Matthew 18 - about church discipline?

Enjoying R T France’s commentary on Matthew yet again.

Reading him on Matthew 18:15-17.

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (ESV)

First off, there is a textual variation in verse 15. Ancient and geographically widespread manuscripts include the prepositional phrase “against you”, and ancient and geographically widespread manuscripts omit it. He argues, in my opinion persuasively, that it was originally absent, added in anticipation of verse 21. The issue of personal grievance is at the forefront of what Jesus and Peter discuss in 21ff, but is not relevant to the discussion in 15-17.

So, Jesus is speaking about what to do when you become aware of a brother or sister in the church sinning – not just when that sin is personally against you. This is the parable of the lost sheep (Matthew 18:10-14) being put to work.

He then points out that the “you” in verses 15-17 is always singular. Even in verse 17, when the matter is (as a last resort) brought before the whole church, what is happening is that the community is endorsing the withdrawal of fellowship between this one witness and the sinner in question.

Here are two quotations from France before I give my thoughts:

“The singular pronouns of this paragraph make it very unlikely, however, that these verses should be understood as guidance specifically for church leaders. The subject is dealing with sin within the disciple community, but, remarkably, it is the concerned individual, not an appointed leader or group, who is expected to act in the first instance; the wider community is involved only when that individual initiative proves inadequate, and then only to back up the individual’s concern. It may be likely that the gathered community, whose warning has been ignored, will wish to share in the attitude described in v. 17b so that it becomes a community response to unrepented sin in its midst, but that can only be a matter of reading between the lines; all that v 17b actually says is that the person who initiated the pastoral action Is then to adopt this attitude for themselves. Commentators who use the formal language of ecclesiastical discipline or even ‘excommunication’ in connection with v. 17 seem regularly to fail to notice the singular ‘you.’” (pages 690-691)

“No mention is made of any officers or leadership within the group; the added force of this third level of appeal derives from the greater number of people who agree in disapproving of the offender’s action, not from any defined “disciplinary” structure. The group share corporately in the pastoral concern which motivated the individual disciple to raise the issue, and in the event of a rebuff we may reasonably suppose that they would share that individual’s attitude of disapproval and even ostracism (see above), But to speak of anything so formal as ‘excommunication’ is to import an anachronistically developed concept of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.” (page 691)

On the surface, fairly persuasive. But I have two problems with it.

1. He notes that the second person pronouns change from singular to plural once we get into verses 18-19. His conclusion from this is that verses 18-20 should be treated as a separate paragraph. But that is begging the conclusion. If, instead, we treated them as one paragraph where verse 17 triggers a switch to a plural pronoun, the argument breaks down.

2. Is he really describing this scenario?: One individual discovers that a Christian brother or sister in the church has been involved in the kind of sin that endangers salvation (the lost sheep reference). They confront them alone, but to no avail. They take a couple of friends along, but still no joy. Finally they present the evidence to the church, who are all persuaded, but this does not convince the sinning sibling. So the group consensus is that the one individual who first became aware of it should separate totally from this sinner, but that the rest of the church may carry on with their relationships intact. Really?

What I think makes that scenario implausible is the text critical argument he began with. If the witness who first raised the matter was the wronged party, there would be cause for them alone to separate. But if they are merely the first one to become aware of the problem, by the time it has gone before the whole church they are not really a player.

What do others think?