The point is well taken that the instruction of Mt 18:15-18 is sandwiched
in between the Parable of the Lost Sheep and the Parable of the
Unforgiving Servant. This, however, does not imply that vv. 15-18 should
follow suit.
A perfectly cogent argument could be raised along these lines: the main
thought Christ wanted to communicate in this chapter is the necessity of
exercising loving and restorative discipline of the wayward brother. The
Parable of the Lost Sheep illustrates that it is not the desire of the
Father that any of His sheep (true sons) should perish. Every effort
should be taken to that end. Thus, we must be diligent in rebuking a
brother when he sins against us (vv. 15-18). This is the God appointed
means by which we are used in the restorative process.
Of course, it is possible that a so-called brother is not really a
brother at all. This then would be the process by which such hypocrites
can be identified by the church. The result is a purification process
for the church (cf 1 Cor 5).
It is in this context where the parable of the unforgiving servant
crystallizes the importance of having a forgiving spirit toward the
sinning brother who repents. I think a beautiful balance of: 1) love for
the sinning brother and 2) zeal for the holiness of God and His church
are brought together profoundly. Both must be practiced because both are
biblical and neither one contradicts the other.
You asked about verses 19-20 and how they fit in. Is there a problem
with taking them as a reiteration (PALIN LEGW hUMIN) of His instruction
regarding the disciplinary process of verses 15-18? The similarities are
striking (compare PARALABE META SOU ETI hENA H DUO [v. 16] and DUO [v.
19] and DUO H TREIS [ v. 20]. If so, then the purpose of verses 19-20
seem to be a further encouragement to carry through with the restorative
discipline of the sinning brother, since the Father will certainly do His
part and they can be assured Christ will be with them.
Paul S. Dixon, Pastor
Ladd Hill Bible Church
Wilsonville, Oregon
On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 21:38:08 -0400 Jonathan Robie
<jwrobie@mindspring.com> writes:
>At 08:04 AM 7/25/97 -0400, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>>At 12:44 AM -0400 7/25/97, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>>>The future periphrastic perfect passive participles in Mt 18:8,
>ESTAI
>>>DEDEMENA and ESTAI LELUMENA, intrigue me.
>
>>Should they be taken as intensive or as consummative perfects?
>
>Hmmm...what exactly do "intensive", "consummative", and "extensive"
>mean here?
>
>Being just a little Greek, I haven't been bitten by many future
>perfects, so
>I turned to Smyth and Robertson to see what they had to say. As Carl
>points
>out, future perfects are very rare, and I suspect they are used quite
>intentionally. They are marked forms, for the linguists out there.
>
>Smyth says that most future perfects are periphrastic, middle in form,
>and
>passive in meaning. He also says the following:
>
>1. The future perfect denotes a future state resulting from a
>completed action
>
>2. When stress is laid upon complete fulfilment, the future perfect
>may
>imply rapidity, immediate consequence, or certainty, of action
>accomplished
>in the future.
>
>3. The future may have imperative force.
>
>4. When the perfect has the force of a present, the future perfect is
>used
>like a simple future.
>
>
>Points 3 and 4 intrigue me. If the future can have imperative force,
>could
>Matthew 18:18 possibly mean "whatever you may have bound on earth, let
>it be
>bound in heaven, and whatever you may have loosed on earth, let it be
>loosed
>in heaven?"
>
>Or should I invoke 4 here? Smyth says that when the perfect marks the
>enduring result rather than the completed act, it may often be
>translated by
>the present. It seems that "be bound" and "be loosed" would be good
>examples
>of this. So maybe it just means "whatever you may have bound on earth,
>it
>will be bound in heaven, and whatever you may have loosed on earth, it
>will
>be loosed in heaven"?
>
>
>Paul Dixon again:
>
>>>From what is the individual being bound or loosed? The whole
>context
>>>seems to argue for hAMAPTIA. If so, then perhaps the idea is this:
>the
>>>individual who persists in sin (as defined by his refusal to repent
>of
>>>his sin in three levels of discipline) gives evidence he has never
>know
>>>God and has never been set free from his sins. He should be thus
>>>regarded as a Gentile or tax-collector, synonyms for NOQOI AND OUK
>hUIOI
>>>(Heb 12:8).
>>>
>>>Comments?
>
>Well, if it applies to sin, which seems likely, I find it fascinating
>that
>it is sandwiched between the parable of the lost sheep and the parable
>of
>the unmerciful servant, giving us clear guidelines for how often we
>should
>forgive our brothers and sisters. I think this was what Carl meant
>when he
>referred to the thrust of Matthew 18 as a whole. The overriding
>concern must
>be to win them back, and church authority must be practiced in the
>context
>of generous forgiveness. I guess that's why Jesus didn't tell a
>parable of
>the chicken, emphasizing how the farmer cuts the chicken's head off.
>
>Back to Carl again:
>
>>(b) the Jesus of this chapter so
>>circumscribes and warns against the use of that authority against
>>individuals that one might do well to avoid ever exercising that
>authority
>>even though it is in one's (collective) hands: better to bring the
>lost
>>sheep back than to dismiss him/her forever from God's flock. That is
>>consistent with another theme in Matthew's eschatological teaching:
>that
>>judgment (i.e. condemnation) is a privilege of God and Christ, not
>one that
>>the individual or perhaps even the church community should deign to
>>exercise; moreover, in the parable of good grain and weeds, it is
>suggested
>>that one not endeavor to root out the weeds in the acres of God's
>harvest
>>but leave them for the Harvester to dispose of as He sees fit.
>
>I largely agree; yet Jesus *did* seem to indicate the need to exercise
>this
>authority at times. Yet I can't quite believe that he *never* wanted
>us to
>exercise this authority. If he didn't, why would he be telling this
>parable?
>But I still don't quite get it. If they are kicking him out of the
>church,
>what is it that they would be asking for in verse 19?
>
>Matt 18:15 (RSV) "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him
>his
>fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have
>gained your
>brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along
>with
>you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three
>witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church;
>and if
>he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a
>Gentile and
>a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth
>shall be
>bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in
>heaven.
>19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything
>they ask,
>it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or
>three
>are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
>
>Could it be that they are asking for the brother's repentence, binding
>sin
>and Satan, and loosing the Spirit's influence? Yet verses 18-19 seem
>to give
>assurance for whatever they ask, and 17 makes it clear that the
>brother may
>still decide not to listen.
>
>This little Greek is not yet satisfied that he understands the
>passage...
>
>Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>***************************************************************************
>Jonathan Robie jwrobie@mindspring.com
>http://www.mindspring.com/~jwrobie
>POET Software, 3207 Gibson Road, Durham, N.C., 27703
>http://www.poet.com
>***************************************************************************
>
>