Matthew 18:15 - 20
15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 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.’[d] 17 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.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.
19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
Questions:
ReplyDelete1. When should I point out someone's fault/sin? Every time?
2. Don't I have to judge them to point out their sin?
3. At the time, the church didn't exist. What was Jesus referring to?
4. How do we treat someone when we treat them as a pagan or tax collector?
5. What does it mean that whatever we bind/loose on earth, it will be done in heaven?
6. What does it mean to agree about something?
7. Is God "more" with two or three gathered than He is with one person?
http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-matthew-18-15-17.htm says:
ReplyDeleteOne thing that is clear in the Lord’s teaching is the potential of conflict. He said, “For offenses must come…,” (v.7). It is expected, therefore, that the Lord address the matter we commonly call Conflict Resolution.
Let’s not overlook the purpose of this. Jesus did not give us these steps so that we can get rid of people who bother us, who sin against us or with whom we disagree! The purpose is not to get rid of but to gain! Therefore, if you run to this passage when you want to punish someone and get rid of them, your spirit is wrong and you will not likely use the procedure correctly. Jesus identifies the purpose at the end of verse 15, to gain your brother. That should be your hope. The elevation of self should be absent in this.
While there may be situations of other kinds of conflict where the model of private before public can well be followed, this procedure was given to address one kind of conflict: “if your brother sins against you.” The teaching of Christ in Matt. 18:15-17 is not for every situation! It is for the situation specified: “if your brother sins against you.” There are other situations, to be dealt with according to other instructions (see Gal. 2:11-18; 1 Cor. 5; 1 Tim. 5:20). This is the situation of a private offense. Our reaction should be just as described by the Lord. To be hurt, then hold that hurt in your heart over several years is never recommended in the Scriptures! (See also Matt. 5:21-26; 38-48). To complain and gossip is not the right response. “If your brother sins against you,” you are obligated by virtue of discipleship, to follow the Lord’s method of conflict resolution. Go to him.
Step #1 is to “go and tell him his fault between you and him alone.” Necessarily implied in this is, the matter is private. Based on this, at the first thought that I have been sinned against, I need to GO, not stay and sulk and go and tell others. Side Note: I used to tell classes and audiences that this command of Christ was seldom obeyed. That was impulsive of me and extremely presumptuous. When you do this, remember that all such efforts should be accompanied with the prayer that you will gain your brother. Also, bear in mind that this is about a “sin” and all charges of sin require evidence (1 Jno. 3:4).
Step #2 is, “…if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that, ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established’.” This doesn’t mean you get angrier, campaign or gossip! These witnesses are not “on your side,” and their function is not to “gang up” against the offender! You are not getting your friends to help you fight a battle. You are asking fellow disciples to listen objectively to the matter. “Witnesses called in at this level should have impeccable integrity and be people whom the accused will recognize as fair and impartial,”
Step #3: “…if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church.” At this point the matter is, a guilty brother who will not repent. This is not about somebody you just don’t like, or somebody you see as a threat to your power in the local church. This is an offender whose sin has been established by evidence and whose guilt can be reported by more than one person. Never loose sight of the purpose, to gain the brother.
If this effort fails: “…let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” Jesus uses a manner of expression here to indicate exclusion! The impenitent brother is “worthy” of this exclusion or discipline because of his choice to sin and remain recalcitrant. “…by his own choice he is now an outsider who is subject to disciplinary measures (1 Cor. 5:5,9, 2 Thess. 3:14-15),”
Nothing in this procedure caters to the immature, vengeful purposes of man. The point is not to get rid of an irritant. There is no space in this procedure to uphold your cause, elevate yourself, “show somebody,” or take over the church. It is all about bringing a sinner to repentance.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/08/textual-problem-study-matthew-1815/ says:
ReplyDeleteMatthew 18:15 is one of the textual variants in the New Testament that is both viable and significant. A textual variant occurs when there is some degree of disagreement among the nearly six thousand extant (existing) manuscripts. While most scholars agree that none of the variants impact any major doctrine of the historical Christian faith, some are more important than others. For one of these variants to be worth discussion, it must be both 1) viable and 2) significant. For a variant to be “viable,” it has to have a legitimate shot of being the correct rendering of the text. In other words, there has to be some debate about what the original actually says. To be significant means that a variant will change the meaning of the passage to some degree.
Here is what the text reads: “If your brother sins [against you] go and show him his fault in private. If he listens, you have won your brother.”
The variant is shown here in brackets: [eis se] “against you.” The earliest and most respected manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and 0281) lack this addition, while the later Byzantine manuscripts include it. English translations are divided as to which reading best represents the original.
The significance of this variant should be fairly obvious. If the shorter reading is preferred, then we are admonished to rebuke brothers and sisters who are involved in sin in general, whether or not it is a direct offense against you. So if you know of someone in the church who has an anger problem, is having an affair, or is cheating on his taxes, you are to follow the procedure of confrontation described in Matthew 18:15-20. However, if the longer reading is preferred, then the confrontation is only necessary when someone in the church sins against you.
I find this struggle very relevant in my life. There are people I know who are living in sin, but it is not necessarily affecting me. I debate endlessly how to handle each individual situation. If the shorter reading of this passage is, indeed, preferred, I have a biblical mandate to confront the person according to this method. I understand there are many other problems associated with this verse. Does the person have to be involved in your local assembly? What sins are serious enough to necessitate such a confrontation? There is a big difference in confronting someone about bad language, speeding down the highway while you are in the car, and smoking crack! However, how we handle these situations may rest heavily on what we decide about this variant. Frankly, I would like the longer reading to be correct, as it would take the burden of responsibility off my shoulders for most issues. In short, I don’t really like to confront people. I imagine most of you are like me.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/08/textual-problem-study-matthew-1815/ continued:
ReplyDeleteThe solution is not easy. We must look at both external and internal evidence. External evidence has to do with the dating and distribution of the manuscripts. Internal evidence has to do with, among other things, the context of the passage, the viability of possible mistakes, and the character of the author.
Since the earliest and best manuscripts have the shorter reading, the external evidence leans in favor of this reading.
However, there are some viable internal evidences which are persuasive enough to make translation committees favor the longer reading. We have to ask the question, Why would a scribe have left out “against you”? If he did (hang with me!), it was either an intentional change or an unintentional change.
Though I don’t want to, I prefer the shorter reading which teaches a more universal application. Externally, the evidence is stronger. Internally, it makes more sense to think that the scribe added the “against you,” rather than taking it away. The shorter reading is the harder reading and, generally speaking, the harder reading is preferred (i.e., it’s easy to see how someone might want to make this verse more “doable”). Nevertheless, it may very well be that Peter’s comments in Matt 15:21 do imply that the context is limited, even if the shorter reading is preferred.
While Metzger does prefer the same reading as me, he grades it with a “C.” Translation: he is not that sure. As well, there are some pretty smart guys who are behind the NLT, HCSB, NIV1984, and the ESV, so it is far from conclusive.
https://bible.org/article/dealing-sinning-christians-overview-church-discipline-matthew-1815-17-1-corinthians-51-13 says concerning #2 (judging others):
ReplyDeleteYears ago, I read about a pastor who became involved immorally with a married woman in his congregation. They each divorced their respective mates and then were married to each other in the church of which he was the pastor. The congregation turned out en masse for the wedding, giving open support.
That tragic story reflects the dominant mood in the American church today, that we should show love and tolerance to those who fall into sin.
Scripture is clear:
The church must practice biblical church discipline toward professing Christians who persist in known sin.
Perhaps no verse is so taken out of context and misapplied as Matthew 7:1, “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.” If you keep reading, in verse 6 Jesus says, “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine….” In verse 15 He adds, “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” To obey those verses, you must make some fairly astute judgments! You must judge that a person is a dog or a swine or a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 5:12, Paul tells the church that they are responsible to judge those within the church. Practicing biblical church discipline does not violate Jesus’ command, “Judge not.”
The purposes for church discipline:
1. TOWARD GOD, CHURCH DISCIPLINE VINDICATES PUBLICLY HIS HONOR AND HOLINESS.
God’s holiness is a dominant theme in the Bible. It means that He is totally apart from and opposed to all sin. In the Old Testament, God told His people Israel (Lev. 19:2), “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.” The New Testament repeats that command (1 Pet. 1:15-16). Peter refers to the church as a holy priesthood and a holy nation (1 Pet. 2:5, 9).
Because of this, when God’s people sin, He will disassociate Himself from them and take them through severe discipline if they do not repent and deal with the sin in their midst. God would rather have no testimony in a city than to have His name mingled with sin.
2. TOWARD THE CHURCH ITSELF, CHURCH DISCIPLINE RESTORES PURITY AND DETERS OTHERS FROM SINNING.
Paul is saying symbolically what he also (5:2, 13) states plainly, that the church needed to remove the sinning man so that the purity of the church would be restored and the sin would not spread any further.
If we don’t uphold God’s standards of holiness, it doesn’t take long for the church to become just like the world. Although the city of Corinth was infamous for its sexual promiscuity, this sin went beyond what the pagans practiced (1 Cor. 5:1)! But, it didn’t shock the Corinthian church! They were actually boasting about their acceptance and love toward this man who was intimate with his stepmother (5:2)!
https://bible.org/article/dealing-sinning-christians-overview-church-discipline-matthew-1815-17-1-corinthians-51-13 says concerning #2 (judging others) continued:
ReplyDelete3. TOWARD THE WORLD, CHURCH DISCIPLINE DISPLAYS GOD’S STANDARDS OF HOLINESS AND DRAWS A LINE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD.
To attempt to attract people from the world into the church, today’s church seems bent on showing the world, “See, we’re just like you are. We’re normal folks. We watch raunchy movies and TV shows, just as you do. We have marital problems and get divorced just as frequently as you do. We won’t judge sexual immorality of any kind, because we’re tolerant people, just as you are. Come and join us!”
But Scripture is clear that the church is to be distinct from the world by being separated unto our God, who is holy. As 1 John 2:15 puts it, “Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”
4. TOWARD THE OFFENDER, CHURCH DISCIPLINE CONVEYS BIBLICAL LOVE AND SEEKS TO RESTORE THE SINNER.
Some wrongly think that love is opposed to discipline. But the Bible is clear that we cannot love our brothers and sisters in Christ if we do not deal with their sins in the way that God prescribes. Because God loves us, He disciplines us so that we may share His holiness (Heb. 12:6, 10). Because sin destroys people and relationships, to be indifferent toward someone who is sinning is really to hate that person.
The problems that require church discipline:
The person must be a professing believer.
The person must associate with this church.
The person must be knowingly and rebelliously disobedient.
The person must be disobeying the clear commands of Scripture. You don’t discipline someone for areas on which the Bible has no clear commandments. Drinking alcoholic beverages is not grounds for discipline; drunkenness is. Watching movies is not grounds for discipline; watching pornographic movies is. Scripture contains many lists of sins (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 4:25-5:6; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; 2 Tim. 3:2-5; etc.). We may summarize these as:
Violations of God’s moral commandments
Unresolved relational sins, such as gossip, slander, anger, and abusive speech
Divisiveness in the church
False teaching on major doctrines
Disorderly conduct and refusal to work
My 2 cents on question #2 (judging):
ReplyDeleteYou can see from above that there are two interpretations of this scripture. 1. If I'm hurt by someone, I should go make it right. 2. If my brother sins, I should confront them.
If choice 1 is the answer, then this is straight forward and nothing further needs to be said. However, the older copies of scripture do not have the additional words (against me). I think that this scripture should be interpreted as choice 2.
Then we get to the question of judgement. Unfortunately, it seems like we have the wrong people attempting to follow this scripture. And some of the people who should be following it aren't, so they will not be like the people who misuse this scripture.
I believe the key is Love. We need to love and not judge (judge, as in the case of Matthew 7:1 - do not judge). Love means paying attention and being invested in our brother's life. That means paying attention, caring and confronting our brother (which requires discernment - another, but completely distinct synonym of judge).
When pride enters in, it drives out love. Now we start to condemn others as unworthy (in comparison to ourselves). Condemnation is another distinct synonym of judge. When we attempt to follow this scripture to raise ourselves, we sin.
The previous article on Matthew 7:1 has more on this topic: http://hartmangroupdevotions.blogspot.com/2015/02/matthew-71-6-do-not-judge-or-you-too.html#comment-form
It was difficult to find articles explaining the role of judgement in and out of the church - and most articles just stink (although there was one that was spot on in the previous blog discussion).
My 2 cents on #3 (what was the church to whom Jesus was referring?):
ReplyDeleteThe church did exist at the time. Who were the 70 that Jesus sent out to preach the gospel? There was a group of Christ followers at the time - although they were probably pretty loosely formulated.
I think that Jesus was laying down the guidelines for the church that was to come. There are quite a few verses about the church.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepangeablog/2012/01/26/treat-them-like-a-tax-collector-reflections-on-matthew-18-church-discipline-and-andrew/ says about #4 (treat them like a pagan or tax collector):
ReplyDeleteJesus offers a model for reconciliation in Matthew 18.15-17. Often, these three verses are used for the opposite of this: alienation.
(Example of how one church treated a person caught in a sexual sin. They sent an email to the whole church asking them to disengage from that person)
There is nothing restorative about this distorted process. An obvious reason is this letter. Calling people to essentially end their relationship with Andrew is flat out controlling. The leadership of this church bases their retributive action on Matthew 18, but I think they are misreading and failing to properly apply Jesus’ words.
The text says that a time comes when we must “report them to the church,” but this begs the question, what is the church? In other words, the New Testament never envisioned church as they are manifested in the mega-church model. The closest equivalent during the biblical period would be a small group. There’s a big difference between 15 and 5,000 people.
Second – What about the author of this Gospel, Matthew? He was a tax collector! Perhaps his book has more to say about how to “treat them as you would a Gentile and tax collector”?
Then we arrive at chapter 18 and must ask: How is it that Jesus treats tax collectors and sinners? The answer to this question can lead down several roads: legalism, compromise, or a third option. Legalism was the approach of old order Anabaptists who would shun a sinner via the “ban.” Compromise does nothing to address the sin, leaving the person on a dangerous path.
Then there is a third option, which Tim reflects upon:
Whatever led anyone to conclude that when Matthew, who knows how Jesus treats tax collectors, would write, “Treat him like a Gentile and a Tax Collector,” he means, “Get him out of here! Have nothing to do with him!”? I think it means exactly the opposite. I think it means, “Love him! Accept him! Invite him! Eat with him! And keep on challenging him to be transformed into a faithful disciple of Jesus!”
This is what it means to treat a member as an outsider or a tax collector. We love them like we love outsiders, not through shuns or judgment, but through the love that Jesus demonstrated at Matthew’s party. This is the key to reconciliation. This sort of good treatment, when we make our convictions about behavior clear, has the potential to lead to genuine repentance and to a reconciled community. Public humiliation and shunning are spiritual abuse.
http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2012/05/treat-them-as-pagan-or-tax-collector.html says about #4:
ReplyDeleteThis is one of those passages that has been used to support practices of exclusion and excommunication within the church. Specifically, if a fellow brother or sister is in sin and fails to repent at the encouragement of the church we are to "treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." That is, we are to shun them.
But I wonder if that interpretation makes any sense. This passage in Matthew is found between two parables of forgiveness, the Parable of the Lost Sheep (Matthew 18.10-14) and the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18.21-35).
In light of these parables which bookend Jesus's discussion of "church discipline" how are we to understand Jesus's call to treat the unrepentant as "pagans and tax collectors"? On the surface it seems that the message of Matthew 18.15-17 contradicts the parables surrounding it.
The key, I think, to resolving the tension is found in observing how Jesus interacted with "tax collectors and sinners." That is, it makes no sense to read Jesus as telling his followers to treat tax collectors and sinners like the Pharisees were treating tax collectors and sinners. Recall the contrast observed earlier in Matthew 9:
Matthew 9.10-13a
While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
These concluding words--"For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners"--is an almost perfect anticipation of the Parable of the Lost Sheep: "And if the shepherd finds the lost sheep, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off."
How might this understanding--we treat tax collectors as Jesus treated tax collectors--change how people have read Matthew 18.15-17? Well, it changes it completely. No longer is this text read as a mandate for exclusion, as a warrant for kicking people out. Rather what we find is a mandate for inclusion, a warrant for sending and seeking and embracing. True, if a brother or sister is engaged in sin our relationship within the church is altered. You've become "a lost sheep" and a "tax collector."
But if I am following Jesus that doesn't mean I'm excluding you. It actually means I'm pursuing you and spending more time with you than ever before.
I'm leaving the ninety-nine sheep back at the church and hanging out with you in the wilderness.
Question #5 (binding and loosing) has already been covered in a previous blog entry - http://hartmangroupdevotions.blogspot.com/2015/11/matthew-1613-20-13-when-jesus-came-to.html#comment-form
ReplyDeleteA summary:
The meaning of the binding and loosing in the verse probably refers to people and not to teachings (see 18:18 for “whatever”). The keys then speak of the permission of entering the kingdom or being excluded from it. The meaning of this idea is clarified by the teaching of Jesus in Luke 11:52. There Jesus denounced the teachers by saying that they had taken away the key of knowledge and had not only failed to enter the kingdom themselves but had hindered others from doing so. This meant that by their approach to Scripture they were making it impossible for people under their teaching to accept the revelation about Jesus and enter the kingdom. In strong contrast, Peter, by confessing Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, had received the revelation and so was to be given the “keys.” The metaphor of the “keys” refers then to the clear teaching about Christ and the proclamation of the Gospel. Peter, by proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, which by revelation he was understanding more and more, would open the kingdom to many and shut it to others.
By making the proclamation of the Gospel, the message of the kingdom, Peter would be binding and loosing what heaven had already bound and loosed. Peter would preach the Gospel, and that preaching would be the means by which those bound in heaven would be bound, and those loosed in heaven would be loosed. As long as Peter proclaimed the true Gospel, he would be binding or loosing what had been bound or loosed in heaven—he would be using the keys to the kingdom properly.
---------- AND -------------
There is a strange use of these expressions among Christians today for a commanding, authoritarian form of praying. In it people say they bind or loose evil spirits in people when praying for healing. There is no warrant for that use of the words; the context clearly ties the keys of the kingdom to salvation, who enters and who does not, and the authority to grant entrance and announce exclusion comes only with the proclamation of the Gospel already revealed. When the Gospel is preached, it appears that it brings some into the kingdom and repels others. But the Gospel being preached is only the earthly manifestation of the heavenly process.
One more perspective on binding and loosing: http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/binding-and-loosing says:
ReplyDelete“Binding” and “loosing” were common terms used by the Rabbis in biblical times. When the rabbis “bound” something, they “forbade” it, and when they “loosed” something, they “permitted” it. In spite of the fact that the terms were commonly used at the time of Christ, many Christians today are confused about what these terms mean. “Bind” and “loose” are used in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, and to understand those verses we will look at the biblical meanings of the words themselves, and also the translation of the verses as a whole, because they have been mistranslated in most English versions.
The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament adds: “‘Bind’ and ‘loose’ are technical terms in Judaism…with respect to teaching, the phrase is used for authoritative exposition of the law by an authorized, ordained rabbi, who has authority ‘to forbid and to permit.’ ”
From the many examples of “bind” and “loose” in the Jewish writings, we can see that they referred to “forbidding” or “permitting” something, and they were used of things, such as rules and regulations, not of people. The rabbis did not bind or loose people. “Binding” (forbidding) and “loosing” (permitting) were necessary because the Law of Moses could not contain all the regulations necessary to govern a congregation and society. Therefore, the religious leaders were required to “bind” and “loose” activities in the congregation that were not specifically included in the Law of Moses. This was true in Jesus’ day, and is still true today.
For example, when it comes to building buildings, the Torah states that a person who builds a house has to put a railing around the flat roof so the people do not fall off (Deut. 22:8). The Torah cannot list every possible building regulation, but it can show by a clear example that houses should be built in a manner that is safe for the occupants and visitors. Thus, the “Book of Instruction” teaches the general principle that people must build safe buildings by using a specific example.
But the Bible, like the Torah [Genesis through Deuteronomy], does not cover every situation that comes up in Christian life and leadership. What does a Christian do when the Bible does not specifically address the situation the leader is facing? We must use the Bible like the rabbis used the Torah. We must learn from it and then apply the lessons we have learned to the situation we are facing. We must bind (forbid) or loose (permit) activities based on our best understanding of the Bible.
http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/binding-and-loosing continued:
ReplyDeleteIn Matthew 18:18, Jesus spoke of binding and loosing in the context of forgiving someone who has sinned against you but will not admit it.
How do we “forbid” or “permit” in the context of forgiveness? If we make a decision to forgive a person who has sinned against us without getting any kind of restitution from him, we “loose” (permit) him to live as if the sin had not happened. On the other hand, if for example, we make the decision that because of his stubbornness and hardness of heart he is no longer welcome in our congregation, we “bind” (forbid) him to continue his life with no consequences.
Now that we know that the word “bind” means “forbid,” and “loose” means “permit,” we need to properly translate the verses that contain them. Almost every English version translates Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 in a way similar to the NIV: “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18). According to this translation, we, as disciples, make a decision to bind or loose, and God then follows our lead. This translation has produced wrong doctrine in the Church. For example, the commentator Albert Barnes, author of the well known commentary set, Barnes’ Notes, writes: “The meaning of this verse is, whatever you shall do in the discipline of the church shall be approved by God….” [6] That is not a correct interpretation of the verse, and not the way ministry works.
God’s ministers do not make commands that God must approve and follow. Rather, God’s ministers must become aware of what God wants done, and then follow His lead. Jesus himself worked that way, as Scripture makes clear.
My 2 cents on binding and loosing:
ReplyDeleteTo me, the previous article (that speaks of forbidding and permitting) is the only article I ever read on this that makes sense.
http://samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/prayer-and-the--law-of-agreement--taking-a-closer-look-at-matthew-18-15-20 says about #6 (agreeing in prayer):
ReplyDeleteOne would be hard-pressed to find a text so frequently cited and so dear to the hearts of Christian men and women as this one.
(someone else) exhorts us to “read this promise and see its potential. If we can agree,” so he suggests, “anything becomes possible!”
But the simple fact remains that Jesus was not talking about the so-called “law of agreement” or in any way suggesting that if we can put aside our differences and come to unity in that for which we pray we will see “miracle power” released where “anything becomes possible.” So, what was Jesus saying?
Clearly Jesus is addressing the subject of church discipline . . . “Where two or three are convened in my name . . .’: a sad misunderstanding,”
The first step is private rebuke (v. 15). If unsuccessful, this is to be followed by plural rebuke (v. 16; cf. Deut. 19:15). If plural rebuke fails, which is to say that the person remains in denial or unrepentant regarding their misbehavior, there follows . . . a decision that the church may be confident has divine approval (v. 18).
However, I’m not persuaded that Jesus is saying anything directly about prayer, much less about the so-called “law of agreement”.
http://samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/prayer-and-the--law-of-agreement--taking-a-closer-look-at-matthew-18-15-20 continued:
ReplyDeleteThe “two” people in v. 19 who come to an agreement are, in all likelihood, the same “two” people mentioned in v. 15, namely, the offender and the person against whom the offense has been committed (Derrett believes that the “two or three” are the judges called by the church to settle the matter, but Carson has a persuasive response in “Matthew,” 404). Furthermore, the verb translated “ask” in v. 19 does not necessarily mean to ask in prayer. It may well refer to the “pursuing of a claim.” Similarly, the word translated “anything” need not be taken in the sense of “any legitimate object of petitionary prayer” but in the sense we see in 1 Corinthians 6:1 where Paul has in mind “any judicial matter” that has come before the church for adjudication.
If this should prove correct, Jesus would have been describing a situation in which two people involved in a dispute come to an agreement on the matter that has divided them. Presumably, this will have occurred on the basis of the church’s judgment, referred to in v. 18. In such cases our heavenly Father will approve and ratify the decision (literally, “it shall come to be from the Father,” or perhaps, “it shall be allowed, granted, sanctioned”). Therefore, the “two or three” mentioned in v. 20 who are “gathered” or who come together in the name of Jesus are probably the two disputants themselves, along with the third party who was called in as an outside witness (v. 19).
Thus, Jesus is most likely not promising that God will answer any prayer that two people agree upon, as if to suggest that the same prayer uttered by only one believer is for that reason less pleasing to God. Rather, Jesus would be saying that when two Christians involved in a personal dispute are able to resolve their differences, God ratifies or sanctions or approves the matter. The verdict of heaven, so to speak, is consonant with that of the church, before whom the matter was adjudicated (see 1 Cor. 5:4).
Although we should avoid being dogmatic in the interpretation of this passage, caution must prevail in any attempt to derive from it a law or eternal principle to the effect that if two believers of one mind pray for the same thing at the same time they may be assured of seeing their request fulfilled.
Finally, why is it important that we take time to carefully and thoroughly examine a passage in terms of context and authorial intent? The simple answer is that it will protect us from believing something God hasn’t said and from trusting in a promise he never made. My concern is that many will adopt the notion of a “law of agreement” and pray with the expectation (dare I say, presumption?) that if they can only get one or two others to agree with them on some matter that God is obligated to answer their request accordingly. When he doesn’t, confidence in God and his Word is undermined. Of course, he may answer their prayers, but if he does it isn’t because he is honoring a “promise” allegedly stated in Matthew 18.
My 2 cents on vs 19 - 20 (agreeing in prayer):
ReplyDeleteI've always heard from various people that this is a promise by Jesus that if two or three of us gather to petition God, He will answer our prayer.
Yet, that never really made sense to me. There's too many open questions. Those same people have tried to put caveats or limits (that aren't necessarily there) to the verses to attempt to make sense of it. But it still leaves too many open questions.
What if 12 people agree in prayer? What if one person doesn't believe hard enough? What if you are praying for a new truck? etc.
The previous article states that you must take these verse in context with the previous verses (when a brother sins). Now these verses start to make sense.
If the sinful brother and the person who caught him (and witnesses) work out their differences, agree in prayer (i.e. repent and restore), then things will be loosed in heaven (as they are on earth) and God can begin answering prayers again. Until then, things are bound, meaning that God's power cannot work through any group that the sinning brother is a part of. When this restoration process is complete, God is once again there in their midst.
Now, these verses make sense. And now that they do, they become very important. The situation that Jesus is describing is very common in the church. If people are hurt by each other, or if a person is sinning, unity (with each other and with the Holy Spirit) is blocked. Until that block is removed using the steps Jesus laid out, God's work stops.
With that interpretation in mind, it also clears up they mystery of treating brothers like tax collectors and pagans. If we include them in unity, God's work stops. We don't attempt to have unity with pagans and unbelievers, because God's work stops. That does not mean that we shun them! It means that their restoration becomes God's work for us. And that means that we pay special attention to them. But we must make the distinction that we are not unified with them anymore.
In a functioning fellowship, there will be times when all of us fall out of unity, repent through the process above, and come back into unity. I believe it's common and expected.
If we look at unity through these verses, I think that we will find some answers as to why God sometimes doesn't seem to be working in our midst. (Not that I'm saying that we can see God working through nonspiritual eyes).
My 2 cents:
DeleteI shared this with a friend, and here was his comment:
------------------begin--------------
I agree that vv. 19-20 should be taken in the context of the previous discussion of church discipline, and that prayer and Jesus’ promises of answering prayer in this context is “scoped” to the process of restoring individuals into the congregation.
However, I don’t see support for your interpretation of “bound” and “loosed” as meaning God removing his power and restoring his power/presence, respectively. I found a reference that looks at the Greek grammar and interprets v. 18 as "whatever you shall bind on earth shall have [already] been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have [already] been loosed in heaven.”. The meaning the author ascribes is therefore, "Christian leaders are to reflect the will of God in their decisionmaking, not generate it”; in other words, when a group of church members are engaged in the process of restoring a brother/sister to the congregation, if they seek God’s will, He promises to answer, and their earthly decision on the matter will reflect God’s (heaven’s) will. See http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200901/200901_112_Theo_Enrichment.cfm
This author (http://www.equip.org/perspectives/binding-and-loosing-what-did-jesus-mean/) defines bind/loose as removing/restoring the sinning individual rather than God’s presence. To quote: "Those members of the church who sin and repent are to be “loosed” or in other words, restored to fellowship, while those who are unrepentant are to be “bound” or removed from fellowship”
The thing that troubles me about this passage, is how to define “sin”? Obviously we all sin, all the time. Are we to be continually using this process, all the time? Note that only some manuscripts add the phrase “sin…against you”. I think the context actually argues strongly for the “against you” phrase to be included. If is simply said “if your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault”, we would be incredibly busy. Indeed, we would have no time to do much else. Thus, I think this passage is about conflicts between members of the congregation, more than individual sins, committed against God alone. But I’m curious what you think."
-----------------------end-----------------
(my response coming next)
My 2 cents continued:
DeleteAbout binding and loosing:
I think may be correct in saying that binding and loosing doesn't mean what I said (although the effect may be the same).
If we follow the example of Matthew 16, are we forced to conclude that it is about binding or loosing the sinning person from the kingdom of heaven?
This seems extreme to me. On one hand, it logically makes sense. On the other hand it seems harsh that a person is not saved anymore because of unrepentant sin.
Does it mean binding and loosing from the fellowship/community?
Jesus made this statement separately and added a "truly I tell you" to it. "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven." Why would He add this after He already said that we should remove the sinner from fellowship? It's clear that's it is directly related. But it seems like it's more than just a repeat of what Jesus just said. What is the consequences of being "bound". Perhaps being separated from unity is much more serious than I imagine. I mentioned at first that that person would be separated from God's power in his life. Another possibility is that person is separated from God and not saved anymore. The strength that Jesus put to this statement makes this serious and important.
My 2 cents continued:
DeleteAbout what sins start the confrontation process:
had the excellent question of what sins do you subject a person to confrontation. We sin all the time. It would be exhausting to confront every sin. That's true and there must be a distinction. Is that distinction the words "against you". All of the earliest manuscripts do not include the words "against you". Furthermore, it seems like if that was the distinction, all the easily offended people would be confronting people a lot, while the more mature not easily offended people would never confront anyone. To me, it doesn't make sense that the criteria is "against me".
So what sins do warrant confrontation? I believe that it is reoccurring, unrepentant sins. For example, if a man lusts after a woman once, shakes his head and doesn't do it again, he has sinned and repented. If a man keeps doing it, then he needs to be confronted. If a man steals money from the offering plate, and does not make amends on his own, he needs to be confronted the first time.
Is it a pattern of sin? Does the person recognize it and is actively working against it? Then no confrontation needs to happen. If a pattern is developing and the person doesn't recognize it and/or doesn't care, confrontation needs to happen. (That's just love).
Obviously, this confrontation only happens with believers who are present in our lives.