What a beautiful verse, though so often misunderstood. It is common for Christians to comfort each other with it, implying some mystical presence of the Lord whenever and wherever his people are gathered together in fellowship. However, in keeping with the purpose of this series on “Misapplied Scripture,” let us examine this verse in its context.
Normally it is our contention that, at a minimum, one should read the entire chapter containing a verse to get a proper idea of the context of that verse. Doing so will reveal that the 18th chapter of Matthew's Gospel is about judgment and forgiveness. It begins with a warning against causing the faithful (who are commanded to humble themselves like a child) to stumble, with a pronouncement of judgment on those who cause others to stumble. Our Lord goes on to exhort us to avoid those things that would cause us to stumble, saying even “If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell” (verse 9).
The portion of chapter 18 most relevent to our passage begins in verse 15, which deals with the means of discipline ordained for the Church: “15. If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16. But if he does not listen {to you,} take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17. 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. 18. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. 19. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. 20. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.” Matthew 18:15-20 NASB
As you can see, verse 20 does not exist in a vacuum. It is stating that when Godly men, exercising discipline in the Church in accordance with the precepts of scripture, do so with the blessing of the Lord. In addition, their judgment carries the full authority of the Lord Himself.
It is very likely that the reader has heard Matthew 18:20 recited numerous times. Don't take it for granted that because a verse has been recited often enough to become quite familiar that it is being used correctly. Rather, examine the scriptures to see what the Bible really says.
No Comments “Misapplied Scripture: Matthew 18:20”
That sounds good, but couldn’t verse 20 be a general prinicple that Jesus is applying to the situation in verses 15-19? Couldn’t we apply it in a general situation?
Your point about the importance of reading verses in their proper context is a good hermeneutical one — and far too infrequently taught to the lay Christian.
However, there appears to be a break or a shift (at very least, two) in the topical focus of Jesus’ 18-verse speech. One certainly occurs between verses 14 and 15, with vs. 15 starting a new topic.
Specific to your blogpost, I see a shift of topic beginning at verse 18’s use of the “Amen I say to you…” rhetorical construct. Verses 15-17 concern how to address fault (or sin) found in one’s “brother”; verses 18ff concern the authority Christ’s disciples have AS His disciples — authority that the disciples manifest in cooperation (the “you” in verses 18-20 is plural) and which has real power in both heaven and earth (because they have God’s power thru the Spirit and Christ’s authority to work it).
The section of verse 16 you have highlighted has little to do with the “two or three” of verse 20. Verse 16 is a pointer to the law laid out by Moses in Deut. 17:6, wherein is formally enacted the minimum witness requirement for the establishment of guilt in Jewish jurisprudence. The only connection between “two or three” in verse 16 (the evidencing of fault; negative context) and verse 20 (invoking Jesus; VERY positive) is that “two or three” in agreement is the legal requirement for making an authoritative testimony (about anything).
Thus, I would read Matt. 18:20 as the final in a three-verse group. Indeed, as I read it, the natural division of Matt. 18:1-20 is itself split into three connected but distinct sections of teaching: 1-14(child-like faith, sin’s severity, God’s love for children), 15-17(how to deal with a brother’s fault), 18-20(Church power).
In Matthew, one of the ways Jesus is presented is as the new “Moses” establishing a new “Israel” (sort of…think in analogues). Not only is Jesus teaching his disciples, He is also laying down the moral, legal, social (etc.) framework for the Church that will have to occupy until He comes again as King. This section of Matt. 18 is no exception: you’ve got solid devotional, moral, legal, social, and operational instruction all squeezed into 20 short verses!
Anyway, just my $0.02. Apologies if it was too long, just let me know and I’ll email my responses henceforth. 🙂
Enjoying the podcasts and this Misapplied Scripture series, Andy!
Thanks for the post, and don’t worry about the length.
I’m sorry I don’t have a lot of time to respond, but I’ll do the best I can with the 5 or so minutes I have this morning.
I would have to disagree that verse 18 brings a shift in topic. For starters, it is the last sentence of the paragraph, certainly an odd place to shift topic. Then, verse 19 begins with the word “Again…”, tying it to the statements of the previous paragraph (v. 15-18).
In addition, verses 15-17 deal with the concept of binding and loosing. That is to say that the church is put in the position of binding it’s members to righteousness and loosing them from sin. Verse 18 is thus a restatement/summary of the previous 3 verses.
As an aside, verse 18 is one I may consider for another “Misapplied Scripture” article. I often hear it used in regards to binding Satan and loosing saints, which the context doesn’t even hint at.
Sorry I can’t get deeper, I have 15 minutes left to get to work and it’s snowing this morning so traffic is sure to be slow 😀
“For starters, it is the last sentence of the paragraph, certainly an odd place to shift topic.”
Given that the Greek texts have no structural divisions (like paragraphs), any such divisions that we see in the translations are inferred by the translators. Now, I’m not saying that the NASB translators were wrong to structure the text this way, but I do think that their structural choice is debatable. Ex., the NRSV has vss. 15-20 as a single paragraph; the NIV gives vss. 18 & 19 each their own paragraph.
Speaking of structure, an important thing to remember about the structure of Matthew’s presentation is that he groups Jesus’ sayings into blocks of teaching, followed by blocks of events/narrative. Matthew is not necessarily giving us Jesus’ statements in the order that they were given, or even statements that were all given at the same time. While I am of the view that Matthew/Levi was capable of shorthand and that he may indeed have captured Christ’s words with accuracy unparalleled by the other Gospel writers, that doesn’t mean he didn’t rearrange those quotes to advance his particular presentation of Jesus.
Like I said before, there is certainly a common thread or topic loosely linking all of the verses in this section, however I think that topic is more along the lines of personal Christian conduct. Remember that this section of Jesus’ dialogue is a response to the disciples’ question of who would be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven — Jesus’ response deals first with one’s own sinful conduct in the kingdom, then shows how the Church should corporately deal with a brother’s sinful conduct, and then ends with an affirmation of the Church’s corporate authority.
I’m painting in broad strokes here, and there is (as I re-read the passage) a continual, slight drift in the foci of Jesus’ speech (or perhaps just multiple digressions; I certainly do it all the time). In Matthew, Jesus uses the disciples’ question as a springboard into a whole series of teachings that are loosely connected.
“In addition, verses 15-17 deal with the concept of binding and loosing. That is to say that the church is put in the position of binding it’s members to righteousness and loosing them from sin. Verse 18 is thus a restatement/summary of the previous 3 verses.”
I understand your interpretation, and there are great scholars who have held it (Lightfoot, Barnes, et al.), but I think it’s reading more into the passage than is clearly there.
Even assuming that vss. 15-17 are about “binding and loosing” members from the church (which is the only thing I could see it being…please correct if wrong), one runs into a problem in vs. 18, where the administrative actions in 15-17 are then shown to have eternal results (“in heaven”). Per this reading, it seems to make the administrative officers of a particular assembly the determiners (and enforcers!) of a person’s salvation, rather than salvation (and the keeping thereof) being an office restricted to the authority of the Godhead.
I understand how the increasingly-hierarchical post-Apostolic Church, particularly the Medieval Church, could have interpreted this passage as linking the powers of binding/loosing with individual salvation — but I wholly disagree that the Scriptures teach that principle or that Matthew, writing in the mid-first-century AD, would have viewed the Church, which he presents as being a primarily evangelical and pedagogical organization (Mt. 28:18-20), in this way.
“As an aside, verse 18 is one I may consider for another “Misapplied Scripture†article. I often hear it used in regards to binding Satan and loosing saints, which the context doesn’t even hint at.”
I’m with you there. Whatever the object(s) of the binding & loosing, the text gives us no such specifics like saints or Satan.
My understanding of the Greek is very rudimentary, and by no means authoritative in any way. I know the verses and chapters were added long after the canon closed, but I thought the paragraphs were in the original. If I’m wrong, that certainly modifies my attitude about specific Bibles. Some have the verses line-by-line and others format them in paragraphs. I prefer the ones that render them in paragraphs.
I certainly do not hold the view that the church has any authority over salvation. The scriptures are clear that God alone can forgive sin (grant or deny salvation). When I refer to the church’s role in binding and loosing, I am talking about forbidding and permitting, and even then only as the scriptures already dictate. For example, the church has the authority (and duty) to bind it’s members to sexual purity; that is to abstain from adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, etc. It also has the authority to loose its members from the Old Testament Law, such as the requirement to keep kosher. The key is that, as verse 18 states, that which they bind shall have already been bound in Heaven, and that which they loose shall have already been loosed in Heaven. Since we can’t just visit Heaven to see what is bound and loosed there, and conjuring up the dead to ask them is forbidden as necromancy, we look to scriptures to see what those things are.
Jesus was, in Matthew 18, engaging in a time-honored rabbinical tradition: the linking of thoughts one to another, in a stream of consciousness. Sort of a Hebraic poetry format. Examples can be seen in other parts of the scriptures, e.g., Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, or in ancient rabbinical literature. Thus, there is no overarching “context” involved; only one with a Greek/Western/Hellenistic mindset would look for one in this type of passage.
Loosely put, Jesus starts his discussion with children and the Kingdom of God, then discusses abuse of children by evil people, then discusses, after a brief interlude, what to do with evil people in a church body context, how one ought to have two or three witnesses, then picking up on the two or three theme, discusses how whatever we ask in the father’s name will be given if two or three are asking, then finally, again picking up the two/three theme, states that God is with us when we’re gathered in grouops of two or three. Each of these are timeless truths standing alone, they are linked only by theme, by common words or thoughts, but not by overall context, to try to do so does violence to the truths Jesus was conveing.
These truths are not linked in any pedantic manner, such that the last “two or three” reference in verse 20 needing be related to church discipline, evil doers, children, or suicide by drowning! We need to take the text for what it is, understanding that Jesus was an easterner speaking to easterners. His ministry was not to the gentiles, and He most certainly did not speak to them or their mindset. For several sterling examples of transcendent truths put into linear and deductive western thought, see the Pauline epistles; don’t try to order Jesus’ thoughts around western logic, you will almost invariably come to the wrong conclusions.