This article is part of a two part series
I had originally wanted to include this in my first discussion on church discipline and excommunication, but that post ended up being rather long on its own, and I didn’t want to overwhelm you all with one post. So, since two different verses (and, really, two different topics) are being discussed, it fit to split the two discussions up. Let’s take a look at Matthew 18 and discuss what Jesus says about church discipline, ending in excommunication.
Matthew 18:15-17 outlines the process of “Correcting Another Believer” as most translations headline it. It details addressing the problem with the other one on one, then with witnesses, and then before the church. Each action only comes if the previous action did not work in resolving the issue. The last resort is to treat the individual as a nonbeliever.
There are two ways, “paths”, of interpretation this passage can take. The first argues that it’s only about personal sins (with some translations including the “against you” in v. 15).[note]Many of the earliest translations do not.[/note] It’s said that Peter’s words in v. 21 (where he includes “against me”) validate the inclusion of it in v. 15.[note] David L. Turner. Matthew. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic: 2008) 444.[/note] Some say that it was only omitted on accident because when transcribing words sounded the same and it was missed.[note]Craig Blomberg. Matthew. The New American Commentary. (Nashville, Broadman Publishing, 1992) 278.[/note] If it were to be discussing a sin/wrong against another, it makes a lot of sense to discuss the issue privately at first, and only bring others in when needed.[note]Ibid 278,279.[/note]
The other ignores that if it’s present and discusses the passage as if any believer is performing any type of sin.[note]Ian A. Fair, Mark L. Strauss. Matthew and Mark: Good News for Everyone. Quick Notes Simplified Bible Commentary Series. (Urichsville, Barbour Publishing, 2008) 80.[/note] In all honesty, though, it more than likely hardly matters if it’s addressing just sins between two people, or sins in general. It seems much more likely to simply be addressing an unrepentant sinner in all regards.[note]David Platt. Exalting Jesus in Matthew. Christ Centered Exposition. (B&H Publishing, 2013) 243.[/note] That’s the position we’re going to take for the rest of the discussion. Whether or not it’s talking about two people or a single person, it’s best to handle the situation the same way- privately first, and then bring others in as needed.[note]Turner, Matthew, 445.[/note]
Most of the passage is pretty straight forward. You address the believer first by yourself, if that doesn’t work, you bring in a few witnesses; if that still doesn’t work, you bring it before the entire church. If the believer still does not repent, then you are to treat them as a “pagan or corrupt tax collector.”[note]NLT[/note] The question now becomes what does that mean for people today? We don’t really have special ways to interact or treat pagans or tax collectors.
Gutzke explains his view rather clearly in his book. [note]Manford George Gutzke. Plain Talk on Matthew. (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1966.) 156.[/note]
The treatment of an unrepentant believer then becomes to exclude them from corporate fellowship but expecting individuals to still reach out to them.[note]Blomberg, Matthew, 279.[/note] This makes sense to our modern understanding. I wonder, though. Are we reading other texts into this texts? Is it possible that we are applying the 1 Corinthians text to this text? What if Jesus wasn’t saying to disassociate people from the body, as most commentators assert?
It’s important to look at Jesus’ actions, and how they aligned with his words. While there are no records within the gospels of Christ interacting with an unrepentant believer,[note]Mostly because there were no believers at the time, but we’ll get to that in a moment.[/note] there are many instances of him interacting with pagans, tax collectors, heathens, publicans- whatever you want to call them. And we see in these instances is Christ treating them the same as a devout Jew. If we’re honest without ourselves when we read the scriptures, we would have to admit that Jesus treats these people better than he treats the Pharisees- the most devout Jews of all. He sits alone at a well with a promiscuous woman and eats within the walls of a corrupt tax collectors house. That may seem like no big deal to us. But that’s because we’re overlooking two important facts:
Historical and cultural context. These can never be understated when trying to understand the Biblical scriptures from over a thousand years ago. To us, eating in the house of someone but not welcoming them into the church is how to treat corrupt tax collectors. In Jesus’ time, though, eating with them (especially within their own house) was seen as condoning their behavior. If someone was caught doing such a thing would put them at the same level as the tax collector. Jesus does it, though. So is he really asking Christians to excommunicate unrepentant believers?
In order to answer that question, we need to dig deeper into the structure, context, and influences of his famous rhetoric (yes, it is influenced by things other than Jesus). The first thing to note is that Matthew’s gospel is very much focused on teaching Jewish Christians how to be just that. It was a balance of being a Christian and still retaining their Jewish identity.[note]Bridgit Illian, “Church Discipline and Forgiveness in Matthew 18:15-35.” in Currents in Theology and Mission vol. 37, no. 6. (2010). 445.[/note] Because of this, much of Matthew is written from a Jewish perspective. Even Jesus’ words are shaped by Jewish tradition. It seems to be a blending of two sects of Judaism- the Essenes and the Rabbinic tradition.[note]Ivis, 447.[/note]
The rabbinic tradition is that of the Pharisees, and we see it throughout the gospels. They have strict laws and were characterized as mostly hateful throughout history. The Essenes are a more elusive group. Not agreeing with the ruling powers in Jerusalem, they secluded themselves in the desert. They believed they were the true elect of Israel. Their rules and regulations were even more strict than that of the Pharisees. Each of these groups had processes in place for discipline and excommunication. While similar, they vary slightly. They do both end, in excommunication, as the last resort, though.[note]Ibid, 448.[/note]
Jesus’ model of reconciling with a brother is a mix of the two, culminating in expulsion, like both. While both sects may have reserved expulsion as a last resort, the practice was entirely different between the two. The Essenes, for instance, were not very strict on what called for expulsion. To the contrary, the Rabbinic tradition allowed for tax collectors to be expelled, but not many other worthy offenses are known.[note]Ibid.[/note]
The main difference, though, was in the severity of the expulsion. Essenes excommunicated and very rarely allowed the member back. Those who were excommunicated typically died miserable deaths, unable to eat human food. Sometimes they were allowed back, with the torments they endured bringing them near to death, being enough to atone for their sins. But this was a rare occasion.[note]Josephus, Bellum II. 145. in Coran Forkman, The Limits of the Religious Community: Expulsion from the Religious Community within the Qumran Sect, within Rabbinic Judaism, and within Primitive Christianity. Trans. Pearl Sjolander (Lund: Studentlitterature, 1972), 69).[/note] The Rabbinic tradition, on the other hand, had a temporary expulsion that lasted at least 30 days. During this time those who were expelled were still seen as Jewish people and were allowed access to the temple and to be taught.[note]Illian, “Church”, 449.[/note] They were, however, “… expected to dress like a mourner or leper. They were forbidden to cut their hair, was their clothes, to bathe, to wear sandals in town, or to walk about with an uncovered head.”[note]Ibid, 448.[/note]
These are very different forms of excommunication. One expects the excommunicated to die miserably, and one still treats them as a member of the society, but with a few stipulations, and those stipulations are always only temporary. Jesus never specifies which form of excommunication to practice. I would like to believe, of the two, he leans to the side of the Rabbinic tradition. But maybe he’s asking for something else entirely?
My question to you becomes this- when the church today practices church discipline (which is normally done in the form of excommunication) which form of these are they practicing? They certainly aren’t practicing the Essenian way. They also, though, are not practicing the Rabbinic way. When someone is excommunicated there is no sense that they are still one of us. They are not allowed within the church (temple), they are not to be taught (attend service), and, often, they not allowed to be interacted with by the church body outside of the church either.
This model doesn’t fit any of the three models above. “Three? We only talked about two.” Right you are. But Jesus’ life gives us another model. It’s important to note that gentiles were not ministered to until after Christ’s resurrection.[note]Ibid, 449.[/note] For the Jews of the time, not ministering to Gentiles was the norm. Treating them like outsiders was expected. After Jesus’ resurrection, though, witnessing to Gentiles became okay. Christ modeled that. He ate with them. He talked with them. He did the taboo things of the time that nobody else would.
When Christ tells you to treat someone as a “_____” it’s important to not only look at how the people of the time would have responded, but how Christ treated those people. He’s asking you to do the same things He did. If he ate with tax collectors, he’s asking you to do the same thing. The difference for today is that eating with them isn’t taboo anymore. So what’s taboo today? Letting them into the church. Allowing them to be present in corporate worship events. Treating them as an insider. That’s what Christ did. That’s what He’s asking us to do when he tells us to treat others in such a way. There’s no expectation of excommunication anymore. Christ’s instructions always include, because Christ always included.
Christ ends the issue by telling us that what we permit and forbid on earth will be permitted and forbidden in Heaven respectively. What did Christ permit and forbid on earth? He permitted love, grace, acceptance; He forbade judgment, exclusion, strict discipline. I don’t know about you, but I want to permit and forbid the same things that Christ did, not what tradition has taught me to permit and forbid. Tradition can go wrong, Christ can’t.
