Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 18:17
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 a heathen man and a publican.
17. tell it unto the church ] The word “church” (Grk. ekklesia) is found only here and ch. Mat 16:18 in the Gospels. In the former passage the reference to the Christian Church is undoubted. Here either (1) the assembly or congregation of the Jewish synagogue, or rather, (2) the ruling body of the synagogue (collegium presbyterorum, Schleusner) is meant. This must have been the sense of the word to those who were listening to Christ. But what was spoken of the Jewish Church was naturally soon applied to the Christian Church.
a heathen man and a publican ] Jesus, the friend of publicans and sinners, uses the phrase of His contemporaries. What Jesus says, Matthew the publican records.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Tell it to the church – See the notes at Mat 16:18. The church may here mean the whole assembly of believers, or it may mean those who are authorized to try such cases – the representatives of the church, or these who act for the church. In the Jewish synagogue there was a bench of elders before whom trials of this kind were brought. It was to be brought to the church in order that he might be admonished, entreated, and, if possible, reformed. This was, and is always to be, the first business in disciplining an offending brother.
But if he neglect to hear the church, let him be … – The Jews gave the name heathen or Gentile to all other nations but themselves. With them they had no religious contact or communion.
Publican – See the notes at Mat 5:47. Publicans were people of abandoned character, and the Jews would have no contact with them. The meaning of this is, cease to have religious contact with him, or to acknowledge him as a Christian brother. It does not mean that we should cease to show kindness to him and aid him in affliction or trial, for that is required toward all people; but it means that we should disown him as a Christian brother, and treat him as we do other people not connected with the church. This should not be done until all these steps are taken. This is the only way of kindness. This is the only way to preserve peace and purity in the church.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 17. 3. Tell it unto the Church] Lay the whole matter before the congregation of Christian believers, in that place of which he is a member, or before the minister and elders, as the representatives of the Church or assembly. If all this avail not, then,
Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.] To whom thou art, as a Christian, to owe earnest and persevering good will, and acts of kindness; but have no religious communion with him, till, if he have been convicted, he acknowledge his fault. Whosoever follows this threefold rule will seldom offend others, and never be offended himself. – Rev. J. WESLEY.
Reproving a brother who had sinned was a positive command under the law. See Le 19:17. And the Jews have a saying, that one of the causes of the ruin of their nation was, “No man reproved another.” On the word Church, See Clarke on Mt 16:28.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And if he shall neglect to hear them,…. The one or two, in conjunction with the offended person that shall hear the ease, and admonish and reprove; if he takes no notice of what they say to him, but remains stiff and impenitent, tell it unto the church: which some understand, of the , or “multitude”, before whom it was lawful to reprove, after such private methods had been taken: others, the political magistrates, or sanhedrim; who took cognizance of cases between one person and other, either by themselves, or messengers; and gave admonitions and reproofs, as to parents, when they did not provide for their families x, and to wives that were perverse, and provoked their husbands y, c. others, of the presbyters and governors of the Christian church others, of the church itself, and so the Ethiopic version renders it, “the house of Christians”; to which it is objected, that as yet a Christian church was not formed: but what were the twelve apostles of the Lamb? They were the great congregation and church, in the midst of which Christ sung praise to his Father: and since the whole of this advice, and these excellent rules are given to them, and they are spoken of in the next verse, as having the power of binding and loosing, they may well be thought to be meant here; and that the design of Christ is, to instruct them how to behave, in case of offence to one another; that the reproof should be first private, and if it did not succeed, to be made before one or two more; and if that did not do, the whole body was to be acquainted with it; and which rules hold good, and are to be observed by all Christian men and churches, in all ages: though no doubt but allusion is made to the Jewish customs, in rebuking before the multitude, or carrying of a private case, after all other means used were ineffectual, to the sanhedrim.
But if he neglect to hear the church: the advice they should give unto him, the reproof they should think proper for him, or the censure they should pass upon him,
let him be unto thee as an heathen man, and a publican. This is not a form of excommunication to be used among Christians, nor was there ever any such form among the Jews; nor could Heathens or publicans, especially such publicans as were Gentiles, be excommunicated, when they never were of the Jewish church.
“A religious person indeed, that becomes a collector of taxes, they first said, is to be driven from the society; but they afterwards said, all the time that he is a tax gatherer, they drive him from the society; but when he goes out of his office, lo! he is as a religious person z.”
But one that never was of a religious society, could not be driven out of it. And besides, this is given, not as a rule to the church, but as advice to the offended person, how to behave towards the offender: after he has come under the cognizance, reproof, and censure of the church, he is to look upon him as the Jews did one that disregarded both private reproof by a man’s self, and that which was in the presence of one or two more, , “a worthless friend”, or neighbour; as a Gentile, with whom the Jews had neither religious nor civil conversation; and a “publican”, or as Munster’s Hebrew Gospel reads it, “a notorious sinner”, as a publican was accounted: hence such are often joined together, and with whom the Jews might not eat, nor keep any friendly and familiar acquaintance: and so such that have been privately admonished and publicly rebuked, without success, their company is to be shunned, and intimate friendship with them to be avoided.
x Maimon Hilehot Ishot, c. 12. sect. 14. y Ib. c. 14. sect. 9. & Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora, pr. neg. 81. z T. Hieros. Demai, fol. 23. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Refuse to hear (). Like Isa 65:12. Many papyri examples for ignoring, disregarding, hearing without heeding, hearing aside (–), hearing amiss, overhearing (Mr 5:36).
The church ( ). The local body, not the general as in Mt 16:18 which see for discussion. The problem here is whether Jesus has in mind an actual body of believers already in existence or is speaking prophetically of the local churches that would be organized later (as in Acts). There are some who think that the Twelve Apostles constituted a local , a sort of moving church of preachers. That could only be true in essence as they were a band of ministers and not located in any one place. Bruce holds that they were “the nucleus” of a local church at any rate.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
C. ENLIST THE STRENGTH OF THE CONGREGATION (18:1720)
Mat. 18:17 And if he refuse to hear them, he has already failed a test that determines just how sincerely determined he is to remain with Christ and His people. He has not shown that humility and concern for his brethren that is absolutely essential to remain in the Kingdom. (Mat. 18:3-5) Regardless of how valid he considered his self-justifications, the appeals of his brethren should have outweighed them all, and now he needs to repent more than ever! Jesus assumes now that the offended brother (Mat. 18:15) and the witnesses (Mat. 18:16) are dealing with what any objective Christian observer would unquestionably call sin. Even if, earlier, the quarrel between the two had been a question of over-sensitiveness and trifles, the fact that one of them refused to bend to the loving efforts at reconciliation of his fellow Christians is evidence of deadly sin. (Jas. 3:17; He is not open to reason; Tit. 1:7 : he is self-willed, arrogant = 2Pe. 2:10) The root cause of the previous irritation has now been uncovered and what might have appeared on the surface to be a harmless fault has turned out to have roots deep in self-complacency and pride that cares more about itself than fellowship, reconciliation, the Church and Christ. From this standpoint, the procedure Jesus prescribes does deal with a problem of first importance, since the life of the individual sinner and the strength of the Church is at stake. If that brotherly love that holds ones Christian brethren dearer than ones own self is missing, there is an open wound that no amount of brotherly patience and forbearance can heal! Can this be left to fester untreated?
Tell it to the church. Here, for the second time in his book (cf. Mat. 16:18), Matthew uses the word church, which, because the Gospel containing this reference appeared after the establishment of Christs new fellowship, must refer to that and no other. Plummers objection (Matthew, 253) is plainly mistaken when he insists:
Evidently the Church here cannot mean the Christian Church which Christ intends to build (Mat. 16:18). It means the Jewish assembly, and probably the local assembly, the elders and a congregation of the synagogue in the place where the parties live . . . The directions here given are applicable to the Christian community, but, at the time, they must have been spoken of a community of Jews.
This forgets that the establishment of the Church of Christ was but a short half-year away. (See on Mat. 16:13; Mat. 16:18.) This fact, in the context of the hurried, busy ministry of the following six months, would have left little leisure for the settled kind of life in a Jewish community such an interpretation of these steps would require. Then, after the founding of the Church, there could be little or no application of this procedure to a community of Jews. If the Lord meant synagogue, why did He avoid using the word instead of church (ekklesip)? No, He speaks proleptically, by anticipation, i.e. representing the future fellowship as if it were even then a present reality. However, it would be mistaken to believe that Jesus words could have no immediate meaning for the Twelve or for other disciples, since they were thus given concrete practical direction for solving their quarrels even then as they grew in the immediate fellowship of Christian discipleship. Further, these words anticipatory to the establishment of Christs Church presumed its imminent realization, hence offered valid grounds for beginning to think and act in the manner prescribed.
1.
Tell it to the church, then, means that the fellowship of believers must hear the accusation, the evidence for it and the progressive attempts to rectify it. To enlarge the circle of those who know about the problem, even to the peripheral limits of the believing community, is not done with the intention of making an expos, but has the purpose of involving the full, persuasive power of the whole family of God. For the person who can be recovered, the fact that an increasing number of decent, godly friends are finding out about his sins, people whose good opinion he cherishes, now leaves him at the most critical moment of his entire spiritual life: can he fight the dearest, best friends he has, people who care enough about him to plead with him to abandon his self-justifications, and who obviously love him even though they all know all about his problem? This, admittedly, is powerful, public pressure, but absolutely essential, given the present state of the case. Shame is an appropriate motivation. (2Th. 3:14 f) But the fear of loss of fellowship can only be real and meaningful where he has felt the power and reality of good fellowship! If you have not been having fellowship with a brother, you cannot make him feel the loss of it through disfellowshipping!
2.
Tell it to the church implies that our personal problems are not to be dragged before the courts of the unbelievers. Legalistic, Christless argument cannot really solve the issues at stake, because pagans have nothing on their law books or in their procedures that can give the kind of sentence or settle the problems the way Jesus intends. (Study Pauls arguments in 1Co. 6:1-8!) It is only when we examine our problems in the light of Christian love, earnest prayer and heart-gripping appeal in the name of Christ, that there is any real hope of Christian solutions.
3.
The Church must act as a united group. (1Co. 5:4)
a.
The congregation must agree that the specific transgression in question is really wrong. There can be no division among the members if the leaders have taught Gods standards. No congregational agreement can ever be expected over matters of opinion. Unanimity is only possible among Christians where God has spoken and they know what He says and respect Him for it. (1Co. 5:11; 1Co. 5:13; Rom. 16:17-20; 2Th. 3:6-15; Tit. 3:8-11; Cf. 1Ti. 6:3-5; 1Ti. 5:19 f)
b.
Should objections arise to this disciplinary action because of the existence of other undisciplined folk in the congregation, then unity must be achieved by dealing honestly and Scripturally with those problems as well. They must never be left as protective cover for any sinners. (1Ti. 5:19-22)
c.
Hear the church means that the Church must speak, giving him directions for correcting himself and removing the scandal. This means that the Church will speak through its recognized leaders who act as spokesmen for the entire group, but the sinner must feel the entire weight of the congregation, for only the punishment by the majority is enough (2Co. 2:6; cf. 1Co. 5:4; When you are assembled.)
4.
The Church can continue to labor for his restoration even after excommunication.
a.
An excluded member is not to be considered an enemy but admonished as a brother, (2Th. 3:14 f) Total abandonment is out of the question for the Church that accepts the challenge to break his heart with a love that refuses to give up. At least, face the facts and hope for the best.
b.
There remains the corporate responsibility to reaffirm the Churchs love which the believers have never withdrawn even though their fellowship is denied him as punishment. (Cf. 2Co. 2:6-8; 2Co. 2:11) We are never ordered to hate pagans and outcasts among which he has taken up active membership by his attitude.
5.
The final court of appeal for the Christian is the congregation, the Church, whose immediate, personal contact with the erring member is felt most keenly, not because of its authority to enforce boycotts, but because of the immediacy and power of its persuasive personal love. Lenski (Matthew, 703) argues:
Those who would place above (the congregation) a still higher authority: the pope, a bishop, some church board, a house of bishops, or a synod composed of clerics, or those combined with lay delegates, go beyond the word of Christ and the teachings of the apostles . . . False greatness and authority have often been arrogated to themselves by high officials in the church who have robbed the congregations of their divine authority; and congregations have been remiss in exercising the Lords will; but that will stands as it is.
And if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican. If he willfully and perversely refuses to comply with what every one of his brethren considers right and reasonable, how can he be considered as belonging to this congregation? His obstinate attitude is divisive, separatist, dismembering, because he resists every try at dealing with the mini-schism separating him from one brother! Why should this virtual pagan contaminate the rest by his obstinate impenitence? (1Co. 5:6; Gal. 5:8-9) How can he be embraced further, when his whole demeanor is that of a heathen (Gentile) and an excommunicate (the publican)? From this standpoint, any action taken by the Church is but the formal recognition of the stand that he has taken by his blatantly willful refusals. This separation of the sinner from the congregation is the last resort of hearts broken over their failure to restore him. After all, doctors do not make their rounds of house calls planning amputations! They, and so must we, desire to heal the whole body.
Let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican. This sad sentence is the Lords verdict whereby the Church must exercise her authority to maintain herself divinely pure and demonstrate to everyone that she does not tolerate sin. (1Ti. 5:20 ff) He must be thought of and treated as having the identical relation of fellowship to the Church that those renegades and pagans had to the Jewish community, i.e. none! If Gentiles were not considered the people of God, and if publicans are not the sort of people one hobnobbed with, let him be so to you.
If this decree sounds merciless, let the impenitent brothers mercilessness be seen for the injustice IT is. He tenaciously clutches his yellowed reasons for not giving in, justifying himself to the bitter end. Why should the Lords Church show him an unjust pity, when the Lord Himself has here condemned him? Further, He will condemn him even more severely for his mercilessness. (Mat. 18:23-35) Lastly, when he flagrantly disobeys Jesus order to go and be reconciled with (his) brother who has something against him, how can he escape the punishment of paying the last penny? (Mat. 5:23-26) When people continue sinning by repeated ingratitude, constant deceit and flagrant dishonesty, they make the kind of fellowship and affection that Jesus has in mind not only impossible, but unjustifiable. Could Jesus maintain arm-in-arm fellowship with the scribes and Pharisees who blocked the Kingdom of God to others and refused to enter themselves? Could He be the affectionate companion to the wily Herod or the greedy Caiaphas? Even so, this severe sentence has as its goal the salvation of the person excommunicated. (1Co. 5:5; 1Ti. 1:20; 1Pe. 4:6) In fact, the moment he is outside the shadow and shelter of the Church fellowship, he becomes a person to bring to the Lord with whom alone he can find unbelievable grace and total forgiveness. The hope is slight (Heb. 6:4-6), but it is there. Consider these classic words by Bruce (Training, 204f):
The words . . . also plainly show that Christ desired His church on earth, as nearly as possible, to resemble the church in heaven: to be holy in her membership, and not an indiscriminate congregation of righteous men and unrighteous men, of believers and infidels, of Christians and reprobates . . . Such rigour, pitiless in appearance, is really merciful to all parties. It is merciful to the faithful members of the church, because it removes from their midst a mortifying limb, whose presence imperils the life of the whole body. Scandalous open sin cannot be tolerated in any society without general demoralization ensuing; least of all in the church, which is a society whose very raison dtre (justification for existence) is the culture of Christian virtue. But the apparently pitiless rigour is mercy even towards the unfaithful who are the subjects thereof. For to keep scandalous offenders inside the communion of the church is to do your best to damn their souls, and to exclude them ultimately from heaven. On the other hand, to deliver them to Satan may be, and it is to be hoped will be, but giving them a foretaste of hell that they may be saved from hell-fire for ever . . . It is this hope which comforts those on whom the disagreeable task of enforcing church censures falls in the discharge of their painful duty. They can cast forth evildoers from the communion of the saints with less hesitation, when they know that as publicans and sinners the excommunicated are nearer the kingdom of God than they were as church members, and when they consider that they are still permitted to seek the good of the ungodly, as Christ sought the good of all the outcasts of His day; that it is still in their power to pray for them, and to preach to them . . . though they may not put into their unholy hands the symbols of the Saviours body and blood.
Since Christs intention behind every part of this discourse is to anticipate and guarantee Himself a fellowship of believers that would be worthy of His name because of their holiness, love and unity, He rightly demands that we never tolerate any circumstance in which a break-down in personal relationships exists in the Christian community. This is why the aforementioned procedure is the only way to deal with our fellow disciples. Can there be any other right way to treat them, when the Prince of Peace Himself reveals this one as perfectly suited to encourage peace and unity in His body?
1. THE SPECIAL WEIGHT OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF COMMON BELIEVERS (18:18)
Mat. 18:18 What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be lossed in heaven. (See fuller notes at Mat. 16:19.) This majestic declaration affirms simply that God Himself will recognize Church decisions rightly taken! Why this should be true for the lowly congregation becomes apparent when its action to expel the impenitent member is seen as an act of faith. Since God has indicated His will in His Word, faith is discerning what God plans to do about a particular situation on the basis of what He said, and then playing ones own part in conformity with it. This avoids presumption, because the Church on earth lets God tell her what He intends to do in a given situation. Thus, Jesus gives the Church the go-ahead to act with confidence, aware that God will be faithful to the commitment expressed in His Word. We may be sure that this is the proper meaning for the following reasons:
1.
Ye shall bind: mark that plural, for all the Apostles are in it. (Mar. 9:35) Here Jesus repeats, but this time addressing it to all, what He had already affirmed to Peter. (Mat. 16:19) But, let it be said, He takes nothing away from that Apostle to give it here to all, since, as we noticed at that text, what was said to Peter was addressed to him as typical Christian. Consequently, what is here guaranteed for all the Apostles is but the normal, expected outworking of what had been affirmed of that model believer. There (in Mat. 16:19) He was working with the first model Church member; here (in Mat. 18:18) He deals with twelve of them.
2.
Ye, while indisputably referring to the Twelve present, listening to Jesus discourse, means all the body of His disciples. (Mat. 18:1 says that his disciples raised the problem which evoked this discourse. Moreover, Matthews purpose seems to be to underline the typical discipleship of the Apostles by avoiding the word apostle except in Mat. 10:2. So this ye is addressed to disciples.) In fact, the Twelve and a few hundred hardy souls were all the Church He then possessed. Pentecost would begin to correct this, but until that time came He spoke to the only people He had. The point is that He is not conferring on the Apostles powers so exclusive that the whole Church can in no sense participate in them.
3.
Binding and loosing, as noted in the fuller notes at Mat. 16:19, refers to the Churchs teaching responsibility to decide authoritatively on what is to be thought or done about a given case. This is true because THE APOSTLES BELONG TO THE CHURCH. Along with other helpers, Christ has given them to her for her complete outfitting. (Eph. 4:7-16) Through them AS PART OF THE CHURCH He revealed Gods will to the rest of the Church, (Joh. 14:26; Joh. 15:26 f; Joh. 16:13-15) So, only whereinsofar as she is guided by the Word of God given through the Apostles, the Church is really authorized to do or say ANYTHING. No one has any authority to speak for God on earth but what Christ has granted through His Holy Spirit. But since these very Apostolic directives are perfectly in accord with Gods will, their application by the Church is approved by Him and binding. It cannot be repeated too often or too vigorously: NO CHURCH CAN RIGHTLY CALL ITSELF APOSTOLIC THAT DOES NOT HUMBLY SUBMIT TO THE APOSTLES DOCTRINE AS THIS IS DOCUMENTED IN THEIR WRITINGS. BUT TO THE DEGREE THAT IT DOES, IT CAN! (See Notes on Mat. 10:19-20; Mat. 10:40.)
So there is a sense in which only Christs authorized, inspired spokesmen bind and loose. But these established once for all the guidelines whereby every single congregation of Christ can, without recourse to any other authority, bind and loose by specific application of the inspired doctrine to particular cases, and, Jesus says, God will back it up. It is in this sense that Morgan (Matthew, 234) is right to say:
That is the Churchs ethical authority in the world. The Church teaches the standard of morality, and what the Church says is binding, is binding; and what the Church says is not, is not. But that is only true when we link it with what followsthe Church gathering in the name of Christ.
Such authority, thus, is locally and congregationally expressed. (See on Mat. 18:19-20.)
From the foregoing it should be clear that it is not a question of the unanimous vote of the church determining Gods actions, but a following of Christs divine guidance in the midst of His Church that humbly seeks to discover what her Lord desires and then seeks Gods help to do what He asks. (Mat. 18:19-20) The actions of the body of believers then conform to Gods will only if they follow the pattern He has expressed authoritatively through His Apostles and prophets, and He is glad to recognize their decisions made on this basis. And why should He not? The Church is obeying Him!
Jesus obviously put this declaration here as a serious warning to that defiant sinner who refuses to bow to the Churchs exhortations and as comfort to anyone who abandons his sinful conduct. Nobody may have any further doubt that when they are dealing with a local body of Christians, they face final authority. They cannot hope to go over their heads and be tried by some higher or other court. The grave weight of an impartial decision of the local Christians is not something a genuine disciple would nonchalantly ignore or arrogantly disobey. In fact, this promise endows the act of excommunication with special solemnity for the believing fellowship and with ominous rumblings of eternal judgment for the offender. There is eternal consequence in the censure righteously administered by those responsible for the ejection of the impenitent. But, bless God, there is here a solid guarantee of divine mercy to those who bow to exhortations of the smallest congregation of Christs people.
The extension of such powers to all the Church is the more impressive in this context where Jesus is deliberately discussing greatness and rank in the Kingdom. This fact implies, therefore, that Peter the man had no ecclesiastical supremacy or exclusive right to govern the Church any more than they all.
2. THE SPECIAL POWER OF THE COMMON PRAYER OF COMMON BELIEVERS (18:19)
Mat. 18:19 If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father who is in heaven. Why two of you? Because two is the least possible number of people required to create a fellowship of any sort.
What will be the special application of this declaration to the problem of marriage where two people are to agree on earth? (See on Mat. 19:3-12.)
Christians are people in fellowship together, and seek to agree on Gods will together. Autonomy, independence and individualism are the ultimate heresies. (Rom. 14:17; 2Co. 5:15; 1Th. 5:11; 1Co. 12:21; 2Co. 3:4-5) The two of you could be those two brethren who earlier (Mat. 18:15) were at odds with each other, but now, restored to fellowship and agreement, unite in prayer to God. They have the assurance of being heard about whatever else they request because they have honestly sought to obey God in what for them might have been the hardest question of their life, i.e. repentance and restitution, forgiveness and restored harmony with a brother. (Mat. 6:12; Mat. 6:14 f; cf. 1Pe. 3:7, that your prayers be not hindered . . .) And if the smallest possible congregation is sure of Gods audience, certainly the united prayers of a larger congregation are certain to be heard. This is critical, because the more authority Christ gives to His community (Mat. 18:18), the more imperative it is that the brethren seek His guidance and depend upon His instructions and act responsibly as in the presence of Christ. (Mat. 18:20; 2Co. 2:17; 2Co. 12:19; 2Ti. 4:1) This stands in counterpoint to the faithlessness and failure evident earlier due to prayerlessness. (Mat. 17:17; Mat. 17:19-21; Mar. 9:29)
If two of you shall agree. Jesus is addressing disciples caught in the tawdry parade of self-importance that disparaged others importance and usefulness to God. In this connection, then, He is flailing their jealous disputing: So long as you agree to disagree, you will be powerless. God cannot take your prayers seriously, because to answer your prayers, He must frustrate others, while to give ear to someone else would leave you disappointed. For the prayers of one to succeed, God must necessarily work the downfall of another of His children. No, you must wipe out your own selfish individualism, come to agreement among yourselves before praying. An egotistic focusing on your own personal ambitions and necessities pretends that the world be arranged for you personally. Prayer, to be effective, must be with a sense of belonging to a fellowship, as members of a community and for the Church as a whole. So, if you agree in heart and mind, Gods power will be yours! Remember how Jesus prayer for the unity of His disciples (John 17) contrasted with the Twelves feud about precedence (Luk. 22:24-27) and called for the lesson on humility (footwashing, Joh. 13:1-17) The agreement intended cannot refer to perfect unanimity on matters of opinion, otherwise we would never pray successfully. Christians, rather, must consent on the goals they pray for and be united in altruistic dedication to reach them. (1Co. 1:10) Two . . . on earth stands in contrast to Father . . . in heaven. The omnipotence of the Almighty stands ready to meet the many needs of His people. On earth jogs our memory to recall that we are dependent in this earthly condition and that we need each other for mutual help, as much as we need Him and His heavenly power.
Anything that they shall ask, it shall be done. In this apparently blank-check promise, it is understood that what these agree to pray for together will be what God desires according to His expressions of His will in His Word. (Cf. 1Jn. 5:14 f; Mat. 26:39; Mat. 26:42) In fact, unless these two permit themselves to be guided by Gods Spirit, even close agreement on spiritual matters would be impossible anyway. Naturally, their request must harmonize with other conditions of acceptable prayer. (Jas. 1:5-8; Jas. 4:3; Jas. 5:16-18) Since Christians agreement in prayer grows out of their meeting together in His name (Mat. 18:20), it is clear that they pray in His name, consequently depending upon His intercession on their behalf.
3. THE SPECIAL HONOR OF THE COMMON MEETING OF COMMON BELIEVERS (18:20)
Mat. 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. For introduces the explanation why harmonious praying is so effective: Jesus Himself will be present and personally interested! It also explains why what the believing fellowship binds or looses on earth shall also be recognized by God: Jesus Himself acts with His people as they obey His directives, seeking the blessing of His presence and help. Gathered together in my name means gathered and thinking of me, i.e. so that I am the reason for their assembling. (Arndt-Gingrich, 575)
Two or threethink of that! Greatness in the Kingdom is not measured by the strength of numbers. The Lord has always taken particular delight in using a mere handful of dedicated, usually insignificant people to accomplish an incredible amount of good. (Jer. 9:23 f; Psa. 8:2)
1.
Moses, that herdsman from the backside of the desert, with a shepherds rod routed the might of Egypt and freed a nation of slaves. (Exodus 1-15)
2.
Israel, with the blowing of rams horns made fortified enemy cities collapse. (Joshua 6) Thus, one nation began the conquest of many nations mightier than they. (Deu. 4:37 ff)
3.
Gideon, with but 300 men armed with torches and jars, defeated unbelievable hordes of enemies in one battle. (Judges 7, 8)
4.
Samson with an asss jawbone slew a thousand men. (Judges 15)
5.
The stripling David, with sling and stone, felled the proud Goliath. (1 Samuel 17, esp. 1Sa. 17:46-47)
6.
The intrepid Jonathan and his armor-bearer pushed to the attack and started a rout that ended in victory for Israel. (Contrast 1Sa. 14:6 with Mat. 13:7; Mat. 13:16; Mat. 13:22!)
7.
Elijah alone, by prayer, brought on an economic crisis, humbled the king, then challenged 850 prophet-priests that had led Gods people into apostacy and won when fire fell from heaven. (1 Kings 17, 18)
8.
Hezekiah, despite crippling psychological warfare and certain defeat threatening, defended Jerusalem with prayer! (Isaiah 36, 37)
9.
The 120 praying disciples (Act. 1:12-14) and the 3,000 (Acts 2) were but a handful facing Jewish bigotry and all the powers of paganism, but the events of all later centuries have justified their faith.
However, as in these classic cases in the history of Israel, so in the Church, the greatness is not in the minimal number per se, as if God has some partiality for meagerness. Rather, the minimum is His choice to show that the battle is the Lords, and that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us. (2Co. 4:7) Two or three united with the Lord are already a majority! It may have been to teach them this, that Jesus sent out His disciples two by two. (Luk. 10:1; Mar. 6:7) What victories they had too!
The two or three gathered together must be in agreement. (Mat. 18:19) The spiritual strength of two or three united in purpose is greater than twelve or many thousands sundered by infighting and jealousies. It is the unity around Christ that assures us of His presence and direction. The actual number of believers met together is of no consequence, since Jesus purpose here is to underline in the most emphatic way possible the significance of brotherly love, understanding and unity, for if the two or three, united around Jesus, be mighty, then of what would legions of Christians be capable? Jesus is not interested in small numbers due to lack of love and a breakdown in understanding, but in humble harmony and mutual love living in the highest number possible.
Grandeur in the Kingdom does not depend upon the mass assembly of all of Gods people in one place for a show of power. The electrifying psychological effect that can be generated in mass rallies is not essential for Jesus disciples to experience the power of Christ at work among them. No more pilgrimages to Jerusalem to be able to savor the presence of God. Here is His grand concept of the new temple of God. As Morgan (Matthew, 233) portrays it.
How spacious and gracious and wonderful it is! First of all it breaks down all idea of localized meeting place with God. We have gained a temple everywhere by the loss of the temple in a locality. Mark the significance of it. It is not the temple that makes the place of worship, but the gathering in my name.
Gone are the yearly feasts when obligatory worship gathered halfhearted millions at an earthly worship-center. Without being opposed to mass assemblies, Jesus upgrades even the smallest of them. Unlike those who put forth their finest only on certain grand occasions, Jesus esteems even the minimum number of followers met in His honor to be a festal assembly, and He pours all the fulness and grandeur of Himself into it!
Nor is importance and usefulness to God based on being among the chosen few in the upper echelons or the elite at the top of the pile, because where just a handful of disciples, however humble and unknown, meet in Jesus name, the Lord Himself considers them important enough to concern Himself personally with THEM! The insignificance of the tiniest group is no objection to Him. Here is the little ones theme again. (Mat. 18:3-6; Mat. 18:10; Mat. 18:14) So far from despising or ignoring them, He honors every assembly, enriching it with His gracious power to bestow authority and effectiveness upon all they undertake for His sake. (Rev. 1:13; Eph. 1:23) He is still serving the least and the weakest to make them mighty! In fact, concentrated in them is now something more than their collective human strength. There is all the concentrated might of God in Christ who dwells in their hearts by faith. (Eph. 1:19; Eph. 3:16-21; Eph. 6:10 ff) But notice that the incisive influence and invincible authority of Christ invested in His Church is not entrusted to a hierarchy, nor to a tightly organized and neatly structured body. Rather, all the power of the living Christ is in every single cluster of believers wherever in the world they are met together to worship and serve Him.
Notice how positively Jesus ends this section on corrective discipline: the goal to be sought is every member united with each other and with Christ in the midst. But the unity with Christ is the supreme issue, not the formation of a mutual admiration society without Him. Any ecumenicity satisfied with a false emphasis on great numbers of partially converted people is here rebuked by the Lord who can be found in the smallest assembly of two or three genuinely dedicated to Him!
The disciples who originally heard this statement must have been puzzled over the physical contradiction this promise entails: How can Jesus be physically present in so many scattered groups, however small, united for prayer in His name? If logically followed through, such a presence would imply physical absence in all but one of the places on earth where He would be physically present with His disciples. Otherwise, His presence, if really taken seriously, must be spiritual. Their minds would be jarred to learn of His physical absence before they understood the meaning, purpose and wisdom of the ascension. However, during the Last Supper discourses, He would explain how He intended to be in the midst of them for that period in which He would be physically absent from the world. (Study John 14-17.) After the coming of the Holy Spirit, therefore, the Apostles must have drawn great comfort from these words which, in retrospect, sounded so much like the great Scriptural assurances of Javh in the midst of His people to bless, console, direct and protect them. (See Gen. 28:15; Deu. 31:6; Jos. 1:5; Jdg. 6:15 f; Jdg. 7:7; Psa. 20:7; Psa. 46:5; Isa. 1:9; Isa. 7:14; Isa. 8:10; Isa. 12:6; Jer. 14:9; Hos. 11:9; Zep. 3:5; Zep. 3:12; Zep. 3:15; Zep. 3:17; Zec. 2:10) Despite the smallness or weakness of Gods people, despite their being despised as insignificant by the world, God had promised to be really, however spiritually, present in their midst. (See also Mat. 18:10; Luk. 12:32.) The disciples would therefore experience what it means to believe Jesus to be EmmanuelGod with us! (Mat. 1:23; Isa. 7:14) Barnes (Matthew-Mark, 188) senses the global implications of this:
Nothing could more clearly prove that Jesus must be omnipresent, and, of course, be God. Every day, perhaps every hour, two or three, or many more, may be assembled in every city or village . . . in almost every part of the worldand in the midst of them all is Jesus the Saviour. Millions thus at the same time, in every quarter of the globe, worship in His name, and experience the truth of the promise that He is present with them. It is impossible that He should be in all these places and not be God.
See Mat. 18:22-35 for Fact Questions.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(17) If he shall neglect to hear them.Better, refuse, the word implying something more than mere negligence.
Tell it unto the church.Here, and here only in our Lords teaching after the promise to Peter (Mat. 16:18), we have the word Ecclesia repeated. The passage takes its place among the most conspicuous instances of the power of a word. Theories of church authority, as exercised by the priesthood, or bishops, or councils, or the personal infallibility of the Bishop of Rome, have been built upon it. The last clause has been made the groundwork of the system of church discipline which loads the heretic with anathemas, excommunicates the evil-doer, places nations under an interdict. It can scarcely be doubted that the current thoughts and language of Englishmen as to ecclesiastical discipline would have been very different, if instead of tell it unto the church, if he neglect to hear the church, we had had the word congregation. And yet this, or some such word (say assembly or society), is confessedly the true meaning of the Greek, and was the rendering of all the English versions, from Tyndale onwards, till the Rhemish translators introduced church, and were followed by the Authorised version.
So understood, the words point to the final measures for the reformation of the offender, and the vindication of the divine law of righteousness. When the two forms of private remonstrance have failed, the case is to be brought before the society at large. The appeal is to be made not to the rulers of the congregation, but to the congregation itself, and the public opinion of the Ecclesia is to be brought to bear upon the offender. Should he defy that opinion and persist in his evil doing, he practically excommunicates himself. All societies are justified in excluding from their communion one who repudiates the very conditions of membership; and his being regarded as a heathen and a publican is but the legitimate consequence of his own act. Even here, however, we can hardly think of our Lord as holding up the Pharisees way of acting towards the heathen and the publican as a pattern for imitation. They were to be made to feel that they were no longer within the inner circle of brotherhood, but they were still men, and, as such, entitled to courtesy and all kindly offices. St. Pauls teaching as to the treatment of the incestuous adulterer in 1Co. 5:1-5, 2Co. 2:6-7, and of fornicators generally in 1Co. 6:1-7, may be referred to as a practical illustration of the meaning of our Lords words.
It is obvious that the rule, as such, presupposes a small society, in the midst of a greater outside world, able to deal thus minutely with the offences of individual members. With the extension of the society, so that the church and the world became conterminous and hardly distinguishable, it was natural, perhaps, that it should follow the course of other human societies, and transfer its jurisdiction from the congregation, or assembly, to individual judges as its representatives. And so it was that, in the long-run, the bishops took the place of the congregation, and exercised its functions. So long as they were really in harmony with the mind of the church at large, this might work well enough, but there was the risk of their lording it over Gods heritage (1Pe. 5:3); and, in any case, there was the loss of that activity of the reason and conscience of the society which the original form of polity implied, and of which St. Pauls appeal to its judgment as against the inconsistency of the chief of the Apostles, is a very striking instance (Gal. 2:11). How far that can be revived is one of the hard questions of our own time and, perhaps, of all times. The end may have to be attained by very different means. We cannot inform the Universal or the National Church of the misdeeds of each individual member. Practically, to submit them formally to the judgments even of the smaller society of the town or village to which the offender belonged, would not be workable. Possibly, the solution of the problem may be found in remembering that in a Christian nation the Church and the State, as far as morality is concerned, tend, in spite of doctrinal divisions, to be, as was said, conterminous, and hence that we are fulfilling the spirit of our Lords commands when, after all private remonstrances have failed to check the evil, we appeal to the public opinion of Christians in the neighbourhood, larger and smaller, which is affected by it. How this is to be done will vary with the varying circumstances of each individual case, but it is no idle paradox to say that as society is now constituted, the most effective way of telling the church may sometimes be to appeal to that public opinion as represented by lawful courts, or otherwise impartially expressed.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
“And if he refuse to listen to them, tell it to the congregation (ekklesia – church). And if he refuses to listen to the congregation also, let him be to you as the Gentile and the public servant.”
But if the charge is proved and the matter is serious, and the disciple refuses to listen, then the next step is to bring the matter before the whole ‘congregation’, the gathering of all believing disciples (or of all in one vicinity, as with a synagogue). ‘The congregation’ was the description given in the Old Testament to the gathering of all mature, male members of Israel. It represented the whole of Israel. Thus here Jesus has in mind the new Israel, seen as one. Later, of course, this would be divided up into individual churches, but that was not so here, although a limited local group might have been in mind. The gathering here would overall be of all those genuinely recognised as disciples.
And if the sin is accepted to be so by the whole congregation, and the guilty disciple refuses to listen to them and turn from his sin, then he is to be treated as though he were no longer a member of ‘the congregation’. He is to be seen as a non-disciple. He is to be treated as an outsider, in a similar way to an ‘unbelieving’ Gentile or public servant, both of whom would as such be excluded from the congregation of Israel. (This description demonstrates the strong Jewish background of the words). He is to be seen as no longer ‘of us’ (1Jn 2:19).
The ‘you’ is singular, but the question arises as to whether it means the original ‘accuser’ (Mat 18:15) or the whole congregation. Possibly it in fact means the accuser as representing the whole congregation, or alternatively we might translate ‘let him be to each one of you as –’.
We should note that this is not signifying the rejection of the sinner from the possibility of the mercy of God. The attitude of the congregation towards both Gentiles and public servants was to be one of love, together with a longing to bring them to Christ. But both of these were examples of those who were least likely to obey God (compare Mat 5:46-47), The point is simply that the one who continues in sin is no longer to be seen as ‘one of the congregation’. He is now seen as an ‘outsider’, for he is no longer a true witness. The blot on the fellowship has to be removed (compare Act 5:1-11 for a drastic example). It does not necessarily refer to official excommunication. It rather represents an attitude to be taken up towards him so as hopefully to bring him to his senses. In a similar way exclusion from the synagogue for a period was a punishment carried out by the Jews for recalcitrant sinners, which could become permanent if the sinner still refused to repent.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 18:17 . ] is not to be understood of the Jewish synagogue (Beza, Calvin, Fritzsche), which is never called by this name, and any reference to which would be contrary to the meaning of Jesus; but it is to be taken as referring to the community of believers on Jesus (comp. note on Mat 16:18 ), which is, as yet, regarded as one body with the apostles included (Mat 18:18 ). There is here no allusion to individual congregations in different localities, since these could come into existence only at a later period; neither, for this reason, can there be any allusion to presbyters and bishops (Chrysostom), or to those whom they may have invested, as their representatives, with spiritual jurisdiction (Catholic writers, comp. besides, Dllinger). There is, further, nothing to warrant the assumption of an historical prolepsis (de Wette, Julius Mller), for the truth is, the of believers was actually existing; while, in the terms of this passage, there is no direct reference to individual congregations. But as Jesus had already spoken elsewhere of His (Mat 16:18 ), it was impossible for the disciples to misunderstand the allusion. The warrant for regarding the judgment of the church as final in regard to the lies in the moral power which belongs to the unity of the Holy Spirit, and, consequently, to true understanding, faith, earnest effort, prayer, etc., the existence of all which in the church is presupposed. It is not inconsistent with this passage to suppose that, under the more developed circumstances of a later period, when local congregations sprung up as offshoots from the , there may have been some representative body, composed of individuals chosen for the purpose of maintaining discipline, but the choice would necessarily be founded on such conditions and qualifications as were in keeping, so far as it was possible for man to judge, with the original principle of entrusting such matters only to those who were actual believers and had been truly regenerated.
. . .] but if he refuses to listen even to the church; if he will not have submitted to its advice, exhortation, injunction.
, . . .] let him be for thee (ethical dative); let him be in thy estimation as, etc.; , Chrysostom. What is here indicated is the breaking off of all further Christian, brotherly fellowship with one who is hopelessly obdurate, “as not being a sheep, nor caring to be sought, but willing to go right to perdition,” Luther. In this passage Christ says nothing, as yet, about formal excommunication on the part of the church (1Co 5 ); but the latter was such a fair and necessary deduction from what he did say, as the apostolic church, in the course of its development, considered itself warranted in making. “Ad earn ex hoc etiam loco non absurde argumentum duci posse non negaverim,” Grotius. In answer to the latter, Calovius, in common with the majority of the older expositors, asserts that the institution of excommunication is, in the present passage, already expressly declared.
] generic.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
17 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.
Ver. 17. Tell it unto the church ] That is, unto the church governors, the church representatives, as some think. Not the pope, whom Papists make the church virtual, and who, like a wasp, is no sooner angry but out comes a sting; which being out, is like a fool’s dagger, rattling and snapping without an edge. Hence in the year 833, when Pope Gregory IV offered to excommunicate Ludovicus Pius, the emperor, with his followers, the bishops that stood for the emperor affirmed, that they would by no means yield to the pope’s pleasure therein, sed si exeommunicaturus veniret, excommunicatus abiret cum aliter se habeat antiquorum canonum authoritas. a And in the year 1260, Leonard, an English doctor, answered the pope’s envoy, who pleaded that all churches were the pope’s; that they were his indeed (so it went then for current, but) tuitione non fruitione, defensione non dissipatione. If he should cast out Jonah and keep Ham in the ark, they would decline and disclaim his censures. Jac. Revius. Hist. Pontiff
Let him be unto thee as an heathen and a publican ] i.e. Neither meddle nor make with him; have thou neither sacred nor civil society with him. The Jews hated the presence, the fire, the fashion, the books of a heathen: as now a Papist may not join with a Protestant in any holy action, no, not in saying over the Lord’s prayer, or saying grace at table. Howbeit of old a Jew might eat at the same table with a heathen, Lev 25:44 , and come to the same temple with publicans, so they were proselytes, Luk 18:9-14 But they might do neither of these to an obstinate excommunicate, no more may we. Rebellion is as witchcraft, and obstinacy as bad as idolatry, 1Sa 15:23 .
a Ussier, de Christianae Eccl. statu et successione.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
17. ] a stronger word than ., implying something of obduracy .
, by what follows, certainly not ‘the Jewish synagogue’ (for how could Mat 18:18-20 be said in any sense of it? ), but the congregation of Christians; i.e. in early times, such as in Act 4:32 , the one congregation, in after times, that congregation of which thou and he are members. That it cannot mean the Church as represented by her rulers , appears by Mat 18:19-20 , where any collection of believers is gifted with the power of deciding in such cases. Nothing could be further from the spirit of our Lord’s command than proceedings in what were oddly enough called ‘ecclesiastical’ courts.
. . .] ‘let him no longer be accounted as a brother, but as one of those without,’ as the Jews accounted Gentiles and Publicans.
Yet even then not with hatred , see 1Co 5:11 , and compare 2Co 2:6-7 , and 2Th 3:14-15 . The articles ., ., are generic; the expressions being the singulars of , . And thus the quality expressed by and , rather than the individual who may happen to bear these characters, is prominent in the sentence: the . or the ., inasmuch and as far as he is . or . But this is not, as Words., the effect of the article only; the predicate conveys plainly enough, that it is as a heathen , not as a man, that he is here introduced.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 18:17 . . . Try first a minimum of social pressure and publicity, and if that fail have recourse to the maximum. : speak to the “Church” the brotherhood of believers in the Christ. This to be the widest limit for the ultimate sphere of moral influence, as ex hypothesi the judgment of this new community will count for more to its members than that of all the world beyond. , etc.: this failing, the offender puts himself outside the society, and there is nothing for it but to treat him as a heathen or a publican; which does not mean with indifference or abhorrence, but carefully avoiding fellowship with him in sin, and seeking his good only as one without. There is no reference in this passage to ecclesiastical discipline and Church censures. The older interpreters, in a theologico-polemical interest, were very anxious to find in it support for their developed ideas on these topics. The chief interest of historic exegesis is to divest it of an ecclesiastical aspect as much as possible, for only so can it suit the initial period, and be with any probability regarded as an utterance of Jesus. As such it may be accepted, when interpreted, as above. If, as we have tried to show, it was natural for Jesus to speak of a new community of faith at Caesarea, it was equally natural that He should return upon the idea in the Capernaum lesson on humility and kindred virtues, and refer to it as an instrument for promoting right feeling and conduct among professed disciples.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
neglect = fail. Greek. parakouo. Occurs only here.
church = assembly. In this case the synagogue, or local court, as in Act 19:39. See App-120.
the church = the assembly also.
an heathen = the Gentile. Greek. ethnikos. Occurs only here, and Mat 6:7.
a publican = the tax-gatherer.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
17. ] a stronger word than ., implying something of obduracy.
, by what follows, certainly not the Jewish synagogue (for how could Mat 18:18-20 be said in any sense of it?), but the congregation of Christians; i.e. in early times, such as in Act 4:32, the one congregation,-in after times, that congregation of which thou and he are members. That it cannot mean the Church as represented by her rulers, appears by Mat 18:19-20,-where any collection of believers is gifted with the power of deciding in such cases. Nothing could be further from the spirit of our Lords command than proceedings in what were oddly enough called ecclesiastical courts.
…] let him no longer be accounted as a brother, but as one of those without, as the Jews accounted Gentiles and Publicans.
Yet even then not with hatred, see 1Co 5:11, and compare 2Co 2:6-7, and 2Th 3:14-15. The articles ., ., are generic; the expressions being the singulars of , . And thus the quality expressed by and , rather than the individual who may happen to bear these characters, is prominent in the sentence: the . or the ., inasmuch and as far as he is . or . But this is not, as Words., the effect of the article only; the predicate conveys plainly enough, that it is as a heathen, not as a man, that he is here introduced.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 18:17. , do not obey) disregarding the reproof.- , the church) i.e., which is in that place where thou and thy brother dwell. The church is opposed to two or three in about the same proportion as two or three are to one. Amongst the Jews, ten men are considered to constitute , a church,[825] or public assembly for the decision of private disputes. See Rhenferd Opera philologica,[826] p. 729; Buxtorf,[827] Synagoga Judaica, ch. 25, where the same things are prescribed to the offender which our Lord prescribes here to the injured party.-, …, let him be, etc.) Cf. Rom 16:17; 1Co 5:11 2Th 3:14; 2Ti 2:21; Tit 3:10; 2 John Mat 18:10.-, to thee) Although, perhaps, not to the witnesses and the church. Therefore no one should be considered as a stranger before he has been reproved, and disregarded the reproof.- , THE heathen) (sing.) We take this opportunity of making some observations on the Greek Article.[828] B. Stolberg rightly remarks, in his manuscript collection on the particles, that there is scarcely an instance in the Scriptures where the article is redundant. It is nowhere clearly useless: it is never added without an object, although philologists frequently attribute to it a wrong force and meaning. It is equivalent to the German der (the), and denotes less than he (this), more than quidam (some, a certain one, or thing). It has, therefore, a determinating value; and it determines either (1) the universality and totality of the subject, as in Mat 6:22, , …, THE light, etc., q.d. the body has no light except the eye; or (2) the whole species, as in Mat 15:11, TO , that which entereth-TO , that which cometh out-and in Rom 1:17, , but THE just, i.e. he that is, or every one that is, just; or (3) the singularity and oneness [i.e. the definite and exclusive individuality] of the subject, as in Mat 1:23, , THE virgin-in Joh 1:21, , THE Christ, , THE prophet-in Joh 13:13, , , THE Teacher, and THE Lord; or (4) the restriction of the whole genus to a particular species, as in Act 19:17, , who dwelt at. In logic, however, universal and singular propositions are equivalent; whence (5) it has frequently a relative force, and that even in partition,[829] as in Luk 18:10, , THE one a Pharisee and THE other a publican-and in Rev 17:10, , , THE one is, THE other has not yet come; or (6) it expresses a certain peculiar degree of a thing (rei exquisitam quandam rationem), as in Mat 8:12, , THE[830] weeping, sc. weeping, compared with which earthly weeping is not weeping. It is, in fact, a subject which deserves to be more carefully examined by Philologists.[831] In this passage, signifies the whole race of Heathens, and any one thereto belonging. Thus, in the S. V. of Deu 28:29, we have ,, THE blind.- , and the publican) It was easy for the Jews to consider any one in the light of a heathen, therefore this clause is added to increase the force of the language; for the publicans dwelt amongst the Jews, but were shunned by them.
[825] See Bloomfield and Kitto in loc., and Trenchs New Testament Synonyms in voc.-(I. B.)
[826] For RHENFERD, see p. 82, f.n. 2.-(I. B.)
[827] JOHN BUXTORF, the elder, one of the greatest Hebrew scholars of modern times. He was born at Camen in 1564, and died in 1629. He devoted himself to the study of Hebrew and Chaldee literature, and became Professor of those languages at Basle. The great Scaliger declared that he was the only person who understood Hebrew thoroughly. The work cited by Bengel is, Synagoga Judaica, de Judaeorum fide, ritibus, ceremoniis, tam publicis et sacris quam privatis; a third and enlarged edition of which was published by his no less celebrated son, at Basle, in 1661.-(I. B.)
[828] I have, in the disquisition which follows, inserted in extenso the passages referred to by Bengel. For a full consideration of this important subject, see that inestimably valuable work, Middleton on the Greek Article.-(I. B.)
[829] i.e. In distinguishing between divisions of a whole, classes of a mass, species of a genus, or individuals of a certain description. The two men mentioned in the example both answered to the description of those that went up into the temple to pray;-here their similarity or affinity, as parts of a whole, or members of a class, ceased;-the article separates them from, and contrasts them with, each other.-(I. B.)
[830] Cf. Gnomon in loc.-(I. B.)
[831] Bengel saw the want: it has since been supplied by Middleton.-(I. B.)
He is not here speaking of the Catholic or universal Church.-V. g.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
tell: Act 6:1-3, Act 15:6, Act 15:7, 1Co 5:4, 1Co 5:5, 1Co 6:1-4, 2Co 2:6, 2Co 2:7, 3Jo 1:9, 3Jo 1:10
let: Rom 16:17, Rom 16:18, 1Co 5:3-5, 1Co 5:9-13, 2Th 3:6, 2Th 3:14, 2Th 3:15, 1Ti 6:5, 2Jo 1:10, 2Jo 1:11
a heathen: Mat 6:7, Ezr 6:21, Eze 11:12, 2Co 6:14-17, Eph 4:17-19, Eph 5:11, Eph 5:12
a publican: Mat 5:46, Mat 11:19, Mat 21:31, Mat 21:32, Luk 15:1, Luk 18:11, Luk 19:2, Luk 19:3
Reciprocal: Lev 13:3 – pronounce Lev 14:40 – take away Jos 22:15 – General Ezr 10:8 – himself separated Neh 5:7 – I set a great assembly Psa 59:8 – heathen Pro 22:10 – General Mat 16:18 – my Mar 2:16 – publicans Joh 9:34 – cast him out 1Co 5:11 – called 1Co 5:13 – Therefore 1Ti 1:20 – I have 1Ti 5:8 – and is
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
8:17
These witnesses are to be intercessors also, for this verse speaks of the possibility that the offender will not hear them. This denotes that it will be proper for them to have something to say in this second meeting as well as being witnesses in case further controversy is necessary. If this meeting is a failure, the matter will have to become a public affair and the offended party should take his case to the church. The church has the right to hear the complaint and the report of the witnesses, and if it concludes the accused is guilty he should be required to make proper amends. If he refuses to do so he should be excluded which is equivalent to placing him in the same class as the heathen (people of the world) in that he will be put into the realm of Satan (1Co 5:5).
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
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 a heathen man and a publican.
[Tell it unto the church.] That which was incumbent upon him against whom the sin was committed was this, that he should deliver his soul by reproving his brother, and by not suffering sin in him. This was the reason that he had need of witnesses, for what else could they testify? They could not testify that the brother had sinned against him that reproved him; for this, perhaps, they were altogether ignorant of: but they might testify this, that he against whom the sin was committed used due reproof, and omitted nothing which was commanded by the law in that case, whereby he might admonish his brother, and, if possible, bring him back into the right way. The witnesses also added their friendly admonition: whom if the offender hearkened not unto, “let it be told the church.”
We do not here enter upon that long dispute concerning the sense of the word church in this place. However you take it, certainly the business here is not so much concerning the censure of the person sinning, as concerning the vindication of the person reproving; that it might be known to all that he discharged his duty, and freed his soul.
It was very customary among the Jews to note those that were obstinate in this or that crime after public admonition given them in the synagogue, and to set a mark of infamy upon them.
All these have need of public admonition in the consistory. The business there is about some shepherds, collectors, and publicans; and it is declared how incapable they are of giving evidence in any judiciary matter; but not before public admonition is gone out against them in the consistory.
“If any deny to feed his children, they reprove him, they shame him, they urge him: if he still refuse, they make proclamation against him in the synagogue, saying, ‘N. is a cruel man, and will not nourish his children: more cruel than the unclean birds themselves, for they feed their young ones,’ ” etc.
“A provoking wife who saith, ‘I will create vexation to my husband, because he hath done thus or thus to me, or because he hath miscalled me, or because he hath chid me,’ etc. The consistory by messengers send these words to her, ‘Be it known unto you, if you persist in your perverseness, although your dowry be a hundred pounds, you have lost it all.’ And moreover they set forth a public proclamation against her in the synagogues, and in the divinity schools every day for four sabbaths.”
[Let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican.] He saith, Let him be to ‘thee’; not, Let him be to ‘the church’; because the discourse is of peculiar and private scandal against a single man; who, after three admonitions given, and they to no purpose, is freed from the law of brotherly obligation; and he who being admonished does not repent, is not to be esteemed so much for a brother to him, as for a heathen, etc.
I. Christ does not here prescribe concerning every offender, according to the full latitude of that law, Lev 19:17; but of him that particularly offends against his brother; and he does particularly teach what is to be done to that brother.
II. Although he, against whom the offence is committed, had a just cause, why he should be loosed from the obligation of the office of a brother towards him, who neither would make satisfaction for the wrong done, nor be admonished of it; yet to others in the church there is not the same reason.
III. The words plainly mean this; “If, after a threefold and just reproof, he that sinned against thee still remains untractable, and neither will give thee satisfaction for the injury, nor, being admonished, doth repent, thou hast delivered thine own soul, and art free from brotherly offices towards him”; just as the Jews reckon themselves freed from friendly offices towards heathens and publicans. That of Maimonides is not much different: “A Jew that apostatizes, or breaks the sabbath presumptuously, is altogether like a heathen.”
1. They reckoned not heathens for brethren or neighbours: “If any one’s ox shall gore his neighbour’s ox: his neighbour’s, not a heathen’s; when he saith neighbour’s; he excludes heathens.” A quotation which we produced before.
2. They reputed publicans to be by no means within religious society: A religious man, who becomes a publican, is to be driven out of the society of religion.
3. Hence they ate neither with heathens nor with publicans; concerning which thing they often quarrel [with] our Saviour. Hence that of the apostle, 1Co 5:11; “With such an one no not to eat,” is the same with what is spoke here, “Let him be to thee as a heathen;” etc.
“It is forbidden a Jew to be alone with a heathen; to travel with a heathen;” etc.
4. They denied also brotherly offices to heathens and publicans; “It is forbidden to bring home any thing of a heathen’s that is lost.” “It is lawful for publicans to swear that is an oblation which is not; that you are of the king’s retinue when you are not,” etc. that is, publicans may deceive, and that by oath.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 18:17. If he refuse to hear them. Does not acknowledge his wrong under their influence.The public step follows: Tell it unto the church, i.e., the particular Christian congregation.
If he refuse to hear the church also. The admonition and entreaty of the Church is to be used as a means of regaining the brother.
Let him be unto thee as the heathen and the publican, i.e., as outside the Christian fellowship, though in a Christian, not a Jewish spirit. A man of high spirituality would be won by the first step, a lukewarm Christian by the second or third; when all fail, it is not distinctly commanded that the Church should pronounce him no Christian. His character has proved itself so far unchristian that the person injured cannot have fellowship with him. The next verse, however, hints at formal acts of discipline on the part of the Church.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 17
To hear them. This shows that one object of calling upon others, is to obtain their mediation and influence to heal the difficulty.
Matthew 18:18,19. This language is understood in various ways, and with various limitations and restrictions by different commentators. There is great difficulty in ascertaining with certainty the meaning intended to be conveyed. The Roman Catholics found upon it a strong argument in favor of the high ecclesiastical authority with which they suppose the church to be clothed.–Any thing; of course any thing suitable or proper to be bestowed.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
18:17 {6} And if he shall {h} neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the {i} church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as {k} an heathen man and a publican.
(6) He that condemns the judgment of the Church, condemns God.
(h) Literally, “does not condescend to hear”, or “make as though he did not hear”.
(i) He speaks not of just any policy, but of an ecclesiastical assembly, for he speaks afterward of the power of loosing and binding, which belonged to the Church, and he has regard for the order used in those days, at which time the elders had the judgment of Church matters in their hands, Joh 9:22 12:42 16:2 , and used casting out of the synagogue for a punishment, as we do now by excommunication.
(k) Profane, and void of religion: such men, the Jews called Gentiles: whose company they shunned, as they did the publicans.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The third step, if necessary, is to report the situation to the "church." This is the second reference to ekklesia in Matthew and the only other occurrence of this word in the four Gospels. As I pointed out above (cf. Mat 16:18), this word means "a called out assembly of people." Jesus probably used it in a wide sense here. We have noted that the terms "lord," "disciple," "apostle," and others came to have more specific meanings as God’s kingdom plan unfolded. Jesus predicted the existence of the church, the body of Christ, in Mat 16:18. However the disciples undoubtedly understood Him to mean simply His band of disciples. Jesus was talking about the assembly of His disciples that He was calling out of the world to represent Him that He knew would become a large body. He knew this would be the church as we know it, but the disciples must have thought He meant just themselves in a collective sense. Perhaps they thought He was referring to a Jewish assembly, a synagogue. [Note: Walvoord, Matthew: . . ., p. 137.]
Jesus revealed almost nothing about the church in the Gospels, as the absence of references to it in these books indicates. The disciples were struggling to grasp Jesus’ deity, His suffering servant role, and His passion. Jesus did not confuse them with much revelation about the form that their corporate identity would take following His ascension. He did not even do that after His resurrection (Act 1:6-8). That revelation came through His apostles after His ascension. We have it in Acts and the Epistles.
When Jesus said, "Tell it to the church (assembly)," the disciples probably heard, "Tell it to all the other disciples, not just the two or three witnesses." Applying this command today becomes more difficult because the number of the disciples is incalculable and they live around the globe. In most situations the scope of public announcement would be a local church congregation, the particular collection of disciples of which the wayward brother is a part.
If the erring disciple does not respond to the church’s encouragement to return to the Shepherd, Jesus said the disciples should treat such a person as a Gentile and a tax gatherer. This does not mean the disciples should receive him or her warmly as Jesus received such people (Mat 8:1-11; Mat 9:9-13; Mat 15:21-28). The context, as well as the New Testament parallels to this exhortation, shows that Jesus had exclusion in mind (cf. Rom 16:17; 2Th 3:14). Jesus probably used Gentiles and tax gatherers as examples because the Jews typically withdrew from them. That is what He wanted His disciples to do regarding the erring brother or sister. The "you" in the Greek text is singular indicating that the initiator is a single individual and the sphere of life Jesus had in mind throughout this section was interpersonal relations (cf. Mat 18:15)
"He cannot be treated as a spiritual brother, for he has forfeited that position. He can only be treated as one outside the church, not hated, but not held in close fellowship." [Note: Wiersbe, 1:66.]
Neither Jesus nor the apostles specified the exact form this discipline should take (e.g., excommunication, exclusion from the Lord’s Supper, social isolation, withheld table fellowship, etc.). France argued that since the sphere of life in view is interpersonal relationships, the guilty party should only suffer isolation from the initiator of action, not the whole community of believers. [Note: France, The Gospel . . ., pp. 690-94.] However, it seems that if the whole church gets involved in reproving the offender, some sort of communal, as well as individual, punishment would be involved. Consequently I assume that Jesus intended the disciples involved in such situations to make these determinations on the basis of all the facts in each particular case. However, it seems to be going too far to put the offender in a situation in which it would become impossible for him or her to repent and experience restoration later. The objective of all discipline is ultimately restoration, not exclusion. [Note: See J. Carl Laney, "The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline," Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-December 1986):353-64; and Ted G. Kitchens, "Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline," Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):201-13.]