Matthew 18—Sheep Going Astray (vv. 10-14)

The next four verses (yes four – verse 11 is absent in most translations) is framed by an inclusio about “little ones” and contains two verses frequently referred to as The Parable of the Lost Sheep. However, this heading or title is more appropriately applied to a similar parable found in Luke 15:1-7. In the Matthean account, the sheep is not said to be “lost” but to have “gone astray.” In the Lucan account, the rejoicing is over the sheep that is found, represeing a sinner that repents, whereas in Matthew there is no mention of repentance on the part of the sheep. The context of the Lucan account is “sinners” who are being welcomed by Jesus, whereas in Mathew the context is about those who already are part of God’s kingdom but where some “little ones” are being “disdained” or “despised.”

But among the various differences in wording there is one which may be significant: in Luke the sheep is already “lost,” whereas here it is “wandering away” (the word is repeated three times). This may be no more than an idiomatic variation, but the contexts in which the two parables are set, and the audiences to which they are addressed, suggest that it may indicate a different focus… To oversimplify the difference, Luke’s parable is evangelistic, and Matthew’s pastoral. (New International Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew)

I think that what sometimes (and perhaps frequently) happens in interpreting this parable is that it (the Matthean account) gets combined with the Lucan account and is read through John’s Good Shepherd passages (John 10:1-18) leading to a confused amalgamation that does disservice to all three and mises the intent of each one.

In this series so far, I’ve discussed the pursuit of power and status as antithetical to the kingdom of heaven. This frames the entire discussion of Matthew 18. In the next set of verses the issue of believers placing “stumbling blocks” in the path of “little ones” was discussed. Since the “little ones” remains the subject of our present text, we would do well to continue the line of argumentation that is being put forth by the author. We should not isolate the parable of the sheep from what comes before and after.

For me, the key question to understanding these four verses is

“Why does the sheep go astray?”

Is it because the sheep sinned in some way that caused them to not want to stay with the shepherd? Or did they become distracted by “the world” so that they wandered off? These are common interpretations and I don’t necessairly think they are wrong, but perhaps they are better off being assigned to the Lucan or Johannine accounts.

I think the key to the answer is found in verse 10 which is the reason for the parable. The opening sentence states, “See that you do not disdain one of these little ones.” [NET]. The whole line of argument so far in Matthew 18 is how some in the kingdom (the church) in their pursuit of and/or holding to power and status (vv. 1-5) are placing stumbling blocks in the path of other believers (vv. 6-7). Drastic measures must be taken to “cut off” such evils found among those who claim to be in the kingdom of heaven (vv. 8-9). The reason for this is found in our present text, verses 10-14: The “little ones” are infinitely esteemed by God.

The sheep go astray because those who ought to be looking out for them have failed.

They have failed through neglect and by their own power-seeking; they have “despised” the “little ones,” the ones that God has particular concern for.

To “despise” is the opposite of the “welcome” in v. 5. It is the natural way of the world to “despise little ones,” in the sense of not taking them seriously or giving their interests priority. Here, as so often, Jesus attacks the values of the rat-race. (NICNT: Matthew)

It is critical to note that no fault is ascribed to the sheep for going astray, and unlike in Luke nothing is the Matthean version of the parable indicates repentance on the part of the sheep. “But,” some might object, “don’t the next verses speak of restoration of a fellow believer that has sinned?” Yes they do, and I understand how these verses have been traditionally applied. But could there be a different way of reading and interpreting it that continues what I believe to be more consistent with the line of argument that is being developed in this chapter? I think there is, and that will be the subject of the next post.

Matthew 18—On Stumbling Blocks (vv. 6-9)

This post looks into Matthew 18:6-9. I use the NRSV version this time because its translators consistently translated the key word that ties together these verses. The word? Skandalizo (Gk. σκανδαλίζω and variants) found in each of these verses. The NRSV translates the various words as “stumbling block” and “stumble.” (The NASB and NIV are also consistent.)

Unfortunately many translations use and mix multiple English phrases so that the unifying thread is often lost. These other translations include –

• “trip and fall”
• “fall into sin”
• “to sin”
• “causes you to sin”

Is it such a big deal to remain consistent and so favor “stumble” (the more literal translation) vs. “to sin”? I believe it is. In the modern English context, the phrase “to sin” brings to mind much more of a immoral and evil behavior and action – it connotes concreteness and offense to a legal code. Causing another “to sin” (v. 6) connotes a deliberate evil and malicious intent by one leading their victim toward committing a crime or immoral action. When verses 8 and 9 speak of things in one’s life “causes you to sin,” that too connotes violations of legal codes and moral order. As a whole, when “sin” is the translation of skandalizo the focus seems to turn to an external code and norm that is violated.

But if we take the entirety of Matthew 18 to be about how to live together as a family with God as its head, the translation “stumbling block” and “to stumble” seem better ones. These give me far broader sense than breaking hard-coded laws or performing immoral actions. The terms are also more difficult to define and pin down as to exactly what they might mean, and I think that is precisely the point: what is a stumbling block might be quite different from one person to another, from one context to another. What causes a person to stumble may change from one time to another.

I think it is important to retain the more amorphouse “stumble” and to keep it consistently throughout these verses because what Jesus is speaking about here is far more than “doing bad things.” It is about anything and everything that might cause a person to leave God’s family. These certainly include actions, but I believe far more crucial are things like attitude and value priorities that are experienced within a community of believers.

… The “stumbling” envisaged is much more drastic than simply “being offended” or even “scandalized.” It appears to envisage fatal damage to the disciple’s relationship with God. They are caused to “trip” so as to be in danger of falling out of the race altogether. (New International Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew)

Perhaps most important is how a Christian community (as smaller and larger units) look upon those who are powerless, weak, and despised.

The “despising” of the little ones in v. 10 is the attitude which promotes such damaging behavior toward them. (NICNT: Matthew)

How are you and I, our local church community, our denominations, and the Christian world at-large addressing racial, gender, economic, and social inequalities, especially within their midst? Vv. 1-5 already revealed that hierarchy, and authority and power inequities have no place in the kingdom of heaven, aka God’s family. By maintaining them, through appeal to tradition or even because an interpretation that supports it seems to “be biblical,” those that do are placing stumbling blocks in God’s family. And those who do have much to answer for. We would be better to cut off our hands, feet, and gouge out our eyes – perhaps one metaphorical application for this “hard saying” is for removing even those very things that might be seen as “bliblical” but violates the law of love and equality – than to be complicit in the loss of “a little one” from God’s family.

---

(Made a few minor edits to the last paragraph since initial publish. Changing “their” to “our” because we are all blind in one way or another.)