Matthew 18:15-20 (NRSV)
15 “If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. 16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.”
Matthew 18:15-20
contains sayings on erring brothers and sisters. These regulations seem to
reflect a time when the church had to develop procedures for dealing with
deviant behavior by its members. The Roman Catholic Church and Martin Luther find
support for the sacrament of penance. Usually, a sacrament has a physical sign
attached to it (water, bread and wine) but we do not find such a sign here.[1] Instead,
I would like us to move down a different path of reflection. The passage deals
with a difficult topic. It suggests caring enough about the relationship to do
something to make things right when they go wrong. The passage should raise a
simple question for us. Do we have some action that we need to take in order to
bring healing in any of our relationships?
Aristotle spends
about a third of his Nicomachean ethics discussing the virtue of friendship. In
fact, it is no exaggeration to say that Aristotle
bases his entire ethic upon friendship. A good person was inconceivable apart
from good friends. Only a friend knows when to press and when to hold back.
Only a friend has the right to hurt you. Moreover, truth -telling is inherently
painful. We do not easily see the truth, especially when the truth exposes
something painful about us. Such a notion is a large distance from a common way
we practice friendship. We have given a friendship a bad name. We are open,
tolerant, accepting and gracious, all of which, in the proper context, are good
qualities to have. Yet, it can suggest that if you stay out of my life, I will
stay out of your life. Is that friendship? The fact that we are friends has
become a way for us to excuse immoral behavior. We have developed the term “community”
to refer to thin stuff. We have motorcycle, gay, and business communities. Some
refer to them as tribes. Yet, and I say this firmly and with love, no community
worthy of the name, no genuine friendship, is present without truthfulness. The
truthfulness of a friendship and a community carries with it risk and pain in
our willingness to confront. Discernment is a gift that involves determining
between right and wrong. It acknowledges injustice. It names the hurt. Yet, all
of this can arise out of an act of deep love. We love the truth enough to tell
it, risk it, and hear it. In this regard, this passage is close to Aristotle in
its notion of community. This passage takes seriously the notion of sin
interrupting friendship and calling forth accountability to each other. Forgiveness
and reconciliation are not about pretending that things are other than they
are. We do not pat ourselves on the back and ignore the wrong done. True reconciliation
exposes the awfulness, the abuse, the hurt, and the truth. It could make
matters worse, at least for a time. It involves risk. Yet, in the end, the
process is worth it. Only an honest confrontation with reality can bring
healing. Superficial reconciliation, in fact, may well make matters worse.[2]
With this
background, and admitting the difficulty of the teaching here, I will discuss
the passage in three segments.
First, the theme
is verse 15, which has its source in the material Matthew has in common with
Luke. In Luke 17:3, we have a saying that seems closer to what Jesus might have
said, “If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is
repentance, you must forgive.” In any case, the teaching here is that if
another member of the church sins against you, you are to point out the fault
to the person alone. If the person listens, you have brought reconciliation. We
need to remember that throughout the passage, the focus is upon restoring
fellowship. This passage keeps the notion of “sin” quite general. Other passages
in the New Testament see no problem with listing sins like sexual license,
economic duplicity, or theological error. It leaves to our imagination what
this sin might be that another person in the church has committed against us. I
should also note that some very good Greek manuscripts omit that the sin is “against
you.” As it stands, the point is that the community must take sin seriously,
even when you are the recipient of that sin. We are not to ignore it. We have a
responsibility for each other. If another has sinned, we can help that person
retain honor in the community by bringing it to their attention. What matters
is the reconciliation between two members of the church. If any persons should
have readiness to forgive, it should be members of the church.[3]
The second segment
is in verses 16-18, verses unique to Matthew. At this point, we can see that
the strategy for dealing with sin is straightforward. After the one-to-one
confrontation, the passage recommends another confrontation that takes place
with witnesses. The advice has its basis in Deuteronomy 19:15.
A single witness shall not suffice to convict a person of
any crime or wrongdoing in connection with any offense that may be committed.
Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be sustained.
The passage elaborates a procedure
in Jewish Law. The reason for witnesses is two-fold. It protects the one who
has committed the perceived sin and the one sinned against. If you think
someone has sinned against you, you might be wrong. Since you have tried to
offer correction to the fellow church member and failed, the witnesses might
have the right words. The witnesses actually protect both partners in the
confrontation. If this relatively private process does not work, the passage
recommends the public process of bringing the matter to the church. I grant
that this process also shows that the church takes sin seriously. We need to
remember, however, that church for Matthew referred to 15-40 people! I cannot
imagine any pastor of a church legalistically following this procedure in our
setting. If the person who has sinned against you will not repent when the
church engages the confrontation, then the one who sinned is to be like the “unclean”
Gentile and tax collector. If we are not careful, we could interpret this
saying as contradicting the behavior of Jesus toward these groups. This counsel
presents an interesting quandary. On one hand, it straightforwardly commands
the church to separate itself from those who refuse to seek repentance. The observant
Jew was not to associate with groups designated “unclean.” To do so would risk
one's own purity and essential integrity. One could read this verse, then, as
the Christian community shunning those who refuse to practice repentance of
their sins when properly confronted by the community. The quandary such an interpretation presents
is that Jesus himself spent much of his ministry associating with those
despised and rejected as unclean by Jewish law, specifically Gentiles and tax
collectors. The community must not accept sin as natural, but rather, fight
against it. The goal is winning over the sinner. Thus, far from separating
oneself, considering such persons in the category of Gentile or tax collector
would become part of the church's call to continue Jesus' mission of outreach
to these and all outcasts. It could then be both a pronouncement of judgment by
the church and a call to renewed missionary effort toward those it has justly
ostracized. It is worthwhile to recall Paul's teaching along a similar vein.
"My friends, if anyone is detected
in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one
in a spirit of gentleness ... Bear one another's burdens, and in this way
fulfill the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:1-2).
Although it is impossible to be certain,
Paul may be referring to an oral tradition about which both he and Matthew
knew. It is instructive to read this Scripture passage over against another one
that provides advice for conflict resolution. The other passage is Matthew
5:23-24.
"So when you are offering your
gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something
against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled
to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift."
Notice that the roles have
reversed. In the present passage, the person who takes the initiative to go and
visit the brother or sister is the person who has been at the receiving end of
a sin by a brother or sister. In Chapter 5, you are not the victim this time,
but the perpetrator. The remarkable thing about these two passages is that the
advice is pretty much the same for both parties. Whether you are the one against
whom someone has sinned or the one who has sinned, you still have
responsibility to swallow your pride, get up, and go to your sister or brother,
seeking reconciliation. As individuals and as a community, we are to take sin
seriously. Finally, the authority previously given to Peter to have the keys to
the kingdom of heaven to bind and loose, this passage now gives to the
community. It does so without reference to a particular leader who might have
the keys. To the question "What is the power of the keys?” the Heidelberg
Catechism supplies this answer:
"The preaching of the holy gospel
and Christian discipline toward repentance. Both of them open the kingdom of
heaven to believers and close it to unbelievers"
The third segment,
verses 19-20, with its theme of the presence of Jesus, is unique to Matthew. It
seems to go back to the procedure before bringing the matter to the
congregation. The context for the authority of the community is prayer. If even
two of them agree on earth about anything, their Father in heaven will grant
it. In this context, the Father will recognize the negotiated agreement as
legitimate without involving the action of the entire congregation. In fact, if
two or three gather in the name of Christ, the Lord is present among them. It took
ten males to form a Jewish synagogue. If the two or three mentioned earlier
prayerfully commit themselves to an agreement, the Lord is present. Such presence
is a reconciling one. The agreement will lead to the health of the
congregation. Christ is present in the center of the relationship. Christ has
gathered them. The objective is to strengthen them for eternal life. They pray
with each other.[4]
Even in this intimate gathering of a few persons, the church is present. The Spirit
is the means by which Christ is present to this community.[5]
No comments:
Post a Comment