Co. 11:18; 1Co. 16:17 f) The problem arises whether Jesus intends His words to refer to proof before the offending brother that others know about and can substantiate his guilt, or whether He means that the offending brother would be more readily convinced, since he knows that these two or three others will, by their presence here, become witnesses to stand before the Church to give their testimony there of what takes place here. The latter is the better choice, since Jesus did not specify that they be witnesses of the sin, but rather implied that their ability to confirm every word would grow out of their being present here.
2.
Just as two or three gathered together form a small fellowship (Mat. 18:19-20), so here, the opportunity to talk things over in the presence of a few thoughtful, tactful acquaintances creates a new atmosphere in which the problem can be aired with a greater amount of fair-minded objectivity. The others own impartiality is to assure the sinning brother of fair treatment. By their presence they become witnesses to the wronged mans efforts to recover the other, and attest that the one has sincerely made every effort to convince the other, and whether the sinner responded positively to his attempt. They can certify whether the attempts were made in a harsh, vengeful, demanding manner, or whether they represent an honestly Christian effort to restore fellowship. It may even happen that they realize that the accused is actually innocent while the accuser is clearly in the wrong. Therefore, they can confirm or deny that a real sin is involved, not merely a question of opinions or relative judgment. If the sin was something said, they can verify what he actually intended to say. They can convince the complainer that he has no real basis for taking offense, especially where he has inflated an imagined hurt all out of proportion.
While the obvious purpose of other witnesses is their testimony to what transpires during the encounter, the spirit and approach of these brethren must be the same as when the first brother went it alone: to gain the brother by showing him his fault in order to bring him to repentance, but done in the same brotherly comradeship shown by the first. From the following verse we learn that the offender must hear them. Thus, they, too, may add their voice to appeal to him to abandon his sin. The collective warmth of their love is intended to melt his heart in contrite tears and thanksgiving that people cared enough about him to come looking for him, even when he did not know or care that he was lost.
See Mat. 18:22-35 for Fact Questions.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(16) Take with thee one or two more.The principle of action is the same as before. The first point aimed at is the reformation of the offender without the scandal (here we may take the word both in its earlier and later senses) of publicity. If personal expostulation failed, then the one or two were to be called in. (Comp. 1Co. 6:5.) It is, of course, implied that they are not partisans, but disinterested representatives of what is likely to be the common estimate of the fault committed. If the end is attained through them, well; if not, then they are in reserve for the final stage as witnesses that every effort has been made in the spirit of a righteous friendship. As the previous verse implied a reference to Lev. 19:17, so does this to Deu. 19:15. This selection of all that was highest and most spiritual in the ethical teaching of the Law is one of the features of our Lords method, for the most part insufficiently recognised. (See Joh. 8:17.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
“But if he does not listen to you, take with you one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established.”
That the sin is to be seen as something serious comes out here. It is not just a matter of personal disagreement, for now others are to be involved, and they will of course ‘judge’ the matter for themselves in order that they might be of help to the one who has fallen. They may in fact in some cases simply advise that in their view the matter is not important enough to take further. But where the sin is a serious one then they will decide on the matter between them and then come to their brother disciple in order to resolve the issue. Note again that the aim is to restore the disciple and to prevent the matter becoming too public. Mercy and forgiveness is ever in mind. Bringing in one or two more (of the kind of character that Jesus has previously described) will ensure that the matter is being fairly dealt with, and the hope is that together they can restore the erring disciple in a spirit of love and humility, without widespread publicity. In this emphasis we discover Jesus’ hatred of ‘gossips’.
And as they consider their approach to the one who has ‘fallen’ they will pray together. And when these two or three gather together in His Name they know that He will be among them (Mat 18:20). He will guide them in their thinking and in their approach (compare 1Co 5:4). And it is only then that they will approach their fellow disciple.
The point here is that now the principle of someone not being judged ‘except on the evidence of two or three witnesses’ is in mind (Deu 19:15). No one should suffer the humiliation of being brought before the whole congregation without the agreement of such witnesses. Clearly therefore they will require some kind of evidence before they can become ‘witnesses’. That could be the evidence of the disciple’s own admission of the sin, or some other kind of good evidence. They must ‘enquire, and make search and ask diligently’, for without that they would have to reject the charge (compare Deu 13:14). And Mat 18:19 emphasises that their judgment must be made prayerfully, and that Jesus’ Father in Heaven should be brought in to the matter. For He is the final judge of all men (Mat 7:23-24; Mat 10:32-33).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 18:16 . Second gradus admonitionis . The one or the two who accompany him are likewise intended to take part in the (see , Mat 18:17 ).
, . . .] in order that, in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be duly attested; i.e. in order that every declaration which he makes in answer to your united may be heard by two or three persons (according as one or two may happen to be present besides thyself), and, on the strength of their testimony ( , ), may be duly authenticated, so that in the event of his submitting to the the possibility of evading or denying anything afterwards will be precluded; or else, should he prove so refractory that the matter must be brought before the church, then, in the interests of this further disciplinary process, it will be of consequence to have the declaration made by him in the previous attempt to deal with him in an authentic and unquestionable shape.
In order to convey His idea, Jesus has used, though somewhat freely (otherwise in 2Co 13:1 ), the words of the law, Deu 19:15 , and made them His own. Comp. 1Ti 5:19 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
16 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.
Ver. 16. Then take with thee one or two more ] Such as are faithful, and able both to keep counsel and to give counsel; that so, if we cannot lead him by the hand to Christ, we may bear him in his bed, as they did the palsyman, and so bring him to Christ by the help of friends.
That in the mouth of two or three ] To blame then are they that proceed upon every idle supposition, suspicion, report, or rumour. Three manner of persons (said Father Latimer) can make no credible information. 1. Adversaries, for evil will doth never speak well. 2. Ignorant men, and those without judgment. 3. Whisperers and blowers in men’s ears, which will spew out in hugger mugger more than they dare avow openly. To all such we must turn the deaf ear: the talebearer and tale-hearer are both of them abominable, and shut out of heaven, Psa 15:3 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
16. ] Go again, and take The first attempt of brotherly love is to heal the wound, to remove the offence, in secrecy: to cover the sin: but if this cannot be done, the next step is, to take two or three, still, in case of an adjustment, preventing publicity; but in the other event, providing sufficient legal witness . See reff. and Joh 8:17 .
, not thing , but word , as always. Cf. St. Paul’s apparent reference to these words of our Lord, 2Co 13:1 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 18:16-17 have something answering to them in Luk 17:3 , oming in there after the group of parables in chaps. 15 and 16, in which that of the Shepherd has its place; whence Wendt recognises these verses as an authentic logion probably closely connected with the parable in the common source. Mat 18:17 he regards as an addition by the evangelist or a later hand. Holtzmann (H. C.) regards the whole section (Mat 18:15-17 ) as a piece of Church order in the form of a logion of the Lord.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mat 18:16 . . After a first failure try again, with added influence. . This bears a juridical aspect (Schanz), but it does not really pass out of the moral sphere: ethical influence alone contemplated; consensus in moral judgment carries weight with the conscience. , etc.: reference to the legal provision in Deu 19:15 in a literary rather than in a legal spirit.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
with. Greek. meta.
in = upon. Greek. epi. App-104.
two or three. Reference to Pentateuch (Deu 19:15). Compare Joh 8:17. See App-117.
word. Greek. rhema = statement. See note on Mar 9:32.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
16. ] Go again, and take The first attempt of brotherly love is to heal the wound, to remove the offence, in secrecy: to cover the sin: but if this cannot be done, the next step is, to take two or three, still, in case of an adjustment, preventing publicity; but in the other event, providing sufficient legal witness. See reff. and Joh 8:17.
, not thing, but word, as always. Cf. St. Pauls apparent reference to these words of our Lord, 2Co 13:1.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 18:16. , one or two) so that, reckoning thyself the complainant, there may be two or three witnesses. The evidence of the complainant is of greater weight.- , …, that in the mouth, etc.) referring to Deu 19:15, the latter part of which the LXX. render: -at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, every word shall be established.- , every word may be established) sc. both against the sinner and afterwards to the Church. This passage is one of those which prove that the principles and rules of the forensic law of Moses are not entirely excluded from the polity of the Church of Christ.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
that in: Num 35:30, Deu 17:6, Deu 19:15, 1Ki 21:13, Joh 8:17, 2Co 13:1, 1Ti 5:19, Heb 10:28, 1Jo 5:7, 1Jo 5:8, Rev 11:3
Reciprocal: Gen 31:37 – set it here Jdg 11:12 – sent messengers Luk 17:4 – I repent 1Co 5:4 – when
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
8:16
If the conversation fails to bring a reconciliation it will be evident that a more public knowledge of the affair will have to come. As a protection against any misunderstanding, the next meeting should have one or two witnesses that all things that are said may be proved in case further dealing becomes necessary.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
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.
[Take with thee one or two more, etc.] the Hebrew lawyers require the same thing of him that sins against his brother: “Samuel saith, ‘Whosoever sins against his brother, he must say to him, I have sinned against thee. If he hear, it is well: if not, let him bring others, and let him appease him before them. If perhaps he die, let him appease him at his sepulchre, and say, I have sinned against thee.’ ”
But our Saviour here requires a higher charity; namely, from him who is the offended party. In like manner, “The great Sanhedrim admonished a city lapsed to idols, by two disciples of the wise men. If they repented, well: if not, all Israel waged war against it.” In like manner also, “The jealous husband warned his wife before two witnesses, ‘Do not talk with N.'”
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 18:16. The next step is less private, but intended to prevent publicity.
One or two more as witnesses. The offence must be grave enough to warrant this step.
Or three, parenthetical, implying that the offending party may be a witness against himself.
Established. It is assumed, not that both are in the wrong, but that the two witnesses, on hearing the facts, pronounce against the party to whom they go.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the {f} mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be {g} established.
(f) That is, by the word and witness; the mouth is sometimes taken for the word of speech, Num 3:16 , and also for a still witness, namely, when the matter speaks for itself, as below in Mat 21:16 .
(g) Sure and certain.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The Mosaic Law had also advocated the second step that Jesus taught (Deu 19:15). However, Jesus broadened the field of civil law that the Deuteronomy passage covered to include any sin about which a disciple might need rebuke. Jesus was not perpetuating the whole Mosaic Law. He was simply carrying over these provisions in the Law that He declared were now binding on His disciples.
Probably the function of the witnesses is to witness to the erring disciple’s reaction to the confrontation. This seems to have been the purpose in the Deuteronomy passage. Their presence would be an added inducement to return to the fold of the faithful. These seem to be witnesses to the confrontation, not to the sin. If the brother or sister proved unrepentant and the initiator needed to take the third step (Mat 18:17), witnesses to the confrontation might be necessary.