TEXT [Commentary]

2. Correcting a sinning believer (18:15-20)

15 “If another believer[*] sins against you,[*] go privately and point out the offense. If the other person listens and confesses it, you have won that person back. 16 But if you are unsuccessful, take one or two others with you and go back again, so that everything you say may be confirmed by two or three witnesses. 17 If the person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church. Then if he or she won’t accept the church’s decision, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector.

18 “I tell you the truth, whatever you forbid[*] on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit[*] on earth will be permitted in heaven.

19 “I also tell you this: If two of you agree here on earth concerning anything you ask, my Father in heaven will do it for you. 20 For where two or three gather together as my followers,[*] I am there among them.”

NOTES

18:15-17 If another believer sins against you. The warnings against despising a fellow disciple or causing him or her to fall into sin inform the procedure laid out here (cf. 18:6, 10). In view of this background and Peter’s question in 18:21, it is possible that the disputed words “against you” in 18:15 are authentic, despite their absence in many early manuscripts of the NT (cf. Davies and Allison 1991:782; Metzger 1971:45). The NLT’s “another believer” is lit. “your brother” (so NLT mg).

go privately . . . take one or two others with you . . . take your case to the church. Three stages of confrontation are clear here, involving successively more members of the community of disciples. Ideally, the sin of one against another can be reconciled between the two of them (cf. Lev 19:17-18; Prov 3:12; 25:9-10; 27:5-6), but if this is unsuccessful, the next step is to secure peace by bringing in one or two others, evidently to underline the gravity of the problem and to add their wisdom to its solution. Verse 16 supports this practice by citing Deut 19:15 (cf. 26:60; Num 35:30; John 8:17; 2 Cor 13:1; 1 Tim 5:19; Heb 6:18; 10:28; Rev 11:3). Regrettably, if these two steps cannot resolve the matter, it must be taken before the whole local community, the “church” (cf. 16:18).

if he or she won’t accept the church’s decision, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector. At this point, after three opportunities for reconciliation, the gravity of the situation ought to be clear, and the offender ought to acknowledge his or her error. But if the offender will not heed the church, there is no higher earthly authority. The only remaining alternative is withdrawal of fellowship from the offender, who is regarded no longer as a disciple but as a notorious sinner, like a “pagan or a corrupt tax collector” (lit. “Gentile or a tax collector”). This sort of treatment would mean that the offender would be regarded as an outsider and could not participate in the community’s activities. But in view of Jesus’ own compassionate treatment of notorious sinners (5:46-47; 9:10-13; 10:3), it would not necessarily mean a “shunning,” or total withdrawal from personal contact. The Community Rule from Qumran lays out a similar procedure for dealing with interpersonal problems (1QS 5:25-6:1; CD 9:2-8).

18:18-20 These verses supply a theological foundation for the process of discipline outlined in 18:15-17. The consequences of the community’s decision are ominous, since the community on earth acts in conjunction with the God of heaven.

whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven. The forbidding and permitting (lit. “binding and loosing”) mentioned here recalls 16:19 and is tied to the exercise of the keys of the Kingdom (cf. John 20:23). Here the authority is clearly the community’s, not just Peter’s or the apostles’. This involves authoritative proclamation of entrance or exclusion, forgiveness of sins or retention, and eventual punishment for sins. In 18:18 the matter of discipline is in view, showing that the process of 18:15-17 is an extremely serious one involving the eternal destiny of the offending party (see notes on 16:19).

If two of you agree here on earth concerning anything you ask, my Father in heaven will do it for you. The promises in 18:19-20 of answered prayer and God’s presence also refer to the solemn matter of the sinning brother. It is possible that the two who agree in 18:19 are two members of a three-member court that represents the community (m. Sanhedrin 1:1; Hagner 1995:533). During the discipline process, the church may be assured that their deliberations on earth will be confirmed by their Father in heaven and that Jesus is present with them throughout the difficulties.

I am there among them. The presence of Jesus with the church during the process of discipline is similar to the rabbinic notion that God’s presence (the Shekinah) is with a group as small as two people who are studying the Torah (m. Avot 3:2, 3, 6). Jesus’ promise that he is with his church speaks of nothing less than divine activity (Joel 2:27; Zech 2:10-11). It recalls 1:23 and anticipates 28:20. The high Christology of Matthew is once again obvious.

COMMENTARY [Text]

Matthew 18:15-20 contains a procedure for discipline (18:15-17) followed by its theological basis. There are three steps in the procedure, and the basis involves three truths: the authority of the church, the promise of answered prayer, and the presence of Jesus. The procedure spelled out here will be a necessary one since Jesus has just taught that offenses are inevitable. The Father’s total dedication to his little ones dictates that offenses within the community be dealt with promptly and fairly. After the model of the rescue of the straying sheep, the offended person must take the initiative to bring the offender back into the fold (18:12, 15). There is no place for the offended person to become bitter or gossip about the offender to a third person (cf. Prov 25:9-10). The three stages of confrontation assure the fair treatment of both the offender and the injured party with as little fanfare as possible. Though “church discipline” (cf. 1 Cor 5:1–6:11; 2 Cor 2:5-11; Gal 6:1-5; 2 Thess 3:6, 14-15; 1 Tim 5:19-20; 2 Tim 4:2; Titus 2:15; 3:10; 1 John 5:16; 3 John 1:10; Jude 1:20-23) is often taken lightly in evangelical circles, it is an ominous matter, an aspect of letting God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven (cf. 6:10). Successively rejecting the overtures of a brother, two or three witnesses, and the church is tantamount to rejecting Jesus and the Father.

Yet the severity of 18:15-20 is cushioned by its context, since it is “embedded in a section filled with kindness” (Davies and Allison 1991:804). Jesus has been speaking of his disciples as humble children (18:5), little ones (18:6), and lost sheep (18:12-13). He will go on to stress the necessity of forgiveness in his community (18:21-35). The sinner is described as a brother, a fellow child of the heavenly Father (18:15). Even the discipline process allows the sinner three chances to repent, and those who are involved in it are to view themselves as agents of the Father, who is like a shepherd seeking straying sheep. The goal is reconciliation and return to the flock, not severance of relationship.

The flippant way in which 18:19 is often cited to assure small meetings of Christians that God is with them is disturbing because it twists a solemn passage into a cliche. No doubt God is present with any legitimate meeting of his people, whatever its size, and there is no need to mishandle Scripture to prove it. Taking this solemn passage out of context cheapens it and profanes the sacred duty of the church to maintain the harmony of its interpersonal relationships.