Those who know me know I'm a stickler for context when it comes to reading the Bible. To me it's incredibly important to know the cultural/historical context of a passage in order to understand the intended meaning. I've seen many verses, when taken out of context, used to say all sorts of craziness. But sometimes the discussion of context need not go any further than the immediate textual context of a passage (read: the verses around a particular passage).
For a long time I've been very frustrated by a specific example of this. If you've gone to church on any kind of regular basis, you've probably heard Matthew 18:20 quoted: "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." I've heard it used during prayers, in worship, and even in sermons. The idea intended is that when a group of Christians get together, Jesus is there.
But when we look at the preceding verses, a different reading stands out. Jesus is talking to his disciples about the very specific topic of church discipline, and he is essentially telling them that whatever decision they make in terms of church discipline will be supported by him. So when two or three gather together to make a decision about what to do with someone in the Christian community who has done something wrong, it is as if Jesus is there supporting the decision.
There's a lot of weird stuff in the passage, including Jesus talking about things bound on earth being bound in heaven, and things loosed on earth being loosed in heaven. I'd have to study a little more to really understand what he's trying to say.
But the fact remains the passage so commonly quoted is often removed from its context to express some kind of point.
And here is where I'm really confused. What point is being made? That Jesus is only around when two or three are gathered? Are we saying Jesus is not with us when we're alone? If so, then why pray? Exactly what are we trying to say here?
My confusion grew when I read Henri Nouwen's, In the Name of Jesus a few weeks ago. In his book, he quotes this very passage to illuminate the importance of ministry being done in groups and not by individuals. But is that what Jesus is saying? Maybe more so than what others claim this passage means. But I still can't shake the sense that we are missing the point of this passage, and I'm frustrated to read that someone like Henri Nouwen uses Matthew 18:20 in a way I feel is inappropriate.
I don't want to rule out the fact that I am wrong with my understanding of the text. I may be. I'm often wrong more than I'm right. But this is something that has bothered me for quite some time, and it is an example to me how often we misuse scripture because we fail to consider context - whatever context that may be.
1.12.2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Do you have any more thoughts on "Binding and Loosing"? I have done some research myself. Let us join together and have dialogue about this particular issue.
You know, I have not researched that... I think it's definitely worth a conversation. My gut reaction is that it has something to do with church discipline. In other words, heaven agrees with the church leader's decision to discipline someone (which is a completely different issue considering we don't discipline in the church today). But I know there's more to it.
Let's see - the Greek for "bind" is deo and for "loose" is luo. Both words occur a little over 40 times in the NT. BDAG (important Greek lexicon) draws a connection with deo (bind) and luo (loose) in Matt 18 with the Rabbinic idea of forbidding and permitting certain things (to bind something is to forbid it and to loose something is to permit it).
Also, BDAG draws the connection from Matt 18:18 to John 20:22ff - Jesus gives the apostles the Holy Spirit (probably with the HS comes some authority) and he tells them whomever they forgive is forgiven.
Jesus says the same kind of thing in Matt 16:19.
So it may be some kind of passing of the mantle - or Jesus giving the apostles authority over the ministry he started, i.e. the authority to be the church on earth. That's what I'm getting from a quick word study... no commentaries yet.
How does that strike you?
Post a Comment