Bible references

Key NT Scriptures

• 1 Corinthians 5:1-2
• 1 Corinthians 5:9-13
• 2 John 1:9-11
• Matthew 5:23-25
• Matthew 18:15-17
• Romans 16:17
• 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15
  Click to retrieve 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15
• Titus 3:10-11

Key OT Scriptures

• Leviticus 19:17-18
  Jewish Commentary
• Proverbs 22:10
  Jewish Commentary

Supportive NT Scriptures

• Acts 20:28-31
• Colossians 3:13
• Galatians 6:1-2
• Hebrews 10:24-25
• James 5:14-16
• Luke 12:58
• Luke 17:3
• Matthew 7:1-5
• Revelation 3:19
• 1 Timothy 5:1
• 1 Timothy 5:19-20
• Titus 1:10-16
  Click to retrieve Titus 1:10-16
• Titus 2:15

Supportive OT Scriptures

• Ecclesiastes 7:21-22
  Jewish Commentary
• Proverbs 9:8-9
  Jewish Commentary
• Proverbs 19:11
  Jewish Commentary

Bible verses copyright: PUBLIC DOMAIN except in the United Kingdom, where a Crown Copyright applies to printing the KJV. See http://www.cambridge.org/about-us/who-we-are/queens-printers-patent

Commentary

Rabbi Michael Rudolph

Different corrective considerations apply according to whether a brother's sin is against another brother (private offense) or against the community broadly (public offense). Also, that which applies to a brother does not necessarily apply to unbelieving neighbors because unbelievers have not committed themselves to the principles and disciplines of Scripture ( 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 ). A. RESPONDING TO THE PRIVATE OFFENSE COMMITTED BY A BROTHER A. RESPONDING TO THE PRIVATE OFFENSE COMMITTED BY A BROTHER OVERLOOKING A SIN Even when we are authorized to seek redress for a sin committed against us, we need not do so, for Proverbs 19:11 states: People with good sense are slow to anger, and it is their glory to overlook an offense. And Ecclesiastes 7:21-22 states: Also, don't take seriously every word spoken, such as when you hear your servant speaking badly of you; because often, as you yourself know, you have spoken badly of others. This is in keeping with God's desire that we take upon ourselves His holy nature, for He Himself has been known to overlook sin ( Acts 17:29-30 ). 1 Some private offenses are easily overlooked - especially those that are unintentional, have done no great harm, and are unlikely to be repeated. Although it may seem that overlooking an offense is always the loving thing to do, it is not necessarily so. One's decision should always be based upon what is best for the offender, and what is best for others against whom the offender may sin in the future if he is not made accountable. If the offense is overlooked, it should not be brought up again unless the offense is repeated. Also, overlooking a sin does not assure that the parties will remain in, or return to, reconciliation. 1. Consider also, how Moses pleaded with God to overlook the sins of Israel ( Deuteronomy 9:27 ). GOING TO OUR OFFENDING BROTHER Much is said about rebuking and correcting in both the Tanach and the New Covenant Scriptures. Leviticus 19:17-18 is generally cited by the classical Jewish commentators as the Scripture that commands this, but there are many others that apply as well, as one can see from the large number of Scriptures cited in this Mitzvah . Another key Scripture from the Tanach is Proverbs 27:5 : Better open rebuke than hidden love. (See also, Proverbs 9:8-9 ) If our decision is to not overlook an offense, we must confront the offending brother with his sin: Matthew 18:15 : Moreover, if your brother commits a sin against you, go and show him his fault - but privately, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won back your brother. Galatians 6:1-2 : Brothers, suppose someone is caught doing something wrong. You who have the Spirit should set him right, but in a spirit of humility, keeping an eye on yourselves so that you won't be tempted too. Bear one another's burdens - in this way you will be fulfilling the Torah's true meaning, which the Messiah upholds. There are three things in the foregoing Scriptures that stand out. First, we are to go to our brother alone. That means we are not to share our complaint with others before first giving our brother the opportunity to repent and make things right. This principle assumes two things: (1) The parties are relatively equal in their ability to deal with one another, and (2) There is no impropriety in the parties meeting privately. An example of inequality would be a child having to confront an adult; an example of improper privacy would be a male and female meeting alone to confront one another concerning sexual sin. In these and similar cases, the Scriptures should be interpreted broadly enough to permit chaperoning and for allowing the weaker of the two adversaries to be accompanied by a suitable protector. Second, when we go to our brother to tell him his fault, our attitude must be pure, and our demeanor proper. The operative expression in the Galatians Scripture is " a spirit of humility ", and our motive for going must be to reconcile and not to extract a confession of fault. Third, our purpose for confronting our brother must be to restore him to righteousness, and our hope must be for reconciliation. Although in cases involving damage or loss we may seek restitution as part of the reconciliation process, we are not to sue our brother in a secular court ( 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 ). RETURNING WITH WITNESSES If the offending brother agrees with our complaint and repents, the matter is, of course, concluded, and we forgive him. If he does not agree or refuses to meet privately, we must then elect whether to pursue the matter further, or to belatedly overlook his sin ( Proverbs 19:11 ). Although overlooking the sin at this juncture is possible, its appropriateness has to be questioned. If there remains un-reconciliation, we should go to our brother again and, this time, bring one or two witnesses: Matthew 18:16 : If he doesn't listen, take one or two others with you so that every accusation can be supported by the testimony of two or three witnesses. These need not be witnesses to the original offense complained of (although they may be), but rather to our second meeting with our brother. 2 Our usual concept of witnesses is that they are silent observers. In this case, however, Matthew 18:17 , authorizes the witnesses to determine which of the parties to the dispute is wrong, and to urge that person to listen to reason and repent: Matthew 18:17a : If he refuses to hear them ... As before, if the parties come to agreement or the offending brother repents, the matter is concluded. If however, the attempt at reconciliation is unsuccessful, the matter must be brought to the ekklesia (assembly) for adjudication (see Matthew 18:17c below). 2. Although not addressed in Scripture, fairness probably allows the offending brother to invite his own witnesses to the meeting as well. BRINGING THE DISPUTE TO A BET DIN OF ELDERS Matthew 18:17b : ... tell the congregation The word "congregation" in the CJB translation ("church" in some translations) is ( ekklesia ) in the Greek text, which means "a gathering", "an assembly" (for worship), or "a deliberative council". According to Matthew 18:17b , if the complainant and the witnesses are unsuccessful in convincing the offender to repent, the matter is to be brought to the ekklesia for adjudication. Since the entire ekklesia (the body of believers) is too large a group to assemble for hearing and judging cases, it is the prevailing view that a court ( bet din ) of assembled elders (reminiscent of Deuteronomy 17:8-13 ) acts on behalf of the ekklesia . JUDGMENT OF THE ELDERS After the elders of a bet din render their judgment, the party ruled against is required to repent and comply with any orders issued, including orders of restitution. If he refuses to do so, he commits a new offense - that of disobeying the lawful orders of the tribunal. This new offense is public in nature because the disobedience is against the public authority. 3 When this occurs, the judging elders are required to inform the body of believers of the respondent's disobedience, and order that he henceforth be treated as one who is no longer a believer: Matthew 18:17c : ... and if he refuses to listen even to the congregation, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax-collector. This is sometimes referred to as a decree of "disfellowship" or "excommunication". It is a common misunderstanding that when a brother is excommunicated pursuant to Matthew 18 , he must necessarily be ejected from the congregation. On the contrary, after a judgment of excommunication, unless he is also disruptive, the "former" brother should be treated as an unbeliever in every way and we do not eject unbelievers. Instead, unless he is also a violator of 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 (walking in immorality while calling himself a believer) or Titus 3:10-11 (being divisive or otherwise harmful to the body), he should be encouraged to attend congregational services and other events where he is likely to hear the Word of God and be encouraged to repent. One important consequence of a Matthew 18 excommunication is that the complainant is released from the constraint of 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 and is free to sue the unrepentant respondent in a public court. Another common misunderstanding is that a decree of excommunication applies only to the excommunicating congregation or denomination. Biblically, that is not so. Judgments arising from Matthew 18 proceedings apply across the entire body of believers and, so long as correct biblical doctrine is applied and due process is afforded, all Yeshua-believing congregations should recognize and comply with judgments rendered by reputable batei din . What is especially ominous, is that God Himself recognizes batei din judgments ( Matthew 18:18-20 ). Unfortunately, the current state of the body of believers is such that a valid excommunication by one congregation's or church's ecclesiastic court is often ignored by other congregations, the result of which is that excommunicated persons are often received into a believing community without being required to repent. The body of believer needs to correct this. It is important to appreciate that a brother who is accused of sin cannot be forced to attend or to cooperate with any of the Matthew 18 meetings. However, if he refuses to meet or to attend, he does so at his peril, because his refusal elevates the controversy to its next level without anyone being able to hear his defense or point of view. If he refuses to attend or cooperate at the last ( bet din ) stage, evidence against him will likely be presented in his absence, with predictable results. 3. See section below: "Responding to a Public Offense." RESTORING A BROTHER TO FELLOWSHIP A judgment of "disfellowship" is reversible in the same way as the status of being an unbeliever is reversible. What is required is that the sanctioned brother repent of his former sin, comply with all orders of the convicting bet din , and receive Yeshua again as his Lord and Savior. Ideally, the same bet din that ruled previously is convened to judge the repentance and, if it is deemed genuine, the tribunal sets aside its prior judgment and publishes a decree of restoration. This restoration, which is declared on earth, is also recognized in heaven: Matthew 18:18-20: Yes! I tell you people that whatever you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven. To repeat, I tell you that if two of you here on earth agree about anything people ask, it will be for them from my Father in heaven. For wherever two or three are assembled in my name, I am there with them. THE "JUDGE-ME-NOT" DEFENSE Believers who seek to avoid correction often quote Matthew 7:1 : Don't judge, so that you won't be judged. The full context of this Scripture is, however, rarely quoted; it continues with verses 2-5 : For the way you judge others is how you will be judged - the measure with which you measure out will be used to measure to you. Why do you see the splinter in your brother's eye but not notice the log in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the splinter out of your eye,' when you have the log in your own eye? You hypocrite! First, take the log out of your own eye; then you will see clearly, so that you can remove the splinter from your brother's eye! So, the Scripture does not prohibit judging one's brother; it merely exhorts us to repent of our own sins first. There is, in addition, another Scripture, 1 Corinthians 5:12 , that specifically authorizes brothers to judge each other; it reads: For what business is it of mine to judge outsiders? Isn't it those who are part of the community that you should be judging? WHEN THE OFFENDER IS US! Matthew 5:23-24 : So if you are offering your gift at the Temple altar and you remember there that your brother has something against you, leave your gift where it is by the altar, and go, make peace with your brother. Then come back and offer your gift. If we know or suspect that we have sinned against a brother, we are not to wait until the brother comes to us - we are to go to him. Noted author Jay Adams has been known to say that ideally, the offender and the offended should meet in the street between their respective homes, each on his way to seek reconciliation with the other. B. RESPONDING TO A PUBLIC OFFENSE COMMITTED BY A BROTHER B. RESPONDING TO A PUBLIC OFFENSE COMMITTED BY A BROTHER A public offense is a sin committed by an individual against the community broadly, i.e., against the local congregation, or believers at large. This kind of offense is the biblical analogy of a criminal offense in secular law. Public offenses pose a danger to the community, so the primary responsibility of the community's leaders is to protect the flock by ministering correction to the offender. The goal here is different than in the case of private offenses, where promoting reconcil­iation through the Matthew 18 process is the primary purpose. The following verses of Scripture reveal how the shaliach Paul dealt with one such public offense: 1 Corinthians 5:1-2 : It is actually being reported that there is sexual sin among you, and it is sexual sin of a kind that is condemned even by pagans - a man is living with his stepmother! And you stay proud? Shouldn't you rather have felt some sadness that would have led you to remove from your company the man who has done this thing? 1 Corinthians 5:5 : ... hand over such a person to the Adversary for his old nature to be destroyed, so that his spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord. PROSECUTING PUBLIC OFFENSES An important difference between public and private offenses is that, in the case of public offenses, it is the community's guardians - its elders - who are responsible for protecting the community by correcting wrongs, and administering justice ( Hebrews 13:17 ). That notwithstanding, an individual congregant is often the first person to become aware that a public offense has or may have been committed. Although, according to Galatians 6:1-2 he may confront the perpetrator for the purpose of ministering correction and urging his brother to repent, he is not authorized to act for the community in either judging the matter or deciding what remedial action should be taken. Therefore, in all but trivial cases, the congregant-citizen's duty is to report the suspected offense, or the evidence thereof, to the community's elders 4 . 5 In my opinion, the procedure of choice for prosecuting public offenses should, where possible, be a modification of the Matthew 18 process previously discussed. In the case of public offenses, however, the complainant is not an individual; rather, it is the community, so the ones to confront are one or more elders representing the community, analogous to Matthew 18:15 . If the initial confrontation does not produce an adequate result, the next step is to meet again, this time taking one or two additional witnesses (who should also be elders, analogous to Matthew 18:16 ). If, after this meeting, the elder delegation believes that the accused has committed sin and the matter is not resolved, then, just as in the case of a private offense, a formal bet din of the ekklesia is convened. This conclave consists of the elders who were the witnesses, preferably joined by other elders, analogous to Matthew 18:17 . Then, after hearing, if the bet din rules against the accused, it is to take whatever measures it deems appropriate for enabling justice and protecting the community. It is also my opinion, when an individual has reason to believe that a brother in the faith has committed a significant trespass against the criminal law of society, a prudent and covenantal first step is to consult elders of the body for their wisdom in how to proceed. Nevertheless, the individual may inform the secular governing authorities directly but, if he does, his reason for doing so should be that it is required for public safety, and to comply with Romans 13:1-2 . 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 does not apply in this case, because that Scripture only prohibits brothers suing brothers for redress of private grievances; this would not be a private grievance. 4. A gentle covenantal approach to doing this is to urge the offender to go to the elders himself and confess his transgression. If he is unwilling to do so, he should be invited to be present when the informant discloses to the elders. 5. According to Deuteronomy 19:15 , one may not bring an accusation, except by the testimony of two or three witnesses. This does not preclude one from informing the elders that an offense may have been committed; it does, however, define the level of proof needed for verdict of "guilty". PUNISHING FOR PUBLIC OFFENSES The only proper response for having committed a public offense is to repent and obey all remedial orders issued by a properly constituted bet din . Although there are a myriad of possible public offenses, there are two categories of them which, if not repented of, result in separation from the body of believers; the two categories are: (a) sins that can lead to excommunication (b) sins that can lead to being removed from fellowship. The first of these categories (a) has already been discussed: It is refusing to repent for a sin after being ordered to do so by a bet din in the aftermath of a judicial proceeding. As previously explained, excommunication is a judgment by a court of elders that a person, once considered to be a brother in the faith, is no longer so. It is important to mention here that excommunication does not result from the underlying sin itself, but from the disobedience of refusing to repent after being ordered to do so. The second of these categories (b) consists of five behaviors for which a person must be banned from fellowship with believers: A believer, who is walking in unrepentant immorality ( 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 ). A believer, who is in gross doctrinal error, and not in accord with the Scripture and with Apostolic doctrine ( 2 John 1:9-11 , Galatians 1:8-9 ). A believer who is disorderly in his lifestyle ( 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 ): A believer who is divisive and has been warned twice ( Titus 3:10-11 ; Romans 16:17 ). An unbeliever who is rebellious and scoffs at the Word of God ( Proverbs 22:10 ). In the first three cases, the danger to the body comes from the offender holding himself out, or being considered to be, part of the community - a believer, yet being in significant sin, professing heretical doctrines, or walking in a disorderly manner. While these traits are understandable in unbelievers, a believer (or professing believer) with such characteristics brings discredit to the body. Such behaviors can also present a stumbling block for new members of a believing community who are not yet fully discipled, and whose discernment is not yet fully developed. The fourth and fifth cases on the list apply to persons who sow discord, whether or not they are believers, and it makes no difference that the rebelliousness or divisiveness is unconscious or unintended. They are both dangerous and contagious in a community of believers, and those who practice them and do not stop must be excluded. In the first four cases, repentance restores the offending brother to fellowship, and in the fifth case, the unbeliever to again being welcome. Restoration is not automatic, however, for whether or not an offender's repentance is genuine is a matter to be judged by the same bet din that judged and disciplined him originally. ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ELDERS Some contend that Scripture establishes a more stringent standard for bringing an accusation against an elder and, for their authority, they refer to 1 Timothy 5:19-20 : Never listen to any accusation against a leader unless it is supported by two or three witnesses. Rebuke before the whole assembly those leaders who continue sinning, as a warning to the others. Actually, the foregoing Scripture establishes the same standard for bringing an accusation against an elder as does Deuteronomy 19:15 for bringing an accusation against anyone else. A plausible explanation for why there exists a special Scripture for elders, is that the verses which precede 1 Timothy 5:19 speak of the awesome responsibility which leaders have to their flock. The flock is therefore exhorted to obey their leaders so as to assist them in performing their functions with joy. Because leaders are highly visible and their actions sometimes controversial, they are especially vulnerable to accusations and criticisms in the form of whispers or gossip. These are damaging to an elder's reputation and ability to lead, and so the above verses of Scripture are a reminder to us that we must apply to our elders the same high standard that we apply when we bring public accusations against others. C. REBUKING AND CORRECTING A BROTHER EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO OFFENSE COMMITTED AGAINST US C. REBUKING AND CORRECTING A BROTHER EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO OFFENSE COMMITTED AGAINST US Leviticus 19:17 : Do not hate your brother in your heart, but rebuke your neighbor frankly, so that you won't carry sin because of him. This Scripture infers that we have a responsibility to rebuke and correct our neighbor brother who is in sin, even when the sin is not directed against us. It could be for our brother's sake alone, and the Scripture is clear that, if we do not rebuke and correcthim, we will be in sin as well (see also, Galatians 6:1-2 ; James 5:16b ). D. BRINGING CORRECTION TO PERSONS OUTSIDE OF THE BELIEVING COMMUNITY D. BRINGING CORRECTION TO PERSONS OUTSIDE OF THE BELIEVING COMMUNITY In disputes with non-brethren, the believer is required to act biblically, while no such constraint can be expected from, or enforced upon, his opponent. Some may see this as a disadvantage for the believer, but it is actually a strength, because God's peace and wisdom result from submitting one's self to the Word of God. To begin with, the believer is not to exacerbate conflict by his own improper conduct. Rather, he is to live in peace with all persons as much as it is possible ( Romans 12:18 Proverbs 16:7 ) and, once conflict has arisen, he is not to respond in the flesh, but out of love ( Romans 12:19-21 ). As with conflicts between brethren, the exercise of personal forgiveness is mandatory: Mark 11:25 : And when you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive your offenses. Also, there are occasions when an offense may or should be overlooked, as stated in Proverbs 19:11 . If the offense is not overlooked, employing the first step in the Matthew 18 process (going to him privately) should be considered, even though it is not required in disputes with unbelievers, because Scripture teaches the advisability of settling disputes quickly ( Matthew 5:25 ). If going to your opponent does not solve the problem, suing in the public courts may be an option. Matthew 5:37-41 is often misunderstood as commanding believers to be pacifistic toward those who would hurt them, enslave them, or take their property. To understand this better, let us focus on verse 39a : But I tell you not to stand up against someone who does you wrong. The word "resist" in the Greek, " anth-is'-tay-mee " can refer to passive resistance, but one of its recognized meanings is "to set one's self against" (Strong's Greek Lexicon, word 436) - a decidedly aggressive posture. Which approach to employ when anthistaymee is used, can be deduced from the next sentence: On the contrary, if someone hits you on the right cheek, let him hit you on the left cheek too! According to Craig S. Keener, 6 " The blow on the right cheek was the most grievous insult possible in the ancient world ... " (e.g. 1 Kings 22:24 ). What the Scripture is actually saying (Keener opines), is that we should not retaliate against an evil person. For example, if the person tries to provoke us by insulting us, rather than meeting his challenge with aggression of our own, we should accept the insult and even a second insult (present our other cheek). This does not mean that we should not protect ourselves from harm either physically or through legal means when appropriate. The next statement in the Scripture, Matthew 5:40 , says: If someone wants to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well. I agree with Keener that this is meant as hyperbole, and is addressing our attitude regarding ownership. It teaches that where someone is suing us unjustly, we should prefer to bear the injustice, and even give him more than he wants, rather than become a defendant in a law suit. The statement " And if a soldier forces you to carry his pack for one mile, carry it for two! " is also a teaching about our attitude regarding ownership - in this case, however, ownership of time and freedom. It is a reference to the ancient Roman soldier's right to impress a person into serving him (e.g. Mark 15:21 ). The Scripture teaches that we should prefer to bear the injustice of servitude, and even give more than required as ones who, in obedience to God, are called to love our enemies. 6. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament , 2 nd ed., p. 59, Intervarsity Press (Downers Grove, Illinois: 2004).

Classical commentators

This Mitzvah contains elements that are not dealt with in the mitzvot of Maimonides, Meir, and HaChinuch. The only mitzvot in their respective compilations that touch on this Mitzvah (other than those that impose specific penalties for violations of law and deal with idolators and false prophets) are Maimonides' RP205, Meir's MP72, and HaChinuch's C239. Maimondes, Meir, and HaChinuch express their mitzvot as our being responsible for rebuking sinners without reference to whether or not the sin is directed against us. Maimonides includes those who are contemplating but have not yet committed sin, whereas Meir and HaChinuch do not touch on that. Another difference in the commentators is that HaChinuch states that one is prohibited from correcting a sinner if he believes that his correction will not be heeded. For his reason, he cites TB Yebamoth 65b , and expresses concern that the righteous admonisher will be disgraced by the sinner ignoring his rebuke. Also, HaChinuch states his mitzvah C239 in the context of an Israelite rebuking another Israelite. Maimonides and Meir speak of rebuking sinners more generally.

Copyright © Michael Rudolph and Daniel C. Juster, The Law of Messiah, Torah from a New Covenant Perspective, Volume 1 & 2

Source and License

Based on The Law of Messiah - Torah from a New Covenant Perspective by Michael Rudolph and Daniel C. Juster.

Volume 1 & 2 | Volume 3

License: CC BY-ND 4.0 (Attribution required, NoDerivatives). CC BY-ND 4.0

Disclaimer: the original content is authored by Rabbi Michael Rudolph and Rabbi Daniel Juster; additional notes or implementation details on this website are not part of their original work and do not represent their views.

Record source: The Law of Messiah - Torah from a New Covenant Perspective - Volume 1 & 2

Copyright note: Copyright © Michael Rudolph and Daniel C. Juster, The Law of Messiah, Torah from a New Covenant Perspective, Volume 1 & 2