Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Matthew 18:15 - 18:20
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_18:15. Against thee.—Not merely referring to personal offences, but rather to sins, which, being done in presence of others, cannot but excite attention and give offence. Viewed in the context, it might be paraphrased: Sin not against thy brother by giving him offence. Again, on the other hand, overcome by the discipline of love the offence which he has given thee.
Between thee and him alone.—First measure. Brotherly admonition, or private entreaty. Meyer: “The administration of reproof is here represented as intervening between the two parties.” But this critic is mistaken in supposing that the text refers to party disputes. Of course, the expression implies that the guilt rests with our brother.
Thou hast gained thy brother.—Euthym, Zigab.: In respect of brotherly fellowship. Meyer, more correctly: For the kingdom of the Messiah. Both ideas, however, seem combined in the text. The person who has been gained for the kingdom of the Messiah becomes the brother of him who has thus gained him. He has been gained by wisdom and cautious dealing, when serious loss seemed impending. Such private expostulation implies self-denial and courage, while it gives our brother the impression that we feel for him, that we love him, and would willingly spare him. Such an assault of love upon his heart may gain him. The opposite course, of hastily divulging his fault, is an evidence of pride, harshness, cowardice, want of love and of prudence. In all probability, it will only tend to embitter, and thus further to alienate our brother. Besides, in our personal dealings as individuals, we are not entitled to go beyond this private expostulation, unless we know that we act in the spirit of the whole Church (Acts 5; 1 Corinthians 5).
Mat_18:16. One or two more.—This is the second measure to be adopted. One or two witnesses are now to be called in. The law of Moses enjoined the judicial examination of witnesses (Deu_19:15). In this instance, the final judgment of God is supposed to be already commencing, and witnesses are called in, because the guilty brother is to become his own judge.
The question has been asked, whether the word óôáèῆ here means, “be established,” or else, “stand still, rest, depend.” The latter meaning seems to be preferable, as the guilt of the offending brother is apparently admitted. The fault of our brother is not to be prematurely published. Hence, while in the first clause of the verse we read, “Take with thee one or two,” the last clause speaks of two or, three witnesses. If our brother confesses his fault, he becomes himself the third witness, and there are no longer merely two, but three who know of the fault.
Mat_18:17. To the church (congregation).—Third measure. From Mat_16:18, the term ἐêêëçóßá must always be understood as referring to the Christian Church, or to the meeting of believers, whether it be large or small. Calvin, Beza, and others mistake equally the meaning and the connection of the passage in applying it to the Jewish synagogue. In opposition to this, de Wette remarks, 1. That the term ἐêêëçóßá is never applied to the synagogue; 2. that Jesus could not have meant to direct His disciples to apply to a community which was estranged from them in spirit, for the purpose of restoring brotherly relations among themselves; 3. that Mat_18:18-20 evidently refer to Christian fellowship, and to its power and quickening by His presence. But when de Wette suggests that both this passage and Mat_16:18 were a historical prolepsis, he must have wholly missed the connection of the gospel history in the mind of Matthew. Similarly, Roman Catholic interpreters are entirely in error in explaining the passage: Tell it to the bishops. Even de Wette and Vitringa go beyond the text, in supposing that it applies to the function of the rulers of the Church as arbitrators or judges on moral questions. On the contrary, the Ýêêëçóßá is in this passage put in antithesis to the question touching the ìåë ́ æùí ἐí ôῆ âáóéëåßᾳ ôῶí ïὐñáíùí . Hence this would have been the most unsuitable place for anything like the sanction of a hierarchy. It is indeed true that the Church is, in the first place, approached and addressed through its officials. But then we must also bear in mind, that there is an entire accordance between the views and dealings of these officials and those of the Church, and not anything like hierarchical assumption on their part (comp. 1Co_5:4). [Alford: “That ἐêêëçôßá cannot mean the Church as represented by her rulers, appears by (from) 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 sprit of our Lord’s command than proceedings in what were oddly enough called ‘ecclesiastical courts.’ ”—P. S.]
Let him be unto thee.—The Jews regarded heathens and publicans as excommunicated persons. As such we are to consider a Christian who perseveres in his offence: he is no longer to be acknowledged as belonging to the fellowship of saints. The accord of the Church in this step is implied. Still the verse reads, Let him be to thee—not, to the church; the personal impulse being in this case a prophetic manifestation of the gift of discerning the spirits. Viewing it in this light, we cannot imagine how Meyer could infer that it did not apply to excommunication—all the more so, that he himself refers it to the cessation of all fellowship with such a person. However, we question the correctness of the latter statement. In our opinion, the text only implies the cessation of ecclesiastical fellowship, not of civil or social intercourse. In point of fact, it was the mistake of the Jews to convert what was intended as an ecclesiastical censure into a civil punishment. Perhaps this might be excusable under the ancient theocracy, when State and Church were not yet distinct. Nay, when the theocracy was first founded, it was even necessary under certain conditions, and for a season (see the laws against the Canaanites). But under the New Testament dispensation this confusion of civil and sacred matters has entirely ceased. Christ did not regard the publicans and heathens, viewed as such, as belonging to His communion; but He considered them the objects of His mission. Accordingly, we must take the idea of excommunication in this light. The Roman Catholic Church has, on the question of discipline, again lapsed into Judaism. Regarding those who are excommunicated as heretics, if not as heathens and publicans, it hands them over to the civil tribunals.
Mat_18:18. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth.—It is very remarkable that Christ should have employed a solemn adjuration, when according the power of the keys to all His disciples, and with them to the Church generally, or rather to the Church along with the disciples. For, evidently, while Mat_18:17 lays down the rule for the conduct of the Church, Mat_18:18 shows that the Church is warranted in this conduct. This right is again solemnly confirmed by the amen in Mat_18:19. The similarity of expression with Mat_16:19 shows that this passage also refers to the office of the keys; and hence that both Mat_18:17-18 referred to its exercise. The privilege therefore of Peter only consisted in this, that he was the first to make confession and to bear witness (see Acts 5, 8, 11), in accordance with the Church generally, to which he also was subject. But whenever he occupied a separate position, he also subjected himself to the discipline and reproof of the Church (Gal_2:11).
Mat_18:19. Again, verily I say unto you.—The reading ðÜëéí ἀìÞí is very fully attested. This amen was afterward omitted from the text, probably from an apprehension that it might be quoted in support of separatism.—That if [only] two of you shall agree.—The smallest number which could form a fellowship. They shall agree on earth, i.e., in forming a social and visible fellowship. This, however, does not imply that two believers will always suffice to form a church. The emphasis rests on the word ôõìöùíßá . Such a full agreement of two persons could only be wrought by the Holy Spirit. Hence it represents in principle the catholicity of the whole Church. The smallest fragment of a straight line may be closely and homogeneously joined to all similar fragments. Suffice it, that the Church may commence, continue and be reformed with two individuals. The prayer of these two humble individuals on earth brings dawn the gracious answer of the Father who is in heaven, thereby attesting and confirming the character of the Church.
Mat_18:20. For where two or three are gathered together.—A confirmation and explanation of what had preceded. The two individuals must not stand aloof in a sectarian spirit, but seek to become three. Similarly, their óíìöùíéá must consist in being gathered together in the name of Jesus. If such be the case, Himself is in the midst of them by His Spirit. It is this presence of the Shechinah, in the real sense of the term, which forms and constitutes His ὲêêëçóßá , or Kahal. Hence it also enjoys both the blessings and the protection of our Father who is in heaven. Lightfoot: “Simile dicunt Rabbini de duobus aut tribus considentibus in judicio, quod Schechina sit in medio eorum.”
The statement in Mat_18:19 must evidently be regarded as primarily a continuation of the second measure prescribed in cases of offence, when two or three witnesses were to be called in. It is as if the Lord hoped that, by their earnest continuance in prayer, these witnesses would prevent the necessity of extreme measures. But if they should be obliged to assemble in His name in order to lay a formal accusation before the Church, the Lord promised to be in the midst of them. The fact that the phraseology of the text so closely resembles that of Mat_18:16, seems to imply, in a certain sense, an antithesis. Probably the meaning is: The two or three who form a true Church shall not be entirely dependent upon the large majority of a larger ἐêêëçóßá , nor upon the possible abuse of the power of the keys. Their outward minority is compensated by the blessing of the Father, and by the presence of Christ, or by an inward and real excess of power. Thus the Lord points to the circumstance, that the essential characteristics and the power of the Church lie not in the existence of an outward majority, or in the presence of great masses of people. Christ intervenes between the first and the third measure of discipline.
2. According to apostolic direction, excommunication was only to take place if the person who gave offence obstinately resisted the Church itself. In that case, both truth and honor required that such bold and open opposition, either to the principles, doctrines, or practice of the Church, should not be tolerated in the midst of it. More than this; esteem, love, and faithfulness toward the offending brother himself demanded such a step. Still, such an one was only to be ranked with that class from which he had at first been taken, and from which the Church is ever willing to receive proselytes, and hence also to welcome penitents. All this implies that the excommunicated person was not to be subjected to civil pains and penalties by the Church.—“Let him be unto thee as a heathen and a publican.” These words convey a very different meaning to Christiana from what they did to the Jews. The latter despised and condemned heathens and publicans; Christ received them. In other words, where the discipline of the Church ceases, its missionary work commences anew. Perhaps we might rather call it the catechetical office—as the penitent professes a desire to have the bond which had been broken restored, and hence does not require to be again admitted by a new baptism, but only to be restored to the fellowship of the Church.
3. The characteristic of true catholicity is not outward uniformity, but inward unity in the Spirit of Christ. Therefore, when even two are completely united, they are, in point of fact, in fellowship with all the holy spirits both in heaven and on earth, and Christ Himself is in the midst of them.
4. Not “three or two” but “two or three.” The pure Church may for a time be very small, but it must always aim after universality. Besides, it deserves notice that this saying of the Lord was closely connected with His teaching about primacy in the Church, and about offences, hence we may see with what tender care He watched over the interests and how He defended the origin of the evangelical Church.
5. On the subject of Jewish excommunication, comp. Winer’s Real-Wörterbuch, sub Bann, and on Christian excommunication, Herzog’s Real-Encyclop., sub Bann. The lesser excommunication implied only the cessation of full and purely ecclesiastical fellowship. The person excluded became, for the time, a non-communicant. A deep meaning attached to the practice of the ancient Church, by which such an individual was in certain respects ranked among the general hearers of the word and the catechumens. In truth, his connection with the Church had not wholly ceased; it may be regarded rather as suspended for a time, than as completely terminated. Hence the greater excommunication may be said to be no longer applicable to any individuals, as it necessarily involved civil consequences. At first sight, some of the statements of Paul seem to imply such a procedure; but a further examination of the passages in question will modify our ideas on that point. Thus, 1Co_5:11 refers probably to the common meal of brotherly fellowship; while the formulas in 1Co_16:22, and Gal_1:8-9, appear to us to be couched in hypothetical language, as a thing that might and should take place in certain circumstances, not as one that had actually occurred. Of recent writers on the subject, we mention Meyer of Rostock, Otto (Bonn, 1856), M. Göbel, On Eccl. Discipline in the Reformed Church until Calvin (Kirchl. Vierteljahr’s Schrift, 2 Jahrg., Berlin, 1845). Also the Transactions of the German Church Diet for 1856.
Starke:—Zeisius: Secret sins should be secretly rebuked and expiated, but open sins, openly.—Cramer: It is very dangerous to be excluded from the communion of the saints.—Hedinger: The prayer of a righteous man availeth much, nay, everything; Jam_5:16.
Gerlach:—What in Mat_16:19 had (apparently) been bestowed upon Peter alone, is here conferred on the whole Christian Church, being ultimately traceable to the character of Christian communion as the outward manifestation of the invisible Church.—The Church of Christ on earth consists of a number of circles, drawn around the same centre, and always widening. Its well-being consists in this, that all have the proper centre, and that none of the circles interferes with the other.
Gossner:—The principal thing is the agreement.—All depends not on large numbers, but on the presence of Christ as the third or fourth in a spiritual communion.
Heubner:—We can only call those persons our own whom we have gained for the kingdom of heaven.—The decline of, and the difficulties attending upon, the exercise of scriptural discipline, constitute glaring evidence of the sad decay of our State Churches (or rather, of the hierarchical disinclination of office to train the congregation to spiritual self-government).—Wherein may two be agreed? Manifestly, not in temporal things (or rather, in matters of pure egotism).
Mat_18:15.—[Compare Mat_18:21, where the E. V. renders ἁìáñôἀíåéí : sin.—P. S.]
Mat_18:15.—Lachmann and Tischendorf [not in his large critical edition of 1859], after Cod. B., al. omit åἰò óÝ (against thee). The omission made the sense clearer; but for this very reason the words should be retained.
Mat_18:17.—[Here ἐêêëçóὶá is used in the sense of a particular or local congregation, as often in the Epistles, while in Mat_16:18 it means the church universal, since no individual congregation (or denomination) has the promise of indestructible life. Comp. on ὲêêëçóßá , and its proper translation, the Crit. Note No. 4 on p. 298.—P. S.]
Mat_18:19.—The reading ðÜëéí ἀìÞí [instead of ðÜëéí without ἀìÞí ] is very strongly attested [and adopted by Tischendorf and Alford. Lachmann reads ὰìÞí without ðÜëéí , and gives Cod. B. as his authority. But this is an error; the Vatican Codex, both in the edition of Angelo Mai and that of Phil. Buttmann jun., reads ðÜëéí ἀìçí ,—P. S.]
Mat_18:19.—The future óõìöùíÞóïõóéí is best attested. [Adopted by Tischendorf and Alford. Sustained by Cod. Sinait. which reads: ἐἀí äýï óõìöùíÞóéí ἐî ὑìῶí . Lachmann reads with Cod. Vaticanus and text. rec. the subjunctive óõìöùíÞó ù óéí , which looks like a grammatical emendation. Meyer (1858) and Tischendorf (1859) quote Cod. B. in favor of the future, but both the editions of this Codex by Angelo Mai (Rome, 1857, and sec. ed., 1859) and that of Phil. Buttmann (Berlin, 1862) read the subjunctive, as stated previously by Birch and Lachmann. The ù or ïõ seems to be very indistinctly written in the original MS., so as to account for the difference among the collators and editors. Comp. the note in Buttmann’s edition of Cod. Vat., p. 501, sub Mat_18:19.—P. S.]
A Prussian regulation of March 27, 1748, prohibits the minister from excluding any of their church members from the holy communion. Now cases of the kind must be reported to the royal consistories.