What Matthew 18 Means

This post is inspired by Richard Liantonio's post The Myth of Matthew 18. Those who know me personally, or have kept track of this blog through Twitter, know I have had to tackle the meaning of Matthew 18:15-17 much more than I ever imagined I would. Mister Liantonio's post was a refreshing read, and inspired me to tackle the subject of Matthew 18:15-17, and what it does and doesn't mean.

First, let's look at the three verses in question (all citations from Matthew 18 will be in purple):

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 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. 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." [Matthew 18:15-17; NASB]

Now, let's examine these three verses bit by bit.

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother." [v. 15]

Many not used to the NASB translation may notice that something appears missing from this verse; the traditional reading of the verse is "if your brother sins against you." These two words have been used by some people to try to argue that Matthew 18:15 is solely dealing with personal affronts, and hence people who hear a Christian has sinned against someone else should, in essence, "mind their own business." The reason for this difference between translations is that the words "against you" are actually a textual variant. The NET translation notes for this verse read:

The earliest and best witnesses lack “against you” after “if your brother sins.” It is quite possible that the shorter reading in these witnesses (א B, as well as 0281 f1 579 pc sa) occurred when scribes either intentionally changed the text (to make it more universal in application) or unintentionally changed the text (owing to the similar sound of the end of the verb ἁμαρτήσῃ [hamartēsē] and the prepositional phrase εἰς σέ [eis se]). However, if the mss were normally copied by sight rather than by sound, especially in the early centuries of Christianity, such an unintentional change is not as likely for these mss. And since scribes normally added material rather than deleted it for intentional changes, on balance, the shorter reading appears to be original. NA27 includes the words in brackets, indicating doubts as to their authenticity.

If "against you" is not to be considered part of the original manuscripts, then this signifies that this verse does not refer to a personal affront, and hence such a situation does not need to occur for us to confront a brother who sins. This also makes Matthew 18:15 perfectly in line with Galatians 6:1, where the apostle Paul writes "if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted."

If a brother is discovered or sin, or we somehow discover that a brother has sinned, we are told to "show him his fault in private." The Greek for "show him his fault" is literally in the Greek "go reprove him" (ὕπαγε ἔλεγξον αὐτὸν). The word for "reprove" is the same used by the apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 4:2; the general idea is that you should go and demonstrate the guilt of your brother. Obviously this should be done, as the apostle Paul said, "in a spirit of gentleness," hoping to bring the brother to repentance and not simply make them feel guilty for their transgressions (though, if they are truly repentant, guilt should be a definite part of it). The goal of this confrontation is that the brother "listens to you" - that is, he repents of his sins, confesses them, and seeks to show the fruits of this repentance.

Some have argued that there should be given "time to repent." However, this is nowhere in the passage, and tends to be argued simply to give the person an excuse to continue in sin.

We are told to do this "alone" (μόνου). Much has been attempted to be said and done about this single word, and so let's understand two things about it:

What this does mean is that we should do this reproving in private, to respect the dignity of our brother. We should not bring it out into the open, or before the entire church, simply at the drop of a hat, unless there is some immediate danger or concern for another person's life or well-being.

What this doesn't mean is that we are absolutely forbidden from seeking advice or help on this matter. The "alone" here (as Mister Liantonio rightfully points out) simply contrasts it with the reproof involving one or two more witnesses in verse 16 - it is about the confrontation itself, not the prayerful consideration leading up to the confrontation.

Let us say, for the sake of example, that someone sees one of their fellow church members at a restaurant with a woman not his wife. Maybe he doesn't feel comfortable confronting the individual, but he goes to a friend of the man and says, "Hey, could you talk to your friend? I've seen him in sin." In this case, the friend would be taking over the regulations of Matthew 18:15. He may also make it more anonymous, but ask some brothers, "Hey, I've seen someone at my church in sin - should I confront him?" It is perfectly possible to seek godly council and not enter into the realm of gossip.

Of course, gossip should be avoided. However, there is a difference between "I've seen so-and-so committing sin, what should I do?" and "Hey, have you heard about what so-and-so did?"

"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." [v. 16]

Verse 16 presumes that, after the private confrontation, the brother in Christ did not repent, and has stubbornly continued without repentance, or have even remained active in sin. At this point, the person doing the confronting takes one or two more people who are also aware of the brother's transgression.

The reference to the "mouth of two or three witnesses" is actually a citation from the Law (Deu 19:15). This is also, incidentally, the "two or three" Christ is referring to in v. 20, which is perhaps one of the most misused passages of scripture: Christ is not referring to church fellowship, but to church discipline.

"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." [v. 17]

Verse 17 assumes that the individual has not repented, even though he was confronted by two or three people on their sin. In this case, the person is brought forward to "the church." This suggests that the sin is to be handled in a local context, within the sinning individual's church, and by the church body.

The idea of being "as a Gentile and a tax collector" is that you should not associate with such a person on a high level (in the first century Jewish context, Gentiles were not allowed within the inner parts of the Temple, and tax collectors were considered among the very worst of sinners). Most would rightly assume that this means excommunication, or at the very least enacting some form of church discipline which removes from the individual the joy of fellowship.

The unfortunate situation nowadays is that many people are "lone wolf Christians," or do not attend a church for reasons outside their control, and hence have no primary authority to be disciplined by. Some things to consider:

First, if someone is a lone wolf Christian, then they are in violation of scripture's command to be a part of corporate worship (cf. Heb 10:25), and this suggests some deeper spiritual issues with the individual. I would put forward, if a person continues to willingly forsake fellowship even after it has been offered to them, and they are fully capable of engaging in fellowship, then this may be a sign that they are not truly converted, and in this case (but only in the most extreme scenario), the person may be already considered "as a Gentile and a tax collector."

Second, if the person has a legitimate reason they are not part of a fellowship of believers, then the solution will most likely be on a case-by-case basis, and at the discretion and conviction of those who are exhorting him to repent. Obviously, the ultimate goal would be that the person be brought to repent.

Stop abusing Matthew 18:20!

One of the most commonly misquoted verses of the Bible is, amazingly enough, a fairly harmless one:

For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. [Matthew 18:20]

Many people quote this in reference to the church. "Ah, see!" they declare, "Where two or three are gathered in His name, He is there! So He's here with us in this church!"

Let me first say this is simply an illogical assumption - God is there among us even if there's just one. God's presence and power is not dependent on numbers (otherwise Elijah would have been in trouble when facing the priests of Baal). Any way, can you imagine the following scenario taking place?

Christian: "Oh Lord, before I go to bed, I'd just like to pray..."
God: "Hold up a minute...how many are there praying with you?"
Christian: "Uh...just me."
God: "What? You can't get a friend or two to join you?"
Christian: "No, they're asleep already."
God: "Sorry. No go."

Now let me say this assumption also does not fit with the real context of the verse.

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 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. 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. 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. 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. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." [Matthew 18:15-20; emphasis mine]

The full context here is actually church judgment. The Law said that two or three witnesses were enough to testify against a person, and was enough (if the person was still unrepentant) for the church to start enacting discipline. Christ expands this ("Again I say to you...") regarding the agreement between two or more people. Then, finally comes verse 20, which so many people believe simply means church worship. In actuality, it is merely an extension of church discipline and decision-making. This is the significance of Christ's use of "two or three."

Many might think I'm just splitting hairs here, but Matthew 18:20 (like Revelation 3:20) is one of those verses that just gets so overused that I think people forget the immediate context. Pardon the ranting, and take care.

The Calling of Matthew

As Jesus went on from there, He saw a man called Matthew, sitting in the tax collector's booth; and He said to him, "Follow Me!" And he got up and followed Him. [Matthew 9:9]

Some time ago, a friend and I were having a Bible study over Skype, and, while going through the book of Matthew, came across this verse. I then asked my friend this question: "Was it Jesus who made Matthew follow Jesus, or was it Matthew who made Matthew follow Jesus?"

It's worth noting that the calling of Matthew is not merely an isolated incident, but one in a series of stories told by the evangelist through this section of his gospel. Within two chapters, we find: demons cast out of two men (Matt 8:28-34); a paralytic healed (Matt 9:1-8); Matthew called (Matt 9:9); a woman healed by touching Christ's cloak (Matt 9:20-22); the synagogue ruler's daughter raised (Matt 9:25-26); and two blind men healed (Matt 9:27-31).

Each of these incidents have one thing in common: at Christ's word, something instantaneously happened. His sovereignty was seen in all these events. Earlier in the gospel, a Roman centurion had been so self-assured of Christ's authority that he asked not for a display of healing but rather Christ's mere command for healing. He showed this great understanding with the words, "I also am a man under authority" (Matt 8:9) - not that he put himself on equal with Christ (his humility, further illustrated in Luke's account, affirms this), but rather that, as one with military authority, he fully grasped the reality of divine authority. Such authority was on full display for this generation.

That Matthew's conversion follows the story of the paralytic (as it does in the gospels of Mark and Luke) is most likely no idle thing. Christ had told the judgmental Pharisees that the healing was "so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt 9:6), and with but one command made the paralytic stand up and walk. In an instance Christ showed that He had authority over the forgiveness of sins of men and their physical conditions. He had command over the spiritual and physical, for just as He had command over the demoniacs he had commands over the crippled.

Then we come to Matthew, said to be "sitting in the tax collector's booth." The position of tax collector was infamous across first century Judea:

In Jesus' day, the Roman government collected several different taxes from the people of Palestine. Tolls for transporting goods by land or sea were collected by private tax collectors, who paid a fee to the Roman government for the right to assess these levies. The tax collectors made their profits by charging a higher toll than the law required. The licensed collectors often hired minor officials called publicans to do the actual work of collecting the tolls. The publicans extracted their own wages by charging a traction more than their employers required...Normally a publican charged 5 percent of the purchase price of normal trade items and up to 12.5 percent on luxury items...The Jews considered a tax collector's money to be unclean so they would never ask for change. If a Jewish man did not have the exact amount that the collector required, he borrowed from a friend. Jewish people despised the publicans as agents of the hated Roman Empire and the puppet Jewish king. Publicans were not allowed to testify in court, and they could not tithe their money to the temple...

Yet the Jews divided the tax collectors in two classes. First were the gabbai, who levied general agricultural taxes and census taxes from the people. The second group were the mokhsa, the officials who collected money from travelers. Most of the mokhsa were Jews, so they were despised as traitors to their own people. Matthew belonged to this class of tax collectors. [pg. 529-530; Packer, J.I., and M.C. Tenney, eds. Illustrated Manners and Customs of the Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980]

Christ found Matthew exactly as He had found Saul - that is, in the midst of his sin. Saul was on his way to exterminate Christians when Christ appeared to him, and Matthew was busily going about his horrible business when Christ appeared. Matthew Henry wrote regarding Christ's appearance to Matthew: "As Satan chooses to come, with his temptations, to those that are idle, so Christ chooses to come, with his calls, to those that are employed." Finding Matthew thus, Christ utters two words: "Follow me." The Greek word used here for "follow" (ἀκολούθει) is an imperative - in other words, it was a clear command. At this utterance, it is described (even by Matthew himself) that the disciple immediately "got up and followed Him." Matthew did what the rich young ruler (Luke 18:21-23) could not do: he gave up his profitable business and followed his Lord

Some have attempted to explain Matthew's conversion by stating that he knew Jesus before this incident. Others have said that there might have been some further discussion than this text implies. However, there is nothing to suggest in the text that Matthew intimately knew (outside of hearsay) our Lord, nor that anything developed more than what took place as recorded by all three synoptic accounts. Even the apostle John, who goes into far more detail about the life of many apostles previous to their calling, is noticeably just as silent about any previous interaction between Christ and Matthew. The only thing we do know is that Matthew was living a life that alienated him from believers of God and ethnic Jews in general. We also know that it was Christ who spoke first - had Christ not opened His lips, the future evangelist may have continued in his sin.

Matthew, within his own account, puts far less emphasis on himself and far more on Christ. Whereas Mark and Luke both refer to him by the more noble name of Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27), Matthew refers to himself as simply Matthew. Likewise, whereas Mark and Luke both account that it was Matthew's house which Christ ate at that day (Mark 2:15; Luke 5:29), Matthew keeps the owner of the house anonymous (Matt 9:10). Finally, whereas Mark and Luke place Matthew before Thomas (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15), Matthew not only puts Thomas first but includes the sin of which he was guilty. That is, he gives himself the title of "the tax collector" (Matt 10:3). Those who would seek to put an emphasis on Matthew forget the blessed apostle never even gives himself much credit. In fact, he placed his emphasis on only two things: the sin for which he was guilty, and the righteousness of Christ.

The immediate nature of Matthew's response, in fact, shows what could only be a divine pull. It was done without thought, consideration, or contention. The disciple literally discards what was a high paying job for a much more poverty stricken life with Christ. Matthew Henry argues: "The call was effectual, for he came at the call; he arose, and followed him immediately; neither denied, nor deferred his obedience." His conversion was so complete, in fact, that we find in the next verse Matthew's publican friends coming to his house to meet Christ. Many theologians (including John Chrysostom, Matthew Henry, John Gill, and Adam Clarke) believe these publicans to have been invited at the request of Matthew, who also wanted them to meet and possibly join with Christ. Matthew was, in many respects, the perfect convert: he humbled himself, glorified God, and sought to bring others to Christ. It was not a gradual conversion, nor one that happened over a long length of time after much debate and forceful words - it was instantaneous and complete.

We then come back to the question posed at the beginning of the post, which is who made Matthew get up and follow Jesus: Matthew or Jesus? We have already established that Matthew's calling was complete - likewise, we had established earlier that this is one in a chain of many stories in which Christ instantaneously heals people. The paralytic did not get up because he had been feeling better than morning and was on the verge of getting up himself when Christ gave him the command to rise and pick up his bed; he also walked away forgiven of his sins. Matthew Henry wrote on the similitude with the disciple's calling:

...the same divine, almighty power accompanied this word to convert Matthew, which attended that word (Matt 9:6), Arise and walk, to cure the man sick of the palsy. Note, A saving change is wrought in the soul by Christ as the Author, and his word as the means. His gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16). [from his commentary]

Christ ordered the demons out of the demoniacs, and it was done. Christ ordered the paralytic healed, and it was done. Christ ordered the dead girl to rise, and she rose. Likewise, Christ ordered Matthew to follow, and Matthew followed.

Those who would argue a synergistic approach must then ask themselves the question: was it possible, even with a one percent chance, of Matthew rejecting the call? Can we imagine for a moment, after Christ's words "Follow me," Matthew simply raising an eyebrow at the Savior and then continuing on with his work? What power, then, could such a Savior hold? What power could a Lord be said to have if that Lord could heal the sick and lame yet could not conquer the sinful heart of man? What power could a Conqueror of Sin be known by if He could not conquer one man's sins? John Gill wrote that Matthew's calling "was entirely owing to the free, sovereign, and distinguishing grace of Christ, and which was powerful and efficacious." John Calvin wrote that in Matthew "Christ intended to give a remarkable example, that we might know that his calling was not from man." Matthew had as much power to say "No" as the paralytic did to say "But Lord, I can't get up!"

When the rich young ruler had left, and the danger of attempting to enter the kingdom with earthly wealth was explained, the disciples had asked "Then who can be saved?" to which Christ replied: "The things that are impossible with people are possible with God" (Luke 18:26-27). The calling of Matthew was but one of many testaments of this fact in the Gospel story.

--------------------------------------

The image at the top of this post is a Photoshopped version of The Calling of Saint Matthew by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio.