The passage needs to be approached cautiously. On first reading it says if someone wrongs you, confront them; if that doesn’t work take it to the church; finally treat the person as an outcast. Harsh words indeed.
One thing I have said many times is to understand a passage, look at the context to see how it fits into the message being given and try to understand how it would have sounded to those listening. I know that is a bit of an impossible task to understand a culture that one is not immersed in, but at least trying is a worthwhile exercise when seeking to interpret a passage
The irony with this text is that it is a few verses surrounded by stories about care which have be become an instrument of harm. It shows the danger of ripping a few verses out of context and building a doctrine around them. Then this, in turn, influences our immediate thoughts whenever the passage is read.
I want to add another word of caution here, and one which I think is important, “Go and point out the fault when two of you are alone” (15) may sound reasonable if it is between people who are pretty much equal in power and ability. However, it becomes quite different if said to someone experiencing abuse, exploitation or harassment. Telling a vulnerable person that Jesus requires them first to confront privately the person harming them can increase the danger to them
Today, I want to begin by looking at the context these words were spoken in. The chapter begins with the story of Jesus placing a child in the midst of the disciples. (2) A child was someone with very little social power, often disregarded in that world, in the story Jesus issues a very strict warning about causing “little ones” to stumble and despising them (6-10)
Then, the Gospel of Matthew immediately continues with the parable of the shepherd who goes looking for their lost sheep. (12). The parable ends by telling the audience of the day that “the father-mother is not willing that any of these little ones should perish” (14)
Already, today’s text is starting to feel a little differently. As the thought continues with the words, “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their sin, just between the two of you, if they listen to you have won them over.” (15) In context, the objective wasn't confession, submission, punishment, institutional reputation, or even proving rightness. It is about seeking that which is lost, it is about relationship. That verse fits with the stories preceding it; the child who is vulnerable, the sheep who is lost, the shepherd whose action is a little foolhardy, but concern for the one leaving 99 sheep (I’ve blogged about that before), and the person who has lost their way.
The text moves on and suggests that if relationship is not restored the next step is to “Tell it to the church” (17) I want to look a little at the historical setting to help grasp that.
Reading the word “church” in the text immediately produces thoughts of buildings, denominations, hierarchy, laws and disciplinary committees. I have been so schooled in negative ways of reading this passage that it is hard to break out of that interpretation. Yet Matthew is the only gospel that uses the Greek word ekklesia essentially an assembly or gathered community. It occurs here and in Matthew 16:18: “on this rock [Peter] I will build my church.” I talked about in my last blog, I wrote about how Peter was not a superhero but a person who made mistakes was impetuous and foolhardy, perfect material for leading the emerging ekklesia.
It is generally thought that the gospel of Matthew was written around 80–90 CE. Therefore, these verses appear to reflect Matthew's developing community. The text makes sense when read as instructions addressed to the community probably several decades after Jesus.
Matthew may be taking the remembered Jesus tradition and shaping it for the needs of the community for whom he is writing. By that time the followers of Jesus were having to work out very practical questions: How do we live together when we hurt one another? How are disputes resolved? Where are the boundaries of the community?
So, when this text is reflected on, care needs to be taken about turning a first-century community's process for maintaining relationships into an unchangeable disciplinary formula for every situation.
The passage continues with instruction about what to do if relationship cannot be immediately restored “let such a one be to you as “a Gentile and a tax collector.” (17)
Again, with that old framework rattling around my head this has often been understood as throw them out, don’t talk to them, make them an outcast, excommunicate them.
But I find myself wanting to ask the question: How did Jesus treat Gentiles and tax collectors? And again, quite suddenly, the verse looks different.
Remember Matthew was a tax collector when Jesus called him (9:9). Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners, provoking outrage precisely because he refuses the expected boundaries. Matthew also shows Jesus’ relationship with Gentiles, including the story of the Canaanite woman whose faith Jesus praises, the centurion whose faith astonishes him, and ultimately writes a Gospel that ends by sending the disciples to all nations.
So perhaps “treat them as a Gentile and tax collector” establishes a boundary. The newly emerging community can’t pretend that harmful behaviour doesn't matter. But it doesn’t mean that care ends at that boundary. As Matthew attests here, there is always room for the “tax collectors and Gentiles”.
The text then comes to the oft quoted verse “where two or three are gathered in my name, I am with them.” (20). Interestingly this verse too is often pulled from context but in a more positive way.
I think I have most often heard it used reassuringly when only three people turn up for something. Sort of like “Never mind, where two or three are gathered…”
But I don’t think that is really what Jesus is talking about here. It is not primarily about attendance numbers. That does not fit with the context. It is an extraordinary claim about Christ being present in the difficult work of reconciliation.
The “two or three” echoes the earlier instruction to take “one or two others” when trying to resolve a conflict, perhaps drawing on Deuteronomy's requirement for two or three witnesses.
Read that way “where two or three are gathered in my name” provides a challenge rather than a cozy reassurance. Matthew 18.20 suggests that Christ might also be sitting at the table when two people are having a horribly uncomfortable conversation they would much rather avoid. Can two or three be gathered to shame, silence or control another person and claim, simply by quoting this verse, that Jesus is among them? I don’t think so, that hard conversation is about restoration and relationship not condemnation.
Briefly, going to the verses beyond today’s text, to the other side of sandwiching between stories of care in Matthew 18. The next section opens with Peter’s question “How many times shall I forgive my brother or sister” (21) with the response implying that forgiveness is limitless. This is followed by the parable of the unmerciful servant also illustrating forgiveness.
Therefore, in Matthew the stories surrounding the text which are all about care, restoration and forgiveness suggest a new way to interpret the text. The whole chapter should be read in that light.
So perhaps today’s text should not be taken as a blueprint for procedure resulting exclusion. But understood as the new way forward for the emerging ekklesia which, in my reading, is to protect, to seek, to restore and to forgive.
