Matthew Chapter 18
In this account, the disciples come and ask Jesus who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. This seems to be different than the account in Mark 9. Here, the disciples come to Jesus and ask, they don't "get caught" having discussed among themselves who will be greatest. In answer, he brings in the little child, and tells them children have the attitude that is needed to enter the kingdom. Jesus mentions humbling ourselves. Certainly before God, but I think also before men. MSB note says it is about having nothing to recommend us, nothing to offer. We enter as children, and must grow up in the kingdom.
MSB note also says that this is the fourth of five discourses Matthew builds his book around.
2023 - This discussion, likely contentious, of who is greatest, occurs AFTER Jesus tells Peter he will build his church on the rock. So...If Peter is indeed the first pope, hand picked by Jesus to lead them all, what exactly is this discussion about? Who is second greatest? Not likely.
7 "Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! [Mat 18:7 ESV]
Temptations make us stronger when we successfully resist, penitent when we fail, and more dependent on His help in either case. Temptations are necessary for us to grow from the children we are as we enter the kingdom into the adults that work God's will. BUT, those who do the tempting will still be judged for what they do.
Jesus goes on to talk about plucking out an eye or cutting off a hand in order to avoid sin. I commented on this yesterday in the notes on Mark 9. Those notes are pretty good. I would point out that we also will be judged, though we are saved, if we are a bad influence on those inside or outside. We should not tempt other Christians to sin. They might drink wine without problems, but we should never encourage them to excess, nor set an example by our own excess. The same with other sins. This is what Paul is talking about when he says all things are lawful but not all are expedient. New Christians, or recent converts, or even those making only slow progress are children in the kingdom, and woe to us if we tempt them with our "religious freedom".
Interesting that ESV leaves out verse 11, just skips from 10 to 12. Apparently not all manuscripts even have vs 11, and the ones ESV depends on most leave it out. So it isn't here. It says "For the Son of Man came to save the lost."
Jesus tells about the shepherd who celebrates more for the one sheep lost and then found than for the 99 that never went astray in the first place. The point here is that God is concerned for all believers, but especially concerned for those tempted away from their commitment. God will take action to bring back such lost sheep, and their recovery is celebrated in heaven. Perhaps this is about me with my hot and my cold service. My dedication for years, and then my rebellion for years. Maybe I have a habit of getting lost. Thank God He has always found me and brought me back. And I hope it is the same for those I love who seem to be lost also. Maybe they are part of the flock, they are just off on some errand that they were tempted into. This actually makes me feel a lot better...
2026 - It is interesting that God goes looking for the one, and that there is more celebration over a lost sheep recovered than over the 99 who never left. That is how parenting is. The "lost" child gets the most attention, the most resources the most prayers and the most effort to bring him/her back to the fold. We are often offended by this. And yet based on this verse, it is based in the imago dei. It is likely also where our rooting for the underdog is grounded.
2025 - Recently finished Chapter 23 in Grudem, on the nature of man - body, soul and spirit. My understanding after reading this is that most scripture references to the spirit are about the mind, intellect, and will. They are about what the "brain" of man is doing. The spirit can cater to either the soul or the body. Catering to the body is carnal, to the soul is soulful. A Christian still has an independent mind, and a Christian decides on what to focus. A carnal Christian - that is, a SAVED PERSON who seems completely off the rails in what they are pursuing - is one who has chosen to indulge the things of the body. That is, the mind is energized to seek that which makes the body feel good. It could be food, drink, sex, exercise, self-indulgences of all kinds. But it is body first. A Christian SHOULD, however, focus on soulful things. The soul is eternal. After salvation the soul is keenly aware of right and wrong in all decisions. We can direct our spirit - our will - to do that which is consistent with a saved soul. We can indulge the eternal instead of the physical. This, to me, explains how a saved person can go so very far wrong and then return. This is the state of a lost sheep. The earthly will, connected physically as it is to the body, can - almost naturally WILL - indulge the physical. And the body wants the transient more than the eternal. This is what the fall did to us. This is sin corrupting the body from the time we are born.
This verse:
14 So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish. [Mat 18:14 ESV] I can see where this might be understood as a loss of salvation. Sure enough, the MSB note addresses this "misinterpretation" as follows:
The word here can (and does in this context) refer to spiritual devastation rather than utter eternal destruction. This does not suggest that God's children ever could perish in the ultimate sense (cf. John 10:28, which says this: 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. [Jhn 10:28 ESV].) Spiritual devastation contrasted with utter eternal destruction. Even when I was wandering about I don't know that I considered myself spiritually devastated. I always believed, I never doubted. Jesus was always the Son of God to me. I always planned to go back to him. I see others that might be classified as devastated. They don't believe anymore. They can't bring themselves back to their first love because mind and/or body rebel. We can never know ourselves what goes on in their souls. What we might judge as "never saved" God may know as spiritual devastation. Something important to keep in mind.
2023 - As to vs 14 above...If it is not the Father's will that they perish, perhaps they will not. Maybe there is a point to made here that children go to heaven if they die before the age of accountability. I don't say this verse is a strong argument, but surely it goes on the list of verses that point to children in heaven.
2022 - Vss 10-14,
From vs 14, quoted just above, we see that in these verses about the lost sheep, Jesus is still referencing that little child held up as an example in vs. 2. So when Jesus says the Father does not will any of the little ones to perish...after saying "...their angels always see the face of my Father...", is he speaking literally of children, or is he speaking of baby Christians, or of all who are still learning to be adult Christians just as the little child must grown up? Do we all have our own angel in heaven, or do just children have them, or do just the saved have them? Maybe vs 6 is a clue, because it uses the phrase "who believe in me". So children who believe. Surely we have to look at it both ways. Little children and new believers ought to look at God the same way. With deep down unquestioned belief in Him. To tempt either of these - to weaken their faith with hard questions or to inject habitual sin into their lives whenever we are with them - whether children or new Christian adults - is surely about as heinous as it can get. We don't usually think of these verses as pertaining to little children, pre-salvation but believing, but surely they are in view here also. That is an interesting state of being though...not saved because not old enough to be accountable yet, but truly believing in God. All children raised in church will be in this state at some point. Children so raised accept the reality of God without question. But at some point, they "become" lost and in need of salvation. Is it like a switch, or is it a transition? I don't think there are any verses about it so it would just be speculation to discuss it really. And what about children NOT raised in church. They cannot believe in a God of whom they have not heard. I don't think such would be accountable any earlier, nor condemned any more than pre-accountability believers, but they are certainly in a more precarious situation once they reach accountability, because they have no knowledge that they need salvation. So much more difficult a situation, and with each passing day, the odds against them ever knowing Christ get longer.
Are the pre-accountability believers who make a profession at some point, and then drift far away as life progresses the lost sheep Jesus is talking about? Are those who tempt these out of "the way" the ones by whom temptation comes? Are these still of the flock, and only drifting far away from where they should be...but STILL of the flock? How would we ever know???
2022 - Vs 15 seems to be a sharp break with what was discussed in 1-14? The only connection is that like the little children and the new Christians, God also wants "brothers" to come back into the fold, and so discipline of those who yield to temptation - in order to bring them back - is an appropriate continuation.
This:
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. [Mat 18:17 ESV]
I think this might be Jesus' first use of the word church. MSB says vss 15-17 are the prescription for church discipline. It is to be considered in light of the previous verses about the lost sheep. Still a sheep though. This is the disciplinary process for a brother, not for those outside. He notes that the goal of this discipline is restoration of the spiritually devastated. So the offense isn't something like name calling. It is about perpetual sin. The MSB note on vs 18 is very good but a little long for here. Essentially, it says that if restoration is rejected by the offender, that person is excommunicated. This is not so much a punishment of the offender as it is a removal of a detrimental influence from the church. While excommunicated, this brother is viewed as an evangelistic prospect, not as a brother. The real sin of the excommunicated is their hard-hearted impenitence. All this in the MSB note.
2021 - What if they belong to a different church? What if we're talking about a neighbor that we believe is saved - or an internet friend that grew up in church but now rejects it? Do you take a couple others from your church? It reads as if they need to be witnesses to the problem also, not just people that you told about the problem. Say, someone you all see at a place he should not be, but you go and talk to him alone to try and urge him to refrain. But if you are rebuffed, then the others who saw it need to go and talk to him. And then the whole church. So...it seems that everyone needs to know the one in trouble. Only if all are witnesses, and all know that this person is "within", does this course really apply. I have heard MacArthur say that if their members get divorced for non-scriptural reasons, they read their names out in the church, they call them impenitent and out of God's will, and they "dis-fellowship" them. I can see that since your divorce filing would be in the paper. Everyone would know. Such public problems are easily addressed by this procedure. But what about the more private ones? What about a foul mouth? I guess that might be addressed. What about pornography? Probably no one will know about that, but at most one other. There won't be enough witnesses, at least not for a while. Drinking at home to excess? Your kids know about it. Perhaps someone here and there will discover it. But you drop out of church when you do this habitually. Did anyone come and check on you and so find out you were drinking yourself silly? They should have. You should have been missed, and you should have been contacted by phone and in person and it should have been addressed! We fall down on this, though. We just pretty much ignore these instructions for the church that come from Jesus himself.
BUT, look how it starts: "If your brother sins against you..." Is another's drinking a sin against me? Or is this a plural you? No, it is not plural. Second person singular personal pronoun. Several translations leave out "against you" entirely. They just say, if your brother sins, then do this. ESV says against you. I am not a scholar, but the words are there in Greek that are translated "against you". NASB is a noteworthy translation that omits them. If the words against you are there, and the you is singular, then this would seem to be about disputes with other church members personally. NOT about drinking, smoking, and carrying on. Those would seem to be a different matter.
2022 - I think - this year I think - this is about interpersonal conflict. I think what is in view are things like a brother selling you a car with a bum transmission that he knew about. Perhaps a brother you beat out for a promotion at work starts telling lies about you and trashing your reputation before non-believers. Maybe he gets angry at you and gives you a black eye and is unrepentant about it. I think these are the sorts of transgressions in view in this passage. This is not about the lady across the aisle who's dress is too short, too tight, too low cut. That is a whole church matter, that is a deacon/elder matter. That is not what this discipline passage is about. This is about not allowing those who cheat their brothers, who lie about their brothers, who perhaps out and out steal from their brothers, or who sleep with their brother's wife, to remain in the church if they are unrepentant about their actions. Such people will continually nurture discord and disharmony within the church. This cannot be allowed to continue. They might still be saved, but they cannot remain if they behave this way.
Possible FB post, using Mt 18:15 cf as the verse.
2025 - In fact, it seems odd that Jesus would be talking about church discipline here, before there are any churches. There are only synagogues at this point. He did, previously to this chapter, tell Peter that he is the rock on which the church "will be" built. That was in Matt 16:18, before the transfiguration. That declaration by Jesus comes after he's asked his disciples who others say he is, and then who they say he is. Peter gets it right. Then there is the whole "what rock do we really mean", that Peter is special or that Christ the Messiah is the rock on which the church is built - as opposed to the synagogue? In any case, Jesus had used that word "ekklesia" before. So Jesus has foreshadowed the rise of the church. It is possible that he is now telling them how the church is to operate. Contextually, we can't really get there though. We have to remember that Matthew is not overly chronological, and may have decided for some reason that this was a good place to insert this information. And it does make a little sense that way...because we talked about those who put stumbling blocks in front of children, and then we talked about sheep that get entirely lost, and then we have a procedure for reconciliation when we are offended by a brother. Topically, it does work. I had never seen that before...
And then it goes on to forgiveness of a brother. This fits right into the previous progression in that even if a brother who offends us does not repent, we are STILL to forgive that brother, though he be thrown out of the church, not because he's earned it, but because we were forgiven by God, when we certainly had not earned it.
2025 - And based n the above 2025 note, all of Matthew 18 finally settles into an easily understandable context, a rhythm, that makes perfect sense. What a nice morning this has been.
2020-Where Mt 18:18 talks about "binding on earth...", MSB refers back to a note on Mt. 16:19 that used similar language. In 16 MSB talks about "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" referring to authority granted to Peter - and by extension to all other believers - to declare what is bound or loosed in heaven. So MSB ties 16 and 18 together as being about church discipline - and 18 certainly is, and the exact same phrasing about binding and loosing is found in Jesus' words to Peter as are found in 18 when Jesus is talking to all the disciples attending. So to appropriate these words to Peter as giving him some exclusive authority is going too far Perhaps he did become the nominal spokesperson for the 12, and in that had some additional authority, but church authority belongs to the church, or even to any gathering of "2 or 3" in Jesus' name. Now this isn't to say that these tiny groups will get it right every time. Going on with the MSB note on 16:19, In connection with discipline of those within the church, any duly constituted body has the authority to act according to God's own word, as found in scripture ONLY!!!!, to determine if a believers specific sin will be forgiven or unforgiven. Well...specific sins unforgiven to believers does not ring true at all. So...expanding that, if a member of the church falls into sin, resists repeated attempts at discipline, and persists in that sin, it is within the authority of the church to declare that person lost, never saved. If the church is in accordance with God's word when they say that, then they are simply agreeing with what is already the case the heaven. Same for forgiveness of a very grave sin repented of. If the church determines it should be forgiven because it has been put away, then that agrees with what is determined in heaven. This seems like it would subject to a charge of double talk - the interpretation I mean, not the scripture. There would be much to study here. In at least these two places - Mt. 16 and 18 - the church is given what appears to be significant authority in the determination of a persons forgiveness. Christ died for all sins - or if you are Calvinist - for the sins of all believers. How then could the church decide that this believer right here who has left the church and is running amok as a drug dealer - and who has shunned church discipline - should not get into heaven? And then the church can declare that sin - that ongoing practice of sin - unforgiven, and in essence say that person is not saved. For a Calvinist, they are saying he was never saved because if he had been he couldn't lose that. Nor would he be forever trapped in this sin of his. This would indeed be a matter for the church to determine, and I don't know how you'd even go about it. But I suspect that a lot of modern churches refuse to do this, and that many problems are the result. The church discipline in 18 seems to be on a lesser basis than what is in 16...but they use the same words, so maybe not. I am sure there is a lot of Roman Catholic Doctrine right in here.
2021 - Extending the 2020 note just before this, perhaps this is the place where sins against the church are addressed. First, we talk about how to handle it when a brother in the church sins against us. But then, with this binding and loosing, we are talking about the ultimate power of church discipline. It would apply to unrepentant brother against brother sins, but at the time of church discipline, the church itself could declare that it is a sin that evidences a lack of salvation. And if the church does this, and properly, then it is the same as what is done in heaven. It gets pretty dicey here. I can see most anybody being hesitant to declare a church member a lost person. But that is what this is about I think. And especially so if you look back at 16.
2022 - This verse:
"20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."" [Mat 18:20 ESV]
This appears to be one of those verses that is constantly and repeatedly used out of context and given a meaning that it does not have. This is not about how many people it takes to have "church". Not even close. This is about church discipline, and the power of two or three church members to discipline a brother - to excommunicate a brother. If two or three agree that it is necessary to excommunicate - and the whole church backs them - then their "binding" of the one disciplined is supported by God in heaven, and He will act also to discipline that brother. This says what the church pronounces as sentence, God will execute. It is about what happens on earth, not what happens in heaven.
Possible follow-up post to Mt. 18:15.
Peter asks how often he should forgive. He asks this right after the church discipline lesson, which MSB tied back to Mt 16, and Jesus's telling Peter he was the rock upon... Jesus tells the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant. Here is the summary verse, and it should bring us all up short:
35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart." [Mat 18:35 ESV] The master put the "forgiven" servant into prison. Though the debt had been forgiven, the treatment of others by the one forgiven got him re-evaluated. He was imprisoned until the debt was paid. Perhaps forever, since the amount was so large. MSB notes that he was given to the torturers - NOT the executioners. Severe discipline, not final condemnation. This is not about salvation, but about not forgiving others as we want God to forgive us. Ahh...MSB note says that the debt had been forgiven, and no longer existed. What was owed now was penance for the unforgiving spirit of this servant toward his fellow servants. Chastening is in view, and would continue until a change of attitude. Makes much more sense....or not. See next from 2020.
2020-Again, subject to a charge of double talk by the interpreter of the parable. It says, in so many words, that he was delivered to the jailers "until he should pay for all his debts". Isn't it a bit of a stretch to believe that Jesus was no longer talking about that big debt? We have been talking about church discipline, and now personal forgiveness of those who owe us. Owe us money only? Or also who have offended us to the point where we have a hard time overlooking what they've done to us? And the punishment here is because the servant would not forgive as he had been forgiven, and because of that, he gets "tortured" until he gets better. So...saved people with forgiveness problems have to stay in some kind of "purgatory" in heaven until their attitudes are properly adjusted for entry into heaven? Is this where the Catholics get that? I'd never much thought about this parable before because on the surface it seems pretty simple. Forgive as you are forgiven. But today's reading says it is way more complicated than that. So is this parable an amplification of the kind of standard the church should enforce? It was the other servants - other church members - that reported the behavior of the forgiven but unforgiving servant to the master. They "bound him on earth" and declared him unforgiven. So that fits with what went before. Can the debt of sin ever be paid except by Christ? No. Was any sin of believers "unpaid" by Christ? No. So because the debt was so large, the implication was that this sin in the servant could not ever be paid back - in human terms. Likewise in heaven, unforgiven sin can never be "paid for", even with an eternity of torture. The sin against a perfect God is of such proportion that it's punishment must match. And that is forever. So this seems to be better...I wonder if I went back and looked at the material before and after each parable if they would all take on a context I'd not really seen before, and drive their principle teaching home even more memorably.
2021 - This parable, I believe, is to drive home the lesson of church discipline, especially as to the binding and loosing on earth. That King who forgave the unpayable debt believed he saw true repentance. That King represents the church, not God. The church welcomed this pretty horrible sinner into the church. After doing so, it was reported that the sinner was in fact not behaving at all like a repentant believer, but like an outsider. His behavior was reported to the church. Upon learning that in fact, this repentant sinner was not much changed at all from his former state, the church takes action. Perhaps the "torture" of being put out of the church and thrust back into a sinful life will bring about the needed change. Perhaps even to the point where this sinner will forgive a brother of his debt, or give him more time to pay it back. This would signal true repentance - or at least get an audience with the King for a re-evaluation. And if there was no repentance, then the "putting out" and the "delivering to the torturers" would in fact agree with heaven. The church must judge the behavior of its members. Difficult as that may seem, it is required. It keeps the church purer, and it keeps diabolical influence out of the church.
2022 - It might be tempting to say that since this started, way back in vs 15, with "If your brother offends you", and now Jesus says forgive them 70x7, that Jesus is negating everything he just said about church discipline. It cannot possibly mean that. Jesus does not contradict himself. So we must look deeper. One way to look at it is to understand that even if a brother does offend you, and you go through the process of church discipline, and that brother - perhaps a repeat offender - is excommunicated, you are not allowed to hold a grudge against them, nor will you be consulted about when or whether to later reinstate that brother's fellowship. You still cannot hate your brother, no matter how often the church disciplines him over his actions toward you. This is interpersonal conflict, resolved under the authority of the church. It is up to the church to decide, each time, whether the brother is truly repentant. The individual making the charge does not get to decide this.
So in the parable, the servant who begs forgiveness perhaps represents a brother excommunicated for something truly heinous, and now he says he's repented and wants to be brought back into fellowship. In the parable, the one offended is the King - the church - and it is the church that has the authority to bind or loose. Part of the point here - for Peter's benefit - is that all authority is in the church, not in the one who was originally offended.
This "reinstated" servant demonstrates for all to see that he was not in fact repentant. His actions are brought to the church, not by the poor guy that the servant has thrown into prison, but by his brothers. That is, the church disciplinary body - as represented in the parable by the king - still has authority to bind or loose. Perhaps this means that once you are subject to church discipline, from that point forward, you are subject directly to them, and not to the two or three witnesses anymore. The weight of making decisions about your "state of fellowship" are now permanently in the hands of the church. So in the parable, the "church" takes up the case again, in light of this evidence that they were too forgiving, and they reimpose a harsher penalty. BUT, the one this unrepentant had thrown into prison is not a part of that process, and is obligated to forgive even this one that ruined his life, and leave "vengeance", leave binding and loosing, to the church.
Possible third post in the series...
2026 - I still have a check, a rebellion, that this passage from 15 on is about church discipline at this time. The church starts on the day of Pentecost. I think it is a huge stretch to make this passage about church discipline.
2026 - The two or three witnesses are here. That is the OT Law, not new. That Law was abrogated at the crucifixion. And the binding and loosing? That is about the 12, not about the church.
2026 - And it is a huge stretch to say that two or three people constitute a church.
I think I have other notes on this passage that conclude it is not in fact about the church at all. I should find them and link them. (Tried using the Evernote AI and did not find really what I was looking for. I know it is here though.)