Charles Ellicott Commentary Matthew 18:17

"And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican." — Matthew 18:17 (ASV)

If he neglects to hear them—This is better understood as refuse, as the word implies something more than mere negligence.

Tell it to the church—Here, and here only in our Lord’s teaching after the promise to Peter (Matthew 16:18), do we find the word Ecclesia repeated. This passage has become one of the most conspicuous examples of the power of a single word. Entire theories of church authority—whether exercised by the priesthood, bishops, councils, or the personal infallibility of the Bishop of Rome—have been built upon it. The final clause has been made the foundation for a system of church discipline that burdens the heretic with anathemas, excommunicates the evildoer, and places entire nations under an interdict.

It can scarcely be doubted that the thoughts and language of English-speakers regarding ecclesiastical discipline would be very different if, instead of tell it to the church and if he neglects to hear the church, we had the word “congregation.” Yet “congregation,” or a similar word like “assembly” or “society,” is admittedly the true meaning of the Greek. It was the rendering used in all English versions from Tyndale onward, until the Rhemish translators introduced “church” and were followed by the Authorized Version.

Understood this way, the words point to the final measures for reforming the offender and vindicating the divine law of righteousness. When the two forms of private remonstrance have failed, the case is to be brought before the community at large. The appeal is not to the rulers of the congregation but to the congregation itself, so that the public opinion of the Ecclesia can be brought to bear on the offender. If he defies that opinion and persists in his wrongdoing, he practically excommunicates himself.

Any society is justified in excluding from its fellowship a person who rejects the basic conditions of membership. His being regarded as a heathen and a tax collector is simply the legitimate consequence of his own actions. Even here, however, we can hardly think our Lord is holding up the Pharisees’ treatment of the heathen and the tax collector as a model to be imitated. The offender should be made to feel that he is no longer within the inner circle of fellowship, but he is still a human being and, as such, is entitled to courtesy and all acts of kindness. Saint Paul’s teaching on the treatment of the incestuous man in 1 Corinthians 5:1–5 and 2 Corinthians 2:6–7, and of sexually immoral people in general in 1 Corinthians 6:1–7, serves as a practical illustration of our Lord’s words.

It is obvious that this rule, as given, presupposes a small community existing within a larger, outside world—a community able to deal so minutely with the offenses of individual members. As the community grew, the church and the world came to share the same boundaries and were hardly distinguishable. It was perhaps natural, then, for the church to follow the course of other human societies and transfer its jurisdiction from the “congregation” or “assembly” to individual judges as its representatives.

And so, in the long run, bishops took the place of the congregation and exercised its functions. As long as they were truly in harmony with the mind of the church at large, this system could work well enough. However, there was always the risk of them lording it over God’s heritage (1 Peter 5:3). In any case, this led to the loss of the active reason and conscience of the community, which the original form of governance implied. A striking example of this original principle is Saint Paul’s appeal to the community’s judgment against the inconsistency of the chief of the Apostles (Galatians 2:11).

How far that original form of governance can be revived is one of the difficult questions of our time and perhaps of all time. The goal may have to be achieved by very different means. We cannot inform the universal or national Church of the misdeeds of each individual member. Practically, submitting such cases formally to the judgment of even the smaller community of the town or village where the offender lives would not be workable.

Perhaps the solution to the problem can be found in remembering that in a Christian nation, the Church and the State tend to become coextensive in matters of morality, despite doctrinal divisions. Therefore, we may be fulfilling the spirit of our Lord’s command when, after all private remonstrances have failed to stop the evil, we appeal to the public opinion of the wider Christian community affected by it. How this is done will vary with the circumstances of each case. But it is no idle paradox to say that in modern society, the most effective way of telling the church may sometimes be to appeal to public opinion as it is represented by lawful courts or otherwise expressed impartially.