The answer to these questions came in response to a seemingly unrelated question put to Jesus by his disciples. On one occasion, they asked him, “Who really is greatest in the Kingdom of the heavens?” (Mt 18:1) This was a recurring theme for them. They seemed overly concerned about position and prominence. (See Mr 9:33-37; Lu 9:46-48; 22:24)
Jesus’ answer showed them that they had much to unlearn; that their notion of leadership, prominence and greatness was all wrong and that unless they changed their mental perception, it would go exceedingly bad for them. In fact, failing to change their attitude could mean eternal death. It could also result in catastrophic suffering for humanity.
He began with a simple object lesson:
“So calling a young child to him, he stood him in their midst 3 and said: “Truly I say to you, unless you turn around and become as young children, you will by no means enter into the Kingdom of the heavens. 4 Therefore, whoever will humble himself like this young child is the one who is the greatest in the Kingdom of the heavens; and whoever receives one such young child on the basis of my name receives me also.” (Mt 18:2-5)
Notice that he said they had to “turn around”, meaning they were already heading in the wrong direction. Then he tells them that to be great they have to become like young children. An adolescent may think he knows more than his parents, but a young child thinks Daddy and Mommy knows it all. When he has a question, he runs to them. When they give him the answer, he accepts it in complete trust, with the unconditional assurance that they would never lie to him.
This is the humble trust we must have in God, and in the one who does nothing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing, Jesus Christ. (John 5:19)
Only then can we be great.
If, on the other hand, we don’t adopt this childlike attitude, what then? What are the consequences? They are grave indeed. He goes on in this context to warn us:
“But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith in me, it would be better for him to have hung around his neck a millstone that is turned by a donkey and to be sunk in the open sea.” (Mt 18:6)
A proud attitude born of the desire for prominence would inevitably lead to an abuse of power and a stumbling of the little ones. The retribution for such a sin is too horrendous to contemplate, for who would wish to be pitched into the heart of the sea with a massive stone tied round one’s neck?
Nevertheless, given imperfect human nature, Jesus foresaw the inevitability of this scenario.
“Woe to the world because of the stumbling blocks! Of course, it is inevitable that stumbling blocks will come, but woe to the man through whom the stumbling block comes!” (Mt 18:7)
Woe to the world! The proud attitude, the proud quest for greatness, has lead Christian leaders to commit some of the worst atrocities of history. The dark ages, the Inquisition, countless wars and crusades, the persecution of faithful disciples of Jesus—the list just goes on and on. All because men sought to become powerful and lead others with their own ideas, instead of demonstrating childlike reliance on Christ as the one true leader of the congregation. Woe to the world, indeed!
What Is Eisegesis
Before we go further, we need to look at a tool that would-be leaders and so-called great men use to support their quest for power. The term is eisegesis. It comes from the Greek and describes a Bible study methodology wherein one starts with a conclusion and then finds Scriptures which can be twisted to provide what looks like proof.
It is important that we understand this, because from this point forward, we will see that our Lord does more than answer the disciples’ question. He goes beyond that to institute something radically new. We will see the proper application of these words. We will also see how they have been misapplied in a way that has meant “woe to the Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses”.
But first there is more Jesus has to teach us about the proper view of greatness.
(The fact that he attacks the disciples’ erroneous perception from several vantage points should impress upon us just have very important it is that we understand this properly.)
Misapplying the Causes for Stumbling
Jesus next gives us a powerful metaphor.
“If, then, your hand or your foot makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or lame than to be thrown with two hands or two feet into the everlasting fire. 9 Also, if your eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it away from you. It is better for you to enter one-eyed into life than to be thrown with two eyes into the fiery Ge·henʹna.” (Mt 18:8, 9)
If you read the publications of the Watchtower Society, you will see that these verses are usually applied to such things as immoral or violent entertainment (movies, TV shows, video games, and music) as well as materialism and a lust for fame or prominence. Often higher education is touted as the wrong path that will lead to such things. (w14 7/15 p. 16 pars. 18-19; w09 2/1 p. 29; w06 3/1 p. 19 par. 8)
Was Jesus suddenly changing the subject here? Was he going off topic? Is he really suggesting that if we watch the wrong kind of movies or play the wrong kind of video games, or buy too many things, we are going to die the second death in the fiery Gehenna?
Hardly! So what is his message?
Consider that these verses are sandwiched between the warnings of verses 7 and 10.
“Woe to the world because of the stumbling blocks! Of course, it is inevitable that stumbling blocks will come, but woe to the man through whom the stumbling block comes!” (Mt 18:7)
And…
“See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I tell you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my Father who is in heaven.” (Mt 18:10)
After warning us about stumbling blocks and just before warning us against stumbling the little ones, he tells us to pluck out our eye, or cut off an appendage if either should cause us to stumble. In verse 6 he tells us if we stumble the little one we get pitched into the sea with a millstone hung round the neck and in verse 9 he says that if our eye, hand, or foot makes us stumble we end up in Gehenna.
He hasn’t changed the topic at all. He’s still extending his answer to the question put to him in verse 1. All of this relates to a quest for power. The eye desires the prominence, the adulation of men. The hand is what we use to work toward that; the foot moves us toward our goal. The question in verse 1 reveals a wrong attitude or desire (the eye). They wanted to know how (the hand, the foot) to achieve greatness. But they were on the wrong path. They had to turn around. If not they would stumble themselves and many more besides, possibly resulting in eternal death.
By misapplying Mt 18:8-9 to mere issues of conduct and personal choice, the Governing Body has missed a vital warning. In fact, that they would presume to impose their conscience on others is part of the stumbling process. This is why eisegesis is such a snare. Taken on their own, these verses can be easily misapplied. Until we look at the context, it even seems like a logical application. But the context reveals something else.
Jesus Continues to Make His Point
Jesus is not done hammering home his lesson.
“What do you think? If a man has 100 sheep and one of them strays, will he not leave the 99 on the mountains and set out on a search for the one that is straying? 13 And if he finds it, I certainly tell you, he rejoices more over it than over the 99 that have not strayed. 14 Likewise, it is not a desirable thing to my Father who is in heaven for even one of these little ones to perish.” (Mt 18:10-14)
So here we’ve reached verse 14 and what have we learned.
- Man’s way of achieving greatness is by pride.
- God’s way of achieving greatness is by childlike humility.
- Man’s way to greatness leads to the Second Death.
- It results in stumbling little ones.
- It comes from wrong desires (metaphorical eye, hand, or foot).
- Jehovah values the little ones greatly.
Jesus Prepares Us to Rule
Jesus came to prepare the way for the chosen of God; those who would rule with him as Kings and Priests for the reconciliation of all humankind to God. (Re 5:10; 1Co 15:25-28) But these ones, men and women, first have to learn how to exercise this authority. The ways of the past would lead to doom. Something new was called for.
Jesus came to fulfill the law and end the Mosaic Law Covenant, so that a New Covenant with a New Law could come into being. Jesus was authorized to make law. (Mt 5:17; Je 31:33; 1Co 11:25; Ga 6:2; John 13:34)
That new law would have to be administrated somehow.
At great personal risk, people defect from countries with oppressive judicial systems. Humans have endured untold suffering at the hands of dictatorial leaders. Jesus would never want his disciples to become like such ones, so he would not leave us without first giving us specific instructions on how to properly exercise of justice?
On that premise let us examine two things:
- What Jesus actually said.
- What Jehovah’s Witnesses have interpreted.
What Jesus Said
If the disciples were to handle the problems of a New World full of millions or billions of resurrected unrighteous ones—if they were to judge even angels—they had to be trained. (1Co 6:3) They had to learn obedience just as their Lord did. (He 5:8) They had to be tested as to fitness. (Ja 1:2-4) They had to learn to be humble, like young children, and tested to prove they would not give in to the desire for greatness, prominence and power independent from God.
One proving ground would be the manner in which they handled sin within their midst. So Jesus gave them the following 3-step judicial process.
“Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, so that on the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.” (Mt 18:15-17)
One vital fact to bear in mind: This is the only instruction our Lord gave us on judicial procedures.
Since this is all he gave us, we must conclude that this is all we need.
Unfortunately, these instructions were not enough for JW leadership going all the way back to Judge Rutherford.
How Do JWs Interpret Matthew 18:15-17?
Even though this is the only statement Jesus made regarding the handling of sin in the congregation, the Governing Body believes there is more. They claim these verses are only a small apart of the Christian judicial process, and therefore, they only apply to sins of a personal nature.
From the Oct. 15, 1999 Watchtower p. 19 par. 7 “You May Gain Your Brother”
“Note, though, that the class of sins Jesus here spoke of could be settled between two persons. As examples: Moved by anger or jealousy, a person slanders his fellowman. A Christian contracts to do a job with particular materials and to finish by a certain date. Someone agrees that he will repay money on a schedule or by a final date. A person gives his word that if his employer trains him, he will not (even if changing jobs) compete or try to take his employer’s clients for a set time or in a designated area. If a brother would not keep his word and is unrepentant over such wrongs, it would certainly be serious. (Revelation 21:8) But such wrongs could be settled between the two involved.”
What about sins like fornication, apostasy, blasphemy? The same Watchtower states in paragraph 7:
“Under the Law, some sins called for more than forgiveness from an offended person. Blasphemy, apostasy, idolatry, and the sexual sins of fornication, adultery, and homosexuality were to be reported to and handled by elders (or priests). That is true also in the Christian congregation. (Leviticus 5:1; 20:10-13; Numbers 5:30; 35:12; Deuteronomy 17:9; 19:16-19; Proverbs 29:24)”
What a great example this is of eisegesis—imposing one’s preconceived interpretation on a Scripture. Jehovah's Witnesses are a Judeo-Christian religion with heavy emphasis on the Judeo part. Here, we are to believe that we are to modify Jesus' instructions based on the Jewish model. Since there were sins that had to be reported to Jewish elders and/or priests, the Christian congregation—according to the Governing Body—must enforce the same standard.
Now since Jesus doesn't tell us that certain kinds of sins are excluded from his instructions, on what basis do we make this claim? Since Jesus makes no mention of applying the Jewish judicial model to the congregation he is setting up, on what basis do we add to his new law?
If you read Leviticus 20:10-13 (cited in the above WT reference) you will see that the sins that had to be reported were capital offenses. The Jewish older men were to judge whether these were true or not. There was no provision for repentance. The men were not there to grant forgiveness. If guilty, the accused was to be executed.
Since the Governing Body is saying that what applied in the nation of Israel must be "true also in the Christian congregation", why do they only apply part of it? Why are they picking some aspects of the Law code while rejecting others? What this reveals to us is another aspect of their eisegetical interpretive process, the need to cherry-pick which verses they want to apply and reject the rest.
You will notice that in the quote from par. 7 of The Watchtower article, they only cite references from the Hebrew Scriptures. The reason is that there are no instructions in the Christian Scriptures to support their interpretation. In fact, there is very little in the entirety of the Christian Scriptures telling us how to deal with sin. The only direct instruction we have from our King is what is found in Matthew 18:15-17. Some Christian writers have helped us understand this application better, in practical terms, but none limited its application by stating it only refers to sins of a personal nature, and that there are other instructions for more grievous sins. There simply is not.
In short, the Lord gave us all we need, and we need all that he gave us. We do not need anything beyond that.
Consider how wonderful this new law really is? If you were to commit a sin like fornication, would you want to be under the Israelite system, facing certain death with no chance of leniency based on repentance?
Given this, why is the Governing Body returning us to what is now obsolete and replaced? Would it be that they have not "turned around"? Could they be reasoning this way?
We want the flock of God to answer to us. We want them to confess their sins to those we appoint over them. We want them to come to us for forgiveness; to think that God will not forgive them unless we are involved in the process. We want them to fear us and to kowtow to our authority. We want to control every aspect of their lives. We want the most important thing to be the purity of the congregation, because that assures our absolute authority. If a few little ones get sacrificed along the way, it’s all in a good cause.
Unfortunately, Mt 18:15-17 doesn’t provide for that kind of authority, so they have to minimize its importance. Hence the fabricated distinction between “personal sins” and “serious sins”. Next, they have to change the application of Mt 18:17 from “the congregation” to a select 3-member committee of elders who answer to them directly, not to the local congregation.
After that, they engage in some major league cherry-picking, quoting scriptures like Leviticus 5:1; 20:10-13; Numbers 5:30; 35:12; Deuteronomy 17:9; 19:16-19; Proverbs 29:24 in an attempt to reinvigorate selective judicial practices under the Mosaic Law, claiming these now apply to Christians. In this way, they make us believe all such sins must be reported to the elders.
Of course, they must leave some cherries on the trees, for they cannot have their judicial cases exposed to public scrutiny as was the practice in Israel, where legal cases were heard at the city gates in full view of the citizenry. Additionally, the older men who heard and judged these cases were not appointed by the priesthood, but were simply acknowledged by the local populous as wise men. These men answered to the people. If their judgment was skewed by prejudice or outside influence, it was evident to all witnessing the proceedings, because trials were always public. (De 16:18; 21:18-20; 22:15; 25:7; 2Sa 19:8; 1Ki 22:10; Je 38:7)
So they cherry-pick the verses that support their authority and ignore those which are “inconvenient”. Thus all hearings are private. Observers are not allowed, nor are recording devices, nor transcripts, such as one finds in the law courts of all civilized countries. There is no way to test the decision of the committee since their ruling never sees the light of day.[i]
How can such a system ensure justice for all?
Where is the Scriptural support for any of it?
Further on, we will see evidence for the true source and nature of this judicial process, but for now, let’s get back to what Jesus actually said.
The Purpose of the Christian Judicial Process
Before looking at the “how to” let us consider the more important “why”. What is the goal of this new process? It is not to keep the congregation clean. If it were, Jesus would have made some mention of that, but all he speaks of in the entire chapter is forgiveness and caring for the little ones. He even shows the extent to which we are to go to safeguard the little one with his illustration of the 99 sheep that are left to search for the single stray. He then concludes the chapter with an object lesson on the need for mercy and forgiveness. All this after emphasizing that the loss of a little one is unacceptable and woe to the man who causes stumbling.
With that in mind, it should come as no surprise that the purpose of the judicial process in verses 15 thru 17 is to exhaust every avenue in an attempt to save the errant one.
Step 1 of the Judicial Process
“Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.” (Mt 18:15)
Jesus puts no limitation here on the type of sin involved. For example, if you see your brother blaspheming, you are to confront him alone. If you see him coming out of a house of prostitution, you are to confront him alone. One on one makes it easier for him. This is the simplest and most discreet method. Nowhere does Jesus tell us to inform anyone else. It stays between the sinner and the witness.
What if you witness your brother murdering, raping, or even abusing a child? These are not only sins, but crimes against the state. Another law comes into effect, that of Romans 13:1-7, which clearly shows that the State is “God’s minister” for meting out justice. Therefore, we would have to obey God’s word and report the crime to the civil authorities. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Would we still apply Mt 18:15? That would depend on the circumstances. A Christian is guided by principles, not a rigid set of laws. He would definitely apply the principles of Mt 18 with a view to gaining his brother, while mindful of obeying any other principles that are relevant, such as ensuring one’s own safety and the safety of others.
(On a side note: If our Organization had been obedient to Romans 13:1-7 we wouldn’t be enduring the growing child abuse scandal that now threatens to bankrupt us. This is yet another example of the Governing Body cherry-picking Scriptures for its own benefit. The 1999 Watchtower cited earlier uses Leviticus 5:1 to compel Witnesses to report sins to the elders. But does this rationale not apply equally to WT officials aware of crimes that need to be reported to the “superior authorities”?)
Who Does Jesus Have in Mind?
Since our goal is the exegetical study of Scripture, we must not overlook context here. Based on everything from verses 2 to 14, Jesus is focusing on those who cause stumbling. It follows then that what he has in mind with "if your brother commits a sin..." would be sins of stumbling. Now all this is in answer to the question, "Who really is the greatest...?", so we can conclude that the principle causes of stumbling are those who take the lead in the congregation in the manner of worldly leaders, not the Christ.
Jesus is saying, if one of your leaders sins—causes stumbling—call him on it, but privately. Can you imagine if an elder in the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses starts to throw his weight around, and you did this? What do you think would be the outcome? A truly spiritual man would react positively, but a physical man would act as the Pharisees did when Jesus corrected them. From personal experience, I can assure you that in most cases, the elders would close ranks, appeal to the authority of the "faithful slave", and the prophecy about "stumbling-blocks" would find yet another fulfillment.
Step 2 of the Judicial Process
Jesus next tells us what we must do if the sinner does not listen to us.
“But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, so that on the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established.” (Mt 18:16)
Whom do we take along? One or two others. These are to be witnesses who can reprove the sinner, who can convince him he is on a wrong course. Again, the goal is not maintaining the purity of the congregation. The goal is regaining the lost one.
Step 3 of the Judicial Process
Sometimes even two or three cannot get through to the sinner. What then?
“If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation.” (Mt 18:17a)
So this is where we involve the elders, right? Hold on! We’re thinking eisegetically again. Where does Jesus mention the elders? He says “speak to the congregation”. Well surely not the whole congregation? What about confidentiality?
Indeed, what about confidentiality? This is the excuse given to justify the closed-door trials JWs claim is God’s way, but does Jesus mention it at all?
In the Bible, is there any precedent for a secret trial, hidden away at night, where the accused is denied the support of family and friends? Yes, there is! It was the illegal trial of our Lord Jesus before the Jewish High Court, the Sanhedrin. Other than that, all trials are public. At this stage, confidentiality works against the cause of justice.
But surely the congregation is not qualified to judge such cases? Really? The congregation members are not qualified, but three elders—an electrician, a janitor and a window washer—are?
“When there is no skillful direction, the people fall; but there is salvation in the multitude of counselors.” (Pr 11:14)
The congregation is comprised of spirit anointed men and women—a multitude of counsellors. The spirit operates from the bottom up, not the top down. Jesus pours it out on all Christians, and thus all are guided by it. So we have one Lord, one leader, the Christ. We are all brothers and sisters. No one is our leader, save the Christ. Thus, the spirit, operating through the whole, will guide us to the best decision.
It is only when we come to this realization that we can understand the next verses.
Binding Up Things on Earth
These words apply to the congregation as a whole, not to an elite group of individuals presuming to govern it.
“Truly I say to you, whatever things you may bind on earth will be things already bound in heaven, and whatever things you may loosen on earth will be things already loosened in heaven. 19 Again I tell you truly, if two of you on earth agree concerning anything of importance that they should request, it will take place for them on account of my Father in heaven. 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.” (Mt 18:18-20)
The Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses has misapplied these Scriptures as a way to strengthen its authority over the flock. For instance:
“Confession of Sins—Man’s Way or God’s?”[ii] (w91 3/15 p. 5)
“In matters involving serious violations of God’s law, responsible men in the congregation would have to judge matters and decide whether a wrongdoer should be “bound” (viewed as guilty) or “loosed” (acquitted). Did this mean that heaven would follow the decisions of humans? No. As Bible scholar Robert Young indicates, any decision made by the disciples would follow heaven’s decision, not precede it. He says that verse 18 should literally read: What you bind on earth “shall be that which has been bound (already)” in heaven.” [boldface added]
“Forgive One Another Freely” (w12 11/15 p. 30 par. 16)
“In accord with Jehovah’s will, Christian elders have been entrusted with the responsibility of handling cases of wrongdoing in the congregation. These brothers do not have the full insight that God does, but they aim to make their decision harmonize with the direction given in God’s Word under the guidance of holy spirit. Hence, what they decide in such matters after seeking Jehovah’s help in prayer will reflect his point of view.—Matt. 18:18.”[iii]
There is nothing in verses 18 thru 20 to indicate Jesus is investing authority in a ruling elite. In verse 17, he refers to the congregation doing the judging and now, carrying that thought further, he shows that the entire body of the congregation will have Jehovah’s spirit, and that whenever Christians are gathered in his name, he is present.
Pudding Proof
There is a 14th Century proverb that says: “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.”
We have two competing judicial processes—two recipes for making pudding.
The first one is from Jesus and is explained in Matthew 18. We have to consider the whole context of the chapter to properly apply the key verses 15 to 17.
The other recipe comes from the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It ignores the context of Matthew 18 and limits the application of verses 15 to 17. Then it implements a series of procedures codified in the publication Shepherd the Flock of God, claiming that its self-appointed role as the “faithful and discreet slave” gives it the authorization to do so.
Let us ‘eat the pudding’, as it were, by examining the outcome of each process.
(I have taken the case histories that follow from my experiences serving as an elder over the past forty years.)
Case 1
A young sister falls in love with a brother. They engage in sexual intercourse on several occasions. Then he breaks up with her. She feels abandoned, used, and guilty. She confides in a friend. The friend advises her to go to the elders. She waits a few days then contacts the elders. However, the friend has already informed on her. A judicial committee is formed. One of its members is a single brother who wanted to date her at one time, but was rebuffed. The elders decide that since she sinned repeatedly she has engaged in a serious practice of sin. They’re concerned that she didn’t come forward on her own, but had to be pushed into it by a friend. They ask her for intimate and embarrassing details about the type of sexual intercourse she engaged in. She’s embarrassed and finds it difficult to speak candidly. They ask her if she still loves the brother. She confesses that she does. They take this as evidence she is not repentant. They disfellowship her. She is devastated and feels she has been unfairly judged since she had stopped the sin and had gone to them for help. She appeals the decision.
Unfortunately, the appeal committee is constrained by two rules set by the Governing Body:
- Was a sin of a disfellowshipping nature committed?
- Was there evidence of repentance at the time of the initial hearing?
The answer to 1) is of course, Yes. As for 2), the appeal committee has to weigh her testimony against that of three of their own. Since there are no recordings or transcripts available, they cannot review what was actually said. Since there are no observers allowed, they cannot hear the testimony of independent eyewitnesses to the proceedings. Not surprisingly, they go with the testimony of the three elders.
The original committee takes the fact she appealed as evidence that she rejects their decision, isn’t humble, doesn’t properly respect their authority, and isn’t really repentant after all. It takes two years of regular meeting attendance before they finally approve her reinstatement.
Through all of this, they feel justified in the belief that they kept the congregation clean and ensured that others have been dissuaded from sin by fear of a similar punishment befalling them.
Applying Matthew 18 to Case 1
If our Lord’s direction had been applied, the sister would have felt no obligation to confess her sins before a cadre of elders, since this is not something Jesus requires. Instead, her friend would have given her counsel and two things would have happened. 1) She would have learned from her experience, and never repeated it, or 2) she would have fallen back into sin. If the latter, her friend could have spoken to one or two others and applied step 2.
However, if this sister continued to commit fornication, then the congregation would have been involved. Congregations were small. They met in homes, not in mega-cathedrals. (Mega-cathedrals are for men seeking prominence.) They were like an extended family. Imagine how the women in the congregation would respond if one of the male members suggested the sinner wasn’t repentant because she was still in love. Such silliness would not be tolerated. The brother who had wanted to date her but had been rebuffed wouldn’t get far either as his testimony would be considered as tainted.
If, after all was heard and the congregation had its say, the sister still wanted to continue her course of sin, then it would be the congregation as a whole that would decide to treat her as “a man of the nations or a tax collector.” (Mt 18:17b)
Case 2
Four teenagers get together several times to smoke marijuana. Then they stop. Three months go by. Then one feels guilty. He feels the need to confess his sin to the elders believing that without doing so he cannot get God’s forgiveness. All must then follow suit in their respective congregations. While three are privately reproved, one is disfellowshipped. Why? Allegedly, lack of repentance. Yet, like the rest, he had stopped sinning and had come forward of his own accord. However, he is the son of one of the elders and one of the committee members, acting out of jealousy, punishes the father through the son. (This was confirmed years later when he confessed to the father.) He appeals. As in the first case, the appeal committee hears the testimony of three older men as to what they heard at the hearing and then has to weigh that against the testimony of an intimidated and inexperienced teenager. The decision of the elders is upheld.
The young man attends meetings faithfully for over a year before being reinstated.
Applying Matthew 18 to Case 2
The case would have never have gotten past step 1. The young man had stopped sinning and had not returned to it for several months. He had no need to confess his sin to anyone except God. If he had wanted, he could have spoken with his father, or another trusted individual, but after that, there would simply be no reason to go to step 2 and less, step 3, because he was no longer sinning.
Case 3
Two of the elders have been abusing the flock. They pick on every little thing. They meddle in family matters. They presume to tell parents how they should be training their children, and who the kids can or can’t date. They act on rumor and chastise people about parties or other forms of entertainment they feel is inappropriate. Some who protest this conduct are prohibited from giving comments at the meetings.
The publishers protest this conduct to the Circuit Overseer, but nothing gets done. The other elders do nothing because they are intimidated by these two. They go along so as not to rock the boat. A number move to other congregations. Others stop attending altogether and fall away.
One or two write to the branch, but nothing changes. There is nothing one can do, because the sinners are the very ones charged with judging sin and the branch’s job is to support the elders since these are the ones charged with upholding the authority of the Governing Body. This becomes a situation of “who watches the watchers?”
Applying Matthew 18 to Case 3
Someone in the congregation confronts the elders to lays bare their sin. They are stumbling the little ones. They do not listen, but try to silence the brother. He then comes back with two more who have also witnessed their actions. The offending elders now step up their campaign to silence these ones whom they label as rebellious and divisive. At the next meeting, the brothers who have attempted to correct the elders stand up and call on the congregation to bear witness. These elders are too proud to listen, so the congregation as a whole escorts them out of the meeting place and refuses to have any fellowship with them.
Of course, if a congregation attempted to apply these instructions from Jesus, it is likely that the branch would view them as rebellious for flouting its authority, since only they can remove elders from their position.[iv] The elders would likely be supported by the branch, but if the congregation didn’t kowtow, there would be serious consequences.
(It should be noted that Jesus never set up a central authority for the appointment of elders. For example, the 12th apostle, Matthias, was not appointed by the other 11 the way the Governing Body appoints a new member. Instead, the entire congregation of some 120 was asked to select appropriate candidates, and the final choice was by casting lots. – Acts 1:15-26)
Tasting the Pudding
The judicial system created by the men governing or leading the congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses has resulted in immeasurable suffering and even loss of life. Paul warned us that the one rebuked by the congregation could be lost by being “overly sad” and so he exhorted the Corinthians to welcome him back only months after they had broken off association with him. The sadness of the world results in death. (2Co 2:7; 7:10) However, our system doesn’t allow for the congregation to act. The power to forgive does not even rest in the hands of the elders of whatever congregation the former wrongdoer now attends. Only the original committee has the power to forgive. And as we’ve seen, the Governing Body misapplies Mt 18:18 to arrive at the conclusion that what the committee decides “in such matters after seeking Jehovah’s help in prayer will reflect his point of view.” (w12 11/15 p. 30 par. 16) Thus, as long as the committee prays, they can do no wrong.
Many have committed suicide due to the extreme sadness they have experienced at being unjustly cut off from family and friends. Many more have left the congregation; but worse, some have lost all faith in God and Christ. The number stumbled by a judicial system that puts the purity of the congregation above the welfare of the little one is incalculable.
That is how our JW pudding tastes.
On the other hand, Jesus gave us three simple steps designed to save the erring one. And even if after following all three, the sinner continued in his sin, there was still hope. Jesus did not implement a penal system with rigid terms of sentencing. Right after he spoke of these things, Peter asked for rules on forgiveness.
Christian Forgiveness
The Pharisees had rules for everything and that likely influenced Peter to ask his question: “Lord, how many times is my brother to sin against me and am I to forgive him?” (Mt 18:21) Peter wanted a number.
Such a pharisaical mentality continues to exist in the JW Organization. The de facto period before a disfellowshipped one can be reinstated is one year. If reinstatement occurs in less than that, say six months, the elders will likely be questioned either through a letter from the branch or by the circuit overseer on his next visit.
Yet, when Jesus answered Peter, he was still speaking in the context of his discourse at Matthew 18. What he revealed about forgiveness should therefore factor in to how we administer our Christian Judicial System. We’ll discuss that in a future article.
In Summary
For those of us who are awakening, we often feel lost. Used to a well-regulated and regimented routine, and armed with a full set of rules governing all aspects of our life, we don’t know what to do away from the Organization. We have forgotten how to walk on our own two feet. But slowly we find others. We get together and enjoy fellowship and start to study the Scriptures again. Inevitably, we will start to form small congregations. As we do this, we may have to confront a situation where someone in our group sins. What do we do?
To extend the metaphor, we have never eaten the pudding that is based on the recipe Jesus gave us at Mt 18:15-17, but we know that he is the master chef. Trust in his recipe for success. Follow his direction faithfully. We are sure to find that it cannot be surpassed, and that it will give us the best results. Let us never return to the recipes that men concoct. We have eaten the pudding that the Governing Body has cooked up and have found it to be a recipe for disaster.
__________________________________
[i] Hear only those witnesses who have relevant testimony regarding the alleged wrongdoing. Those who intend to testify only about the character of the accused should not be allowed to do so. The witnesses should not hear details and testimony of other witnesses. Observers should not be present for moral support. Recording devices should not be allowed. (Shepherd the Flock of God, p. 90 par. 3)
[ii] It is fascinating that in an article entitled “Confession of Sins—Man’s Way or God’s” the reader is led to believe he is learning God’s way when in fact this is man’s way of handling sin.
[iii] Having witnessed the outcome of countless judicial hearings, I can assure the reader that Jehovah’s point of view is often not evident in the decision.
[iv] The Circuit Overseer is now empowered to do this, but he is merely an extension of the authority of the Governing Body and experience shows that elders rarely get removed for abusing their authority and beating the little ones. They do get removed very quickly if they challenge the authority of the branch or the Governing Body, however.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Joshua on 2016-03-01 00:35:55
I sincerely hope that at some point this Bible Study Forum will concentrate solely on Bible study leaving what Watchtower does/teaches out of the picture.
If not how in the world is it different from the other forums here?
JoshuaReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-03-01 01:56:08
That's not the purpose of this forum. However, there is another one which is in the works which will be denomination neutral.
Reply by Joshua on 2016-03-01 02:08:16
Thanks Meleti.
I misunderstood the purpose of this forum.
Look forward to the third forum where perhaps the Bible will reign.
Comment by Joshua on 2016-03-01 01:08:02
For those who yearn for a simple list of beliefs I give you mine:
1. There is only One God.
2. Jesus Christ is God's Only Begotten Son making him the Only Begotten God, the Son of God.
3. The holy spirit is the finger of God, God's spirit which gives life.
4. We must love our Father with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength.
5. We must love our neighbor.
Having stated all the above: If we do not bow down to Christ not as God Almighty but as God over all creation we will not have life.
JoshuaReply by Willy on 2016-03-01 08:52:01
Hi Joshua,
Karen and I loved to have a kind of list also and Meleti was so kind to provide us one a whille ago. You can find it above the page next to Home and Articles and then About ...you click on About and you will find... What We Believe.
Kind regardsReply by Joshua on 2016-03-04 20:10:39
Thanks Willy,
And thanks to Meleti for the list.
Comment by billy on 2016-03-01 05:11:52
If Matthew 18 was only referring to personal or minor sins then why would it be brought before the whole congregation? It wouldn't make sense - I think you have given a reasonable explanation of what Jesus says here and also I have felt for years now that the judging should be done by all onlookers as was the case with the Israelite judges hearing the cases at the city gate for all to witness- it makes everything transparent- which results in less bias and corruption - not by secret meetings by imperfect men - I have seen and experienced bad judgement calls by "elders" and if you complain about anything then you are avoided - where is the justice and love?
I think the Australian Royal Commission certainly exposed the bad judgement calls being made by the leaders of the org - everything kept secret and hidden from the vast majority - even their own rules and regulations! now it has been exposed and in the open - shame on their judicial system
Comment by Em on 2016-03-29 23:06:13
Thank you so much for this article. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to ask questions...but the only problem that seems to arise with the person only going to the individual is this scenario: a person sins, a friend finds out, talks to the sinner who says they will stop. They do not stop, however the friend never catches them again....rather a second friend does....the same thing happens....and then a 3rd friend catches them and the same thing happens. All 3 friends think the sinner has stopped and never bring it to the next step. Just seems like shepherds could be useful by being kept in the loop so they could help (like the scripture that I'm sure you know better than I do...about greasing him?) Maybe the elders wouldn't have to get involved but perhaps be aware of the situation? I'm not sure if I'm making sense, but I feel like I need shepherds. That's why I wish that there was a place of worship that I fully trusted....one that was Jehovah's congregation. I always thought that was the jw.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-03-31 12:06:16
Hi Em,
There are many scenarios that can confuse us, but the essence of Jesus' instruction is that it is based on principles, so each instance requires us to use our good judgment and Bible trained conscience to seek the best outcome for the sinner whose repentance and reconciliation with God is our chief concern. We will attempt to explore this topic more in future articles, tying in the principles and events found in 1 and 2 Thessalonians and 1 and 2 Corinthians.
Unfortunately, time is not our friend at the moment. ;)
Comment by thomas on 2016-02-29 18:52:26
I was never an elder. But some of the cases you mention remind me of Black Thursday at Bethel in 1971. What happened at Bethel is probably similar to what happens in local congregations. The elders who represented complaints by Bethelites to Knorr were demoted. Knorr's appointees, the subjects of the complaints, were supposedly removed from their jobs and later promoted. So the Bethel Family saw the futility of complaining. Black Thursday created an organizational culture of court-flattery or sycophancy, since criticism could only go in one direction, from the top down.
When I was new at Bethel, in late 1974, my room-mate lectured me about Black Thursday, hoping that I would quit provoking a certain controversy, which resulted gossip directed to him. He told me that every Bethelite had to decide whether he was going to be a “Knorr-boy” or a “Zero.” He said that if I continued to do what I was doing, I would always be a “Zero,” and that I could do it, but “it was a bitter pill to swallow.” In response to his speech, I decided to be a Zero, and resolved never to be a Knorr-boy.
In 1976, Knorr was very upset when he was losing power, and made emotional comments to the Bethel Family. In one of his comments, he said something like, “If the Letter-Writers will leave Bethel, this will finally be a happy family.” In response to his attack on the Letter Writers, I sent a letter to the Bethel Office recommending that attendance the Monday-night Watchtower Study be made voluntary since it was redundant, and like many Bethelites, I was tired all the time. I was counseled by a governing-body member for sending the letter.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-02-29 22:22:39
Thanks for giving us this insight into the Knorr years, Thomas. Very illuminating.
Comment by 1984 on 2016-02-29 09:22:01
Outstanding reasoning Meleti.
I'll spare you all the details of my experience as an elder but I came up against two bully elders who closed ranks to support each other on everything. The rest of the body was made up of cowards who acquiesced to them on everything. I'm proud to say that I stood up to them on several matters where they mistreated the sheep and outright lied to protect their positions when it suited them (which I realise now is the norm rather than the exception in this organisation and comes from the top) but they put me through 12 months of hell before I finally realised I was fighting a losing battle and jumped ship. It was the experience that woke me up, but it was very demoralising.
One of the scriptures I repeatedly referred to (and applied personally) when dealing with them was Matthew 18:15, while they continued slandering and vilifying me on the body and in the congregation. Unfortunately, they just exploited my honesty and integrity when I applied this process - it made me a open book while they schemed against me and contrived falsehoods to discredit me. When I appealed to the idiot CO we had (a lifelong friend of the main instigator) on the basis of Matthew 18:15 he immediately leapt to their defence and denied that the principle of Matthew 18:15 was even relevant! It's a long story, with many twists and turns not worth repeating. I'm just glad I'm shot of the lot of them.
And I'm glad I never sat on a judicial committee - they wouldn't let me on one because I had too much compassion and mercy and they knew I would not given them the easy unanimity they required (I wouldn't roll over for the top dog.)
But of course all of this has come at a price. While I'm glad to be free, I've had to deal with suicidal tendencies, and the desire to just walk away from everything and everyone I have ever known, a constant struggle now, and I have very little faith left in anything anymore. I have to say that your articles are the only things I find faith strengthening at the moment. You make sense of a lot of things and it gives me hope that there really is something worth believing in after all.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-02-29 14:53:04
I wish I could say that your experience is the exception, 1984, but after forty years serving in both Spanish and English, in three different countries, I would say that it is very much the norm. Those elders who fight for the proper application of Bible principles are in a minority and usually find themselves swimming against the current.
This brings to mind Peter's words:
"Beloved ones, do not be puzzled at the burning among YOU, which is happening to YOU for a trial, as though a strange thing were befalling YOU. 13 On the contrary, go on rejoicing forasmuch as YOU are sharers in the sufferings of the Christ, that YOU may rejoice and be overjoyed also during the revelation of his glory. 14 If YOU are being reproached for the name of Christ, YOU are happy, because the [spirit] of glory, even the spirit of God, is resting upon YOU." (1Pe 4:12-14)
Often, we are puzzled by the unchristian attitude we find common among those who are supposed to be setting the example. It seems like a strange or foreign thing, perhaps due to the indoctrination we've received which teaches us that all persecution comes from outside the congregation, when in fact, that is the exception. Far more common are the trials we face due to false brothers, just as it happened to Paul. (2Co 11:26)
These ones are the vessels of wrath which our Father permits so that we can be tested, refined, and found worthy, that he might pour into us his abundant mercies.
“If, now, God, although having the will to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, tolerated with much long-suffering vessels of wrath made fit for destruction, 23 in order that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, 24 namely, us, whom he called not only from among Jews but also from among nations, [what of it]? 25 It is as he says also in Ho·seʹa: “Those not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved ‘beloved’; 26 and in the place where it was said to them, ‘YOU are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”” (Ro 9:22-26)
As for elders acting as those you've described, I daresay, their name is Legion. Unless they turn around, they will continue to store up God's wrath until it is too late. But they do us a favor, albeit unwittingly, by providing the means by which we can be prepared for the work ahead.Reply by 1984 on 2016-02-29 21:30:08
So true. Than you Meleti.
Comment by AR on 2016-02-25 11:06:05
Thanks Meleti, Nice pudding this article. I read your earlier articles on Micah 6:8. And enjoy the work you put in to highlight a serious flaw in Disfellowshipping as a scriptural based teaching. Your reasoning on Matt 18, is good makes sense in fact I'll use that myself in discussions from now on.
We are taught as JW's that it is a loving arrangement, indeed even beneficial. Well I know Elders, CO's brother 's and sisters who family members are disfellowshipped 'sons daughters sisters & brothers ' and I'm sure they wish they didn't have to choose between Obeying or disobeying Jehovah. Or are they! Maybe it's not Jehovah's idea to introduce a disfellowshipping arrangement.
The Good News is these broken families don't need to be broken.
As Jesus nicely pointed out as how to deal with sin. Matt 18.
Since the introduction of disfellowshipping which was I think 1940's or 1950's..well, because doctrine changes as one knows being a JW, fornication or pornea' has grown over the years , therefore has increased one from being disfellowshipped for all sorts of things, also some things you could be disfellowshipped, was dropped then reintroduced again, so How can this occur if an organization' s rules are directed by Jehovah?
For instance, the practice of smoking did not become a disfellowshipping offence until 1973. Having an organ transplant was an offence worthy of being disfellowshipped for over a decade, but is no longer viewed as wrong. I remember have discussions with brother's (let me say they would bring this up to me as I was new and needed to know the do's and dont's) when I was learning 'the Truth' about Oral or anal sex between married couples , well this has changed a number of times!!
a disfellowshipping offence - Watchtower 1974 Nov 15 p.704 no longer an offence - Watchtower 1978 Feb 15 pp.30-32
once again an offence - Watchtower 1983 Mar 15 p.31
I like the fact The scriptures are an open book, there not a secret file or book which only Elders have access to and must adjudicate on their own...the scriptures guides ones with actual cases and how to handle them and how ones should be treated , it's seems to me. As JWs we have deviated from Russell time, which I understand was more in line with what you presented here, from Gods word and once Bro Knorr introducing disfellowshipping , it has had the opposite affect on individual's and families, instead of being a loving arrangement even beneficial , it's more one of fear and control,as I've come to believe.
Comment by AR on 2016-02-25 11:12:53
My previous post, The last paragraph , the word I typed and should read is Judicate not judo ate. Thanks
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-02-25 20:04:41
One of the benefits of only allowing those who are registered to comment is that the software now allows them to edit their comments. However, I haven't tested that so now would be a good time. Give it a go. By the way, the word is "adjudicate". Don't you just love auto-correct?
Reply by AR on 2016-02-25 23:24:00
Love auto-correct, thanks Meleti, I read the article while I was on holidays, there's more I would like to say on it, but would like others to make their observations on it. All good though.
Comment by miken on 2016-02-26 19:43:45
In line with Matthew 18:17 it was the case that unresolved matters were heard at open congregation (company) meetings even during the Rutherford era. A case in point was the case of Walter Salter the Canadian branch manager who was removed by Rutherford in 1936. Salter had challenged Rutherford's theology and I quote from the begining of a letter he sent to Rutherford in April 1937:-
"I wrote you on January 25th embodying an article which I believe proved by the Scriptures that our Lord has not returned and that the saints have not yet been resurrected. That Christ has not returned is proven clearly by His statement in Matthew 24 wherein, having outlined all the things to occur at the end of the age, including the great tribulation, He said: "When ye see ALL these things know that He is nigh even at the door." Verse 33, Diaglott; and margin King James version. Mark well the Master's words for He says even after ye see all these things He would not be present, but near, even at the door. Well did He warn His true followers not to be deceived by any man saying He was present when He was not?"
Salter challenged Rutherford to scripturally answer him point by point.
Salter distributed his unauthorised views to the brethern particularly in Canada and Rutherford responded with an article entitled Evil Slave on page 141 of the May 1st , 1937 issue of the Watchtower. The May 5th issue of the Golden Age contained an article entitled Why Salter Lost His Job, pages 498 to 504 followed by a letter of support for Rutherford by T.J.Sullivan.
In the May 15th, 1937 issue of the Watchtower on page 159, Letter Re Evil Servant, records a meeting of the Toronto company (300-400) called to discuss Salters letters. One former company servant spoke up supporting Salter, in part he said "Up to this day we have all followed men, blind leaders of the blind and all making to the ditch. It cannot be denied that as an organization we have been mistaken in the past many times, and it cannot be denied that we are mistaken now", (sounds familiar). This was not received well and a sister who asked to speak who was Salter's former stenographer was told by the chairman "that the brothers were capable of dealing with the matter". The letter ends with a resolution by the Toronto company to disfellowship Salter if a repentant letter is not received from him in the course of the next seven day's. Evidence that no repentant letter was received is indicated by the publication of further articles about Salter in the June 16th, 1937 issue of the Golden Age pages 594 to 597.
Old Watchtower publications can be downloaded from Watchtower Archive at :-
http://wtarchive.svhelden.info/english/zions-watch-tower/
Comment by Socrates on 2016-02-23 22:28:32
Great article. .
Could I add one more case?
Case 4. A brother is having a chat with the circuit overseer about the local elders who are involved so much and in a bad way in his family life. Some days later, a judicial committee is formed with one elder of the local congregation and two of another one. The result was disfellowship as the brother was found guilty of bad behavior - 2 Pe 2:10, 11.
The brother appealed. and I was one of the members of the appeal committee. When I asked the 3 elders what was the scriptural base for the decision, there was not one and one of the three elders said we made a mistake - there is no base. After a lot of discussion there was no decision by the appeal committee and the brother was informed to wait a little bit as more time was needed. The next days an angry circuit overseer contacted all of use and demanded the disfellowship of the brother,
The final result was as requested by the circuit overseer: disfellowship. When the brother wanted to know the reason he could not have a clear and honest answer, except from the verses 2Pe 2:10,11 - which was not true. But for us to obey the circuit overseer and men seemed more important than to obey Jesus, and think about the brother and his family.
After 5 years I still feel so sad - I hope Jehovah and Jesus will forgive me. I am going to ask from that brother to forgive me too - I found his phone some days ago after many sleepless nights...
It was such a relieve to read your article - I feel that my prayers have been answered. It is amazing what the holy spirit can perform! Thank you again brother.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-02-23 22:56:49
And thank you as well for sharing a valuable case history. What a shame that the candor that Bible writers like David, Moses and Luke demonstrated is not common in the Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Comment by POP on 2016-02-24 01:50:51
nicely written
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2016-02-24 18:20:46
Brave Article. Will be browsing through it with interest. Will add further useful comments in due course, as this is an area I am particularly looking into, Keep up the excellent work.
Comment by Joshua on 2016-02-24 20:05:37
"If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.”
This one teaching blows shunning out of the water.
1. The Jews spoke to gentiles and tax collectors they just did not have close associations.
2. Jesus conversed with practicing sinners.
3. First century Christians, following Christ's example, closely associated with gentiles no matter what they believed thus the admonition, "let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector,” is shown to be specifically directed to the Jews.
Never did Christ teach we should not greet a sinning brother or sister or refuse to eat with them.
JoshuaReply by Joshua on 2016-02-27 01:18:44
I'm surprised no one brought up the elephant in the room.
Comment by Learn From Jehovah’s Loyal Servants | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2016-04-24 08:07:52
[…] among Jehovah’s Witnesses. The scriptural precedent for our judicial system has been extensively discussed before on Beroean Pickets, but let us apply these points as rebuttals to the points raised in […]
Comment by dajo on 2016-08-19 11:31:03
re-reading this again and again using various Bibles. Why? Having some questions thrown my way.
This article is very important to understand and digest. It does seem to qualify only ONE of my reasons for resigning from the boe...
There is NO scriptural basis for a so called judicial committee structure we incur on our loved ones.
DavidReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-08-19 11:58:58
It is one of the more reprehensible policy decisions of the Organization; that's a fact!
Comment by SlowLearner on 2016-09-16 04:01:11
Greetings Meleti, I just wanted to say thank you this article woke me up.