Monday, 23 November 2009
-
Matthew 18:19-20, A Misunderstood Church Verse?
The passage is a familiar one:Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.
The application is familiar as well. Perhaps I should say "applications", since there are two very common, but distinct, uses to which this passage is often put:
-- Matthew 18:19 - 20
1. Description of a legitimate church: "Two or three gathered together in my name".
2. Promise for powerful prayer: Two agreeing concerning anything that they ask.
I had already assumed that the second application was a mite "stretchy" but, the more I studied this, the more I realized that the first application (descriptive of a true church) also had a degree of, well, wishful thinking.
I had often used verse twenty as a justification for the various house churches I had attended and, just a few years ago, one that I had started with another brother. But this verse is not a blueprint for God's church; It is a guideline for discipline in the church. Consider the context. First, verses 15-16.
Did you catch the connection? The two or three who are gathered together in verse 20 are the same ones who are confronting a trespassing brother in verse 15. This is not a worship service being described, but an intervention. Christ is assuring Christians in verse 20 that He is with them as they undergo the difficult but necessary task of confrontation of one of their own."Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between him and thee alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."
Returning to the context, verse 17, we find another surprise - at least it was for me:
"And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."
This thought struck me: "Wait a minute. I thought the 'two or three' were the church (at least minimally). Now, in this verse, the 'two or three' are definitely not the church." They are a separate step of confrontation for the erring brother: If "he neglects to hear" the two or three witnesses then - and only then - is the matter brought to the church. The church, then, is something separate from the two or three.
This principle of confrontation is found elsewhere, as in 1st Tim. 5:19 – 20:“Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all [This is the “Tell it unto the church” part], that the rest also may fear.”
Notice the two or three witnesses in the Timothy verses. We can also go back to the Old Testament passages that were quoted from in our Matthew verses, Deut. 17:6; 19:15, etc. Notice that first verse:
“Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses...”
But what about the agreement part, verse 19? The answer is that it definitely does not mean what many today think it means; as if merely two Christians agreeing on whatever carnal object or purpose occurs to them obligates God to grant their wish. No, since it is tied in with the next verse it must share, also, the same application: church discipline.
Side Note:
Another interesting topic having to do with this passage – the whole chapter, in fact - is the overlying theme of self-judgment, that of the beginning of the chapter (“cut it off and cast it from you”) is personal, that of our present verses above (“let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector”) is corporate.
In conclusion: I hope the case has been made that this passage should not be used to describe church. It describes what a church can do – must do – in the unfortunate event of erring and misbehaving brothers who name the name of Christ. But it does not describe what a church is. For that we must go to the more detailed writing of Paul and the other Apostles.
Do you agree with this perspective? What do you believe this passage means?
-
recommend
- recs 3
-
share
-
email
- sent 1
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: asterisktom@xanga
- Name: Tom
- About Me: In 2002 a major piece in the puzzle fell into place, and I began to really appreciate the sovereignty of God - instead of avoiding the whole idea. I rejoice in my Savior and in all the riches of His grace. Unmerited, unlooked-for, unexpected...Hallelujah!
-
Premium
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 4 Views: 0 2700 Comments: 0 69 View all posts by asterisktom@xanga
Comments (34)
The misuse of that verse has often troubled me. It points to the problem of proof-texting. Thanks for sharing.
I have never studied the verses in context, but you have a point. Most of the chapter is devoted to the topic of offense and reconciliation, including Peter's question about forgiveness and Jesus's response. I need to take a good long look at the whole passage.
Very interesting post....Intercessory prayers for the soul.....
Now stating with verses 15-16, We who are strong: to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves(Roman 15:1 If we are stong, we are to stayup the hands of the weak. So, if one of these little ones shall be overcome,a and commit a wrong against you, then it is our work to seek his restoration. Do not wait for that person to make the first effort for reconciliation, because it might not happen. Do not put that person to shame by exposing his fault to others, and do not bring dishonor upon Christ by making public the sin or error of one who bears His name. Remember we are not to judge or to condemn.
"Take with thee one or two more." It may be that their united influence will prevail where that of the first was unsuccessful. Not being parties to the trouble, theywill be more likely to act impartially, and the fact will give their counsel greater weight with the sinner.
And in verse 17"If he will not hear them, then, and not till then, the matter is to be brought before the whole body of believers." Now check this out: Let themembers of the church, as the representatives of Christ, unite in PRAYER and LOVING CARE that the offender may be restored. The true Holy Spirit will speak through His servants, pleading with the wanderer to return to God.(The apostle Paul stated this" As though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, he ye reconciled to God in 2 Cor. 5:20)
Weh any one of reject this united overture has broken the tie that binds this person to Christ., and thus has severed himself from the fellowship of the Church.
So let him be untothee as an heathen man an a publican. But just remember this, this person is not to be regarded as cut off from the mercy of God. Let this person still have the same love and be treated with tenderness and compassion, as one of the lost sheep that Christ is still seeking to bringto His fold.
Whatsoever ye shall bind on eath shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on eath shall be loosed in heaven.
We are really asking as ambassadors of heaven, and the issues of our work are for eternity.
It is not our responsibility alone. Whereever His word is obeyed with a sincere heart, there Chist Abides. Now only is He present in the assemblies of the church, bu whereever disciples, however few, meet in His name, there also He will be.
If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be cone for them of My Father which is in heaven.
bUT YE SHAL RECEIVE POWER, AGTER THAT THE HOLY GHOST IS COME UPON YOU: AND YE SHALL BE WITHNESSES UNTO ME.
At this stage in his ministry what could "the church" have been referrig to?
You know, this same thing use to bother me a lot but it doesn't so much anymore. Yeah, people use this verse out of context but in doing so they don't make any false claims; they simply pull truth out of a scripture that doesn't specifically offer that truth.
There is a saying attributed to Jesus that goes "Where there is one alone, I say, I am with him. Lift up the stone, and there you will find me, split the wood, and I am there." We know that Jesus is always with us, wherever we go, until the end of forever (whether in groups or alone). We also know the prayer of a righteous person is powerful. Other scriptures confirm both ideas that where believers are, they are the church (because the church is people) and that prayer is powerful and that we will be granted what we ask for.
So, the frustration has to be that people flippantly use this specific verse out of context. It's annoying and it needs to be dealt with but we can't deny the truth people speak, even if it is brought by an out of context observation. Teaching context is good. Re-enforcing truth is good too.
Pray in private like Jesus said. Don't worry about churches.
That's an interesting view you have. I'm not sure it connects together though just because the word two is used. You might be right but I'm not convinced without further study. I do agree however that it doesn't mean two people can just have whatever they ask. It would still have to be in God's will for God to answer their prayer.
@musterion99@xanga - Good points. One of the real eye-openers for me in this passage was verse 17, which specifically distinguishes the two or three from the church.
@soy_esteban@xanga - Thank you. This is the first of a number of verses that I plan to cover. It was hard at first to confront this topic because I had grown comfortable with he two or three equals church interpretation.
@Roadkill_Spatula@xanga - There si a whole lot ib this passage that could be looked closer into.
I never got into it in this article but I believe that there is a relation in this chapter between how Christ wants us to treat the erring brother (forgiving seventy times seven) with the larger picture of how the father dealt with Israel (as found in Daniel 9, the seventy times seven found there).
@gmx0@xanga - Where's your verse for "church buildings are houses of prayer"?
@asterisktom@xanga - I'll ask again, at this point in Jesus' ministry, what was he referring to??
Is it fair to tear down an interpretation when you have none to replace?
@asterisktom@xanga - One of the real eye-openers for me in this
passage was verse 17, which specifically distinguishes the two or three
from the church.
Yes, I noticed when you made that point in the post, however it could be just referring to the context of that verse and church discipline and not necessarily have application to verses 19-20.
@Jack - I am not sure how I should answer the "tear down" question. The doctrine of the churchstands quite sufficiently in the Pauline epistles and elsewhere. Jesus speaks sparingly of the church here in the Gospels because there isn't the same need for a church as there will be in the times of Acts and the Epistles.
So what Christ was referring to was how Christian should treat Christian, forgiving because of being forgiven.
@musterion99@xanga - Look closer at the whole passage and see if you don't find several themes - not just the two or three - which tie the whole larger passage together. To me it seems much harder to believe that a relatively uncommon phrase like "two or three" should have widely different meanings like you suggest.
Great post, I'm glad you took the time to research this and write it out. As some stated the verse taken out of context to mean what people mostly seem to understand it as, that is powerful prayer, could still hold to be true because other passages say similar. But, even if that is the case we need to use the verses that say such a thing instead of misusing a verse because it sounds pretty.
To misuse Scripture whether the verse taken out of context can still be a true statement or not is bad, it makes us look like fools who can't understand the Bible. See also Jeremiah 29:11 and Malachi 4.
@asterisktom@xanga - I'm not saying the word two has different meanings, but that they are used in different context. To me, verses 15-16 don't seem to have a smooth flow into verses 19-20. It seems like a different thought might be used in those verses. It would be more clear if in verses 19-20, it said - "Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask about trespassing against your brother" or "Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning trespassing against your brother".
Like I said, your view is interesting but I have to study more. Do you know of any commentaries that agree with you? It's always hard to accept a new teaching that no one else has ever taught before. Also, I agree that it's not speaking of the church. Jesus is just saying that where two agree, he is in their midst. It doesn't mean it's a church.
IMHO, 2 or 3 people don't need to always be in a "church" setting to get together and agree in Jesus' name. I take the words "concerning anything" as if in general, practical, (not "name it, claim it"), spirtual requests, --discipline can be included, but doesn't need to be in every get together that takes place.
I wrote on this same passage some time ago. Same conclusions as you. These verses are about church (called out ones) discipline. Sure Jesus is amongst us when two or three gather in His name when it's about prayer... But guess what? He's there when it's just me too. When Im there all by my lonesome.
Grace and peace!
~Michael
@musterion99@xanga - The commentaries of Calvin, Poole, and Henry have much to say on what I wrote. They also concede - and I certainly do too - that there is a wider application in vs. 19 than in the earlier verse. The agreeing on anything that we ask is more than just on the issue of dealing with an erring brother. But, on the other hand, it is not, as many insist today, a magic scripture to validate and reward just any joint desire that church folks agree on.
I can't be sure of this, but I have the feeling that Christ's teaching in verse 19 was intended to take on a deeper meaning after the need arose for it. Here in Matthew it seems largely to have been understood as authorizing and validating Christians' dealing with their own. Peter's response in verse 21 seems to imply this interpretation. But later, after the Ascension, Christ's physical absence make His spiritual presence more needed and appreciated. I'm probably not saying this like I should but the times themselves unpack the meaning from this verse here. Scripture has several examples of verses that reveal meaning within meaning as time goes by. (One example is the Triunity that can be deduced from God's "Let us make man in Our image". The teaching of a triune God was in that passage all along, but was only revealed in the proper time.)
@MC_Shann@xanga - Thanks. I would like to see your article too. Is it in your blog?
I don't see how a study of this whole passage can not lead to the conclusion that it deals primarily with discipline.
@musterion99@xanga - I know John MacArthur agrees with that interpretation, and he has dozens of books and many sermons online. For resources, you could start at the grace to you website, his church's "resources" site.
@Jack - He did replace the interpretation. But if we as Christians are supposed to speak the truth in love, isn't confronting a lie constructive in and of itself?
@MagisterTom@xanga - Thank you. Agreed, Jeremiah 29:11, 12, and 13 - either separately or together - are a minefield for disastrously wrong interpretation. I was going to include this on my list of verses to cover, but the list was already getting long. (BTW, I believe Jer. 31:14 helps us to understand what the "future and a hope" of 29:11 is. For that matter, just backing up one verse to 10 helps too)
@asterisktom@xanga - @shards_of_beauty@xanga - Ok, thanks.