article23

§18 Humility and Forgiveness (Matt. 18:1–35)

We come now to the fourth major discourse of Matthew. It ends with the usual formula in 19:1–2 (cf. 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 26:1). Chapter 18 reads very much like an early church manual and deals with subjects such as humility (vv. 1–4), responsibility (vv. 5–7), self-renunciation (vv. 8–10), individual care (vv. 11–14), discipline (vv. 15–20), fellowship (vv. 19–20), and forgiveness (vv. 23–35; cf. Barclay, vol. 2, pp. 173–74).

18:1–5 / With the opening phrase, at that time, Matthew ties the teaching of chapter 18 to the preceding material. Mark locates the event in Capernaum (Mark 9:33) and, along with Luke, mentions the argument among the disciples about who was the greatest (Luke 9:46). Matthew does not mention the argument but simply puts the disciples’ questions to Jesus, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:19 established that there would be distinctions in the kingdom of heaven (“least” and “great”).

Jesus answered their question by summoning a child to stand before them. He then said that if they did not change and become like little children they would never enter the kingdom of heaven. The Greek strephō means “to turn around.” As long as they were pursuing rank and status in heaven, they were heading in the wrong direction. Before they could even qualify for entrance into the kingdom, they would have to change completely their way of thinking.

The answer to the disciples’ question is that the greatest in the kingdom of heaven is the sort of person (Gk. hostis should be taken qualitatively) who will humble himself and become like the little child who stood in their midst. Since children are not humble in the usual sense of the word, it is often discussed what quality Jesus had in mind. In the present context (a discussion of primacy and rank in the kingdom) it would seem that Jesus intended the comparison to point out the importance of lack of pretension or concern about status (Hill, p. 273). McNeile writes, “He will be the greatest who has the least idea that he is great” (p. 260).

The reference to children in verses 2–4 triggers an additional thought on the subject. Whoever welcomes a child like this in my name (“because of me”) welcomes me. Contrary to current opinion about children (Jeremias notes that they were classed along with the deaf, dumb, and weak-minded: New Testament Theology, vol. 1, p. 227, n. 2), Jesus held them to be of infinite value. Since Jesus had taken his place with them, it follows that to receive one of them in his name was to receive Jesus himself.

18:6–9 / At this point Matthew moves from using the little child as an illustration of lack of concern about status to little ones as representing “average” members of the local congregation. The rest of chapter 18 deals with situations that arise in the church (causing others to sin, vv. 6ff.; bringing back those who have strayed, vv. 10ff.; reproving a brother, vv. 15ff.; reconciliation, vv. 21ff.; and forgiveness, vv. 23ff.).

Jesus’ warning to those who lead others to lose their faith is severe. It would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Beare notes that skandalizomai verges on the meaning “to lead into apostasy” and that the warning is probably aimed at “false teachers who lead simple Christians into error or unbelief” (p. 376). The admonition reminds us of Paul’s caution in 1 Corinthians 8–10 about the improper use of Christian freedom. The millstone (Gk. mylos) to be tied around the offender’s neck is called a donkey millstone (mylos onikos). The people of Jesus’ day ground their corn between two circular stones. Larger stones required the power of donkeys to turn the mill. With a weight attached, a person would be carried immediately to the bottom of the sea.

It is a terrible thing that in the world there are influences that cause people to lose their faith. The temptations that lead astray will always be with us, but woe to the person through whom they come. Therefore if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and get rid of it (v. 8). Far better to enter heaven crippled than to be cast into hell with hands and feet intact. Or if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. Better to enter life one-eyed than be thrown into the fire of hell with both eyes wide open. Filson notes that “everlasting fire and fiery Gehenna both point to the everlasting consequences of moral collapse” (p. 200). Verses 8 and 9 also occur earlier in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Matt 5:29–30). In that setting they were part of a warning against adultery. The words of Jesus are proverbial and therefore applicable in many situations. Vivid utterances like these were undoubtedly repeated by Jesus in many settings. It comes as no surprise that in the Gospels certain sayings are found in different contexts with various nuances of thought.

18:10–14 / Matthew continues with further instructions about these little ones (childlike believers). It is important that no one treats them with disdain because their angels are in heaven and have unrestricted access to the presence of God. The thought is that, since God is constantly informed by angelic beings of the welfare of his flock (both dia pantos, always, and blepousi, “continually see,” emphasize constant awareness), for leaders in the local congregation to view those committed to their charge as unworthy of care would be to violate the divine intention. Teaching about angels was expanded greatly in Judaism following the period of the exile. The doctrine of ministering (guardian?) angels is clearly established here and in Hebrews 1:14.

Jesus tells a parable of a man with a hundred sheep, one of which has wandered away. He leaves the ninety-nine and sets out to find the one lost sheep. If he finds it his joy is greater over the one that has been found than over the ninety-nine that never strayed. The point of the parable is that God the Father does not want any of the childlike members of the congregation to wander from the truth and be lost. It is crucially important for leadership to recognize how important the “little ones” are to God.

Critics have sometimes asked why a shepherd would leave a large flock of sheep unattended in order to search for one who had wandered off. It is hardly necessary to envision a flock that belonged to the village and would therefore have several shepherds, thus allowing one of them to go after the lost sheep. The temptation to second-guess the details of a parable needs to be resisted. The essential point is the concern of the shepherd for every single sheep. God is like that: he is concerned about each believer. In this context, to be lost (v. 14) means to have got “out of right relation to God and in danger of eternal ruin unless sought out and restored” (Filson, p. 201).

18:15–17 / Matthew turns now to the question of appropriate action to be taken in case a Christian is guilty of sinning against another member of the community. Jesus taught that in such instances the aggrieved party should first take it up personally and in private with the one who acted wrongly. If that does not clear up the problem, the next step is to take one or two others along, not to prove the other’s guilt but to help in reconciliation. If the person pays no attention to them, the matter should then be reported to the entire church. If this fails to bring about a satisfactory resolution, the person who has wronged should be excommunicated from the religious community.

The same three-step procedure is found in the Qumran legislation (1QS 5.25–6.1). Attempts at reconciliation should always begin one on one. More damage has been done by well-intentioned letters than by any other method. Taking witnesses along is based on the Mosaic legislation in Deuteronomy 19:15, although the purpose in the New Testament setting is not to establish a conviction but to help in settling a dispute. The Greek word for church (ekklēsia) occurs only here and in Matthew 16:18 in the Gospels. It refers to the local group of believers. Many writers have objected that Jesus would not have spoken derogatorily of the Gentiles and tax collectors, as he apparently does in verse 17. Beare is convinced that “there is not the least likelihood that Jesus himself ever spoke with such disparagement” (p. 380), and Barclay claims that it is “not possible that Jesus said this in its present form” (vol. 2, p. 187). There is no necessity, however, to read into the statement an attitude that need not be there. Pagans and tax collectors were widely considered by the Jewish population to be outside the circle of God’s immediate blessing. It was simply another way of indicating what happens when a person is removed from the believing fellowship.

18:18–20 / Verses 18–20 are quite often included in the previous paragraph. Gundry says that Matthew composed verses 16–20 as an expansion of the saying in verse 15 (p. 370). They extend to the church the power of “binding and loosing” that was earlier given to Peter at Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16:19). In the current context, prohibiting would refer to bringing judgment against the one who sinned against a fellow Christian and permitting would be pronouncing in favor of the accused. The final outcome would be excommunication or absolution. Whatever decision the church makes, it will be sanctioned in heaven.

Though verses 19 and 20 appear to be speaking of corporate prayer, the context suggests that the agreement reached with its heavenly sanction relates to the matter of church discipline mentioned in verse 17. The Greek text of verse 19 opens with the connective palin (“again”). That which two or three come to agree on (symphōneō means “to produce a sound together,” cf. the English “symphony”) has to do with the decision concerning an unrepentant member of the believing community. God will answer the united concern of praying people. In fact, wherever two or three come together earnestly desiring to know the will of God, he himself will be “right there with them” (Williams).

18:21–27 / Peter comes to Jesus asking him how many times he must forgive a brother when he sins against him. Rabbinic literature taught that “if a man sins once, twice, or three times, they forgive him: if he sins a fourth time, they do not forgive him” (m. Yoma 5.13). Going beyond the accepted limit, Peter asks, “Would seven times be enough?” (Phillips). Not seven times, replies Jesus, but seventy-seven times. Lamech’s formula for revenge in Genesis 4:24 (“If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times”) is changed into a model of unlimited forgiveness.

To emphasize the need for unlimited forgiveness Jesus tells the parable of the unmerciful servant. It is recorded only in Matthew. There was a king who wished to settle accounts with his agents (the huge debt suggests that the douloi were those who gathered revenue for the king). One was brought in (from prison? prosagō means “to lead or bring to”) whose debt “ran into millions” (NEB; ten thousand talents, NIV, roughly equal to ten million dollars). Since he was unable to settle such an enormous debt (more than the total annual revenue of a wealthy province), the king ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold and the money be applied toward the debt. The servant fell on his knees and began to beg (prosekynei is inceptive imperfect) for an extension of time. Note the optimism of the servant: “Give me time, and I will pay you every cent of it” (Williams). Taking pity on the agent, the king canceled the entire debt (the Greek has daneion, “loan”) and let him go free.

18:28–35 / Now comes the dark side of the story. This very same servant, as he left the king’s presence with his huge debt canceled, met one of his fellow servants who owed him no more than a few dollars (NIV’s a hundred denarii would amount to about twenty dollars). Seizing him by the throat, he demanded payment. Refusing his fellow servant’s request for time to repay the debt, he had the man thrown into prison, thus depriving him of any chance to earn the necessary money. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed. Going to the king, they told him the entire story. The king called in the servant whose debt he had canceled and reproved him for his failure to extend to another the same mercy he had received. So angry was the king that he turned over the unforgiving servant (v. 32 calls him a “scoundrel,” NEB) to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay the debt in full. The Greek basanistēs (“jailer,” v. 34) means “one who tortures.” Though torture was forbidden by Jewish law, the practice was widespread in the ancient world. Debtors could be tortured in order to make them reveal unacknowledged sources of money.

Jesus concludes the parable with the stern warning that the heavenly Father will deal in similar fashion with anyone who will not from his or her heart forgive a fellow Christian. It expands the point made in 6:15 that those who do not forgive will not be forgiven. An unwillingness to extend mercy is proof that a person has never received mercy. God’s forgiveness must of necessity create a forgiving spirit. The parable may be included here as a warning to the church to exercise the right of excommunication (vv. 16–20) with considerable caution. Though it may be necessary to exclude the nonrepentant from the believing community, personal forgiveness of the individual should never be withheld.