A one-to-many is handled in the same way as a many-to-one (only from the other direction).

• Many sheep and one gone astray.
• Two or three go to one.
• One body and many parts.
• Greatest and/or least among many.
• Master with many servants, servant with many under him.

In computer systems, there needs to be a way to help detect errors and reach consensus. This was done in the Space Shuttle system. A problem developed to understand this is called the "Byzantine Generals problem".

Details are left as a future topic.

Likewise, in any distributed system of people there needs to be some resolution conflict protocol. In civil and criminal matters (in a democracy), this is usually a court system.

The church as a gathering of believers needs a resolution conflict protocol. Jesus appears to provide some if this in this and other discourses relating to the church as a gathering of believers.

The KJV (King James Version) adds "against thee" which is not in (some) Greek manuscripts and adds "his fault" as inferred. The definition of "trespass" or "sin" as being a "fault" depends on point of view.

• This could be no fault of anyone, as in no-fault insurance,
• Discuss: Is there such a thing as no-fault sin?
• Consider the "indulgences" of the Middle Ages by the Catholic Church.

We will assume that the advice for "brother" is the same as for "sister" within the church as a gathering of believers.

More: Matthew 6: 14-15: Forget about the debts, sins and trespasses

As was said, gather the facts and get them right. This may not be easy.

The same types of issues arise in user interfaces in computer systems.

• Are you sure you want to do this?
• Are you really sure you want to do this?
• Are you really really sure you want to do this?
• ... and so on ...

The prophet Nathan used a story to get David to see that he had sinned. Nathan told David about a rich shepherd who took a poor shepherds only sheep. David proclaimed judgment against that rich shepherd. Nathan than explained how, in analogy, David was that rich shepherd.

David thus pronounced a reflexive judgment on himself.

Details are left as a future topic.

Prophets must be sensitive in delivering their prophecies - or forth telling.

Nathan was careful in dealing with David.

So too was Daniel when dealing with Nebuchadnezzar. Interestingly, the dream Daniel interpreted was not difficult to interpret but required courage to bring the bad news to the boss. So much so that the other dream interpreters claimed it was too hard for them to interpret.

Details are left as a future topic.

One of the difficult parts of developing and debugging software is that errors can happen it many levels.

• Is it a hardware issue? Is the processor working right.
• Is it a software issue? At what level? Is the operating system working right? Is the compiler working right? Is the editor working right?
• Is it a data issue?
• Is it a user issue? Which user? Is it an "I D ten T error" (in short form "ID1OT error").
• Is the designed solution able to solve the desired problem?
• Is it some interaction between any or all of the above?

It has been said that the biggest design fault in a car is often the "nut behind the wheel".

This discourse on conflict resolution is based on the perception of recognizing "sin". Discuss:

• What happens if "sin" is not defined in accordance with the Bible?
• Can a church define their own unique "sin" that is "not unto death"?

Details are left as a future topic.

More: A martyred witness to a translation error

This is not just "tell"! The ancient Greek word "ἐλέγχω" ≈ "disgrace, question, test" which is from the ancient Greek word "ἔλεγχος" ≈ "refute, reproach" as in providing an argument of disproof. The Latin word "arguo" ≈ "clarify, show, reprove, blame" and is the source of the English word "argument". It is from the PIE (Proto Indo-European) root "HLENG" ≈ "accuse, scold".

The "refutation" in the work "Sophistic Refutations" by Aristotle uses this word for "logical reasoning". The ancient Greek title "Σοφιστικοί έλεγχοι" ≈ "Sophistic Refutations".
Aristotle is concerned with using "good logical reasoning" to "refute" "bad logical reasoning" as in "deception", (deliberate or otherwise).

More: A reproof on the use of the word reproof

More: A reproof on the word rebuke

The ancient Greek word "ἐλέγχω" ≈ "disgrace, question, test". The "tell" requires some type of logical reasoning or "convincing argument" as contrasted with "rebuke" or "accusations".

More: A reproof on the use of the word reproof

More: A reproof on the word rebuke

The word "one" is not used as that has a special meaning in this (and some other) passages.

The ancient Greek word "μόνος" ≈ "alone, solitary, only, unique" and is the source of the English words starting with "mono" such as "monotone", "monopoly", etc.

The ancient Greek word "κέρδος" ≈ "wiles, craftiness, desire for profit, advantage" and is an opposite of "ζημία" ≈ "loss, damage, penalty".

This verse does not so much say that the first brother gained the other brother but, instead, says that these two brothers are in agreement as in a win-win situation as a commutative relationship without saying whether they are both correct or incorrect. Viewpoint is important.

The relationship here appears to be symmetric. This is not a asymmetric "win-lose" situation. It is a possible symmetric "win-win" situation. If in agreement, They have both gained or won.

The word for "trespass" is the Greek word for "sin". The be "sinned" against requires that there be some clear definition of "sin". From the Greek word itself, this can be taken to be anything that is not a positive witness for God (and Jesus as God).
This verse does not say that the person is justified in taking the perceived or actual "trespass" or "sin" as being against God. The person may be "offended" in the sense of misinterpreting what has happened. That is the reason a logical discussion is needed.

If the two cannot logically resolve the situation, the situation is escalated to "fact-gathering".

More: Matthew 11:6: Idiomatic misinterpretations that offend

The "hearing" is for understanding, as in "I hear you" meaning "I understand you".

This is a fact-gathering stage to see where someone "stands". No decision is to be made. The ancient Greek word "σταθμός" ≈ "standing place". The modern Greek word "σταθμός" (stath-MOS) ≈ "station" as in a train station.

Every spoken word needs to be "established" or "documented". No collective decision is made. For fans of Monty Python's Flying Circus, this is not to be like the "Argument Clinic" sketch (featuring John Cleese and Michael Palin) where they argue for the sake of arguing as in a "meta argument".

More: Have you ever met a prefix like this?

The "every word" is the same Greek phrase used in "every idle word" in Matthew 12 and means "spoken words". The ancient Greek word "παν ῥημα" ≈ "every spoken word". The KJV changes the Greek word order from "every word idle" to "every idle word".

More: Matthew 12:30-37 Pardon the idle word counting

The ancient Greek word "ἀκούω" ≈ "hear" and assumes understanding of what is heard. It is the source of the English word words such as "acoustic" and is cognate with the English word "hear" and "harken". There are those who "hear" very well but may not "listen" well.
In English, there is a distinction between "hearing" (a sound) and "listening" (with understanding). In Greek, the assumption is that one hears with understanding. If not so, that needs to be added.

A legal "hearing" originated with the fact that such proceedings were oral in nature (and still are).

An "audit" was originally a person listening to the reading of the (e.g., business) records to verify that those records were in order.

This idea of a "hearing" and "auditing" hearkens back to a time (as stated by historical scientist James Burke) when the memories of old people were valued.



This commandment is actually a transitive relation over time. By honoring your father and mother you are teaching, by example, your children to honor their mother and father - which is you.

Details are left as a future topic.

The ancient Greek word "παρακούω" ≈ "hear incidentally, overhear, misunderstand, pay no heed".

Did Jesus "overhear" what was being said in Mark 5:26? Does the verse translation in Matthew 18:17 assume the church is correct?

The ancient Greek word "παρακούω" ≈ "hear incidentally, overhear, misunderstand, pay no heed".

Jesus points out that the prophets were killed as they "neglected to hear" or "paid no heed" to the king and/or the religious establishment (false prophets of the king). Anyone promoting the truth would "pay no heed" or "neglect to hear" any false reasoning.

In the OT (Old Testament), the true prophets were always in the minority, often alone or in very small groups, while the false prophets were present on large groups, and had the support of both the leadership and of many of the people.

What happens when a wicked king and his false prophets use the above approach on a true prophet? Obviously any such approach did not work well and, as Jesus says, these true prophets were invariably killed.

The English marketing term "slogan" comes from the word for "slug". The Old English word "ofslogen" ≈ "kill" as in the Wessex verse above. Marketing campaigns like to "slug" you with "slogans". Notice how the hard "g" in the Old English softened to a "y" (or absent) sound in the Middle English as "slowen".

Let us go back to Matthew 18:17. Notice that there appears to be no mention of how that person should react. The only mention is that the person should "hear" as in "understand" what is being said.

Discussion question: Does the verse imply that the person needs to "repent" or take some action? Explain.

The same symmetry is seen, for example, in the second kingdom parable of the wheat and the tares in Matthew 13.

Let us look at the above method in diagram from two perspectives.
The church is going along without any major issues.

Then some (inevitable) conflict happens.

1. Action
2. Detection
3. Discussion

Jesus states the guidance without saying which of the two in conflict is "right" (whatever that means). Let us look at it both ways.


Paraphrase 1: If you think than someone has done something wrong, go and work out the details with the other person. If it is worked out, the conflict has been resolved.

Resolving a conflict does not always mean that the compromise or resolution is satisfactory to God.

Discuss: Has it ever happened historically that the individual was correct and the organization was incorrect? Provide some examples.

In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church established the number of witnesses needed for each level in the hierarchy of the church. They decided that there more witnesses were needed for a cardinal than for a lowly priest or monk.


Paraphrase 2: If the conflict has not been resolved, take two or three along to document the arguments on both sides. If it is worked out, the conflict has been resolved.

That third person may be a "trusted third party" trusted by both sides. The entire church does not need to know until this point.

More: Absolute power

Some groups, such as the Church of the Brethren, have policies in place that, in effect, can bring in a "trusted third party" to listen to both sides and mediate the disagreement.
Another way is to appoint someone to act as "Devil's Advocate", written in capital letters as a title of position in the Catholic Church, to bring out points of view with which they may not necessarily agree but are points which may be important.

This may or may not be effective in any given situation.

The group has been effectively split, for better or worse.

It may not be clear which group is "right" and which group is "wrong".

The separation arises from the equivalence relation "agrees that x is a sin" applied to pairs of individuals in the group.

Each group and/or individual may feel that they are right and continue in that manner. Notice that at no point is action to be taken against this person. The Lord reserves vengeance/recompense for himself (e.g., as the Avenger of Blood).

More: Equivalence relations: math

Discussion question: Provide some examples throughout history whereby the church has inappropriately decided that a person or group has "sinned", usually against church rules, and action has been taken against that person or group when, in fact, the person or group appears to have been on a firmer Biblical foundation than the church.

More: A difference of opinion of a heretical group heresy

The group may split more.

• The Greek for "heathen" is that of an "outsider".
• The Greek for "publican" is that of a "tax collector" or "public official" who would be despised.

Within the "gathering of believers" or "church" is a "fellowship of believers".

Interactions from inside to outside of the gathering of believers is that of "love your neighbor as yourself", even for "heathen" and/or "tax collectors".

Paraphrase: If you separate then you will be separated. For by whatever separation you separate, you will be separated. And by whatever distance you distance yourself, you will be distanced by that distance.

• Discrete question: Should one "separate"? (yes or no)
• Continuous question: What should be the separation "distance"?

What happens when, instead of a person and the church one has a larger group within the church. The Greek for a group within a group is a "heresy". Later, this word acquired a negative connotation.

Discussion question: Provide some examples throughout history whereby a church as a gathering of believers has disagreed on what constitutes "sin" and has, as a result, split into two (or more) groups. Provide some examples where this has not been a peaceful split.

More: A difference of opinion of a heretical group heresy

The world, as in the people of the world, tends to go against whatever the Bible says.

Consider an abstraction of on organization consisting of managers and workers.

Conflict will invariably happen between workers and/or managers.

In the world, one gets into trouble if one tries the Bible conflict resolution method. In fact, one often gets into more trouble resolving using the above method than the person who was not doing what they were supposed to do, or who wronged you.

The only way to get into more trouble might be to bring to light any corruption or mismanagement in the organization itself.

Here is the method of the world.

• Send the message up the chain of command until the leader of both individuals is reached.
• Send the message down the chain of command until the other individual is reached.
• Continue communication in this manner until some decision is reached.

Discussion question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of each method? Which method would work better in practice?

The general method of these verses by Jesus appears to be as follows.

• Resolve the issue at the individual to individual level
• If not resolved, resolve the issue with one or two witnesses.
• If not resolved, get everyone in that group (i.e., that church) to resolve the issue.

At no point does it appear to go to the top leader, or representative of the leader, of the organization. Why might that be the case?

Discuss: Do churches tend to use the Biblical approach or the worldly approach in dealing with conflict? Which method does your church use to resolve such conflicts?

From what Jesus said in Matthew 6 in the Lord's Prayer as "debts" and "trespasses" and in the verses after as "stupid things", there is no limit placed on the number of times one should "forgive" or "let go" in situations much more inclusive than just "sin" or "trespass" that are "against me"!

These verses have to do with church conflict.

More: Matthew 6: 14-15: Forget about the debts, sins and trespasses

The words used by Jesus in verse 15 (third person) and the words used by Peter in verse 21 (first person) are the same except Peter adds "against me". Both here and in chapter 6 what Jesus says subsumes "against me". Discuss:

• Did Peter ask a "stupid question"? Note that Peter (and others) often ask questions that others would ask.
• How many sermons have you heard about how many times one should forgive, or let go, of a sin against oneself?
• How many sermons point out that the answer has already been provided in Matthew 6 and/or the question is not relevant to what Jesus had been saying?
• Why might that be the case?