The heavy-handedapplication of Matthew18:15-17 leaves a trail of

pain, broken relationships andspiritual carnage. Religiousauthoritarians use Matthew 18 tosilence dissenting speech and tolabel people as troublemakers—sources of contamination in theassembly that must be purged. Speech is articulated thought.

Articulated thought calls toaction. Action shapes reality.

Whoever controls speech,controls reality. Misguidedleaders use Matthew 18 as aspeech/thought-controltemplate. They can manipulate agroup of individuals and thuscontrol and shape a community’sexperiential reality: a reality thattoo often accrues to the material,social, or psychological benefit ofleadership. This is an unfortunate and

illegitimate understanding andapplication. It betrays the Spiritof Christ, even while professingfidelity to the text. Let’s brieflyexamine this passage payingattention to its culture andcontext, and try to distill somelegitimate application.

TRESPASS-OFFENSE-SCANDALIn Matthew 18:1-14, Christ hasexpressed his identification with“little children” and what it willtake to inherit eternal life. Hetalks about “offending” thesesame little ones. In 18:6, he shiftsand talks about interpersonal“trespasses”—offenses—literally:scandals. Petty interpersonaloffenses and “hurt feelings” arenot included. Neither isdisagreeing with your “pastor.”

He is talking about behaviorsof a scandalous nature thatwould breach the peace of thecommunity. The cultural backdrop for

“trespasses” was the Mosaic Law.How do we know we are dealingwith Mosaic law moral/criminal/civil offenses and not minorpsychological hurts? Matthew 5might inform our understandingof this passage as it is almost amirror version of Matthew 18. In Matthew 5:22, Jesus refers to

being called before the “council”That was the Jewish Sanhedrin,the elders who adjudicated issuesof the Mosaic Law. Verse 25 usesthe words: adversary, officer, judgeand prison.

These are all legal terms. Weare dealing in these passages withcivil/criminal trespasses in aMosaic context. You do not go tocourt/jail for “insensitivities”toward another believer in thecommunity! The context is thedisruption of community due toactual, objective loss in a legalsense. In our culture, the closestequivalence would be civil orcriminal offenses, not petty localchurch squabbles.

TAKE WITNESSES If a first attempt at peacemakinghas been unsuccessful, involveothers in the community. Thiswas a very Jewish/Semiticpractice. The law said there wasto be no “ruling” without thepresence of two or threewitnesses. It does not meantaking two or three shills withyou who are on your side, to beatthe other person down until theyagree with you.

TWO OR THREE AGREEING This is not a make-a-wish prayerformula for three people in acircle singing praise songs.Rather, the peace of the

10 CWRm

Script-torturing Matthew 18

Stephen Crosby

community is so important toChrist that he makes thispromise (my paraphrase): “Wherever two are three of

you are concerned about theunity of the community, whereyou had to ‘make judgment’ in acase, and you are in agreementon it, I will stand behind yourjudgment.”“Concerning the maintenance

of the unity of the community,just ask, it will be done for you.”

A MANDATORY PROTOCOL?Some think Matthew 18 is amandatory protocol that mustbe followed to adjudicate alllocal church conflicts. If that isthe case, and it is to be rigidlyand legalistically applied, Paulapparently “failed Matthew 18”because he received a second-hand report from those ofChloe’s house (1 Corinthians 1:11)concerning the behavior in thecongregation in Corinth. Gossipand not following the “steps ofMatthew 18,” are grievous sins inmany Matthew 18 disciplinaryenvironments. Well, apparentlyPaul did not understandMatthew 18—at least not the waywe commonly interpret it.Paul did not “go to the source”

by talking directly to theoffenders and let them give“their side of the story,” and thentake witnesses with him for stagetwo, and then bring it before thewhole congregation for stagethree of Matthew 18! He simply believed people

talking about other people, andacted on it! He wrote a letterbased on the second-hand reportwhich would have been read inpublic—a clear-cut violation of

JUNE 2020 11

Matthew 18 according to typicalapplications!

TREAT THEM AS UNBELIEVERS Beyond the technicalities of thetext, I think God is a realist whenit comes to human beings andtheir interactions with eachother. Brad Jersak has wiselyunderstood the passage as such inthis way: “I suspect ‘treating them as

unbelievers’ is NOT so muchabout exclusion or shunning orexcommunication. I believe Jesusis teaching us to set healthy andcompassionate boundaries in ourrelationships . . . Matthew 18models for us Christ’s personalhumility and call to love oneanother, it’s not about bringingthe muscle—it’s about dialingdown the energy. And thatmeans everyone needs to leavethe bludgeon at home.”I agree with Brad. For us, “treating like tax

collectors and Gentiles” means:have no contact, turn them overto Satan, or worse—condemnthem to hell. In their world, thespirit of Matthew 18 was not aban on all contact, but ratherabout maintaining socialboundary markers regardingMosaic uncleanness, particularlyin table fellowship. Tablefellowship was a huge ethicaldeal in their world that is not somuch so in ours. Some rabbistaught that to eat with a Gentilewas a crime worse than murderand a capital offense (worthy of adeath sentence). Well, Jesus is our pattern in all

things—the same Jesus ofMatthew 18. How did he treat tax collectors

and Gentiles? By extending

grace, forgiveness, and tablefellowship to them. He ate withthem. He didn’t blackball them.This is one of the accusations

against Jesus: “He eats withsinners.” It is critical that we keepthis in mind when someone triesto interpret and enforceMatthew 18.

CONCLUSIONPerhaps human reality dictatesthat close communion with aperson is not possible—forwhatever legal, spiritual, orinterpersonal reason. It is boundto happen. It does not mean wetreat people like moralcontaminants.Rather, Matthew 18 presents

the extenuating lengths we mustgo to in order to bring peace andrestitution. Peter understood theimplications: “Lord, how oftendo I have to forgive?” (Mt. 18:22).We know the answer.

Matthew 18 is a less-than-ideal necessity to maintainappropriate boundaries toassure the well-being ofindividuals and peace in thecommunity when all otherlong-suffering and forgivingattempts have failed because ofhuman weakness. It is not amandatory judicial protocolfor every situation incommunity life.One thing is certain: Matthew

18 does not apply to the systemicabuse of people by ecclesialleaders. Systemic abuse andcorruption are to be exposed:shouted from the housetops byanyone, at any time. q

Stephen Crosby expands on thesethemes in his book, The Rescue ofMatthew 18.