Back to Matthew 18

Okay, go here and here to see the previous posts on Matthew 18.15-17 also see the comments left by Lauren especially her post on her on-line journal that I linked to in the second post.

I've been wanting to go back to this passage and creatively reinterpret it, but I had been delaying because I couldn't really find another interpretation other than the mainstream interpretation. If that interpretation is accurate, as I posted before, I really reject that train of thought as not being a valid teaching of Jesus. However, having read Rabbi Greenberg's book on Homosexuality and his description of the Jewish view of the Bible has inspired me to follow Lauren's suggestion and to look for a different interpretation.

Having said all that, I feel like I need to be completely honest here. I still find verse 17 problematic as a teaching from Jesus. The use of the Greek word translated here as "church" (ekklesia) is used in all of the gospels only one other time also in Matthew (16.18) which is best understood as a comment from Jesus that a new community will be built upon Peter's declaration of Jesus as messiah. But if we read ekklesia in Matthew 18 as the specific community built around Peter you're still dealing with the Church, and you have the problem of Jesus giving advice on how to run the Church many years before it began.

Also, I have to admit that the reading of "gentiles and tax collectors" that I propose is unique to the meaning of gentiles and tax collectors as Jesus employs those terms, especially in Matthew. These terms are used in Matthew specifically to represent those who are wicked, evil or highly impure and should be avoided. So that, if Jesus did give this teaching about his coming community, it really could have no other meaning than to make the unrepentant outcasts. This seems to me to go against everything that Jesus represented in his life and other teachings...that is that God is found in the outcasts, forgiveness is unending (for instance the question from Peter in Matt 18) and other teachings of acceptance and love.

However, if we remove only verse 17 which is the only problem verse in this scenario (it mentions church and gentile/tax collector). The rest of the passage makes much more sense. Once the passage of condemnation is removed, the statement of wherever two or three are gathered connects directly to the number of witnesses needed as Jesus quotes Deuteronomy in 16 and the connection to the following question of forgiveness by Peter, flows nicely as well. All of this leads me, if I'm going to be honest, to continue to argue that verse 17 is added in by a later scribe seeking to justify their harsh treatment of dissenters (Christian scribes are notorious, btw, for amending texts to suit their theological needs).

But there is still a part of me that says that this is scripture, and should be treated with respect and, even so called "trouble passages" should be left in for a possible new interpretation. So I offer the following re-reading in an attempt to leave this verse in the text and still understand it within the larger framework of Jesus' teaching.

It must be pointed out that the passages of binding and loosing, and where two are gathered in the name of Jesus are specifically referencing forgiveness (or condemnation) of the offender's sin (see John 20.23). Jesus is telling the apostles that they have the authority to condemn or forgive anyone. As far as Jesus is concerned, their decisions are final. So, when immediately following this passage, Peter asks Jesus how often they should forgive, it seems likely that he is seeking further guidance on this teaching. Jesus' response is then a clarification on his earlier teaching--the clarification being to always forgive.

Therefore, the command to treat those Christians as "gentiles and tax collectors" seems to me not to encourage excommunication, but rather shows a status within the community. They should be regarded as weak in faith or as young Christians (see Romans 14) which their actions reveal them to be. To me it seems counter productive to keep people from the communion table, let alone fellowship with the community. It is, in a sense, declaring someone a non-Christian. It is a stance of unforgiveness, which goes against Jesus' clarification with Peter later on. Therefore to use this passage as a guideline for church discipline with some form of disassociation with the believer is actually, in my opinion, to loose the meaning of the passage.