Re: Matt 18:18 and the FPPPP

From: Jonathan Robie (jwrobie@mindspring.com)
Date: Sun Jul 27 1997 - 07:20:49 EDT


At 10:18 PM 7/26/97 EDT, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
> Carl Conrad wrote:
>>Yet I
>>think you might agree with what is a fairly standard view, that the
>>five
>>discourses in Matthew (Sermon on Mount, Parables of the Kingdom,
>>Church
>>Discipline, etc.) have been created by juxtaposing in discourses
>>unified by
>>subject-matter diverse traditions of Jesus' teaching that did not
>>originate
>>simultaneously at one time or place
>
>For the sake of argument, I will accept it, as this does not necessarily
>impinge upon inspiration or inerrancy (does it?).

I don't think that it does. And it often does seem that different gospel
writers recite the same parables or events in different sequences, so this
makes sense to me.

>>I'm assuming, then, that Mt 18 is an editorially unified discourse on
>>Church Discipline that has been composed of the isolated teachings of
>>Jesus delivered at various times and places that have been deemed by Matthew
>>to bear on the large question of how a congregation should handle the
>>case of a member who does not behave or has not behaved in accordance with the
>>congregation's shared understanding of right behavior. I think that
>>"Matthew" grouped these traditions in such a way as to sketch a manner
>>of handling such cases, a method that provides for actual excommunication
>>of the unruly member, if that should become necessary, but so arranging
>>the various elements of Jesus' teaching as to emphasize the very
>>consistent Matthaean emphasis of Jesus' compassion and urge that every last
>>effort be made by the congregation to restore the unruly member before
>>excommunicating him/her.

I agree, and I like the emphasis on "editorially unified discourse". I have
interacted with people who seem to assume either that (1) the gospel writers
were incompetent editors, and the resulting text is just a jumble of
unrelated stories, so reading them in context is misleading, or (2) the
gospels fundamentally misrepresent the writings of Jesus because the later
church had different goals than Jesus had. I think that the gospel writers
were competent writers who believed in the teachings of Jesus.

>>That is to say, I agree with you both that the
>>text of Matthew 18 very definitely DOES recognize the legitimacy of a
>>mechanism of excommunication but also urges the need for painstaking
>>efforts to restore the offender and to use excommunication only as a
>>last resort. Perhaps you will agree with me to that extent (or perhaps
>>not!)

I think we do both agree with you here.

>>Now, I want to go a step farther in a direction that you may be
>>unwilling to follow me. I believe that Mt 18:18-20 DO reflect a church
tradition
>>of what Jesus actually said, a tradition that is also reflected in Mt
>>16:19 and in Jn 20:22-23. That is to say: Jesus DID bestow on the authorized
>>leaders of his church the authority to remit sins (probably this is
>>also reflected in Mt 9:8) or confirm the sinful status of members and
therefore
>>to excommunicate them.
>
>Carl, I am not sure we are far apart. If, however, you conclude that
>because Mt 18:15-18 was not necessarily spoken by Christ but is merely a
>reflection of early church tradition and is therefore less authoritative
>or "binding," then I object strongly.

I have to agree with Paul here. I would object to the notion that the
gospels misrepresent Jesus or claim his authority for things that he did not
say.

>>Now personally, I am not altogether confident that this is a
>>historical fact, i.e. that Jesus actually did bestow such authority. What
I do
>>feel sure of, however, is that the historical church at an early point
>>understood this authority to have been bestowed upon it by Jesus and
>>that these passages of scripture to which I have referred all represent a
>>tradition of the church's understanding of this bestowal of authority.
>>Here I would add that I think the future-perfect passives of Mt 16 and Mt
>>18 and the perfect passives of Jn 20 in the passages in question are meant to
>>be understood as warrants of certification of the judgments made by the
>>church authorities--the disciples or their authoritative heirs.

D'accord. (It makes me feel so educated to add comments in a language I
don't understand ;-> )

>>Now to go yet one step further, I suspect, but I admit that this is
>>speculation and that I can offer no proof for this speculation, that
>>Paul
>>in 1 Cor 5:1-5 is relying upon the very same church tradition of the
>>authority to excommunicate and that he is using the very formula of
>>excommunication in 1 Cor 5:3-5 deriving from that tradition. I won't
>>try to
>>interpret the formula beyond guessing that the formula simply expels
>>the
>>unruly member from the community and removes any protection that
>>membership
>>might hitherto have been thought to cover that person from the secular
>>world ruled over by Satan.
>>
>>This is my own view of the historical probabilities governing the
>>relationships of these three passages in Matthew, the corresponding
>>passage
>>in John, and the Pauline passage in 1 Corinthians. How valid this view
>>may
>>be I can't know, but this is what I'm inclined to think.
 
I'm inclined to agree.

>On the one hand, we are not to individually be given to a judgmental
>spirit (Mt 6:1ff). On the other hand, this does not mean that we are not
>to judge ourselves (1 Cor 11), or that magistrates and civil courts or
>church courts are not to pass judgments (Rom 13, Mt 18:15-18
>respectively).
>
>Concerning a reversible versus an irreversible binding - I gathered from
>what you said you were assuming, under my interpretation, that the
>binding was irreversible, perhaps something comparable to the
>unpardonable sin. My argument is that this does not seem to follow. I
>don't see anything in the text which would suggest that such a
>recognition of the binding in sin of the unrepentant sinner implies this
>is irreversible.
>
>It may be what is happening in v. 18 is that the church is to recognize
>the spiritual condition of the nonrepentant so-called brother (cf 1 Cor
>5), i.e., that contrary to his profession, he is truly not regenerate.
>Let us not pretend any longer he is regenerate. Rather, let us regard
>his as he truly is, an outsider, then seek his salvation - Lord willing,
>as Paul sought the salvation of the sinner he committed to Satan (1 Cor
>5). Whew!

I am going to need more time to look at this. This basically makes sense to
me, but I also have an overwhelming feeling that we're playing with fire here...

Jonathan

***************************************************************************
Jonathan Robie jwrobie@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~jwrobie
POET Software, 3207 Gibson Road, Durham, N.C., 27703 http://www.poet.com
***************************************************************************



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:23 EDT