What does Matthew 18:17 mean?

Explanation

The verse Matthew 18:17 addresses the issue of conflict resolution among believers within the Christian community.

Literally taken, this verse is the last step in a process Jesus outlines for his followers for dealing with a member who sins against another.

The steps, beginning in Matthew 18:15, involve firstly addressing the issue personally and privately with the offender.

If the wrongdoer does not listen, the next step, as per verse 16, is to bring one or two witnesses to establish every word.

The final step, mentioned in verse 17, is to tell it to the church; if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, they should be treated like a 'heathen', an outsider or a non-believer, and a 'publican', a tax collector who was often despised in those times for perceived dishonesty and collaboration with occupying Roman forces.

This directive emphasizes the importance of community judgment and the collective moral standards of the church in maintaining discipline within the Christian faith.

Historical Context

Matthew 18:17 was written in a Jewish context where communal judgment was an essential part of religious life.

The early Christian communities were largely Jewish and operated within that framework.

The community dealt with its members' behavior collectively, with an expectation of mutual accountability.

The three-step process reflects the graduated discipline that was aimed at restoration rather than punishment.

At the time of Matthew's writing, the church was a close-knit community, dealing not only with spiritual matters but also communal living, with its members working together to create a group identity that differed from the values of the Roman Empire and the surrounding pagan cultures.

Theological Insights

Different theological viewpoints interpret this verse in various ways.

From a conservative perspective, the clear-cut process emphasizes church authority and the importance of discipline within the Christian community.

Some more liberal theologians might focus on the reconciliatory goal of the procedure rather than the exclusionary final outcome.

Another theological aspect is the recognition of the church as an authority instituted by Jesus himself, underlining that the collective discernment of the church in moral matters is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Practical Applications

In modern times, this verse might be applied in several ways:

• Individual church communities might use this as a protocol for addressing sin or conflicts within their congregation.
• It can serve as a cornerstone for creating accountability structures within Christian organizations.
• On a personal level, believers might see it as guidance for resolving disputes among each other with grace and a sequence that encourages reconciliation.

Cross-References

• Matthew 18:15-16 – Previous steps in the conflict resolution process.
• 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 – Discusses dealing with immorality in the church and the practice of "expelling the wicked person".
• 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 – Advises to take note of those who do not obey church instruction and to have nothing to do with them, yet not to treat them as enemies.
• 1 Timothy 5:20 – Those persisting in sin are to be rebuked publicly so that others may fear to sin.

Language Study

Key words in Matthew 18:17, when taken in the original Greek, have specific meanings that add depth to our understanding:

• "Church" ("ἐκκλησίᾳ" - ekklesia): Originally means assembly or gathering, not necessarily referring to a physical structure, but a congregation of people.
• "Hear" ("ἀκούω" - akouo) in this context implies listening with the intent of obeying or heeding instruction.
• "Heathen" ("ἔθνος" - ethnos) refers to a gentile or a person who is not part of the Jewish faith and by extension the Christian faith.
• "Publican" ("τελώνης" - telones) is a tax collector, often seen as a sinner and an outcast in Jewish society.

Cultural and Religious Comparisons

This verse can be compared with cultural practices of excommunication or shunning that exist in various religions.

For instance, the Jewish practice of 'cherem' is a form of ostracism used historically.

Shunning in the Amish community is another example where community members enforce social exclusion.

These practices share the common theme of using group dynamics and pressure to enforce community standards.

Scientific Perspectives

Modern psychology and conflict resolution theory might offer insights into the effectiveness of the processes outlined in Matthew 18.

They might validate the importance of addressing issues on a personal level initially and then escalating to involve more people if necessary, which can often lead to more constructive outcomes and reconciliation.

The concept of social exclusion as a deterrent to unacceptable behavior also has grounding in social psychological research, which studies how group dynamics influence individual behavior.

Commentaries

Biblical scholars and theologians offer different interpretations of Matthew 18:17.

Some commentators focus on the compassion and restoration intended by the process leading up to verse 17, considering the final step as a last resort.

Others examine the role of the church as a governing body within the Christian community entrusted with maintaining order and discipline.

There is also discussion about the practical application of this process in modern church life and how it should be balanced with the Christian imperative of forgiveness and redemption.

Matthew Henry's concise commentary emphasizes the seriousness of the church's censure, while the Expositor's Greek Testament underlines the authority given to the congregation in dealing with moral and spiritual transgressions within its community.