Conflict Resolution: Whose Responsibility? (Part 2 of 2)

The Biblical Pattern

STEP 1: It always begins with me. If I am guilty of sin, the Lord expects me to follow his directions and seek redemption.¹ If my brother has something against me, the Lord expects me to take the initiative and seek resolution.² If my brother sins against me, the Lord expects me to approach the offending brother first and seek reconciliation.³ If my brother sins, whether it directly affects me or not, the Lord expects me to be my brother’s keeper and seek restoration.⁴

It goes without saying that the directive to “go and tell him his fault between you and him alone” (Matt. 18:15)⁵ is not without implicit exceptions. It presupposes an established relationship, not a “cold turkey” approach. Differences in gender, age, relationship, trust, and maturity would call for wisdom and discretion to avoid the appearance of impropriety, intimidation, or a compromising situation. A mutually respected mediator would then be appropriate (cf. Acts 9:26-28; Phil. 4:2-3).

STEP 2: If implementing the first step does not result in having “gained your brother,” i.e., if he refuses to listen and repent, “take with you one or two more” (Matt. 18:16), preferably, if not presumably, reputable and spiritually mature brethren (cf. Gal. 6:1). Jesus gives scriptural confirmation, quoting Deuteronomy 19:15, a long-established conventional means of corroboration.⁶  Multiple witnesses serve the threefold purpose of (a) confirming the charge, (b) protecting the accused against impulsive, petty, or malicious allegations, and (c) providing additional support and counsel.

STEP 3: If the accused refuses to heed the mutual appeal of concerned brethren, “tell it to the church” (Matt. 18:17a). The body of Christ is not one member but many (1 Cor. 12:14-26), and when one member goes astray, the entire church is affected (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:7-9). A unified plea, and any other disciplinary action, is the corporate responsibility of the congregation as a whole (1 Cor. 5:4-5; 6:1-5; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14; 1 Tim. 5:20).

STEP 4: “But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector” (Matt. 18:17b). When a wayward brother defies the collective admonition of his church family and stubbornly persists in misconduct, he himself has severed his spiritual bond with the Lord and the Lord’s people. The rest of the congregation are simply to follow through with his own foolish choices. Likening him to “a heathen and a tax collector” (discussed in more detail below) should be understood from Christ’s perspective and in light of how the early church carried it out.

This latter stage of the disciplinary process is purposeful disassociation: “taken away from among you,” “deliver such a one to Satan,” “purge out,” “do not keep company with,” “put away from yourselves,” “withdraw from” (1 Cor. 5:2-13; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14).⁷ If the impenitent sinner is determined to live for Satan, he is to be turned back over to Satan’s realm; let him experience the world of Satan so he will want to return to the Lord and the Lord’s family. The primary objective is not necessarily punishment or retaliation but to rescue a lost soul, while also maintaining the moral integrity of the church (1 Cor. 5:4-8; 2 Cor. 2:5-11; 2 Thess. 3:14; 1 Tim. 5:20; Jas. 5:19-20).

STEP 5: The disassociation is not the final step, nor is it a complete severance of all interaction: “note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thess. 3:14-15). This cannot be done unless regular contact is maintained. Disciplinary action, although firm and uncompromising, is not intended to be hateful, malicious, or cruel. The withdrawing does not mean giving up on this brother, and further attempts are to be made to bring him back to faithfulness. The admonishing continues until repentance is forthcoming (cf. 2 Cor. 2:5-11; 7:9-10).

Like a Heathen and a Tax Collector?

Why is the impenitent brother likened to the “heathen” [ὁ ἐθνικὸς] and “tax collector” [ὁ τελώνης], and how would this comparison be viewed from the Lord’s perspective?

In first-century Palestine, the provincial tax collector (or revenue officer) was a local hireling of a wealthy contractor, typically a foreign publicanus, the one retaining the Roman tax-gathering contract. Regular interaction and collaboration with pagan Gentiles rendered the Jewish tax collector ceremonially defiled and a social outcast in the orthodox Jewish community. Characteristically greedy and corrupt, he was despised by the local populace and lumped together with “prostitutes” (Matt. 21:31-32) and “sinners” (Matt. 9:10-11; 11:19).⁸

In Matthew 18:17 the hypothetical tax collector is grouped with ὁ ἐθνικός, variously rendered “heathen” (N/KJV), “pagan” (NIV), “unbeliever” (CEV, ISV), but mostly “Gentile” (CSB, ESV, NASB, NET, N/RSV). The adjectival ἐθνικός appears three times in Matthew’s Gospel, all in the teachings of Jesus (Matt. 5:46-47; 6:7; 18:17), and only once in the rest of the NT (3 John 7). It specifically refers to a foreigner with particular focus on moral or religious defects, comparable to “unbelieving, worldly, polytheistic” (BDAG 276). From a Jewish perspective it would apply to a non-Israelite (Matt. 5:47; 6:7), and from a Christian perspective, to a non-Christian (2 John 7).⁹

How did Jesus respond to and treat the tax collectors of his day and others considered morally and religiously deficient? Although he recognized their disreputable standing in the community (Matt. 5:46-47), he reached out to them, spent time with them, and was considered their “friend” (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34). He certainly did not condone, justify, tolerate, or participate in their sins, yet with compassion he sought to guide, influence, and teach them to turn from their sinful ways (Matt. 9:10-13; Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:27-32; 15:1-32). In general they proved to be receptive to the Lord, more so than the self-righteous religious elites (Matt. 21:31-32; Mark 2:14; Luke 3:12-14; 7:29-30; 15:1-2; 18:9-14).

When Jesus instructed his disciples to view an erring brother like the “heathen” and the “tax collector,” they would know from the Lord’s own example what this meant: no hatred or malice or disdain but loving concern for a lost soul.¹⁰ Neither condoning nor overlooking the sin, discipline is administered by withdrawing cordial association, “Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thess. 3:14-15).

Ironically, it is only in Matthew’s Gospel that the apostle Matthew is labelled “the tax collector” (Matt. 10:3). He knew firsthand what it was like to be detested and disparaged as an outcast in his own community yet loved by the Lord anyway. What Jesus spoke, Matthew the tax collector recorded.

Conclusion

In dealing with a sinning brother (or sister), it never involves vile castigation or complete avoidance. With Christlike compassionate love we do what is needed, according to Christ’s example and teachings, to win our errant sibling back, seeking recognition of sin, shame, and godly sorrow leading to repentance and restoration: “that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:5b).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The verb μετανοέω (“repent”) occurs sixteen times in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 11:20, 21; 12:41; Mark 1:15; 6:12; Luke 10:13; 11:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10; 16:30; 17:3, 4) and eighteen times in the rest of the NT (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; 17:30; 26:20; 2 Cor. 12:21; Rev. 2:5[x2], 16, 21[x2], 22; 3:3, 19; 9:20, 21; 16:9, 11). The noun μετάνοια (“repentance”) occurs eight times in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 3:8, 11; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3, 8; 5:32; 15:7; 24:47) and fourteen times in the rest of the NT (Acts 5:31; 11:18; 13:24; 19:4; 20:21; 26:20; Rom. 2:4; 2 Cor. 7:9, 10; 2 Tim. 2:25; Heb. 6:1, 6; 12:17; 2 Pet. 3:9). See K. L. Moore, “What Must I Do To Be Saved?” Moore Perspective (30 Jan. 2015), <Link>.

     ² Matt. 5:23-24; 7:3-5; 1 Cor. 10:24; Phil. 2:3-4.

     ³ Matt. 18:15 (ASV, CSB, ESV, N/KJV, RSV); Luke 17:3 (NIV, N/KJV, WEB); cf. Luke 17:4.

     ⁴ Matt. 18:15 (NASB, NET, NIV); Luke 17:3 (ASV, CSB, ESV, ISV, NASB, NET, N/RSV); Gal. 2:11-14; 6:1-2; Jas. 5:19-20.

     ⁵ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the New King James Version (1996).

     ⁶ See also Deut. 17:6; John 8:17; 2 Cor. 13:1b; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28. Among the ancients, from Herodotus (420 BC) to Marcellinus (AD 395), eyewitness testimony was regarded as the most reliable source of information. See David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, LEC (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987): 81.

     ⁷ Cf. also Rom. 16:17; Tit. 3:10-11. “The abuse of discipline has often led to a harsh and intolerant spirit, but neglect of it has proved a danger almost as great” (Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, TNTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991]: 106).

     ⁸ See BDAG 999; cf. also Mark 2:15-16; Luke 5:30; 7:34; 15:1. The term τελώνης appears in the NT only in the Synoptic Gospels and is better rendered “tax collector” or “tax gatherer” rather than “publican” (ASV, Douay-Rheims, JUB, KJV), a transliteration of the Latin publicanus.

     ⁹ In Matthew 5:47, in the broader discussion about enemies, hateful persecutors, the evil and the unjust, instead of οἱ ἐθνικοί, a textual variant reads οἱ τελῶναι (“tax collectors”) (MSB, N/KJV, WEB, YLT). The standard Greek text accepts the οἱ ἐθνικοί reading, variously rendered “Gentiles” (ASV, H/CSB, ESV, NASB, NET, N/RSV), “pagans” (NIV), “unbelievers” (CEV, ISV). In Matthew 6:7, variously rendered “Gentiles” (ASV, CSB, ESV, NASB, NET, N/RSV, WEB), “heathen” (N/KJV), “pagans” (NIV), “unbelievers” (ISV), “idolaters” (HCSB)—cp. 1 Kings 18:26; Acts 19:34. In 3 John 7, variously rendered “Gentiles” (ASV, ESV, ISV, NASB, N/KJV), “heathen” (RSV), “pagans” (CSB, NET, NIV), “nonbelievers” (NRSV). On the noun ἔθνος, see BDAG 276-77; also K. L. Moore, “Until the Times of the Gentiles are Fulfilled,” Moore Perspective (2026), <Link>.

     ¹⁰ If the noun ἔθνη (“nations”) is also considered, the point is even more impactful (Matt 12:18, 21; 21:43; 24:14; 28:19).

Related Posts: Conflict Resolution (Part 1), What Does "Fellowship" Mean?, Church Discipline 

Related articles: Patrick Swayne, Don't Skip That Part 

 

Image credit: https://www.dreamstime.com/photos-images/himself-pointing.html 

Mormonism

     The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one of the fastest growing religious groups in the world, with an international membership of over 15 million.¹ Its current assets total a minimum of $40 billion, with over $8 billion in annual gross income. Financial gain comes from its profit-making businesses and investments, and imposing a compulsory 10% income tax (“tithe”) on its members.²

     The founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Jr., alleged to have been visited by Moroni, an angel of God, on 21 September 1823. This messenger purportedly revealed to him the location of an ancient book, engraved on gold plates, which contained “a record of the fulness of the divine laws and covenants” which God had delivered to the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. With these gold plates were two transparent stones, called Urim and Thummim, which Smith was to use in translating the book into English. Four years later he supposedly received the plates, and the first edition of the Book of Mormon was published in 1830.

    Three other men (Oliver Cowdery [Smith’s cousin], David Whitmer, and Martin Harris) also claimed to have seen the plates and the angel and heard the voice of God. Their testimony is printed in the front of the Book of Mormon. But how reliable are these witnesses? It is interesting that although they were all ordained as high priests, apostles, and church presidents, each left the Mormon Church within a few years, denouncing Joseph Smith, Jr. as being guilty of numerous crimes. In return the Mormon Church condemned them as reprobates and criminals. Whichever may be true, the testimony of these witnesses destroys the Book of Mormon’s credibility.

     There were also eight others who claimed to have seen the plates. Five were related to David Whitmer (one of the “three witnesses”), and the others were Joseph Smith, Jr.’s father and two brothers. By 1838, however, all of them who were still alive had left the Church, except Smith’s family (cf. R. C. Evans, Forty Years in the Mormon Church: Why I Left It 24-26). Further, of the first twelve apostles appointed in the Mormon Church and chosen by the “three witnesses” (Church History 1:541), seven were excommunicated (LDS Church News 50-51, cited in The Utah Evangel [Jan.-Feb. 1987]: 6).

     What about the testimony of Joseph Smith, Jr. himself? Can he be trusted? Today the Mormons portray him as a humble, godly man who simply answered the divine call to restore true religion. However, the facts of history paint a different picture of Smith. In 1826, three years after his alleged angelic visit, Joseph Smith, Jr. was arrested, tried and found guilty of fraud in Bainbridge, New York. Oliver Cowdery, one of the “three witnesses,” reported that before the plates were found, “some very officious person complained of him [Smith] as a disorderly person, and brought him before the authorities of the county” (Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate [Oct. 1835] 2:200-201). 

     The account of the trial was first published in Fraser’s Magazine in Feb. 1873 (7:229-30), in which Smith, described as “a disorderly person and an impostor,” confessed to using a seer stone to find hidden treasure for purposes of fraud and deception. As early as 1831 these events were mentioned in a letter published in the Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate, stating that for several years prior to the appearance of the Book of Mormon, Smith “was about the country in the character of a glass-looker: pretending, by means of a certain stone, or glass, which he put in a hat, to be able to discover lost goods, hidden treasures, mines of gold and silver . . .” (120). The letter went on to explain that Smith was “arrested as a disorderly person, tried and condemned before a court of justice.”

     In the court record Smith confessed that “for three years” prior to 1826 he had used a stone placed in his hat to find treasures or lost property. It is interesting that his money-digging activities began in 1823, the very time that he claims to have been visited by Moroni and received knowledge of the gold plates and transparent stones.

     For years the Mormon Church has denied the authenticity of this court document. The Mormon scholar Francis W. Kirkham agreed that if the court record could be proven authentic, “then it follows that his [Smith’s] believers must deny his claimed divine guidance which led them to follow him . . . . How could he be a prophet of God, the leader of the Restored Church to these tens of thousands, if he had been the superstitious fraud which ‘the pages from a book’ declared he confessed to be?” (A New Witness for Christ in America 1:486-87). Dr. Hugh Nibley, in his attempt to discredit this document, wrote: “. . . if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith” (The Myth Makers 142). In the August 1971 issue of the Salt Lake City Messenger, the discovery of a document was announced which proved the authenticity of the published court record. It was the original bill of the 20 March 1826 trial, in which Joseph Smith, Jr. is called “The Glass looker.” A copy of this document is published in Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s Mormonism-Shadow or Reality? 33.

     Joseph Smith, Jr. is hailed by his followers as a martyred hero, who “willingly” gave his life for his testimony. But the facts of history tell us that he shot three of his assailants before he was killed (Time [4 August 1997]:52; cf. History of the Church 7:100-103). The Mormons may celebrate Joseph Smith, Jr. as a martyr, but he certainly did not go willingly! 

     Furthermore, where are the gold plates? Can they be examined so that Smith’s story may be verified? Smith conveniently claimed: “When, according to arrangements, the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him; and he has them in his charge until this day . . .” The plates were supposedly written in a language called “the reformed Egyptian,” and the Book of Mormon states: “But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof” (Mormon 9:32, 34). Thus Smith, with the aid of the Urim and Thummim, was the only one able to translate the plates, and the world is asked to believe that his “inspired translation” is the word of God. 

     Smith supposedly copied some of the characters off the plates and Martin Harris (one of the “three witnesses”) took them, along with Smith’s translation, to Professor Charles Anthon for examination. Professor Anthon purportedly said that “the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian.” Harris claimed that Professor Anthon gave him a certificate of authenticity, but then tore it to pieces when he was told the background of the writing (Joseph Smith-History 1:64-65, in The Pearl of Great Price 56-57).

     Isn’t it ironic that Professor Anthon could determine the accuracy of Smith’s translation when the Book of Mormon maintains that “none other people knoweth our language”? How did Professor Anthon learn “the reformed Egyptian” since no other literature in that language exists? The truth is, Professor Anthon wrote a letter to E. D. Howe on 17 Feb. 1834 in which he denies the statements attributed to him by the Mormons. He said their claim “is perfectly false,” and considered the incident “a trick, perhaps a hoax.” His entire letter is reproduced in Walter Martin’s The Kingdom of the Cults 181-82.

     The Mormon Apostle Le Grand Richards wrote: “There is not an honest man or woman in this world who loves the Lord who wouldn’t join this Church if they knew what it was” (Deseret News [22 Jan. 1966]:16). After honestly examining the facts, however, and coming to know the true history of Mormonism, one’s love for the Lord would lead him/her in a different direction.

 --Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See “Mormonism is fastest-growing faith in half of USA,” USA Today 2012, <http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-05-02/religion-census-mromon/54701198/1>; also “Mormons Are Fastest Growing Religion,” CBN 2014, <http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/churchandministry/evangelism/mormons_are_fastest_growing_religion.aspx>.

     ² See Time (4 August 1997): 50-57; and more recently Bloomberg Businessweek, “How the Mormons Make Money” (18 July 2012), <http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-10/how-the-mormons-make-money>.

Addendum:  Since this article was posted, the Mormon Church has publicly acknowledged that its founder, Joseph Smith, Jr., was married to up to 40 women, including a 14-year-old girl and others who were already married. They seek to vindicate Smith by alleging that God commanded polygamy and then later retracted it. See <www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng>.       

Related Posts: Questions For My Mormon Friends

Related articles: J. W. Wallace's Danger of Belief "In" without Belief "That" 

Recommended Websites: Nathan Franson's Mormon Study Website, Lance Mosher's 3 Tests the Book of Mormon Can't Pass

Image credit: http://www.i4m.com/think/photos/Deconstructor.jpg