Welcome back to what I hope will be a thought provoking series! I am writing this blog series to share my own journey of study, admittedly offering more questions than answers. I will be sharing my observations on the texts mentioned in part one and inviting you to join me in examining many of the traditions we have been taught and asking if our understanding and application is what the Holy Spirit intended. This blog series is not an exhaustive study on these texts nor should it be used in an authoritative way in applying these texts.
Let’s look at Matthew 18:15-35. Regarding verses 15-17, it seems Jesus is giving us specific steps to follow but also some specific pre-conditions. If we are going to demand the specificity of these steps, shouldn’t we also hold to their preconditions? Let’s tackle these thoughts first. Then, I want to share some thoughts about whether or not Jesus is also teaching us some guiding principles when dealing with the sins of others and even ourselves, meaning His intent is not just to give us steps and pre-conditions. Finally, some observations about how people have historically applied these verses in a way that Jesus Himself did not follow, but much more on that in future installments of this series.
Pre-conditions. I see three. First, if reading out of the KJV or the NKJV, Jesus says “sins against you.” Meaning, if the sin is not against us personally, are these steps relevant? Now more modern translations omit “against you” because that phrase does not appear in the source manuscripts that created many of the translations we use today. (If you want to do a deeper dive here, research Textus Receptus vs. Codex Sinaiticus…but hold your breath because it is a deep dive!) I would argue that “against you” is stated the KJV/NKJV and is implied in other translations like the NASB, even though not specifically stated. Secondly, I think a precondition is that both people have to be under the same spiritual authority. The context of these verses assumes that the consequence of disfellowship is a possibility. One cannot be disfellowshipped from a community to which they hold no allegiance. So it seems that both people should be covenant members of the same local church. Finally, if the sin in question is not egregious enough to warrant being disfellowshipped if the guilty party remains unrepentant, is this process even relevant? So one of my questions is this, should we be demanding the specificity of these steps if we are not equally committed to what seems to me to be clear conditions that Jesus sets forth? I think both are important, the steps and the conditions.
But is Jesus giving us more than specific steps for specific circumstances? I think yes. Let me list some. I think Jesus is saying that we should be careful to never handle in public what should be done in private. Working to protect the dignity and privacy of people is always paramount unless violating that privacy also follows a Biblical pattern of accountability (more on that in this series).
Secondly, I believe Jesus is teaching us that we should have permission giving relationships in our lives, people we trust to say “no” to us or to hold us accountable, whether we are the person who has sinned or the person who has been impacted by the sin of another. I don’t think step two where Jesus says “take one or two with you” is to gang up on the other person. I think Jesus is saying here, if the two of you can't agree, invite some others into the process.
Another is this, I think Jesus is reminding us that we should all have a church we call home. Jesus here is assuming that we are covenant members of a community of faith, otherwise the consequence of being disfellowshipped has no relevance. And in verses 18-22, I think Jesus is reminding us of a few guiding principles for these communities of faith, local churches. Here are four (not an exhaustive list): they should be forgiving, they should be communities where mutual submission to one another is championed, they should be communities where repentance is expected for the bonds of trust to flourish, and they should be communities that are consequential, meaning that people who violate these ideals and are unrepentant should not be allowed to continue to put others at risk.
I think these are appropriate and fair questions in examining Matthew 18 because Jesus Himself did not go to everyone privately who sinned against Him before confronting them publicly. We cannot read Jesus’ sermons and not see that often He was preaching against specific people in the crowd, like the Pharisees and Sadducees. It was personal for them and their recorded reactions support this. He spoke out against Herod at times, with no indication that He first attempted a private meeting with him. This is important because if we hold up Matthew 18 as the ultimate standard in dealing with every situation where we believe someone else has sinned, especially when that sin is against us, should it be so easy to find examples where Jesus’ own actions are incongruent with our interpretation of His teachings?
Caution…if anyone uses this blog as permission to now pull every situation where you feel someone has wronged you into a public arena, you are misusing this article. I am sharing my own journey of exploration, asking hard questions to make sure that we are not misusing texts, applying Christ’s words in ways He and the Holy Spirit never intended.
If you find yourself in a situation where you feel someone has sinned against you, praying for guidance should always be our first step. I would also suggest that desire for that person’s personal spiritual well being should be the primary motivator for us, not repaying “evil with evil” as we see in Romans 12 (thank you Amy for that fabulous sermon you shared yesterday!). This doesn’t mean that seeking justice has to be sacrificed. Forgiveness and justice are not mutually exclusive. And don’t forget that person’s repentance is necessary for the restoration of that relationship (Luke 17:3-4). One more, you should always have a few people, in the church you consider home, whose spiritual maturity you respect who will give you wise counsel. If we can’t agree on anything else, I hope we can agree that Matthew 18 assumes we are mutually submitted to one another in a local church, covenant communities of faith, where we welcome the scrutiny of those whose counsel we esteem.
The goal of asking hard questions regarding Biblical interpretation should never be motivated by a desire to shed responsibility, on the contrary…the goal must always be to live a textually pure life…to live in accordance with Scripture.