Problem: If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.(NIV).
1 Timothy 5:19-20 – Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.”(NIV).
Solution: So are those who sin to be privately rebuked, or publicly (at once)? It should be clear from 1 Timothy 5:19-20 that the situation that Paul is talking about there is in the case of a major, well-known offense of which the offender has not repented. This is similar to the case in 1 Cor. 5 where a member of the Corinthian church was sexually immoral and this was known to everyone and he didn’t seem to really care (or else it probably wouldn’t have gotten to the point where the Corinthians would have to include a notice of the incident to Paul about it in their letter). But if someone has wronged someone else by insulting him needlessly, does this really need to be brought to the attention of the whole church and to rebuke him publicly? Clearly the offended would first go to the offender and then afterwards, with the sin clearly being the offender’s, if he doesn’t want to repent of it, bigger measures can be taken (as Matthew 18:16-17 says). The two texts (Matthew 18:15-17 and 1 Timothy 5:19-20) simply deal with different levels of the situation, 1 Timothy 5:19-20 being the level of Matthew 18:16.