Butchering Matthew 18

Ok, let's get straight to the point:

Over the past 4 years or so, I have heard of cases where Matthew 18:15-17 is interpreted in many bizarre and harmful ways.

In this section of Scripture, Jesus gives some principles for handling conflict when a person sins against another. Some apply this Scripture to all cases of disagreement and conflict (including marital, parenting, friendships, workplace, church relationships, leadership, staff issues, etc.). Some apply it to particular cases of conflict involving personal sin between people. Others use it primarily in corporate, church discipline matters involving serious sin. Still others use it in cases where there are allegations of abuse from a church leader towards a church member, staff member, or someone on the leadership team. (Obviously, there can be some overlap between these views as well.)

Here is my central point in this article: Some of the interpretations and applications put forth are incredibly harmful to people and not faithful Bible interpretation. Matthew 18 is occasionally used to harm God’s sheep, not to help them.

Perhaps, some are unaware of the context and application of Matthew 18:15-17. Others are unaware of gray situations—that is, the numerous types of situations that may fall on a spectrum between the black or white, yes or no, when following Matthew 18. However, in some extreme cases, I'm concerned that abusive and manipulative people are using Holy Scripture and weaponizing it for their abusive and manipulative purposes. (Maybe there are additional reasons which I am currently unfamiliar with.)

In his excellent book, Bully Pulpit, Michael Kruger studied many cases of spiritual abuse occurring in churches. Surprisingly, in numerous cases, he found that "it was not unusual for procedural issues to become so central that the abuse itself was nearly forgotten. People were upset, but not at the pastor's abusive behavior. Instead, they were upset about how certain procedural steps weren't followed during his prosecution. In their minds, it was the abusive pastor who had been mistreated; he was the real victim. Often these same people express little concern over how the victims had been treated."[1] In other words, the abusive pastor was able to blame the victim in such a way that he (falsely) appeared to be the victim.

Of course, I'm sure we all agree on fairness. Put differently, a fair procedure in these situations should be followed. But Kruger discovered that it wasn't just a procedural issue that was unfair. Instead, many times, it seemed to be a massive, manipulated ploy to blame the victim. Alarmingly, he found that Matthew 18 became a common theme. He wrote, "Of all the procedural objections, one is trumpeted louder than any other: the victims didn't follow Matthew 18."[2] Thus, the blame shifting took place by weaponizing Matthew 18.

Then, Kruger made this insightful comment:

"While Matthew 18 is an important passage for dealing with sins in a congregation, it isn't exhaustive; it is not meant to address or solve every possible scenario. Unfortunately, sometimes it is treated like a universal cure that can be applied to every situation."[3]

As bizarre as it sounds, I've heard some abusive pastors claim that the people they abused must follow Matthew 18 and come to them personally and confront them one-on-one first. Since that process wasn't followed, the concern is thrown out. This presents us with a crucial question: Does this passage require a victim to confront an abuser alone? Is that what Matthew meant? I highly doubt it.

Let's look at the passage. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Matthew writes:

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

-Matthew 18:15-17 (ESV throughout)

Now, let's look at the context:

• The section before — the parable of the lost sheep and the Father's pursuit of those who go astray.

• This section that we are examining — sin, confrontation, and church discipline

• The section after — the parable of the unforgiving servant

When you put these together, it looks like this: (1) the Father's incredible love and pursuit of sinners who stray; (2) the church's incredible love and pursuit of sinners who stray; and (3) God's and our radical forgiveness of sinners. The emphasis doesn't seem to be on confrontation and settling accounts, but instead the emphasis seems to be on continual love, pursuit, and forgiveness. (In fact, right after our passage, Peter asks Jesus: "'Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?' Jesus said to him, 'I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times' [Matt. 18:21-22].)

Next, the audience in this passage seems to be the disciples of Jesus (who are mentioned in Matthew 18:1; also see 17:24-27).

Furthermore, let's make a few observations on the language of this passage.

(1) Jesus uses the term "brother". This implies a relationship between the two people.

One commentator even says this, "Our successful involvement in the Father's pursuit of the straying brother depends on our prior investment in the relationship."[4] In other words, it is easier to share a hard truth about sin and win someone over when there is a relationship between the two. This verse does not give a requirement to confront every known sin that was not committed against you!

(2) Jesus uses the term "sin". This shows that someone clearly sinned. In other words, this isn't being critical, judgmental, and "nit-picky". This isn't arguing over preferences. A sin was clearly committed.

(3) Jesus uses the phrase "against you". This shows that person A sinned against the other person (person B). They were involved in the situation. The sin happened to them.

(4) If these things are true, then you follow the process: first, tell the person directly; next, bring one or two witness; and last, if he still doesn't respond, tell it to the church.

Listen to this important caution: "What Jesus had in mind for the gathering of believers who should hear about the brother's sin can be debated. In the first century, where communities were close-knit and the local churches were small house gatherings, everyone would naturally be a party to this problem."[5] The goal is not to embarrass and humiliate. The goal is to join in the Father's loving and gentle pursuit of straying sinners.[6] Lastly, if the response is not good, then the church is to treat the person as an unbeliever. How do we treat unbelievers? We don't permit them to eat the Lord's Supper. We share the gospel with them. We love them. We pray for them to repent.

Therefore, to summarize the process, as David Platt has pointed out, there are four main steps:

1. Private Correction

2. Small Group Clarification

3. Church Admonition

4. Church Excommunication[7]

However, in the midst of all of this, we must keep in mind some of the helpful clarifications that Kruger has discovered in his study of spiritual abuse. I have put them in bullet point format below:

• First, remember that Matthew 18 applies only to individuals who have been sinned against.

  • He specifically addresses situations where a member has seen a pastor abuse other members on staff. They can go directly to the elders in this situation. Indeed, 1 Timothy 5:19 seems to suggest that they should.

  • In fact, Jesus seemed to explain a situation like this in Matthew 18:31. In it he comments on an issue that is reported directly to the master rather than a one-to-one confrontation taking place.

• Second, if a person should have followed the private confrontation, then that doesn't mean that an elder team can dismiss the sins of the abusive pastor or church leader.

• Third, if the person does follow Matthew 18 and the pastor admits sin (or even repents), then it may still need to be reported to the elders. (As diabolical as it sounds, some abusive leaders use Matthew 18 to apologize and then silence victims.)

  • Here are some of the situations that Kruger describes:

    • criminal issues

    • spiritual abuse (including verbal attacks, berating, humiliation, threats to fire, etc.)

  • I will add a couple more to this list:

    • sexual abuse

    • physical abuse (violence)

• Fourth, some situations are so extreme and egregious that it would be unwise to send a person to confront an abusive pastor alone (such as violence, sexual abuse, etc.).[8]

To conclude, Matthew 18 is a general guide to follow in specific situations. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach to every situation and every conflict in which we may find ourselves. We must use wisdom. We must love and pursue others. We must be gentle and forgiving. We must not use it to shame a victim and protect an abuser. When significant, credible accusations are thrown out because a claim like this, "They didn't follow Matthew 18," I am concerned that an abuse of power is happening. We must have a full-orbed biblical theology, and God has a lot to say about loving, helping, and protecting the oppressed in situations like these (e.g., Pharaoh).

Why is it that those who are butchering people are also butchering Matthew 18? (Of course, this type of butchering often happens metaphorically [such as in verbal, spiritual, organizational, relational, emotional, and sexual ways.])

Sadly, Matthew 18 was used improperly at IHOPKC when the scandal with Mike Bickle broke out (presumably to silence the victim).[9] It was also used at a church where there were concerns by parents about a youth pastor with grooming behavior (who went on to be charged with a felony). The parents met with leaders, but they responded defensively. Church leadership then requested a meeting with the parents, the teenager, and a lawyer. The parents declined the meeting and expressed lack of trust that leadership would listen and respond. The parents then received a letter confronting the couple for not following Matthew 18 and stating their membership was revoked.[10] Surely, God is not pleased.

Let's use Matthew 18 as Jesus intended it—with wisdom, love, grace, forgiveness, justice, and without abuse of power (or justifying the abuse of power).

If you want to dive deeper into this subject, here are two excellent resources that address the topic much more fully: (1) Ken Sande, The Peace Maker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004) and (2) Robert K. Cheong, God Redeeming His Bride (Scotland: Christian Focus, 2012).

End Notes:

[1] Michael J. Kruger, Bully Pulpit: Confronting the Problem of Spiritual Abuse in the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 81.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 82.

[4] Stuart K. Weber, Holman New Commentary: Matthew (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2000), 292.

[5] Ibid., 293.

[6] Ibid.

[7] David Platt, Christ-Centered Exposition: Exalting Jesus in Matthew (Nashville, TN: Holman Academic, 2013), 242-244.

[8] This section summarizes and expounds on Michael Kruger, Bully Pulpit, 80-84.

[9] Lance Ford, "Reclaiming Church Discipline, Part 2: The Abuse of Matthew 18," Roys Report, July 1, 2025, accessed August 18, 2026, https://roysreport.com/reclaiming-church-discipline-abuse-matthew-18/.

[10] Ann Marie Shambaugh, "Parents Say Michigan Megachurch Mishandled Concerns That Youth Pastor Was Grooming Their Son; Now Youth Pastor is Facing Felony Sex Charges," March 6, 2025, accessed August 18, 2026, https://roysreport.com/michigan-megachurch-mishandled-concerns-youth-pastor-swider-grooming-son/?fbclid=IwY2xjawTyBHxwZG9mBWV4dG4DYWVtAjExAGJyaWQRMThveWJQRDBnMkN5bWV6UXlzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEerOQhx86AwGnKqeAIKpMNsLrnRT1l9vCHN0eOnYpAxZMayzlYgQ59Jb4HiAI_aem_uqJ2qLMcZWCSP4AcVxQ3pw.