The aim of this article is to show primarily that scripturally Jesus words in Matthew chapter 18:15-17 cannot be used in support of the requirement that two eye witnesses are necessary in order to form a judicial committee to investigate allegations of the committing of a crime, in particular, child sexual abuse, in congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Secondly, not even the Watchtower society’s own literature supports use of this scripture in that way, despite what was said by governing body member Geoffrey Jackson in court under oath at the Australian Royal Commission in 2015.
Please watch the following video clip:
So, when asked for scriptural support for applying the two witness rule to a case of child sexual abuse, Jackson turns to Jesus words recorded in Matthew 18:15-17[1]. A careful reading of the verses reveals an astounding fact:
“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. (Matthew 18:15-17)
Notice that in verse 16 Jesus is not speaking of two eye witnesses!
Explaining how this should be implemented in the congregation, the book “Organized to do Jehovah’s Will” admits that this step can be taken even if there are no eye witnesses:
“Preferably, they would be witnesses of the alleged wrongdoing, but if there are no eyewitnesses, you may choose to ask one or two more to be witnesses to the discussion. They may have experience in the matter at issue and may be able to establish whether what occurred was truly a wrong.” (Organized to do Jehovah’s Will pg. 147 par. 18)
Furthermore, in the society’s literature this scriptural principle is never applied to such serious sins, which raises serious questions as to the validity of Geoffrey Jackson’s use of it here. Is he unaware that this scripture is never appealed to in connection with handling a crime?
Notice how this is explained in The Watchtower:
“SHOULD YOU INVOLVE THE ELDERS?
14 Most differences between Christians can and should be resolved privately by the individuals concerned. However, Jesus noted that some situations might require congregation involvement. (Read Matthew 18:15-17.) What would be the outcome if an offender refused to listen to his brother, to witnesses, and to the congregation? He should be treated “just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.” Today, we would say that he should be disfellowshipped. The seriousness of this step indicates that the “sin” was not a small disagreement. Rather, it was (1) a sin that could be settled between the individuals concerned but it was also (2) a sin serious enough to merit disfellowshipping if not settled. Such sins might involve a measure of fraud or might include damaging a person’s reputation through slander. The three steps Jesus outlined here are applicable only where these conditions exist. The offense did not include such a sin as adultery, homosexuality, apostasy, idolatry, or some other gross sin definitely requiring the attention of the congregation elders. (The Watchtower May 2016 pgs. 6-7)
In an effort to get around this the Watchtower society seeks to create a separate category of serious sin that, although a disfellowshipping offense, can be forgiven by a brother in private without involving the elders:
The book Organized to do Jehovah’s Will explains:
17 If the one who committed the offense accepts responsibility, seeks forgiveness, and takes steps to right the wrong, there is no need to carry the matter further. Although the sin was serious, an offense of this kind can be settled between the individuals involved. (Organized to do Jehovah’s Willpg. 146 par. 17)
Would Jackson say child sexual abuse is a matter that can be forgiven and settled between the individuals involved?
According to the Watchtower society’s interpretation of Leviticus 5:1, when a member becomes aware of the committing of a gross sin they are to either immediately report it to the congregation elders or the wrongdoer is to be encouraged to approach the elders in obedience to God’s law. This was outlined in The Watchtower August 15, 1997 on pages 27-28
It is important to notice as you read that Watchtower article that Matthew 18:15 is not mentioned at all and there is no allowance for the first step, that of a single person being able to gain a brother. Since the Watchtower society requires serious sins be reported to the elders of the congregation, it appears that they want to reserve the right to set up a separate judicial system to try cases apart from the secular authorities.
Explaining how Matthew 18:15-17 is to be implemented, the Organization book states:
“Jesus outlined a specific procedure for solving serious problems that may arise between fellow Christians. Note the steps that he set out: “If your brother commits a sin, [1] go and reveal his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, [2] take along with you one or two more, so that on the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. If he does not listen to them, [3] 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.”—Matt. 18:15-17.
15 In view of the illustration that Jesus subsequently gave, recorded at Matthew 18:23-35, it appears that one of the sins considered at Matthew 18:15-17 involves financial or property matters, such as failing to repay a loan or committing fraud. Or the offense might be slander, which seriously affects someone’s reputation.
16 If you have evidence that someone in the congregation has committed such a sin against you, do not be hasty to turn to the elders, asking them to intervene on your behalf. As Jesus counseled, speak first with the one against whom you have the complaint. Try to resolve the matter between just the two of you without involving anyone else. Keep in mind that Jesus did not say ‘go only once and reveal his fault.’ Therefore, if the person did not admit the wrong and ask forgiveness, it may be good to consider approaching him again later. If the matter can be resolved in this way, the one who sinned will certainly appreciate that you have not told others about his sin or marred his good reputation in the congregation. You will have “gained your brother.”
17 If the one who committed the offense accepts responsibility, seeks forgiveness, and takes steps to right the wrong, there is no need to carry the matter further. Although the sin was serious, an offense of this kind can be settled between the individuals involved.
18 If you are not able to gain your brother by revealing his fault “between you and him alone,” then you may do as Jesus said, “take along with you one or two more,” and speak with your brother again. Those whom you take with you should also have the objective of gaining your brother. Preferably, they would be witnesses of the alleged wrongdoing, but if there are no eyewitnesses, you may choose to ask one or two more to be witnesses to the discussion. They may have experience in the matter at issue and may be able to establish whether what occurred was truly a wrong. Elders chosen to act as witnesses do not represent the congregation, since the body of elders has not specifically assigned them to do so.
19 If the matter has not been resolved after repeated efforts—you spoke with him alone and you went to him with one or two others—and you feel that you cannot let it pass, then you should report the matter to the overseers of the congregation. Remember that their goal is to maintain the peace and cleanness of the congregation. Having approached the elders, you will want to leave the matter in their hands and trust in Jehovah. Never should you allow the conduct of someone else to stumble you or to rob you of your joy in Jehovah’s service.—Ps. 119:165.
20 The shepherds of the flock will investigate the matter. If it becomes evident that the person has indeed committed a serious sin against you and is unrepentant and unwilling to make reasonable and appropriate amends, it may be necessary for a committee of overseers to expel the wrongdoer from the congregation. Thus they protect the flock and safeguard the cleanness of the congregation.—Matt. 18:17. (Organized to do Jehovah’s Will pgs. 145-148 pars. 14-20)
The Organization book has added phrases that do not appear in the scripture in order to clarify how they interpret Jesus words. But is their interpretation correct? Let’s consider their statements which I have highlighted in bold:
- Sin against you
Jesus did not say if your brother commits a sin against you. Hence, his words give no indication that this is a personal offense. (compare Luke 17:3)
- Sin involves financial, property matters or slander
Jesus did not specify what the sin could be. It is assumed that since Jesus later gives the parable of the talents this means the sins he previously referred to are related to financial matters. But why would Jesus only give counsel about handling financial disagreements. Would he not also give guidance about how to handle all sins? Since the end result for the unrepentant person was to be removal from the congregation, rather than on the gravity of the sin, emphasis was placed on his attitude towards it.
- there are no eyewitnesses
The witnesses Jesus refers to are not eye witnesses. Their aim is not to provide evidence but to aid in adjusting the thinking of the wrongdoer. This is similar to Paul’s instructions to the Galatians. (Gal. 6:1)
- report the matter to the overseers of the congregation
Jesus does not mention congregation elders. Since the second step involved bringing along two or three it does not make sense for Jesus to then say to bring two or three more
- expel the wrongdoer from the congregation
It is important to note that, in the Greek, Jesus words are addressed to the individual. Hence it is the individual that is authorized to take the final step.
Regarding this, the NICNT comments:
“It is addressed entirely to the individual disciple; even the “you” of Mat 18:17 is still singular, so that that verse prescribes not a communal ostracism but the attitude of the individual disciple who first noticed the problem. The disciple is envisaged as acting within the context of the whole community, but the focus is on the individual’s attitude and action. In Mat 18:18-20, on the other hand, the “you” will be plural, and the focus will be on the authority of the whole disciple community and the nature of its spiritual fellowship. This change from singular to plural is sufficiently remarkable to justify treating Mat 18:18-20 as a separate section, even though here, as throughout the first part of this discourse, there is an important thematic link between the paragraphs.” (New International Commentary on the New Testament)
This agrees with the situation Paul addressed in Corinth where it is said that it was the majority of the congregation that took action:
Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has saddened, not me, but all of you to an extent—not to be too harsh in what I say. 6 This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man; (2 Corinthians 2:5, 6)
- While Jesus does go on to talk about bringing along two or three in verse 20, he does not say they are elders. That being the case it seems Jesus words in verse 20 where he concludes by saying: “For where there are two or three gathered together in my name” are simply a reference back to the two or three witnesses he mentioned in verse 16.
As part of his testimony Jackson stated that child sexual abuse is not only a problem Jehovah’s Witnesses have had to deal with but also occurs in society at large. This is true. How have other religious organizations dealt with the problem?
The following is taken from an interview with Basyle ‘Boz’ Tchividjian, a founding member and Executive Director of G.R.A.C.E (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment).:
“I am always encountering professing Christians who quote Matthew 18 as the biblical process by which child sexual abuse must be addressed within the Christian community. As a consequence, this passage is used as a justification for 1) not reporting abuse disclosures to the civil authorities and 2) convincing sexual abuse victims to privately confront their perpetrators. Needless to say, this misinterpretation of Matthew 18 is hugely destructive on a number of fronts. More importantly, this misinterpretation is simply not biblical.
In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus prescribes three progressive steps for handling personal offenses within the local church: 1) a private confrontation, 2) a witnessed confrontation, and 3) a wider confrontation before the church. At each step, the goal is repentance by the offender as a basis for reconciliation with the offender, so that fellowship may be restored with the victim. If all three approaches are rebuffed, then the offender is no longer part of the fellowship on earth (Matthew 18:17b), becoming instead an object of evangelism.”
Governing body member Anthony Morris has gone on record as saying the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses is theocratic, which means it is governed by God. For this reason, in his estimation, it is the best organization on earth.
Yet how is it possible, that a non-witness organization, in what Morris would consider devoid of godly wisdom, realizes that it is “hugely destructive” to use Matthew 18:15-17 as justification for the private handling of child sexual abuse and yet the greatest organization on earth, ruled by God does not? Would not failure in this regard completely negate his claim?
There is a much better teaching of Jesus that regulates how child sexual abuse is to be handled procedurally in the Christian congregation today:
“Jesus then said: “Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar but God’s things to God. And they began to marvel at him.” (Mark 12:17)
In Romans 13, Jesus tells us through the Apostle Paul that believers are to be subject to the civil authorities. They swing the sword as God’s ministers, bringing wrath upon evil- doers
Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. 3 For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; 4 for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad. (Romans 13:1-4)
Child sexual abuse has been deemed to be criminal by the civil authorities deserving of just punishment. Reporting such allegations to the authorities does not violate any Bible principle.
The Watchtower society recognizes this:
“A sin against the secular authorities. Christians are to “be in subjection to the superior authorities.” (Rom. 13:1) We prove our subjection by showing due respect for the laws of the land. If someone in the congregation becomes guilty of violating a criminal law, such as by committing child abuse, he is sinning against the secular authorities. (Compare Acts 25:8.) While the elders are not authorized to enforce the law of the land, they do not shield any perpetrator of child abuse from the legal consequences of his sin. (Rom. 13:4) The sinner reaps what he has sown.—Gal. 6:7…
13 Do elders comply with secular laws about reporting an allegation of child abuse to the secular authorities? Yes. In places where such laws exist, elders endeavor to comply with secular laws about reporting allegations of abuse. (Rom. 13:1) Such laws do not conflict with God’s law. (Acts 5:28, 29) So when they learn of an allegation, elders immediately seek direction on how they can comply with laws about reporting it.
14 Elders assure victims and their parents and others with knowledge of the matter that they are free to report an allegation of abuse to the secular authorities. But what if the report is about someone who is a part of the congregation and the matter then becomes known in the community? Should the Christian who reported it feel that he has brought reproach on God’s name? No. The abuser is the one who brings reproach on God’s name. (The Watchtower May 2019 pgs. 9-11 pars. 7,13,14)
I think everyone would agree that no one is expecting elders to enforce the law of the land. The question is: Instead of reporting to the authorities, why are elders instructed to immediately seek direction from the Watchtower society’s branch office on how they can comply with laws about reporting it? Why should Christians need a law mandating them to obey a command set out by God and Jesus? What would be the reason for not automatically reporting allegations of child sexual abuse to the authorities? It has been stated that, when it comes to reporting the matter, the elders must balance Bible principles. What Bible principles? One example offerred is found at 1 Peter 5:3:
Shepherd the flock of God under your care, serving as overseers, not under compulsion, but willingly before God; not for love of dishonest gain, but eagerly; 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock. (1 Peter 5:2, 3)
The emphasis is placed on the admonition Peter gives to shepherds to not lord it over the flock. Meaning they should refrain from telling them what to do. First of all it should be asked where in the context does it indicate that Peter was referring to how to handle allegations of a crime? Secondly, if a victim comes to the elders claiming that they had been sexually abused but there are no two witnesses to corroborate their story, how is encouraging them to seek the proper authorities that may have the resources to help them lording it over the flock? Would it be lording it over the flock for the elders to ask the victims permission to call the authorities in their behalf? Would it be lording it over the flock for the elders to go along with them and help them to report the matter? For them to simply say to someone that came to them for help, there’s nothing we can do, you’re on your own, is cruel.
Another example is found at Galatians 6:5:
For each one will carry his own load. (Galatians 6:5)
However, in the context, Paul uses another word when speaking to the Galatians about their Christian responsibility to one another:
Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. (Galatians 6:2)
Note how the Watchtower explains the difference between these two expressions:
“Christian elders must shoulder their responsibility toward God’s flock. They must be supportive. For instance, Paul said: “Brothers, even though a man takes some false step before he is aware of it, you who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness, as you each keep an eye on yourself, for fear you also may be tempted. Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and thus fulfill the law of the Christ.” The apostle also wrote: “Each one will carry his own load.”—Galatians 6:1, 2, 5.
19 How can we carry one another’s burdens and yet be carrying our own load? The difference in the meaning of the Greek words translated “burdens” and “load” furnishes the key. If a Christian gets into spiritual difficulty that is very burdensome to him, elders and other fellow believers would aid him, thus helping him carry his “burdens.” However, the individual himself is expected to carry his own “load” of responsibility to God. The elders gladly carry “the burdens” of their brothers through encouragement, Scriptural counsel, and prayer. Yet, elders do not take away our personal “load” of spiritual responsibility.—Romans 15:1. (The Watchtower May 15, 1993 pg. 16 pars. 18-19)
They bind up heavy loads and put them on the shoulders of men, but they themselves are not willing to budge them with their finger. (Matthew 23:4)
Would you say that for a child to report being abused by a trusted member of the congregation or perhaps their own parent or relative to the police is carrying a load or a burden? To place the responsibility for reporting solely upon the shoulders of the victim of such a traumatic experience and not offer encouragement, scriptural counsel and prayer would not only be out of harmony with Paul’s counsel but it would be cruel.
But it is even worse than that. By not reporting to the authorities that God has duly placed to investigate such crimes because of not having two eye witnesses and holding the matter in abeyance in lieu of receiving some further revelation, how can it be stated that the matter is placed in Jehovah’s hands? Could anyone expect that Jehovah would bless a decision that disregards a divinely constituted theocratic arrangement? Jehovah’s Witnesses do not refer to the secular governments as a theocratic arrangement. But therein lies the problem.
Many have been stumbled to the point of the shipwreck of their faith due to the misapplication of this scripture. Interestingly, in the very same chapter of Matthew, Jesus shows how he feels about this:
Therefore, whoever will humble himself like this young child is the one who is the greatest in the Kingdom of the heavens; 5 and whoever receives one such young child on the basis of my name receives me also. 6 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. (Matthew 18:4-6)
The conclusion I draw from this is Romans 13:1-4, instead of Matthew 18:15-17 is what should be applied to allegations of child sexual abuse. To avoid doing so not only shields abusers but also may lead to emboldening them to repeat their offenses thus putting others at risk. For an organization that claims to be Christian and yet refuse to do so places them in the position of standing against the arrangement of God.
[1] Although Geoffrey Jackson also cites 1 Cor. 13:1 and 1 Tim. 5:19, it would be equally problematic to apply either of these texts to the investigation and prosecution of a crime for which the Christian congregation has no authority. No Christian writer would deviate from the instructions initially given by Jesus in Matthew chapter 18