Küng on the Church in Corinth
I’ve recently been introduced to the writings of Hans Küng, a Catholic theologian who has written several books about the church. This excerpt is from his book, The Church, in a chapter called “Ecclesiastical Office as Ministry”:
The problem becomes finally acute when we take a look at the Church which we know so much more about than any other of the New Testament Churches: the Church of Corinth. We have a reasonably good idea as to how preaching and the Lord’s Supper were organized, as to what sort of ecclesiastical discipline and order there was. We know from Paul’s lists exactly how many different kinds of ministries there were at Corinth—apostles, prophets, teachers, and so on. But there were no “bishops”, deacons or elders. Moreover, when it is a question of restoring order in matters of preaching, the Lord’s Supper and Church discipline, Paul never addresses himself to a single official or a single group of officials, responsible for all the community. He addresses himself throughout to all and at the same time to each individual. With regard to the irregularities that had occurred at the Lord’s Supper, where the writer of the pastor letters might have said to the Corinth community something like: ‘Timothy is to give the sign for the celebration to begin’ (or perhaps even: ‘Timothy is to celebrate the Lord’s Supper’?), what Paul in fact says to the Corinthians is: ‘When you come together to eat, wait for one another’ (I Cor. 11:33). With regard to the confusion which had arisen through several members of the community preaching during worship, where the writer of the pastoral letters might have said something like: ‘Titus is to decide who shall speak’ (or even perhaps: ‘Titus is to give the sermon’?), what Paul actually says is: ‘… let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn… you can all prophesy one by one’ (14:27 and 31)… All of this is more than an argumentum e silentio [argument from silence]. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to assert that there existed in the Corinth community, in Paul’s time, an office of leadership, whether elders or the later monarchic kind of episcopate. (403)
While I disagree with Küng concerning the pastoral epistles (i.e., the author did not lay out rules for Timothy, Titus, and other rulers to control others or to control the church meeting), Küng raises some very good questions that we should consider.
For now, consider the question of leadership. Küng recognizes that the church in general and academic works concerning eccesiology in particular have blurred the distinction between the church and leadership. He says:
The fundamental error of ecclesiologies which turned out, in fact, to be no more than hierarchologies (where ecclesia=hierarchia) was that they failed to realize that all who hold office are primarily (both temporally and factually speaking) not dignitaries but believers, members of the fellowship of believers; and that compared with this fundamental Christian fact any office they may hold is of secondary if not tertiary importance. (363)
There may or may not have been leaders (elders or deacons) at Corinth. But, Paul did not consider their presence or absence relevant to the problems at hand. He did not tell the elders to handle discipline problems (1 Cor. 5). He did not tell the deacons to take of issues surrounding the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11). He did not tell any leaders to take control of the meeting to ensure that it did not get out of hand (1 Cor. 14).
Yet, today, when there are problems, everyone turns to the leaders. Why? Why do we presuppose that leaders are to make decisions while others are to either approve or disapprove of those decisions? If no one approached a brother or sinner who was sinning, whose “fault” would that be? If the Lord’s Supper gets unmanageable, who is responsible for ensuring that everyone is considering others first? If some people disrupt the meeting, who should help get things settled down? Why do we usually think of leaders first? Why did Paul not think of leaders first?
Dropping the "H" Bomb
About a year ago, I wrote a post called “Dropping the ‘H’ Bomb“. The purpose of that post was to show that we throw around the words “heresy” and “heretic” without considering their scriptural foundations. Often, when we call another brother or sister a “heretic”, we are the ones who are practicing “heresy” according to Scripture. Why? Read this post and find out.
—————————————————————–
Dropping the “H” Bomb
I recently read a story about one follower of Christ calling another follower of Christ a heretic because they disagreed over certain aspects of teaching. I’m sure that many of us have heard similar stories, and perhaps some of us have even been called “heretics”.
The “H” bomb is dropped to separate the speaker from the “heretic” or “heresy”. It is used as stronger language than “disagree” or “different”. It is used to question the person’s devotion to and possibly position with God. To the person dropping the “H” bomb, the “heretic” may be sincere, but certainly sincerely wrong when compared with the bombardier.
Looking through various definitions of the word “heretic”, you’ll find that a “heretic” (in English) is a person who holds a position that is different from standard or accepted church beliefs. Thus, in English, “heresy” can only be defined from the perspective of a certain set of beliefs. So, someone can be a “heretic” from the point of view of the Roman Catholic Church, but that same person may not be a “heretic” from the point of view of the Anglican Church.
Similarly, looking through various definitions of the word “heresy”, you’ll find that a “heresy” (again, in English) is any teaching, belief, or opinion that is different from standard or accepted church beliefs. Once again, “heresy” is a valid term on from the perspective of a certain set of beliefs.
From these modern definitions, every Baptist is a heretic to every Presbyterian. Every Anglican teaches heresy from the perspective of every Charismatic. From the point of view of Methodists, everyone in the Vineyard church is a heretic. These terms have lost any meaning, but they continue to be used with force and vehemence.
Perhaps, instead of looking at the modern definitions of “heresy” and “heretic” it would be helpful to consider the source of these words, and to consider how Scripture uses these words. Also, instead of comparing someone’s opinions and beliefs to the standard beliefs of a given church, perhaps it would be better to compare that person’s opinions and beliefs to Scripture.
Of course, even before we think about the source of the words “heresy” and “heretic”, we are immediately faced with the reality that different people interpret Scripture in different ways. Does this mean that our terms “heretic” and “heresy” are completely useless? No. It means that we must humbly admit that brothers and sisters in Christ disagree concerning the meaning of Scripture. We must also humbly admit that disagreement, in and of itself, does not constitute heresy. I may disagree with someone, and neither one of us may be heretics. However, according to the modern definitions of the words “heresy” and “heretic”, if two people disagree, one of them must be a heretic.
The terms “heresy” and “heretic” are scriptural words. The noun form αἱÏεσις (hairesis) is used five times in the New Testament, and is usually translated “sect”, “division”, “opinion”, or “schism”. The Pharisees and Sadducees are called “sects” (“heresies”) of Judaism (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 26:5). Christians are called a “sect” (“heresy”) of Judaism (Acts 24:5; 24:14; 28:22). Finally, there are said to be “divisions” or “dissensions” (“heresies”) among groups of Christians (1 Cor 11:19; Gal 5:20; 2 Pet 2:1). It is this last category that should interest us.
Scripture warns us about “heresies” among believers. But, in context, what are these passages telling us? In 1 Corinthians 11:19, Paul mentions “factions”. These are probably similar to the divisions mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1-4. The danger is not found in disagreements between believers, but in separation. The groups were separating from one another and treating one another differently based on their affiliations.
In Galatians 5:20, “heresies” or “divisions” or “factions” are mentioned again along with “disputes”, “dissensions”, and “envy”. All of these are listed as “works of the flesh” (Gal 5:19-21), practiced by those who “will not inherit the kingdom of God”. This is contrasted against the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22-23) which will be evident in the lives of God’s children. Since the fruit of the Spirit includes characteristics such as patience, gentleness, and self-control, we can assume that these are demonstrated in the context of disagreements, not in the absence of them. Again, this says nothing about disagreement being “heresy”.
In 2 Peter 2:1, Peter warns that false prophets and false teachers will bring “destructive heresies” with them. These false prophets and false teachers will not be known for disagreeing with other believers, but instead they will be known for “denying the Lord” (2 Pet 2:1), “sensuality” (2 Pet 2:2), “covetousness” (2 Pet 2:3). Thus, these false prophets and false teachers are not ones who simply disagree with other Christians, but those who deny that Christ is Lord, and live a life that demonstrates that they are not children of God.
Perhaps, from this connection of “heresy” with false prophets and false teachers in 2 Peter 2:1, we should also recognize why these people are called “false prophets” and “false teachers”. Perhaps one of the most important passages to help us understand what it means to be a “false teacher” is 1 Timothy 1:3-11. Here, those who teach “other doctrines” are those who teach contrary to the gospel (1 Tim 1:11). In many other passages, the authors of Scripture encourage their readers to teach and live in accordance to the gospel of Jesus Christ – that is, the good news that God has provided a way for all people to accepted as his children.
So, according to Scripture, who are the true “heretics”? Heretics are those who deny the gospel of Jesus Christ. Heretics are also those who live in a manner contrary to the gospel – that is, according to the flesh, not according to the Spirit. Similarly, heretics are those who cause and encourage divisions and dissensions among the followers of Jesus Christ.
When Person A calls Person B a “heretic” for a teaching that Person A disagrees with, but which is not contrary to the gospel, and when Person A refuses to fellowship with Person B because of that teaching, then, according to Scripture, Person A is actually the “heretic”. Person A is the one causing division among the followers of Christ and is thus promoting true heresy.
So, let’s be careful, thoughtful, and prayerful before we drop the “H” Bomb. It could be that we are the true “heretics”, not necessarily because our opinion is “wrong”, but because our words and actions are divisive – and this is the type of heresy that Scripture warns us about.
Scripture… As We Live It #19
Here is the 19th edition of “Scripture… As We Live It“:
These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever. Therefore, stop having love feasts altogether. If people are going to come in and spout heresy, then it is much better to cut out that kind of fellowship. Or, if you want to have fellowship and feasts, make sure that you tightly control who can speak. It is much easier to keep everyone from talking than to deal with the ones who cause trouble.(Jude 12-13 re-mix)
The Church Covenant
I wrote this blog post back in January 2007 (“The Church Covenant“). I realize that church covenants are often “hot button” issues. However, I’m concerned about the way that church covenants are often used today to separate the body of Christ into exclusive, isolated groups. In many churches, believers only consider themselves responsible for caring for those who are part of their “covenanted community”. Yet, in Scripture, being “covenanted” with another believer is never even mentioned. We are members of the same family and thus are responsible for one another. I hope you enjoy this article.
——————————————————————–
The Church Covenant
As a child of God, I am in covenant with God – the New Covenant. This is a covenant that he made with me, that he secures, and that he regulates. He sets the responsibilities and duties for this covenant. He also determines the blessings of this covenant. In ethical terms, this is a “political covenant” as opposed to a “social covenant”.
Our church (that is, the church that our family meets with regularly) also has a covenant. Each person who desires to “join” our church covenants with one another.
Now, church covenants can be a very good thing. Church covenants can remind us of the responsibilities and duties that we have toward one another: responsibilities and duties that are given to all believers by God. In fact, Scripture speaks frequently of these requirements. Most of them include the phrase “one another”: love one another, accept one another, forgive one another, encourage one another, admonish one another, etc.
However, church covenants can have a detrimental effect on believers. Many times church covenants are used to separate the church into exclusive groups.
For example, I was recently asked if I felt that I was responsible for meeting the needs of a believer who was not part of “our church”. (Note, this was not asked by someone who was a part of our church.) I answered, “If God reveals a need to me, and provides the means to meet that need, then I am responsible for meeting that need, whether or not that person is a member of our church.” The other person disagreed with me. Why? Because I was not “covenanted” with the other believer. According to this person, I was only responsible for those with whom I was “covenanted”.
Also, the idea of “covenant” is sometimes suggested as a limit to church discipline. A person is only responsible for “disciplining” a believer if he or she belongs to the same church, i.e. they are covenanted together.
In these two examples, the “church covenant” is used as a means of separating the church into mutually exclusive groups.
However, I cannot find an example in Scripture of one believer being “covenanted” with another believer. Every Christian is in covenant with God, and because of the New Covenant, we have responsibilities, some of which describe how we should relate to other believers. In Scripture, these responsibilities are not limited to certain believers. Yes, I understand that I cannot carry out these responsibilities toward people that I have never met. I am not arguing for that. Instead, I am arguing that we are responsible for how we relate to all believers that God brings across our path, not just those believers with whom we share membership.
I enjoy reading the church covenant with our church. It reminds me of the responsibilities that God has placed on me… but not just toward certain believers… toward all believers.
More on Church Discipline
Matthew McDill has been blogging about “church discipline”. I’m glad to see that he doesn’t think that phrase is appropriate for what Scripture describes as a desire to reconcile brothers and sisters.
In his first post, Matthew refers to the book Walking Together: A Congregational Reflection on Biblical Church Discipline by Wyman Richardson. He contrasts the tenets of “cultural ecclesiology” to those of “biblical ecclesiology”.
In his second post, Matthew quotes R.T. France from his commentary on Matthew 18:15-17:
In a formally constituted church with an appointed leadership it is easy for the ‘ordinary’ disciple to hide behind that authority structure and to leave it all to the official leaders, appealing to Cain’s question ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’ with the comfortable assumption that the answer must be No. But this passage asserts that the answer is Yes. In a community of ‘little ones,’ each must be concerned about and take responsibility for the spiritual welfare of the other.
Matthew (and France) are correct. Properly understanding the need to reconcile broken relationships begins with understanding that we (all of us) are our brother’s and sister’s keeper. Of course, “Church discipline” – that is, reconciling broken relationships – does not make any sense where there is no relationship to begin with.
Correcting with gentleness
In 2 Timothy 2, Paul instructs Timothy concerning how to deal with “opponents”:
And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:24-26 ESV)
What does Paul mean by opponents in this passage? Is Paul instructing Timothy in how to deal with people who disagree with him over any subject matter or any topic? Or, perhaps Paul wants Timothy to deal with gentleness over insignificant matters only? What is the context of this passage?
Just a few sentences previously, Paul wrote the following words:
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. (2 Timothy 2:15-18 ESV)
According to Paul, Timothy is to demonstrate that he is an approved worker who does not need to be ashamed by “rightly handling the word of truth”. In Scripture, the phrase “word of truth” is almost synonymous with the term “gospel”. So, Timothy is to handle the gospel correctly.
Meanwhile, others are not handling the gospel correctly. Instead, they are taking part in “irreverent babble” – or “worldly empty talk” – that is, not related to the gospel. Paul gives Timothy two examples – Hymenaeus and Philetus – of people who are contradicting the gospel by saying that the resurrection has already occurred. Later, Paul would again warn Timothy to have nothing to do with “foolish, ignorant controversies” that “breed quarreling” (2 Timothy 2:23). Instead of giving in to these types of “youthful passions”, Timothy is to pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace instead (2 Timothy 2:22).
It is in this context that Paul instructs Timothy to deal with his “opponents” in a most peculiar way: 1) without being quarrelsome, 2) with kindness, 3) with skillfulness in teaching, 4) with patient endurance, and 5) with gentleness. Why should Timothy deal with “opponents” in this manner? In hopes that God would grant them repentance.
In the context, it seems that Paul is telling Timothy how to deal with people like Hymenaeus and Philetus – those who are contradicting the gospel – as well as with those who are taking part in “worldly empty talk” and “foolish, ignorant controversies”.
I think the church has lost the ability to deal with “opponents” in gentleness, primarily because we have very shallow relationships with one another. We do not know one another, and thus the only way that we can deal with one another is through “skillful teaching” – which usually turns into a shouting match instead of a kindness match.
Are there times when “false teachers” – those who teach contrary to the gospel – should be pointed out and removed from the assembly. Yes, we see this example in Scripture. But, this seems to be the exception, not the rule. We do not begin by condemning people – in fact, we should never condemn people – and we do not begin by “excommunicating” people. Instead, we must begin with kindness, patience, gentleness… teaching with our attitude and our lives as much as with our words.
Church Discipline Revisited – Conclusion
For the last few days, I’ve been examining Matthew 18:15-20 –
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matthew 18:15-20 ESV)
I suggested that the surrounding context for this passage tells us that it is about forgiveness in spite of sin. The surrounding context does not make light of sin. In fact, we are reminded of the seriousness of sin, and the steps that God will go to bring a “lost sheep” back from sin – assuming that the “shepherd” in the story refers to Jesus or God the Father.
Similarly, as I examined the passage itself, I pointed out that the focus of this passage is on reconciling a broken relationship. One person has offended another person, and the offended person goes to the offending person in order to reconcile. The passage is not about kicking someone out of the church. In fact, in this passage, there are no commands given to any one or any group except the person who was offended. In keeping with the surrounding context, this passage further illustrates the importance of forgiveness in spite of sin.
It seems that the disciples and Matthew understood the implications of Jesus’ teachings. They understood that if someone offended them, they would be the ones who should humble themselves and go to the offending party and seek reconciliation. How do we know this? We know this because of Peter’s follow-up question: “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” (Matthew 18:21)
Peter understood that if his brother sinned against him and then reconciled, sinned against him and then reconciled, sinned against him and then reconciled… he may have to continue to humble himself and go to his brother and seek reconciliation… how many times? Surely seven times would be enough. Surely, Jesus, if I do this seven times, doesn’t this show that my brother really isn’t concerned about me and that I shouldn’t forgive him any longer?
Jesus’ response shows the seriousness of relationships to God: “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.” (Matthew 18:22) The following story underscores that importance: just as God has forgiven us – and continues to forgive us – a huge debt – one that we cannot repay – in the same way we should forgive others. We should continually seek reconciliation with our brothers and sisters – even if it means setting ourselves up to be offended again.
Unfortunately, when this passage is included in a thematic understanding of “church discipline”, the importance of forgiveness and restoration of relationships is usually lost. Instead, the focus turns toward correction, rebuke, instruction, protection, etc. Those may be important in other situation. But, in this passage, the focus is on relationships and the importance of forgiveness. Each of us are responsible for maintaining relationships among fellow believers – as much as is in our ability – even when we did not cause the rift in the relationship. This passage is not about “church discipline”. Instead, it is about community, fellowship, and love.
Church Discipline Revisited – Seek Reconciliation
In my last post, I examined the context of Matthew 18:15-20, namely that Jesus is teaching about forgiveness in spite of sin and the seriousness of sin. Once again, here is the passage under consideration:
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matthew 18:15-20 ESV)
As we begin to study this passage, we notice first of all that something has precipitated this interchange: one brother sinning against another brother (I would assume this would apply to “sisters” as well). Thus, we’re dealing with family – family in Christ, I would say. This is not about dealing with sin in general, nor is it about dealing with sin outside of the family. Specifically, one person has offended another person, and a broken relationship is involved. The desired outcome of this procedure is the restoration of the relationship. The undesired outcome – the outcome if reconciliation is not reached – is a broken relationship – treating the person as a “tax collector and Gentile” as opposed to treating the person as a brother or sister.
Furthermore, there is another motivation to this interchange: the offended individuals desires to reconcile the relationship (“you have gained your brother”). The offended person does not enter this dialog in order to prove the other person wrong, nor does the offended person enter into this because he disagrees with the other person. Instead, the offended party cares so much for the other person that she is willing to humble herself and go to the offensive party in order to seek reconciliation. These may seem like insignificant details, but they are very important that we recognize the motivation in order to understand the teaching.
Also, as we try to understand this passage, notice that the commands in this passage are given specifically to the individual who was sinned against: “go and tell him”, “take two or three”, “tell the church”, and “let him be to you”. All of the 2nd person commands are singular – to the individual sinned against. In the last command, the “you” is also singular. This does not tell the church how to the treat the individual. In fact, nothing is said of the church taking action at all. This is specifically for the individual who is sinned against. (Note: I am not saying that the community of believers should not take action. However, this community action is NOT in view in this passage.) (I have previously discussed the individual nature of the commands in this passage in a post called “Matthew 18 and Discipline“.)
Finally, the phrase “tell him his fault” (ESV, NKJV, KJV) is also rendered “show him his fault” (NASB, NIV, NET) and “rebuke him” (HCSB). This verb (á¼Î»Îγχω – elenchÅ) has a wide range of meanings: 1) bring to light, expose, set forth; 2) convict, convince, point out; 3) reprove, correct; 4) discipline, punish. While the verb is translated with all of these definitions throughout the New Testament, this is the only use of the verb in Matthew. Thus, Jesus could be telling the offended person to “reprove him because of his sin” or to “expose the broken relationship to him”. Either translation is possible from the term á¼Î»Îγχω (elenchÅ). Given the desired response (i.e. “you have gained your brother”) and the final negative result (i.e. treating him like a tax collector or Gentile) leads me to think that Jesus was telling the offended person to expose the offense and the broken relationship to the offending party.
The importance of relationships and reconciliation is demonstrated by the last three verses of this passage. Heaven (that is, God) takes notice both of reconciled relationships and broken relationships. God’s children – those who have been reconciled to God, forgiven by God, loved by God, etc. – by nature offer the same reconciliation, forgiveness, and love to others. Similarly, God’s children seek restoration and forgiveness, even if they have to humble themselves (like a little child? like a shepherd who leaves the 99 to find the 1? seventy times seven times?). And, as Jeus points out in the next passage, God’s children will humble themselves and forgive a brother or sister over, and over, and over, and over again. They are more concerned with their relationship with their brother or their sister than they are concerned with protecting themselves from the possibility of future offense.
There is certainly much more that can be said about this passage – especially the last three verses. However, I think it is important for us to begin with the basics. Before I conclude this short series tomorrow, I wonder if you have anything that you would like to add to this study…
Church Discipline Revisited – Context
If we want to understand what Jesus was teaching in Matthew 18:15-20, we must begin by studying the context. This is true of any passage of Scripture – and any book for that matter. It damages the intention of the author and the text to rip any word, sentence, paragraph, or section out of the surrounding context. And, much damage has been done in the name of being “scriptural” or “biblical” by ripping a passage out of context.
First, remember the passage under consideration:
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matthew 18:15-20 ESV)
In what context did Jesus begin speaking about a sinning brother or sister? In Matthew 18:1, some unnamed disciples asked Jesus, “Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Perhaps this question was prompted by the event that we call “the transfiguration”, when Jesus took Peter, James, and John up onto a mountain to witness his communion with God the Father, Moses, and Elijah (Matthew 17:1-13). But, whatever prompted the question, Jesus immediately turned the disciples attention to a small child and the topic of sin. In direct answer to their question, Jesus says, “Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:4 ESV).
After this statement, Jesus immediately begins to warn them about causing “one of these little ones who believe in me” to sin. After a discussion about the devastating effects of sin, Jesus says, “See that you do not despise on of these little ones” (Matthew 18:10 ESV). This statement is followed by a parable of a farmer who loses one sheep and leaves ninety-nine other sheep to find that one lost sheep (Matthew 18:12-13). This story is followed by this statement: “So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish” (Matthew 18:14). This statement is immediately followed by the passage about the sinning brother, which we are studying – Matthew 18:15-20.
After our focal passage, Peter asks Jesus a question, perhaps in response to his story about the sinning brother: “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” (Matthew 18:21) Of course, Jesus answers that seven times is not enough, but instead Peter should forgive “70 times 7” times. I do not think that Jesus expected Peter to forgive his brother 490 times, but instead he was teaching Peter that one of his followers should always forgive a brother who sins. This statement is followed by a story about a servant who is forgiven of a large debt, but then refuses to forgive a small debt. At the end of this story, Jesus makes it clear that the Father expects all of those who are forgiven to forgive likewise.
Thus, our focal passage is found in the middle of a longer section about humility, sin, and forgiveness. In fact, Matthew 18:15-20 connects two stories about forgiveness. It seems that we should understand this story as teaching us about forgiveness in spite of sin.
The opening statement of Matthew 18:15-20 verifies that this is the setting: “If your brother sins against you…” (Matthew 18:15 ESV). Furthermore, the desired outcome of this story also indicates that it is about forgiveness in spite of sin: “If he listens to you, you have gained your brother” (Matthew 18:15 ESV).
So, as we examine Matthew 18:15-20, we should remember its context: Jesus is teaching about forgiveness in spite of the seriousness of sin. If we rip this passage out of that context, then we will probably miss Jesus’ and Matthew’s intentions.
Church Discipline Revisited – Introduction
Sometimes, systematizing Scripture and Christian beliefs can be very beneficial. It is beneficial to know what Scripture teaches and what Christians general believe about a certain topic. But, occasionally, systematizing Scripture into topics and themes unintentionally damages or undermines the original context. I think this often happens with Matthew 18:15-20:
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matthew 18:15-20 ESV)
Today, if you pick up a book or read an article about “church discipline”, the author will probably include a discussion of Matthew 18:15-20. In fact, the “three step process” of church discipline originates from this passage: 1) confront someone who sins alone, 2) confront someone who sins with two or three others, 3) present someone who sins to the church. Of course, the final stage of “church discipline”, if the person does not repent, is to treat that person like “a Gentile or a tax collector” – whatever that looks like in a particular context.
Church discipline is a very important topic. I think that misunderstandings about “church discipline” have caused some to overreact to sin, and others to fail to act when a brother or sister is sinning. I also think that this is one topic where systematization has caused a misreading of this particular text. Often, Matthew 18:15-20, 1 Corinthians 5:1-8, and a few other passage are chunked together into a “church discipline” manual without much consideration of the original context of the individual passages. Thus, the narrative effect of the Scripture is lost in the theological grouping.
Over the next few days, I am going to discuss this passage (Matthew 18:15-20) both in its original context and in the context of church discipline. I hope that this turns into a valuable discussion, and I encourage you to take part. This will not be a comprehensive study of the topic of church discipline, nor will it be a comprehensive study of Matthew 18:15-20. However, I hope that through this study we will all look at this passage in context and try to learn what Jesus was teaching his original hearers – and us through the Gospel of Matthew.