# 73: 11-19-19 1

Matthew 18:15-35

Matthew has been showing Jesus teaching His disciples about relations with one another, within their
community - teaching that would extend to the church, which would come out of Jesus’ death.

In response to the apostles’ question as to who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, Jesus called to a
little child, who then came to Jesus. The child became an object lesson for the disciples.

All those who come to Jesus, believing in Him, become the greatest they can be - a son of God, in the
kingdom of heaven. All believers are born-again God’s children, on an equal basis, with no son being
greater than the other.

But to be truly great in God’s kingdom, a son must become the servant of all - especially to the little ones -
those who are in the process of responding to the call of Jesus; those who are making their way to Him.

Sons must have the heart of their Father for these little ones - helping them along, as they are coming to
Jesus; ensuring that they do not stumble out of the way of grace, and fail to come to Jesus at all. The
disciples were being given a glimpse of what their future ministry would look like - as undershepherds, to
Jesus; feeding the lambs; seeking the lost sheep, who are perishing.

As Jesus continues, He leaves the subject of the little ones - those who are being drawn to Jesus - and now
speaks of those who have already come to Him - such as the disciples, to whom Jesus was speaking. The
disciples are part of a community that share life in common. Of course, this teaching will also have
relevance later for the church, which shares a collective life, within local assemblies.

The teaching reveals how the life of the community is nurtured. The emphasis is on harmony - being in
agreement with one another - which promotes unity - a cohesive, thriving community.

18:15-20 The subject of Jesus’ teaching is now relations between brothers; fellow disciples, presumably
believers, in the group following Jesus. The setting appears to be the same as the previous passage,
because the first word links them together.

In the NKJV, it’s translated “Moreover”; it’s just the simple Greek word for “But”, which indicates what
Jesus was about to say stands in contrast to what He has just said. He is speaking of a different group than
the little ones here - now, regarding the disciples in the community. Since the setting is most likely the
same, we take it that Jesus is still addressing the twelve apostles, most likely within earshot of others, in the
house.

The first part of what Jesus says, in verses 15-17, is second person singular. Jesus is speaking to the
disciples individually; this is how each believer should handle an issue in which a brother - a fellow
believer - sins against them.

The second part of what Jesus says, in verses 18-20, is second person plural; Jesus is now speaking to the
disciples as a collective group; we see that He even speaks of the church, which we’ll discuss momentarily.

So Jesus is teaching the disciples from both an individual and a collective basis about relations within the
church. Some view this as a teaching on church discipline; but fundamentally, it is more concerned with
harmony and unity, among believers.
# 73: 11-19-19 2

Returning to verse 15, we see that Jesus is teaching what to do if one brother sins against another brother.
This was the ideal moment for Jesus to teach about this; remember, the disciples were just having a dispute,
about which of them was greatest, in the kingdom of heaven! That certainly set the tone for this teaching.

For a brother to sin against another brother meant that he injured him, in some regard; it could be by word,
or by conduct. The magnitude of the recourse that Jesus describes mandates that the offense was
significant; this is not just a careless slight, or a thoughtless, trite action. Real damage has been done.

There are two things that are assumed, in this teaching of Jesus - which are apparent, based on what is said,
and what is not said. The first assumption is that the sinning brother is definitively in the wrong; Jesus
makes this clear, in verse 15.

The second assumption is that the offender hasn’t already repented, and come to ask forgiveness, from the
brother he sinned against. If he had, this teaching would be unnecessary!

So we have one brother, who’s been sinned against; and the other brother, who’s is the offender; but the
offending brother is either unaware of his sin; or he is unwilling to acknowledge it.

In that case, Jesus teaches, the brother who was sinned against should go and tell the offender his fault;
what he’s done wrong. Even though this brother isn’t responsible for the sin, Jesus is saying he’s
responsible to try to correct the matter, if the offending brother doesn’t take the initiative.

Why should he? It wasn’t his fault! Because if he doesn’t, the matter will remain unsettled. There will be
disharmony between these brothers, causing a lack of unity, among the disciples. Reconciliation must be
pursued - for love’s sake. As Paul will later write to the assembly in Colosse, love is the bond of perfection
(Col 3:14).

Notice that the brother who was sinned against should approach the offending brother alone. This too, is
love - there is to be no unnecessary exposure. The matter is to be handled privately, if the resolution can be
obtained that way.

And Jesus says, if the offending brother hears - if he recognizes his fault - well then! - “you’ve gained your
brother” - that is, the two brothers are reconciled; relations between them are restored. This is on the basis
of confession of the sin, and forgiveness of the sin, on their respective parts. Confession is the part that is
lacking, here, and being sought.

Now, what exactly is forgiveness? The meaning of the Greek word “forgive” is to let go from oneself.
What is being let go? A sin that was committed against your personally; you let go of it; you release it - you
don’t hold it against the person, anymore. And when you do, that leaves you free.

That describes the extent of human forgiveness - which can be extended only for personal offenses. But
God’s forgiveness goes much further.

All sin is an offense, against holy God. But God can’t just let go of sin, because God is just. His justice
must be first satisfied, concerning sin - its penalty must be paid. And in His love for man, God sent the
only One who could pay the penalty for all man’s sin, for all time - the Lord Jesus Christ.

Through the sacrifice of His own Son, God was able to forgive sinners. God could let go of all of their
offenses against Him. But through Christ, God could take forgiveness further - and release the sinners,
from their sin - releasing them, from their unrighteousness - justifying them, in His holy eyes.
# 73: 11-19-19 3

The sinner who puts his faith in Jesus is no longer separated from God, by his sin; the offense against God
has been removed, and he has been released from it, as well.

So when we forgive others, it leaves us - the offended party - free. But when God forgives sinners, it also
leaves them - the offenders - free. Only God can do that.

Now consider again the situation that Jesus is describing. Since the one who was sinned against and the
offender are both believers, forgiveness works for both of them. There is both human forgiveness - with its
freedom, for the offended brother - and God’s forgiveness - with its cleansing - for the offender. It’s a
complete reconciliation - and the relationship is fully restored.

But since the offending brother did not ask for forgiveness, it is entirely possible that he would persist, in
his sin - perhaps maintaining that he did nothing wrong; that he was in the right.

In verse 16, Jesus indicates that in such a case, two or three brothers should be brought into the discussion.
Jesus quotes a passage from Deuteronomy that pertains to witnesses in a judicial action; one witness was
insufficient, to establish testimony before the Jewish councils; there must be agreement between at least
two witnesses (Deut 19:15). This was to discourage false testimony being given, for personal gain.

This verse is used in many differing circumstances, in the NT, as a general method of ensuring the truth (Jn
8:17, 2 Cor 13:1, 1 Tim 5:19, Heb 10:28). Now, Jesus does not intend these two or three brothers here as
prospective witnesses, in some disciplinary action; the idea is that they will be objective witnesses to the
offender, confirming that what he has done is wrong, and that he needs to repent.

But he still may not repent; and if he doesn’t Jesus takes it even further. Now the matter is told to “the
church”. But remember, Jesus is speaking to His twelve apostles, here; the church as we know it is still a
mystery.

What would the disciples understand Jesus to mean by “the church”? The word was in common usage for a
congregation, or assembly; a community of people. They would have understood Jesus to refer to the
disciple group. Matthew’s readers would take the word with its more specialized meaning, as the Body of
Christ. Both would understand Jesus correctly! Jesus’ words address each group, with this teaching.

Because the offender has refused to acknowledge his wrong, now the matter must be brought before the
whole church - the disciple group, or a local assembly - which initially, were home churches, rather small.

This is not done for the sake of exposing the offender; it is still for love’s sake - for the sake of trying to
restore the offender, and for the unity of the believers. The hope is that when the offender sees the entire
group is united in their admonishment of him, for his sin, it will cause him to recognize that he must be in
the wrong.

But if he does not, then, Jesus says, “let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector”. It’s ironic that
Matthew is recording those words, isn’t it? The idea Jesus is drawing on here is that Jews didn’t associate
with heathen - the Gentiles - nor with tax collectors, who were considered the dregs of Jewish society. So
dissociation is in view here.

From whom? The “you” in verse 17 is still in the singular; the brother who was sinned against is to
dissociate himself from the offender, who won’t repent. This means that he wouldn’t have any regular
fellowship with him.
# 73: 11-19-19 4

This is not the idea of excommunication, from the church, or community. Because of his willful lack of
repentance, the offender had shut down the ability of this believer to fellowship with him. The offender is
being allowed to have what he has actually chosen for himself. Others in the community might of course
choose to dissociate from this brother as well, but that is beyond the scope of what Jesus was teaching to
do.

So what do we see in this? First, this is what we do not see. We do not see trifling matters being addressed
in this teaching. For that, there is such a thing as choosing not to be offended; love suffers long! We also
do not see harsh, condemnatory disciplinary action - whipping the offender into shape; forcing him back in
line.

What we do see instead is every possible encouragement, for the offender to repent and be reconciled with
his brother; to have their relationship restored; to turn back to the harmonious workings of love, in the
community; and thereby to preserve the unity of the Spirit - in the bond of peace (Eph 4:3).

As Jesus continues in verse 18, He now addresses the disciples as a collective group, changing from the
second person singular, to plural. Let’s read that again.

18:18 Does this sound familiar to you? Look back in chapter 16, verse 19. We find the same words. Who
was Jesus speaking to, then? To Simon Peter. Peter alone would be given the keys to the kingdom of
heaven; Peter would initially open up the kingdom to both the Jews and the Gentiles, using the keys - the
gospel truths.

But the rest of what Jesus said to Peter is now repeated to the disciples, in our passage today. The words
and the grammar are virtually identical. Let’s refresh our memories as to what this statement means.

Binding and loosing were terms used to refer to what things were permitted, and what things were not
permitted. Jesus had just been speaking about the assembly’s role in rebuking an offending brother, who
would not repent of his sin. He was showing that the assembly was to exercise administrative authority, in
the case; to show the sinning brother that what he was doing - refusing to acknowledge his wrong - was not
permitted, in the disciple group - or church.

But the statement is broader than that - it’s whatever you bind; whatever you loose - this could encompass
many issues, beyond church discipline - such as specific doctrinal issues. And now, this was being shown
to be, not just Peter’s responsibility, not just the apostles’ responsibility, but the responsibility of the whole
disciple group, or church. Peter was just the first among equals, in this administrative authority; all
members of the group, as a collective, were to exercise it as appropriate.

Now, lest we think that any church has authority in itself - which some churches do, in our day - the
grammar is critical to observe, in this case. The phrasing in the Greek is unusual, and it is glossed over in
the translations. More literally, it would read, “and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in
heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven”.

So the idea is not that heaven will give an endorsement to decisions that the assembly makes; instead, that
the assembly will rely on divine guidance, to decide in accordance with God’s already determined purpose.
This they would do through collectively seeking His will, through the Holy Spirit.

And this is what is borne out in the next verses.

# 73: 11-19-19 5

18:19-20 The “Again” that begins verse 19 actually communicates, not a mere repetition, but a new and
connected idea, in the Greek: “In addition”. The connection is the authority that the assembly will have, as
a collective. The new idea is that this collective can be as small as any two of them!

Any two believers can represent the will of the collective, to administer the authority of the collective. But
this comes with caveats - and a clarification. The two must agree - concerning anything that they ask. Who
would they be asking? The idea is that they’re asking God, in prayer.

This ties back to verse 18 - the two are seeking divine guidance, in a matter that must be administered,
within the assembly. If they come to an agreement about what God’s will is, in the matter, they can proceed
with an assurance - that the Father in heaven will see to it that it is done - since it is indeed His will. So the
first caveat is that they agree, as to the answer to their prayers.

The second caveat is that the two - or three - are gathered together “in My name” - that is, in the name of
Jesus. This implies more than just their intent to represent Jesus, in the matter; it reflects their fervent,
whole-hearted desire to do what is in accordance with His character, with His will, for His people.

If these things are so, even multiple groups of believers would come to the same conclusion, in prayer - for
God only has one will. They would be of one accord.

Notice how the final words of Jesus clearly reflect a time when He will not be any longer present bodily, on
earth. After all, how could He be in the midst of the many people who gather in His name? This statement,
then, is specific to the church, which will be formed out of His death.

How will Jesus be present in the midst of His church? Through His Spirit, whom He will pour out on His
believers, collectively, when He returns to heaven (Acts 1:5, 8; 2:4, 33). The heavenly Head is always
present in the midst of His people, as they gather together in His name - ready, as His Body, to administer
His will in the church, and to carry out His will throughout the world.

As Matthew’s account continues, we come to a second question, that Jesus will use as a teaching point, for
His disciples.

18:21-22 These verses and the passage that follows were only recorded by Matthew. Now, we might be
inclined to think that this passage follows directly after the previous passage. But there is a fairly certain
indicator that it does not. It’s the very first clause: “Then Peter came to Him”.

In the previous passage, Jesus had called the twelve apostles to Himself in a house; they were all right
there. If Peter came to Jesus, this must be another occasion. We can’t determine when it took place, or
even where.

But the last verse of this passage, verse 35, indicates that more disciples than just Peter were present - we
can presume that this might include the wider disciple group, among whom not everyone was a believer.
Even among the Twelve, one was not a believer. Then of course there are the readers of Matthew’s gospel,
to consider. So the audience would be mixed.

It is very likely that Matthew positioned this passage where he did in his account because it ties in part to
the subject that Jesus was teaching about in the previous passage - a believer who has been sinned against
by another believer. But in this case, the focus is not on the offender - repenting of his sin. The focus is on
the one who has been sinned against - forgiving the offender.
# 73: 11-19-19 6

Peter inquired of the Lord how many times he must do this. No doubt he would consider his “seven times”
as very generous; the rabbis taught that since God forgave Israel’s enemies only three times, it was
presumptuous and unnecessary to forgive anyone more than three times.

Apparently, the rabbis were wrong. Peter was wrong, too. Jesus issues His word, in the matter - “I say to
you” - His authoritative word. We know this word well, don’t we? Not up to seven times, but up to
seventy times seven. Did you do the math? You weren’t supposed to, in this case!

The way Jesus responded was intended to bring out the idea of an unlimited number of times; seven being
the number of perfection, or completion. The idea is to perfectly forgive; completely forgive; always.

Notice that there is no mention of whether the offender repents of his sin, or not. Forgiveness does not
depend on the offending party; it’s a gracious act. They are to forgive always, in all cases, regardless of
what their offender does. That must have been stunning, to the disciples!

Now, think about this a moment. Does this concept - of unlimited forgiveness - conflict with what Jesus
said to do, in the previous passage - with the brother who will not repent of his sin - who was to be
dissociated? Not at all.

The brother who had been sinned against could and should still forgive the sin. In fact, forgiveness in his
heart would be essential, in order for him to be willing to seek out the offender, and try to get him to repent
of his sin. It is the offender who really chooses dissociation - because he refuses to be reconciled.
Dissociation, then, is not the same as unforgiveness.

Jesus then proceeds to tell a parable concerning forgiveness. Remember, a parable is an earthly story with
a heavenly, spiritual meaning. This one is about a king. We’ll read the whole parable and then discuss it.

18:23-34 Notice how Jesus begins: “the kingdom of heaven is like….” He’s using an earthly illustration, to
create a spiritual picture - how things operate, in God’s kingdom.

The illustration is filled with colorful imagery, and it’s larger-than-life; intended to draw the listener in; to
come to certain conclusions, about what’s portrayed. The imagination is meant to get a work-out, to reach
the meaning.

The king in the story is patterned after the Gentile kings of the time. The servants that are cited in verse 23
would be like what we would call a civil servant today. The king appointed such servants as vassals of his
kingdom to collect taxes for him.

These tax collectors were permitted to collect the taxes at a profit to themselves. But the king expected
what was due to him, and periodically would settle accounts with these provincial servants, to obtain what
the king was owed.

One particular servant of the king’s was brought who owed ten thousand talents. This is a ridiculous
amount of debt. It has been calculated as fifteen million dollars; or three hundred tons of silver. But Jesus
may have been implying even more. The talent was the largest denomination of currency in that day, and
ten thousand commonly signified an infinite number. This servant’s debt was immeasurable; it would be
impossible to repay it.
# 73: 11-19-19 7

The Gentile kings were renowned for being exacting and harsh - they never accepted excuses. This king
determined to cut his losses, and sell the servant and his family into slavery - and to sell his possessions, as
well. Of course, those hearing the parable would recognize that this would repay only a miniscule fraction,
of what the servant owed.

As the servant heard the king’s judgment, he fell at his feet, terrified. What does the servant request, of the
king? Patience; for the king to bear with him, and the servant would repay him - all of it. Is that possible?
No; the debt is immeasurable; he cannot repay it. But that is what the servant determines to do; to work
off the debt he owes.

The king - the master of this servant - he’s moved with compassion. Why? Was it because of the servant’s
offer, to pay off his debt? Of course not; the king knows the servant can’t ever repay it.

The king is moved with compassion because he sees the hopelessness of his servant’s circumstances - an
immeasurable debt; complete inability to repay; the prospect of being sold, and losing all he had. And
moved by his own compassion, the king released his servant, and forgave his debt. The king was the only
one who could do that.

And all of those, hearing this parable, think, “Wow, the king was so generous; so gracious. The servant
must have been so relieved; so thankful, that the king forgave him”

Then Jesus tells the second part of the story. That same servant went out, and he found a fellow servant
who owed him some money - a hundred denarii. That’s not an insignificant debt - about three month’s
wages, for a laborer - but compared with what the first servant owed, it was a drop in the bucket.

When he finds his fellow servant, it says he took him by the throat. Literally, he began to strangle him.
And as he does, the first servant demands payment.

The words that his fellow servant utters are almost verbatim what the first servant said to the king. But his
words do not resonate, with the first servant. It would seem the first servant had already put them out of his
mind - as well as the immeasurable forgiveness, that had been extended to him.

That gracious forgiveness never penetrated the hard heart of the first servant - so it was not difficult for him
to dismiss the whole affair, from his mind. With utter ruthlessness, without a shred of compassion, the first
servant has his fellow servant committed to the debtor’s prison.

Well, the rest of the servants heard about what happened - to both servants, each time - and they are
horrified - and report it to the king. It’s just not right. We agree with them, don’t we?

The king calls the first servant to him, and confronts him with his despicable conduct. Should not one who
has been forgiven - an immeasurable debt - be willing to forgive a small debt against himself? Should not
he be merciful, having received so much mercy, himself? And the listeners of the parable say, “Of course
he should!”

The king was angry - the idea is that he was absolutely furious, with his servant. And this time, the king
did not just determine to sell the slave, and his family, and his possessions. This time, the king has the
servant thrown in the prison - just as the servant had done, with his fellow servant. A just retribution!
# 73: 11-19-19 8

And in the prison, the servant was delivered to the torturers. Although the Jews did not practice torture, the
Gentiles did - and would do so to extort payment. The servant was to be tortured, until he had paid the king
everything that he owed.

Now, how would this servant do that? His family didn’t have the money. He had fallen from political
favor, so no allies would dare come to his aid. And anyway, the amount the servant owed the king was
immeasurable. It would seem that this servant was going to be tortured, in that place of torment, forever.

This is absolutely terrifying. Especially when we see how Jesus ends the story.

18:35 Now, this would have jolted the disciples - as much as it does us. What is Jesus saying here? That
if the disciples did not forgive each other, that God would judge them? The mention of “torturers” in verse
34 is the language of condemnation. Hades and the Lake of Fire are described, by a related word. What
were the disciples to make of this? Is unforgiveness - unforgivable, by God? This requires some deeper
thought.

Now, the disciples would certainly have understood the parable on the surface, even without this word of
explanation from Jesus. Who was the king, in the story? The Father. And the servant? That could be any
son of Adam; we all owed God an immeasurable debt, for the sins we committed against Him. Could we
repay our debt? No; we didn’t have the means, and we couldn’t obtain it.

But the Father had mercy on us - just as the heart of the king went out to that servant. Only the Father had
the means to release us, from our debt of sin - His own Son. And in the richness of His mercy, God gave
His Son - so that He could forgive our debt. Aren’t you grateful?

But in the story, the servant was not grateful. He didn’t indicate any sorrow over his debt, and he didn’t ask
for mercy, or to be forgiven; he simply asked for patience, while he repaid it - all of it.

What arrogance, this servant had! To think that he had the ability to repay such an immeasurable debt. So
even though forgiveness was extended to him, it never reached his heart; he was consumed with the thought
of repaying the debt.

For we see that he immediately set out to make that happen; locating someone who owed him a far smaller
sum of money, and violently demanding payment. The plea of the fellow servant, exactly the same as his
own, fell on deaf ears, and a hard heart. The first servant should have empathized with the dilemma of his
fellow servant - instead, he treats him most cruelly.

The key to understanding is found in verse 32. How does the king address the man? “You wicked
servant!” The idea is that this man is no true servant, of the master; he is a servant in name alone; a
counterfeit.

The first servant in the parable, then, does not represent a believer. His inability to forgive demonstrates
that he is an unbeliever - one who does not serve God and His purposes. Without a change of heart, he is
destined for the Lake of Fire - where his immeasurable offense against a merciful and compassionate God
will be forever exacted.

And so we say, “Thank you Lord! You are true to Your word - there is therefore now no condemnation to
those who are in Christ Jesus (Rm 8:1)! But then why did Jesus say what He did, in verse 35? Because
Jesus wants to make it clear to all those following Him that unforgiveness is the mark of an unbeliever.
# 73: 11-19-19 9

Unlimited forgiveness is the mark of a true disciple of Jesus; a believer. They have become a bondslave of
Christ. Having been forgiven so much, they are compelled - out of love and gratitude to the Lord - to
extend that love to others. And it is to all others; not just fellow believers. Jesus made that plain, in His
example of prayer, to the disciples (Mt 6:14-15).

For believers, the word is, “Even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do” (Col 3:13). How did He
forgive you? Freely; graciously; fully. No offense was too great; no trespass was too frequent. So you
must also do. An unforgiving character is the mark of an unbeliever. May it never be the mark of one of us!

Reading: Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12; Gen 1:26-28, 2:18-24; Deut 24:1-4