Matthew 18 - Looking out for the little ones (vv. 15-20)

Matthew 18:15-20 begins,

“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault when the two of you are alone. If he listens to you, you have regained your brother.” (NET)

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.” (ESV, italics mine)

A quick survey of some of the most popular English translations show that the latter form is slightly more common. However, margin notes and commentaries reveal that the former (without the “against you”) is probably the original reading. I think that this better fits the overall context. When “against you” is included, the text suddenly introduces a thematic dichotomy: whereas the context thus far has been about community relationships as a whole in the kingdom of heaven, this addition marks an awkward and strange shift toward an individual grievance toward another individual – it would mark a drastic shift from concern about how others are treated, especially the “little ones,” to concern about how I’m treated. I think that the omission of the gloss keeps the context of these texts consistent with the thematic whole of the chapter.

The addition of εἰς σέ, “against you,” at this point in the majority of MSS and versions changes an altruistic concern about a brother’s spiritual danger into a personal grievance. That personal concern will be appropriate, and is made explicit, in Peter’s question in v. 21 (εἰς ἐμέ), which leads into the discussion of forgiveness for personal wrongs, but to introduce it here, where it is the brother’s welfare, not “your” interest, which is in focus, is premature; it is probably due to a mechanical reading back of the phrase from v. 21. The shorter reading of א and B (in agreement with the parallel in Luke 17:3, where there is less support for an added εἰς σέ) is thus to be preferred… (New International Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew, verse footnote)

Verses 15-17 have also traditionally been used as instructions for church discipline; i.e., if a church member is observed to be, or have been, committing a sin then these verses describe the procedure for confronting the offending member, up to and including a full church censure with a possible final result of excommunication (or disfellowshipping, depending on denominational tradition). While this may be a possible application, it is not the primary intent, once again returning to the observation that no “church hierarchy” or “church authority” has been invoked in the chapter thus far. Moreover we have already seen that such hierarchy or authority is discouraged and even denounced in earlier verses.

The singular pronouns of this paragraph make it very unlikely, however, that these verses should be understood as guidance specifically for church leaders… Commentators who use the formal language of ecclesiastical discipline or even “excommunication” in connection with v. 17 seem regularly to fail to notice the singular “you.” The person at risk is described as “your brother or sister” (adelphos, see 689, n.). This family language imports a note of personal care rather than objective censure… In view of such language we should be cautious about speaking in this context of “discipline,” if that term is understood to connote one person exercising authority over another… In view of such language we should be cautious about speaking in this context of “discipline,” if that term is understood to connote one person exercising authority over another. (NICNT: Matthew)

These texts might also be seen to speak to the sheep that is going astray in the immediately preceding verses. In other words, when a believer sees another member of the family going astray, these current verses are instructions on how to make the one going astray aware of their sin and to bring them back. And I think that is a more appropriate application than as the previously discussed “manual for church discipline.” But is this the only or the best way of reading this text?

Given the above, what then shall we make of this text?

The theme and context in the line of argument of this chapter is how some in the kingdom of heaven think they are greater than others, having more power, privilege, and authority, and in particular over the “little ones.” This very attitude and the actions based on them are “stumbling blocks” that have caused some of these “little ones” to go astray. Who is at greater fault here? Who has committed the greater sin? The warning given was that these would be better to cut off offending parts of themselves than to end up destroyed, and what they deserve is a millstone to be hung about them and they drowned than for them to destroy relationships in God’s kingdom.

I believe that the primary application for verses 15-20 is on those who are destroying others within the kingdom through their pursuit of “personal greatness.” These very same frequently intimidate those around them into saying and doing nothing about such sins. I think these verses are speaking to those who observe relationship destroying attitudes and actions happening, but are afraid to do anything about it. I think these verses are giving us permission, command, and authority to confront those who are power-seeking and abusive. These verses remind us that Christ himself will accompany those (c.f., vv. 19, 20) who actively look out for the welfare of the “little ones” to make sure they are not led or driven astray.

Yet in confronting those with self-aggrandizing and power-seeking attitudes, the goal is not to drive them away either. The ultimate goal is for all to be reconciled with one another. But we can’t make reconciliation happen if the offending party isn’t willing. In that case it is better for the parties to separate. Depending on the nature of the offense, further interaction may not be possible or desirable. Ultimate judgment is left to God.

Book Review: Saving Your Marriage Before It Starts: Seven Questions to Ask Before -- and After -- You Marry

Saving Your Marriage Before It Starts: Seven Questions to Ask Before -- and After -- You Marry by Les Parrott
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I warily approach marriage and relationship books from religious perspectives. I've encountered too many of them that promote a "biblical" perspective and ignore, discount, and dismiss findings from science and academics. I'm happy to report that this book takes current research and findings from the sciences and academia as priorities. It is informed by what is found in the Bible and its Christian interpretations, but it does not attempt to base its authority in the Bible.

For example, in the Question 2 chapter there is material discussing cohabitation. The Parrotts do not use judgmental terms, nor do they bring in biblical perspectives, but provides sociological and psychological evidence in their recommendation against it. They do not condemn it our call it "sin" or (especially) "living in sin" but sees it as something that is common in society but perhaps may not be in the best interests of couples from a scientific perspective.

I own an earlier edition (2006) of this book. Much of the material is the same. The most significant change is in the integration of the SYMBIS (Saving Your Marriage Before It Starts) Assessment. A purchased book includes an access code for one couple to take the online assessment. The assessment is referenced throughout the book. Couples who have taken it prior to starting the book can refer to the results and use them as discussion points. An Appendix has been added giving an overview into SYMBIS and personality dynamics.

In the chapter Question Four discussing the topic of communication, material has been added discussing the problem of our electronic gadgets becoming barriers.

My biggest disappointment was with Question Five in which gender differences are discussed. On the positive side, gender roles are not prescribed nor are they discussed. The ideas of submission and headship are totally absent, which I see as a huge plus above many other "Christian marriage" material.

However the chapter does tend to paint in fairly balck-and-white terms personality, thinking, and behavioral style differences that are supposedly found between men and women. It defines feminism in terms of some of the radical 1970's era understandings (e.g., the abolition of gender), failing to recognize that this is one narrow perspective of feminism (albeit a common Christian misunderstanding of it). The chapter paints a broad, stereotypical portrait of men and women without recognizing that reality is far more nuanced and that broad traits identified with a particular gender often do not manifest so clearly in real people, or that real people usually have a combination of both "male" and "female" traits. What I could take away from this chapter was the advice to realize that I am not my spouse, and she thinks and sees the world differently than I do.

The final chapter is the only overtly spiritual/religious chapter. It discusses the role of faith and spirituality in a marriage relationship. The Parrotts see the integration of spirituality into a marriage as the ingredient that can turn a very good marriage into one that is great; a relationship that is intimate to one that can only be described as soul-mates. Once more the argument is made primarily from academic sources, not the Bible.

The problem with a "biblical marriage" is that there are so many interpretations and applications of it. Some may be good, while others can be bad to downright terrible. The Bible is not an authority on marriage: it describes marriage and many of them were quite bad. It was written across a huge span of time under many different cultural and sociological contexts. To use it as a primary source for marriage guidance today is problematic.

What I see being done in this book is far better: the ideals and purposes of marriage are broadly found in the Bible, but the specifics and practices of how that works out are found in the realms of science and sociology.

As this book does not contain overly religious material, I feel it is appropriate to a broad audience.

(This review is based on ARC supplied by the publisher through NetGalley.)

View all my reviews

Jesus and Definition of Family

There are two passages in the gospel describing one event that is often used to show that Christian relationships must take priority over physical family relationships.

While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50, ESV)

Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. And he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you.” But he answered them, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” (Luke 8:19-21, ESV)

In the Western, individualistic, modernist culture, where we tend to think in either-or terms, we read Jesus seeming to say that a Christian must choose to prioritize either physical familial relationships or the spiritual relationship that s/he enters into upon acceptance of Christ as Lord.

But is there an alternative interpretation that may be more faithful to the culture and intent when the words were spoken? What might an ancient Middle Eastern, collectivist culture have heard in Jesus’ words? What if we took a both-and stance instead of either-or? E. Randolph Richards (M.Div. and Ph.D., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) and Brandon J. O’Brien (M.A., Wheaton College Graduate School), in Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes writes,

The non-Western concept of family is broader than the Western. But Jesus expanded it even more. For Jesus, family not only designated one’s immediate, biological relatives but included all who are knit together in faith. Once while Jesus was teaching in someone’s home, a messenger told him his mother and brothers wanted to speak with him. Jesus pointed to his disciples and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Mt 12:49-50). This is a radical statement in a culture in which birth determines your family.^[1]

What Richards and O’Brien are telling us is that Jesus didn’t say that a spiritual family takes precedence over the biological, or that the more genuine family is a spiritual one; but rather, the definition of family now includes both biological and those who join in through a spiritual, faith relationship.

---

^[1] Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understanding the Bible. Kindle edition, location 1114.

Exchanging One Legalism for Another

“Christianity is not about rules. It’s about a relationship.”

That or something similar to it is an oft-repeated phrase that Christians use to warn themselves against legalism. Legalism is commonly defined as following the law, the rules in order to merit God’s grace and consequently, salvation. Legalism is relying on one’s own efforts to be right with God.

I’ve been reading a number of books recently that deal with the topic of grace and relationships in the Christian life. All reject the kind of legalism that focuses on law-keeping and right actions. They all agree that the goal of the Christian life is to be in a right relationship with God.

Here is where I see problems with what I’ve been reading. Right relationship is often described in terms of right relational attitudes. The authors come up with a list of desirable, relational attitudes. What I see is a replacement of one set of rules for another. The reader is told to give up behavioral rule-keeping, but is then given a checklist of correct attitudes. Behavioral legalism is abandoned, but there is a danger of adopting relational legalism. Both are equally ineffective when it comes to getting into a right relationship with God.

Neither is the old legalism completely abandoned. Somewhere, almost invariably, is presented that as part of one’s own evaluation of their relationship to God, they will have taken off the old. And how does one evaluate whether or not the old has been removed? By appealing to the old rules, of course –  usually in the form of “not doing” immoral actions. There remains, then, a great temptation to revert to the rule-based method of defining what a right relationship looks like.

At this point an objection may be raised. Don’t many of the epistles contain exhortation to develop good fruit, i.e., proper attitudes, when in a right relationship with God? My question in response to to this objection is this: are these “exhortations” a prescription toward more sanctified living, or are they a description of what automatically happens in a right relationship? These lists (such as the list of spiritual gifts and immorality to avoid found in Galatians 5:16-23) can be seen as a way of measuring and growing a relationship with God (the prescription method). Or they can be seen as descriptive of what naturally happens with a Christian when they walk with God.

Specifically with the passage in Galatians, in our English translation we interpret the “but if you are led by the Spirit” to be a conditional. But it can also be understood to read “but because you are led by the Spirit.” The latter is more in line with how the section begins in v.16 where it reads, “Walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.” This passage is not prescriptive. It is not telling the Christian to focus on either avoidance of the bad, or to focus on developing the right attitudes. It is simply descriptive of what happens when a person is in a right relationship with God.¹

The problem with both kinds of legalism – rule-based or relationship-based – is the preoccupation with self. With the former it is navel-gazing asking myself, “Am I doing the right things and avoiding bad things?” With the latter it is still navel-gazing, asking myself, “Am I developing the right attitudes? Am I avoiding deeds of the old nature?” The focus is still “me.”

Jesus’ parable of the final judgment, the sheep and the goats, found in Matthew 25:31-46, illustrates the above. The sheep, on the right, have no idea that they are sheep and are in a right relationship with God. Their focus has never been on themselves and whether or not they are doing the right things, avoiding the bad, or having a right attitude toward God. Their preoccupation is service for others, without making a conscious effort to do so. The goats, on the left, are shown to have no genuine concern for others. Implicitly this indicates a preoccupation with self. The goats are “clean” as are the sheep. The goats are not overtly evil people. They, therefore, can be seen to represent those who claim to follow Christ, those who claim to belong to God. They are not in a right relationship with God because their preoccupation is with self (c.f., Matthew 7:21-23).

I think that one reason why relational legalism is such a temptation and trap is that Christianity has not adequately defined what a right relationship is. There is nowhere in the New Testament where we can find it explicitly defined. Thus we must resort to building a definition via inference. It is easy to take the lists of good, moral attitudes in many of the epistles and use them to build a definition. But as I wrote earlier, these lists are not prescriptive. We cannot grow our relationship with God by focusing on how short we fall of meeting these descriptions.

So how do we grow our relationship with God? How should we define a right relationship with him?

It is instructive to refer to John 13-17. In his final discourse Jesus could have said many things. But in John’s longest recorded single discourse, Jesus’ instruction is singular, in two parts: 1) Abide in me; 2) Love one another. Jesus could have listed all sorts of attributes and attitudes that he wanted his disciples to develop and by which they could measure growth. Jesus does nothing of the sort. His instruction to his disciples is to become preoccupied with him and with others; i.e., focus away from self. I believe that is the most concise and only definition of “right relationship with God” that we need. I believe this definition most accurately characterizes the “sheep” of the Matthew 7 parable mentioned earlier.

I agree that Christianity is right to warn against rule-based, behavior-based legalism. Christianity is right in emphasizing that what God wants is a right relationship with him. There is much in current Christian literature that is good, but I believe that many of them define “right relationship” in a manner that can lead to relational legalism. We must avoid that at all costs. Both types of legalism is essentially a focus on self. Jesus tells us that in order to avoid legalism and develop a right relationship, we must stop focusing on self.

We need to stop our navel-gazing. It is not about whether or not we see ourselves doing good or bad, or we think we have right or wrong attitudes. It is all about looking away from ourselves – and instead to God and toward people around us. If we focus on the goodness of Jesus, we will bear fruit without having to be conscious about it.

---

¹ These morality lists are also cultural and literary conventions of the Greek and Roman world. The New Testament writers are simply following what is the norm for them and what their audience expects to see. That does not make such lists inappropriate, but neither are they strictly right or necessary.