Re: Matt 18:18 in context

Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Sat, 26 Jul 1997 22:18:14 EDT

On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:06:48 -0500 "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
writes:
>In response to Paul S. Dixon's question on Matt 18:18 Carl Conrad
>wrote:
>
>>(c) Finally, I want to say that it seems to me that two factors are
>clearly
>>discernible in Mt 18 as a whole--in the chapter on Church Discipline:
>(a)
>>the authority of excommunication does indeed lie within the earthly
>>leadership of the church, but (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.
>
>To which Paul responded:
>
>Thanks, Carl. I think, however, that the resolution to the suggested
>dilemma (in "b" above) lies not in a softening or disregard of Mt
>18:15-18, but in the recognition that while judgement is not to be
>carried out individually (Mt 6:1ff, Rom 14), it is something to be
>carried out by God's appointed civil magistrates (Rom 13) and by the
>authority of the church (Mt 18).
>=========================================
>
>This is a very important and interesting passage. I grew up with and
>was
>taught something very similar to Paul's understanding. It has a long
>history in the church.
>
>But I have changed my mind on it for a number of reasons. (1) Matt
>18:10-14
>comes immediately before the passage on "church discipline." The
>parable of
>the lost sheep in Matthew cuilminates in 18:14: "Thus it is not the
>will
>before your Father in the heavens that one of these little ones be
>destroyied." That is really the topic sentence for what follows.

How does this argue against my interpretation of 18:15-18? Does
obedience to the 5 imperatives in verses 15-18 contradict your
understanding of verses 10-14? If so, how? Even if it does, might this
not suggest your understanding of 10-14 may be faulty?

Perhaps you can tell me what 18:15-18 does mean.

>
>(2) Matthew earlier indicates his view of the church as a CORPUS
>MIXTUM.
>that is the burden of the parables in Matthew 13, "the tares among the
>grain" (13:24-30) and "the great dragnet" (18:47-50). One is to allow
>the
>tares to grow until the harvest--and then the grain and weeds will be
>separated. Or the division of the good and the bad fish will be done
>at the
>eschaton (SUNTELEIA TOU AIWNOS) when the angels will separate the bad
>from
>the good (cf. Matt 15:31-46).

I'm not sure what hermeneutic you employ for interpreting parables, but
your argument would carry more weight if you could show that the central
teaching of a particular parable was to the effect that the church should
not practice discipline (at least as traditionally understood from Mt
18:15-18). Do you think the central teachings of the parables you cited
do this?

So far your argument hinges on taking "allow both to grow together,"
"lest while you are gathering up the tares you may root up also wheat
with them" (Mt 13) as a prescription against the church practicing such
discipline. Do you really see this being prescribed and taught there?

Again, your interpretation of 18:15-18 would be interesting here.

Much thanks,

Paul Dixon
>
>(3) Matthew 18:17 says that the end of the process is "... let that
>one be
>for you hO EQNIKOS KAI hO TELWNHS. Throughout the gospel of Matthew
>these
>are precisely the ones who are the object of Jesus' word and ministry.
>
>(4) What does this mean for understanding Matt 18:18? (a) These verses
>do
>not describe a process by which to keep the church pure. [It is very
>different from 1QS, the manual of discipline at Qumran.] (b) As the
>object
>of mission the church (and all its members) are to proclamim the good
>news
>of the kingdom of God to these people. (Cf. Matt 18:18-20) What
>ultimately
>binds on earth and in heaven is the proclamation of the gospel.
>
>Once again I have perhaps sinned against the strict interpretation of
>b-greek's guidelines. But you cannot interpret a verse or a phrase in
>that
>verse apart from both the nearer and further context in a text, in
>this
>case Matthew.
>
>==============================
>
>And, by the way Carl, I trust that Edward and Jonathon persuaded you
>that
>Fred Danker did his Ph. D. at the U. of C. I am curious to know what
>of his
>stands next to my dissertation in the department collection.
>
>And to give my alma mater cause to blow its horn a bit, William F.
>Arndt of
>BAGD did do his doctorate at Washington University in 1935. I still
>have
>the printed copy of his dissertation, "The Participle in Polybius and
>in
>St. Paul", which he gave me with a personal inscription oin Feb. 8,
>1954.
>He had a marvellous custom to aid interested students. He would give
>electives in alternate years lecturing in German and Latin to h elp
>students keep their languages up. Would that some still did that!
>
> ******************************************************
> *Edgar Krentz, Prof. of New Testament *
> * Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago *
> * 1100 East 55th Street *
> * CHICAGO IL 60615 *
> * TEL.: 773-256-0752 FAX: 773-256-0782 *
> * Office: ekrentz@lstc.edu OR HOME: emkrentz@mcs.com *
> ******************************************************
>
>
>