Some weeks ago, I published a summary of what Rev. D. Agema had to say about the so‑called “rule of Matthew 18”.[i] In response, a reader wrote to me, suggesting that there are situations in which strict adherence to the Matthew 18 rule may not serve the neighbour’s wellbeing. I appreciated the ensuing exchange with this brother, for Scripture itself shows that exceptional circumstances can arise in which the rule—such as the requirement of two witnesses—may be overridden by what God’s law teaches elsewhere. This is not unique to Matthew 18; other commandments also admit of exceptional circumstances that shape how they are applied in practice. In this article, I will discuss some examples of such exceptions, restate the rule of Matthew 18, and identify situations in which a literal application of the rule may not be appropriate.
Biblical examples where a literal adherence to the letter of the law is bypassed
Scripture shows how sometimes the need to promote justice and love can lead to one commandment overriding another. For example, when the Israelites were still in Egypt, their midwives disobeyed Pharaoh’s command to kill the newborn baby boys. It might be argued that, by disobeying the civil authority, they transgressed the 5th commandment and, by lying to Pharaoh, they literally transgressed the 9th commandment. Yet they pursued justice and showed love, both of which underpin the commandments. And, of course, they upheld the 6th commandment by not killing the baby boys. Hence the midwives were blessed by the LORD. God is a God of justice and justice promotes the rights, the well-being, of our fellow man—in this case the baby boys.
When David was fleeing from Absolom a woman in Bahurim hid David’s two spies in a well, spread a covering with grain over the well and told Absolom’s men that the men they were hunting had crossed the water brook. It was a blatant lie but thereby she showed that she rejected Absolom’s sinful coup and his attempt to murder the rightful king David. She saved lives, upholding the rights of her fellow man and the cause of justice.
During World War 2 an issue arose about what to say if you were hiding Jews, and Germans came knocking on the door. Could you tell a lie to save the lives of the Jews? In the middle of the war years, in 1943, Rev. B Holwerda addressed this in a sermon on the 9th commandment (LD 43).[ii] He says that God’s commands are related to justice, to the well-being of the neighbour, to his rights, his possessions, his good name and reputation, etc. In the 9th commandment, we are concerned not only with honesty but also with maintaining justice.
Holwerda says that the 9th commandment condemns bearing false witness and that brings us into the realm of the courts, in other words, of justice. But he adds that the rights of our fellow man are not only to be defended in court but also in everyday life. He points to how much we can hurt our fellow man by telling the exact truth about him! It may be the whole truth and nothing but the truth, says Holwerda, but if it is not told to his advantage, to protect and uphold him, but to hurt him, we are transgressing the 9th commandment. For we must love our neighbour as our self. We may never detach the spirit of the law from the letter of the law. Hence the need to defend the Jews from being murdered trumped the command to tell the truth because to tell the truth in such a situation would not promote justice and the neighbour’s well-being.
However, adds Holwerda, we must be very careful here. It is easy to try and justify breaking God’s commandment by claiming that we are seeking the greater good. When Abraham lies to Abimelech for his own interest, he is doing Abimelech a disservice and not trusting in the Lord. When Jacob deceives Esau, he is seeking his own interest and stealing the blessing. That is sinful. On the other hand, when Samuel must anoint David, he lies by saying that the purpose of his visit is to sacrifice. His lie keeps Saul from murder and protects his own life. That is not sinful.
I give these examples to show that love towards God and our neighbour, and true justice, govern the laws and rules God gives in His Word. As Christ says, on these two commands (love for God and the neighbour) hang all the law and the prophets. Holwerda therefore says: you must love your neighbour, respect his rights, defend his name and reputation and take care that he will have a place in society. And you may also protect your own rights; you may even kill in self-defence.
The rule of Matthew 18
The rule of Matthew 18 is likewise governed by love for God and the rights of my neighbour. That rule relates to private (not public) sins and says: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone.” That is showing love. As I said in my previous article about Matthew 18, much misery and heartache in the church of our Lord could be prevented if only we heeded this rule.
The rule is not limited to sins done against you personally; it applies to all sins. For example, if I witness a brother stealing an item from a shop, then I must talk to the offender about it. If he denies it, I would have to leave it with the Lord. If someone was with me and also witnessed the theft, I should then speak to the offender again, taking the witness, and so continue the route of Matthew 18.
Care for the reputation of others, when you witness a sin, is reflected in what Rev. W. van Oene says: “There must be no talking about it with others, no approaching the consistory with a complaint, no ignoring the brother, or letting him continue in the wrong attitude and path. Instead, one should visit the brother and try to bring him back”.[iii] If that rule has not been followed, no consistory is to deal with a complaint, as we maintain in our FRCA Church Order Art. 71 (CanRC Art. 67).
It is in relation to this that my correspondent raises a concern. He says: “Many serious sins — including various forms of abuse, coercion, or manipulation — occur privately and without witnesses. If the absence of a second eyewitness automatically closes the door to further action, we may unintentionally silence the vulnerable while seeking to protect the accused. That tension warrants deeper consideration.”
He rightly wants to uphold the rule of Matthew 18, saying: “We must avoid unjust accusations based on a single witness.” Nevertheless, he sees a difficulty: “I believe we must also avoid creating a framework that prevents responsible examination of credible harm simply because it occurred in private. Scripture calls us not only to protect reputations, but also to protect the weak and vulnerable, to pursue justice diligently, and to shepherd wisely when sin causes real damage within Christ’s body.”
On the one hand he doesn’t want to weaken the rule of Matthew 18. “It seems to me that the two-witness principle serves an important purpose: it protects the church from condemning someone based on a single accusation.” On the other hand, “that safeguard does not mean a matter may not be taken seriously, pastorally addressed, or carefully examined.”
Deviating from the Rule of Matthew 18 in exceptional circumstances
My correspondent makes a valid point. As I said in my previous article on this subject, there can be careful enquiry. Such enquiry must be conducted with great care, impartiality and restraint, ensuring that neither the vulnerable are ignored nor the accused treated unjustly.
Moreover, as with other commandments, there may be exceptional circumstances where we might deviate from a literal application of the letter of this law in order to promote justice and reflect love for the well-being of our neighbour—especially one in difficult circumstances. Without love, says Paul, I have become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal (1 Cor. 13:1). He adds that love does not rejoice in iniquity but rejoices in the truth (vs 6). Genuine love for both the ‘victim’ and the ‘accused’ may result in the civil authorities being involved (thus bypassing the literal first step of Matthew 18). But only where there is sufficient and credible evidence.
For example, in a situation where investigation proves that sustained physical abuse takes place, without signs of repentance by the abuser, drastic action may need to be taken. Then, for the sake of the abused, and if all else fails, police involvement may need to be considered.
Likewise, if my brother suddenly seems to have a lot of money, and discreet enquiries show that he is part of a drug syndicate, then, for the sake of the well-being of society and his own salvation, it may be necessary not to admonish him personally first, as per the rule of Matthew 18, but to notify the police in case my brother destroys evidence that would allow the drug syndicate to keep up its murderous distribution of drugs.
The same could be said for some other serious criminal offences: participation in a theft syndicate, unrestrained domestic violence, serious child abuse (sexual or violent). However, when contemplating notifying the police, we would do well to remember also what Paul says in 1 Cor. 6:1 and consider the damage a court-case can do to the name of Christ and His church. Moreover, just because the law says something is a criminal offence, doesn’t mean it is criminal in the eyes of God. For example, presently there are 74 countries that declare parental spanking of their children to be a criminal offence; yet Scripture speaks of its value in nurturing children.
Conclusion
God’s Word shows that justice and love must govern all our actions. As Rev. S de Marie says: “Service to the Lord must chiefly be evident in demonstrated brotherly love.” [iv] The “rule of Matthew 18” reflects this. It is intended to promote justice and safeguard the good name and reputation of my neighbour. However, as with other commandments, there may be exceptional circumstances where love and upholding the divine rights God gives to our neighbour obligates us to deviate from a literal interpretation of this rule. In such cases we must be very careful that we are not fabricating an excuse to water down or avoid the clear command of Christ in Matthew 18.
Our love for one another, our desire to submit to Christ our Lord in each situation, our determination to do His will from the heart, to uphold the good name and reputation of our neighbour, must govern all our actions. To ensure our actions are loving, just, fair and align with God’s will, we should compare Scripture with Scripture. He tests the hearts to see whether our motives are pure and loving, or whether there is personal interest involved.
[i] The Rule of Matthew 18 – Defence of the Truth
[ii] B Holwerda, “Zondag 4”, De Dingen Die Ons van God Geschonken Ziin IV, Oosterbaan en Le Cointre, Goes, 1955, P. 51ff. Translation of this sermon into English is available on Spindleworks.
[iii] W. W. J. van Oene, With Common Consent, Premier Publ., Winnipeg, 1990, p.303.
[iv] Meditation, APRIL 13, 2026 – A LIVING SACRIFICE – Bouwen en Bewaren