Matthew 18:15-20

 

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. We can look at the first two segments as outlining the grievance procedure of the early church, a procedure many modern churches have adopted.

First, the theme of the erring disciples is in verse 15. It 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.” I am disappointed in the NRSV translation of Matthew. Granted, the context suggests “church,” but the word does not occur in this verse. In any case, the teaching here is that ¹⁵ “If another member of the church (ὁ ἀδελφός σου) sins (ἁμαρτήσῃ), against you, making sure you are not simply the one easily offended, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens (ἀκούσῃ, the brother or sister will hear) to you, you have regained that one (τὸν ἀδελφόν σου). In our culture, it is almost a mortal sin to offend someone. Do whatever you want, but do not offend someone. If you do, you will quickly be made to feel guilty and ashamed.Such easily taken offense is a great interrupter of the community. 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 followers of Jesus. If any persons should have readiness to forgive, it should be followers of Jesus.[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. 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. The advice has its basis in Deuteronomy 19:15. Which stresses that a single witness does not suffice to convict a person of a crime, but rather, one will need two or three witnesses. The passage elaborates a procedure in Jewish Law and applies it to the fellowship of those who are disciples of Jesus. 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 brother or sister and failed, the witnesses might have the right words. They function as referees and judges. ¹⁷ If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (ἐκκλησίᾳ), the witnesses protecting 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. And if the offender refuses to listen even to the church (ἐκκλησίας), let such a one be to you as a Gentile (ἐθνικὸς, pagan, unclean) and a tax collector(τελώνης, unclean). 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, 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. 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 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 sacrament of penance has its scriptural basis here. Despite such an account of the handing over the power of the keys to the disciples, as here, we cannot speak of the instituting of a penitential rite by Jesus related to the pronouncing of the remission of sins as the sacrament of penance by the church. One may doubt whether the power of the keys originally had to do with the forgiving of sins rather than with normative decisions.[4]

Unlike our smart phones, which have an internal gyroscope that keeps what is on the screen in sync with us as users, we do not have internal gyroscopes that keep us in sync with each other. In the family of God, people get sideways with one another. Sometimes, it is over trivial things. There are snarky comments made at board meetings and disagreements about just how the youth should fund their upcoming ski trip. And sometimes, we get sideways with one another over truly sinful and downright evil things. 

- Lies get told. 

- Money goes missing. 

- Power gets protected. 

- Promises get broken. 

- Affairs take place. 

- Factions form. 

 

The picture is turned upside down and, no matter how vigorously we shake the relationship, it is not going to fix itself. We must take action. The action Jesus suggests involves caring enough about the relationship to do something to make things right. Do we have some action that we need to take?

            We may see a friend going down a self-destructive path. Do we say or do anything? Too often, our response is to ask, “Who am I to judge?” Such a response suggests enough self-awareness to acknowledge that all of us have sins and weaknesses that make relationships difficult. Yet, to be discerning enough to see the self-destructive behavior of a family member or friend is an act of love and friendship. Too often, in many of our relationships, we say things like, “Who am I to judge?” when what we really mean is “I’ll promise to stay out of your life, stand by quietly as you plummet into oblivion if you in turn promise to stay out of my life. We will call that ‘friendship.’ ” 

The danger of looking at ourselves as isolated individuals is that we will become profoundly alone. The one moral absolute, the one rigidly enforced conviction, is that one must avoid any judgment upon the behavior of others. We call this being “open,” “tolerant,” “accepting,” or even “gracious.” Translated, it means stay out of my life and I will in turn stay out of yours. Such emptying of relationships from moral or virtue considerations will bring death to intellectual discourse and wise discernment. It will bring death to healthy community. It would take a thin approach to reality to suggest that all cultures, all beliefs, and all lifestyles, are the same. Such a stance, while sounding tolerant, is the path to disrespect for differences and isolation of the worst kind. It becomes a code for “you stay out of my life, and I’ll stay out of yours.” We often use the word community, as in “business community,” to describe people who share common interests. Yet, such a notion of community is thin. There can be no community worthy of the name, no connection that is deep, no friendship without truthfulness. And there can be no truthfulness without judgment, without that risky, sometimes painful willingness to confront. Judgment, the assignment of right and wrong, the acknowledgment of genuine injustice, the naming of real hurt, the telling of truth, can be an act of deepest love. I love the truth enough to tell it. I love you enough to risk it. If Aristotle was right in suggesting that virtue arises out of friendship, then Jesus was far closer to Aristotle than to our modern but thin notions of friendship and community. 

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 prayer¹⁹ 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. In this context, the Father will recognize the negotiated agreement as legitimate without involving the action of the entire congregation. ²⁰ For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there 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. The language speaks of Jesus as already ascended to heaven. Even in this intimate gathering of a few persons, the church is present. Wherever personal witness commands a hearing, the church is already there, as the fellowship of believers, and the church precedes and encompasses every individual event of this type. By the Spirit, Jesus Christ is present to the community.[5] The point is the presence of Christ is a vital force in this process of reconciliation that makes the outcome sure in that it will advance the health of the body of Christ. Such presence is a reconciling one. The agreement will lead to the health of the congregation. Christ is not present among them as if a third or fourth member of the group. Christ is present in the center of the relationship. They mutually acknowledge that Christ has gathered them. The objective is to strengthen them for eternal life. They pray with each other.[6] It would be quite likely that rules of conduct embodying a life of faith and love of God, and directions showing faithfulness to the Lord and to the apostolic origin of the church, would be viewed as permanently valid norms for the lives of Christians. This process is at work in the handing down and developing of the sayings of Jesus in general, evident in this passage as an example.[7]

---

[1] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume 3, 339.

[2]  --Desmond Tutu, No Future Without Forgiveness (Random House, 2009), 218.

 

[3] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume 3, 246.

[4] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 365-6.

[5] Systematic Theology Volume 3, 123, 323.

[6] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [67.2] 658, [67.4] 699-706.

[7] Systematic Theology Volume 3, 78.