Christian’s Expositor Journal
Winter 2006
Although the book of Ephesians is one of the most deeply theological and profound books of all the New Testament, it is still one of the most practical. In the space of six short chapters. the Apostle Paul vaults his reader to “heavenly places” where blessings of Christ are secured (1:3) only to cast him at book’s end onto the bloody battlefield of spiritual warfare (6:10 ff). Ephesians is a treatise that begins in the “heavenlies” and yet ends on its knees in prayer (6:18). It is a book that reveals the great mysteries of redemption (3:3-5) and yet solves the question about how to walk in unity with God and man (4:1-6).
There is no passage in Ephesians more beautiful than chapter 4 verse 32. In reality, however, the admonition that Paul gives in this verse actually begins in the previous verse. The apostle says, “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake has forgiven you” (Ephesians 4:31-32, KJV).
Notice that every characteristic Paul mentions ultimately deals with the heart. One can only put away “evil speaking” when his heart has been cleansed of bitterness, wrath, and anger. One can only erase malice when his heart has become tender. Likewise, one cannot adequately forgive another until his heart has felt the gentle touch of the Master’s hand.
The Master is where it all begins. On the cross of Calvary Jesus spread His arms and embraced a world estranged from God and in dire need of forgiveness. Even as His bloodstained body strained against the nails, His quivering voice cried, “Father, forgive them.”
Forgiveness is really what Christianity is all about. It was for this reason that God sent His only begotten Son (John 3:16). It was for this reason that Jesus gave His life as a ransom (1 Timothy 2:6). It is for this reason that we obey the gospel of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38). And it is for this reason, as Paul reminds us, that we forgive one another. We must then unreservedly pass on forgiveness to our fellow man.
There are many passages that deal with forgiveness. In the “Lord’s Prayer” Jesus teaches His disciples to pray’, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors” (Matthew 6:12). Regarding the repentant sinner at Corinth Paul advises, “Ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him” (2 Corinthians 2:7). And to those worried about forgiveness, the Apostle John comforts that “if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive our sins” (1 John 1:9). No one demonstrates his maturity in Christ more than when he forgives his fellow man. No one is more like God than when he forgives others as God has forgiven him.
At its core, forgiveness is about restoring relationships. Through Jesus’ blood, the Father restores us unto Himself. The breech of Eden is repaired in the Savior (Romans 5:10). The estrangement of the first Adam is reconciled in the last Adam, Jesus Christ (Romans 5:15; 1 Corinthians 15:45). Likewise, human relationships that fall upon the jagged rocks of life’s tempestuous sea are salvaged by the Captain of our salvation.
But how do we salvage a relationship with our fellow man? How do we reconcile ourselves to those who have done us wrong? In the remainder of this article we will look at this question as we especially focus on the case study found in Matthew 18:15-20.
Typically, when we think of Matthew 18 we think of what the church commonly calls “disfellowship.” Almost all of us are somewhat familiar with the procedures outlined in this passage about dealing with a “sinning brother.” We know; for example, that if a brother sins against us we must make a proper case against him that includes the requisite witnesses and action of the church.
May I suggest, however, that perhaps we have read this passage a bit backwards? Knowing that the end of Jesus’ teaching describes an unsuccessful restoration, and knowing that an unrepentant brother is cast out as a “heathen,” we perhaps assume that Jesus’ teaching is really all about how to speedily remove someone from the church. Nothing could be farther from the truth! In reality the passage we will “reconsider” is about restoration. That this process is regrettably unsuccessful sometimes is secondary to the gist of the overall theme of the passage and the broader context of the chapter at large. The real issue that Jesus deals with is the value of a soul, the precariousness of one who has gone astray, and the opportunity and responsibility that one has in restoring his brother to the fold of Jesus Christ. Even when hurt, the innocent person must take the initiative to restore fellowship with the one who harmed him because restoration is so precious. Much as God did with a sinful world, the wounded party steps outside himself and his own pain to pursue peace.
As noted above, the overall tenor of Matthew 18 is “reconciliation and forgiveness.” It is not “disfellowship.” In verse 10 Jesus begins His assessment of the value of each “little one” (i.e., believers, no matter how humble in status) as He tells the parable about a lost sheep. The point of this parable is that the lost “one” takes precedent over the “many” that are safe in the fold. Jesus thus concludes His teaching in verse 14 by saying, “Even so, it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish” (NKJV). Luke’s parallel poignantly sums up this parable and notes, “I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance” (Luke 15:7).
Notice that Jesus emphasizes the effort of the shepherd who goes into the rugged mountainous terrain to seek the wandering sheep. Though it is not the shepherd’s negligence that caused the sheep to go astray, as a mature leader, the shepherd takes the initiative and even puts his life at risk to restore the wanderer. Even so believers must do the same to restore an erring fellow brother in Christ.
Although presented in a bit different way, the end of Matthew 18 also deals with the necessity of forgiveness. If one were to analyze Jesus’ parable, he would quickly learn that Jesus is teaching the same simple, yet profound lesson He taught in the “Lord’s Prayer.” For a believer to expect forgiveness from God for his sins, he must, in turn, forgive the sins of his fellowman. Though much less guilty in comparison to our guilt before God, our fellow man gives us a chance to demonstrate how we really feel about forgiveness. The sobering truth is that God will not forgive those who do not forgive. In fact, God cannot forgive those who refuse to forgive others. As the parable shows, when one demonstrates his contempt for “mercy” by refusing it to his fellowman, God has no choice but to grant the only thing left: justice. Verse 35 puts it this way: “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”
We must not forget that it is Peter’s question that gives rise to the parable mentioned above. In verse 21 Peter comes to Jesus and poses a difficult question. Having heard Jesus say that a Christian must forgive one who has trespassed against him, Peter wants to know the limits of this forgiveness. Peter asks, “Up to seven times?” Jesus replies, “Seventy times seven.” Peter’s statement probably stems from scribal tradition which held that forgiveness should be extended but three times to a fellow brother. Peter, thinking he is being generous, doubles the number and then adds one to make it a perfect seven. Jesus’ response to Peter’s generosity is shocking. Obviously Jesus does not have in mind forgiving a literal 490 times (which might be impossible to keep track of anyway) but is teaching that forgiveness must be open ended. As long as there is repentance on the part of a sinner, the offended must grant forgiveness.
But what gave rise to Peter’s question? Why was Peter so concerned about the limits of forgiveness? No doubt it was because Jesus, in the verses that immediately precede His inquiry, lays out those steps that will hopefully end in repentance, restitution, and reconciliation of a precious soul. While we never want to read too much into a passage, it almost seems that Peter is concerned that if the procedures of verses 15-20 are followed, then the “sinner” will be given too much of a break. Perhaps Peter thinks that Jesus’ suggestion of “forbearance” might give rise to repeated offenses. Might it not be easier just to let your brother off the hook a few times before you lower the boom? What Jesus suggests is shocking. Not only are certain procedures to follow before a brother is “written off,” but also, in reality, these procedures actually safeguard the “sinner.” In other words, it is the “sinner” who really holds the benefit of the doubt in these proceedings. How strange and different than the way we normally interpret this passage!
What we discover is that the “injured party,” though hurting and legitimate in his grievance, must settle down and think of his brother’s good before his own. As we shall notice, the instruction that Jesus gives on dealing with a sinning brother is simply a practical application of the parable He has just completed --- a parable that has the shepherd risking his own life to save the one who is astray (vv. 10-14).
If a Brother Sins against You
It is interesting to note that Jesus begins His admonition to the injured party by reminding him that the sinner is his “brother.” In other words, the injured party must place the relationship above his own grievance. This is not to deny that an actual infraction has been committed. Jesus admits that such has occurred but explains the emphasis should be less on the sin than it is on the relationship between the two parties. They are brothers in Christ! How many problems would be solved if we were remembered in the midst of our grievances that we first and foremost are united by the blood of Jesus? This is not some stranger who has done us wrong; this is our “brother.” This is a fellow Christian for whom Christ died.
Go and Tell ... Him Alone
This statement clarifies even further that this is a personal sin. Again, the emphasis of Jesus’ statement is not just on the sin but rather is on the responsibility the injured party has in taking the first step toward reconciliation. “Go and tell” implies several startling facts. First, for one to “go and tell” takes time. The “going” implies a “road” down which one must travel—a road that hopefully is filled with thoughtful prayer. This is a road of consideration as to whether the grievance is real or imagined. This is not a road of anger, self-pity, or revenge. This is the road less traveled that hopefully ends in reconciliation.
Furthermore, note that Jesus says that the injured party goes to his brother “alone.” At this point in the process only two (and perhaps under some circumstances only the injured party) knows that a sin has even been committed. Since this is not a public sin, no one but the two involved have any business knowing the details of what has happened.
Again, how different this is from the action Christians often take. Far too often, when Christians are injured they go to their “friends” or their “favorite preacher” via gossip rather than going to the individual who allegedly committed the sin. The “preacher” or “gossiping member” in turn tells their “pals” and before long the whole brotherhood has a skewed viewpoint. When this is happens, the guilty party is maligned, alienated, humiliated, and put on the defensive. When such an environment is created, battle grounds are often drawn and reconciliation is all but impossible. However, when the guilty party is approached quietly, calmly, and with brotherly love there is much more likelihood that he will respond in a gracious and repentant way. He is not embarrassed or publicly humiliated. While the emphasis of Jesus’ admonition is that of “individual infractions,” do the rules not also apply when a ”congregation” has allegedly committed some offense? Do members or preachers have the right to spread a tale without first going to the actual persons who allegedly are in the wrong? The answer is obvious.
Forgiveness, then, requires that we look not only to out brother’s spiritual well-being but also to the emotional and social well-being. The process Jesus describes is never for the purpose of revenge or public humiliation. In fact every care must be taken so this does not occur. We are to remember that our brother has feelings, and we must nurture an environment where genuine dialog and forgiveness can take place.
You Have Gained Your Brother
This is the purpose of our action. Our only desire is to restore the relationship that has been severed. When this is done then we have “gained our brother” --- to ourselves and to God. “Gained” is from kerdaino which was originally a term of commerce referring to financial profit or gain. Here it refers to the precious soul of an erring brother. Other passages in the Bible also allude to the fact that forgiveness is a process of “gaining” and “restoring” one who is lost. Proverbs 11:30 says, “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise.” Paul says in Galatians 6:1, “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.” Again, the process is not only about the sinner but also about those who are faithful. Likewise James 5:19-20 says, “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.” The restoration process that Jesus describes in Matthew 18 is not so much about “revealing sin” as it is covering it up (i.e., forgiving it).
But if He Will Not Hear You
Unfortunately there will be times when, in spite of our efforts, a brother or sister refuses to repent. When this occurs, however, it should not be because we have backed our brother into a corner or humiliated him to the point of stubbornness. It must never be because we have created an environment of hostility. Our approach must be as gentle and persuasive as the shepherd Jesus describes in Matthew 18:12-13.
In commenting on this passage, Lenski makes the interesting observation that the injured party might need to go more than once to the offender (Matthew 700). In other words, the offended party is to be long-suffering. He is to make repeated attempts to save his brother’s soul and to reconcile the relationship. Far too often we act as if we can hardly wait to ostracize our erring brother. Unless we are willing to exercise patience, and unless our motives are pure, we may actually end up being the real aggressor in the situation as we make haste to bring discipline on one who has sinned against us. Revenge is never the proper motive for discipline. The procedures Jesus describes, which call for action, first on the part of the individual and eventually the church, aim at restoration. At their core is a genuine concern and love for the sinner’s soul. Jesus’ instruction is not a recipe for ridding ourselves of those with whom we have personality problems.
Take Two or Three Witnesses
Again, the step that Jesus outlines here is one designed to restore and safeguard the erring brother. It is designed to preserve the sinner’s reputation! The offended may only get others involved after having failed at repeated attempts to reconcile with his brother. Whomever he takes, however, must be impartial and must be chosen with care. The wrong witnesses or even those who are perceived not to be impartial may actually do more harm than good. An excellent example of this principle as it pertains to warring parties is found in Acts 6. When, after Pentecost, Hellemstic believers complained that their widows were being treated worse than the Jewish widows in the daily distribution of food, seven men were appointed to rectify the dispute. It is not insignificant that all seven men bear Greek names (Acts 6:1-7). The implication is that the apostles not only chose impartial men, but also chose men who would be perceived as impartial by those bringing the complaint. Often perception is the bigger part of reality, and if one perceives that we are being unfair, then to their mind we are, indeed, unfair. If we go to a sinning brother and take only our “cronies,” we will be seen as biased and without the best interests of the sinner in mind. Again, while the topic at hand is “personal forgiveness,” these principles are also valid when preachers deal with erring congregations.
The principle Jesus sets forth is not only logical but actually has it’s roots in the Mosaic legal system. Moses commanded that accusations be confirmed by two or three witnesses to ensure that innocent people were not falsely accused (Deuteronomy 19:15). Thus every Jew including the apostles, knew the precept and used it on various occasions (John 8:17; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19; and Hebrews 10:28).
Tell It to the Church
In the steps mentioned above, we see yet again the truth of Matthew 18:14. God is not willing that any should perish and thus provides ample opportunity for restoration. Note that as time passes, the process expands to involve more Christians. At first, the rebuke is private. Then with the addition of witnesses, it becomes semi-private. Only if this fails is the matter to be opened to public scrutiny. But again, the purpose of these proceedings is to bring about forgiveness and restoration.
That the church is now informed in no way implies that the sinning brother is beyond reconciliation and that “disfellowship” is inevitable, but rather is again another chance to effect a spiritual change on the sinner. When the church has been diligent in developing strong relationships among its members, who better to involve than that community one trusts the most? We often overlook the power of the corporate body in the reconciliation process. The corporate church has the power of prayer on behalf of the sinner both before and after he is restored. They have the power of relationship because it is likely that someone in the congregation has such a relationship with the sinner that will bring him to his senses. If on past occasions the sinner has felt the warmth and comfort of his brothers, he is more likely now to seek a return to that intimacy.
If He Neglect to Hear the Church
By “church” (ekldesia) Jesus means the “assembly” or “congregation” of baptized saints. Here Jesus anticipates those congregations that His own apostles will establish after Pentecost.
As noted above, of all the influences in one’s life, the church should be that body which most likely convinces the sinner to repent. For one to refuse the advice of the church indicates a deep spiritual rebellion against Christ and God. As suggested, however, in order for the church to positively affect its own members when they go astray, there must already have been some preventive work done. In the case of the shepherd and his sheep, the sheep’s straying is not due to the shepherd’s failure to develop a previous relationship with that sheep. Rather, it is the previous relationship that causes the sheep to be missed, sought for, and restored after it goes astray. If bonds of fellowship and friendship have been nurtured, then an erring member will more naturally want to return to the fold. He will remember the genuine love of his spiritual family. If, however, the church has done nothing to foster spiritual unity and fellowship, their rebuke may seem more an affront than a demonstration of love. The sinner might respond, “The church was never concerned about me before, why should I return? What right do you have to meddle in my affairs?”
In any event, the sinner by this point has had repeated time and opportunity to repent and amend his ways. He has been approached quietly and privately ---perhaps more than once. He has been approached by a small group of spiritual witnesses. Finally, he has been approached formally by the church in all of its love. In each instance, for whatever reason, the sinner has refused to repent of his sin. Therefore, the sin that was once private is now a matter of public concern, It now becomes the obligation of the entire community of believers to take action. Surely, however, this does not happen without heavy hearts, prayers, and tears on behalf of the one who has gone astray.
Let Him Be a Heathen
Admittedly Jesus’ language might seem harsh and uncaring if taken out of context. However as we have shown, the individual in question has stubbornly shown his resistance to the gospel and to spiritual persons who are interested in his soul. Thus, for all practical purposes this man is already a “heathen.” He has shown disregard for the basic component of God’s plan: forgiveness of sins.
But again remember that this step only comes after all other avenues have been exhausted. It only comes after much prayer and tears. This is the last resort. This is not the destination we have driven the offender to by our bad attitude, but rather is the corner into which the church has been backed. Having no other loving avenue to pursue, the church uses punitive discipline. By this point, some time has passed, prayers have been said, proper avenues have been taken, righteous men have become involved, and now with a calm deliberation the flock must be protected.
The concept of someone becoming a “heathen” probably sterns from a special Jewish context. Most Jews of Jesus’ day fellowshipped only those they believed were ceremonially clean. To rub shoulders with outright sinners such as tax collectors brought spiritual contamination. While this belief was not true in a literal sense (befriending a sinner does not in and of itself automatically make one unclean), Jesus uses the idea here to demonstrate a spiritual truth. Evil company corrupts good morals. If the church were to harbor the guilty party in all his rebellion, it indeed expose the body to spiritual contamination. One cannot “buddy up” with sin and not eventually be affected by it. In the case before us, the one who refuses to hear the church must be withdrawn from so that his insubordination does not destroy the entire body. This is the same concept that Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 5:6 as he too deals with an erring brother. His warning that sin spreads like leaven must always be a legitimate concern.
By saying that the sinner in Matthew 18:17 is to be as a tax collector is the same as saying that one is not to have intimate association with him. In the similar case that we have noted in 1 Corinthians, Paul says, “Not even to eat.” In other words, there is to be no social (let alone religious) communion with this person. To the “western mind,” such admonition might carry a bit different connotation than what Jesus suggests. “To eat with someone” in ancient times was the very picture of fellowship. Oriental countries in Jesus’ day were known for their openness in sharing food and meals. To eat with someone demonstrated friendship and hospitality. To be refused an invitation to dinner was a very serious matter. It would obviously make the offender sit up and take notice of how his former friends were now treating him. Notwithstanding, not only was it sad to be refused entrance into a meal of fellowship, but it was equally sad to not be able to extend such an invitation.
Thus, the issue seems to be that both the sinner and the one offended lose something precious in the process. Again, how different this is than what we sometimes witness. Do we really miss others when, due to sin, we must withdraw our social fellowship? Do we really miss others when, due to sin, we must withdraw the precious fellowship we enjoy around the Lord’s Table?
Finally, we find in Jesus’ comments in verses 19 and 20 that the church has the authority to withdraw fellowship from an erring brother. This authority is never to be abused or even used lightly. The procedures of Matthew 18 reveal that the sinner is given the benefit of the doubt. The innocent has the burden of proof and must do everything he can to heal the injured relationship. Throughout the process, only actions compatible with charity are to be administered. The goal is restoration and forgiveness.
Conclusion
While we have spent a great deal of time on Matthew 18, let me conclude by reminding us of Ephesians 4:32. Let me suggest that only in the context of Paul’s admonition can Jesus’ instruction be scripturally carried out. Even when we are forced down the road that Jesus describes in Matthew 18:15-20, the apostle’s words must be our guide, “And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave you..”
3505 NE Logwood Ct
Lee’s Sutmmt, Missouri 64064-1847
mikecriswell@sbcglobal. net
No comments:
Post a Comment