[And He Walks With Me] Matthew 18
1 The disciples’ question, So who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?, was a natural outflow of the honor-shame culture in which they lived. In such a culture, people’s worth “was established through an elaborate system of valuing and devaluing.”[220] Consequently, every aspect of how one related to another person was governed by their status, and people often compared themselves to others and jockeyed to increase their own status or decrease another’s.[221] It is quite possible that the disciples’ question was prompted by their continued reflection on the implications of everything Jesus had said and done so far. In Matthew 11:11, he described John the Baptist as the greatest man of the old, earthly order, but he observed that the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John.[222] In this case, the question could be more fully expressed thusly: If John the Baptist is lesser than the least in the kingdom of heaven, then who can possibly be the greatest?
3-5 In the honor-shame culture of ancient Palestine, children were considered a blessing and gift from God[223] and yet “ranked lowest on the honor-shame scales of personal worth,” largely because “their value was more potential than real.”[224] Further, they would only gain status when they reached adulthood and began contributing to society.[225] Consequently, when Jesus advised them to become like little children, it was tantamount to turning one of the most fundamental assumptions of their entire culture on its head. While the whole culture was based on the idea that strength, prominence, and productivity were key to personal value, Jesus highlighted the child’s utter lack of these things. Indeed, children were, on their own, utterly without rights or significance.[226] They were the epitome of vulnerability, obscurity, and uselessness. Their only value was derived from their relationship to their Father, and so it must be for all disciples of Christ.
6 The phrase rendered causes… to fall away (CSB) is rendered differently by various translations. Examples include cause… to sin (NRSV, NKJV); cause… to stumble (NIV); and shall offend (KJV). The Greek word underlying this phrase is skandalise (G4624 σκανδαλίσῃ), which is the root for the English word scandalize. According to Strong’s, the most basic meaning of this term is “to put a stumbling-block or impediment in the way,” but it can also mean “to entice to sin” or “to cause a person to begin to distrust and desert one whom he ought to trust and obey.”[227] In either case, it indicates a deliberate, persistent turn away from God rather than an isolated incident of indiscretion.[228]
For some especially terrible crimes, Romans would occasionally execute people by tying them to a heavy weight and drowning them. Jews refused to practice this method of execution, believing it was inhumane.[229] The especially gruesome method of execution suggests that causing one of these little ones… to fall away is considered by God an especially terrible sin. Perhaps this is why James wrote that teachers will receive a stricter judgment (3:1). The bottom line is that anyone who, by their words or actions, is leading people to reject the Lord is on a trajectory leading to eternal damnation, and they should take radical action to immediately change the course of their life.[230]
7 The CSB translation here aligns with the KJV and NKJV by translating the first portion of the verse Woe to the world because of offenses. Unfortunately, this translation does not really capture the idea of the Greek word skandalon (G4625 σκανδάλων), which is the noun version of skandalise used in vs 6. Literally, the word referred to the “trigger of a trap,” but it was used figuratively to describe “any impediment placed in the way and causing one to stumble or fall.”[231] The idea, then, is that there will be things that cause people to turn away from God. This is inevitable. Anyone who causes these stumbling blocks will be held accountable.
8-9 The gravity of Jesus’ warning against causing others to sin serves as a springboard into a discussion about the weight of our own sin. Indeed, one of the most common offenses (see note on vs 7) may be seeing a person who claims to be a Christ-follower tolerating or even flagrantly committing sin in their own lives. This sort of hypocrisy utterly negates the gospel message and drives people away from Jesus rather than drawing them toward him. Jesus, therefore, wanted his disciples to take sin seriously and do whatever was necessary to remove it from their lives. To drive home that point, he employed hyperbole. This obviously exaggerated statement was not intended to be taken literally. Jesus did not really expect his disciples to cut off hands or feet, or carve out their eyes. No, these are not the real drivers of our temptations and sins. Instead, see James 1:13-15 for the real cause of sin. Rather, Jesus meant only to make clear that sin is a major problem which must be addressed decisively.
10 The Greek word rendered by the CSB despise means to “think little or nothing of.”[232] It is, in essence, to dismiss someone as unimportant or unworthy of concern. Thus, Jesus returns to the notion he introduced in vs 1: Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? As Jesus often does, however, he does not provide them with the simple, conventional answer. Conventional wisdom said the greatest in the kingdom of heaven was the most pious, richest person, and others should be ignored. Jesus, however, made clear that God attends especially those who are considered of little or no value to society, and his followers should, too.
11 Some manuscripts include vs 11: For the Son of Man has come to save the lost. This inclusion is not a foreign concept: it is a quote from Luke 19:10. Therefore, it does not compromise in any way the integrity of Matthew’s gospel. In fact, it offers a segue from the theme of vss 1-10 into the idea of vss 12ff: Christ’s followers do not dismiss anyone as unimportant or unworthy because, in Christ’s economy, the needs or value of the many do not outweigh the needs or value of the one.
12-14 Instead of dismissing people as unimportant, Jesus called his disciples to think like the shepherd who would immediately leave the ninety-nine on the hillside and go and search for the stray. This is not to say that the shepherd was reckless. No, the shepherd placed the flock on a hillside in the open, where they would be far from predators and able to both see and be seen. Then the shepherd would go in search of the lost or missing sheep. So also, Christ followers will not write off anyone who is lost or gone astray. Instead, they will do what they can to protect those who are still in the fold, and they will go after those who are missing. After all, it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones perish.
15-20 Building upon the previous 14 verses, Jesus outlined the process by which wayward brothers and sisters should be reconciled to each other. It should be recognized that this process was just as counter-cultural in first-century Palestine as it is today. It was far more attractive to completely sever the relationship, to talk badly about people behind their backs, and to gather a team of supporters who will reinforce our feelings and ideas. Jesus, however, expected his followers to pursue the lesser-traveled path of reconciliation, and that necessitated a number of unusual things hinted here.
15 The word used here for sins (CSB) is hamartese (G264 ἁμαρτήσῃ). It is not the same word used in vs 7 for offenses. This, then, was not the sort of thing that entices the believer to walk away from the faith. Rather, it is merely a hurt or pain that ruptures the relationship between the two believers. It should be noted that this term means “to miss the mark” or “be mistaken” just as much as it means “to wander from the law of God.”[233] Sometimes, the hurts people cause us are not the result of grievous wrongs, but of things that were merely not quite right or even simple mistakes. Likewise, sometimes the hurts we cause others are not the result of grievous wrongs, but of things we did that were merely not quite right or even simple mistakes.
Certainly, to go tell him his fault is to confront the person about their sin. The Greek word used here can carry the idea of chiding or reprimanding, but it also carried the idea of bringing something to light, showing one his fault, or demanding an explanation.[234] The range of this term’s severity suggests that the believer should carefully adopt a tone which is appropriate to the sin. Perhaps a good rule of thumb would be to initially approach the person with the assumption that their sin was an innocent mistake. Bring it to light and request an explanation, and escalate the tone only if it becomes clear that the matter was deliberate.
Notice the discretion Jesus prescribes in this first stage of the process: between you and him alone. The use of alone serves as an emphatic punch. It is, of course, tempting to tell all sorts of people in order to shame the other person and/or recruit a team to stand against them, but Jesus understood that these things will dramatically undermine the possibility of reconciliation. Once again, there must be a degree of discernment involved here.[235] For instance, it is certainly not a good idea for a person who was raped or sexually harassed to confront her attacker alone. Even if it were not dangerous, it could retraumatize the victim. Further, the believer will be more concerned about what happened than how the sin is brought to light.[236]
If he listens to you, you have won your brother indicates clearly that reconciliation is the believer’s objective in confronting a person for their sin. In ideal circumstances, this should involve the complete restoration of the relationship, but that may not be possible under different circumstances. Obviously, if there is no repentance, reconciliation is not possible. So also, the best solution may occasionally be that the parties amicably separate (e.g., Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:39). We may erect boundaries between us and the person who sinned against us, but we must nevertheless aim to view them as our brother or sister in Christ.
16 If and only if the direct, personal confrontation does not bring reconciliation, then take one or two others with you. This expands the circle of knowledgeable people, but only slightly. Therefore, discretion is maintained. The two or three witnesses can serve one or more functions in the conversation. If they have witnessed the sinful behavior, then they can validate the complaint, per Deuteronomy 19:15. They may also witness the godly manner in which the plaintiff addressed the matter.
17 Again, if and only if confronting the person with witnesses fails, tell the church. Finally, the veil is removed and the matter is brought into the full light, but this should always be the last resort for matters that are not criminal, with exceptions where confronting the guilty party privately may cause more harm.
If the guilty party does not heed the congregation’s reproof, then let him be like a Gentile and a tax collector to you. To Jesus’ disciples and listeners, Gentiles and tax collectors were sinners to be shunned. For Jesus, they were people to be loved and evangelized. The reader must hold these in tension. On the one hand, they should establish a clear demarcation that the sin is not condoned and the guilty party is not a part of the church. On the other hand, they should leave the door open to the guilty party’s return when they resolve to repent.
18 See note on Matthew 16:19, where Jesus said almost the same thing.
19-20 It is tempting to lift these verses from the context and assume they are a how-to for effective prayer. To be certain, they have implications for this, but probably not as wild as most would like. This passage is not about making God a personal genie who will do whatever arbitrary thing two or three people might pray, but it is about identifying what God has defined as right and wrong. Two or three witnesses were required to determine the veracity of anything in court. Thus, two or three gathered together in my name have the power to substantiate an accusation against a person or to affirm the truth of God’s established moral standard. It does not give them license to redefine God’s moral standard or to fabricate charges against someone. Indeed, the main point of these verses is to make clear that God’s willingness to answer their requests and even be present within the community is directly related to their alignment with his will.[237]
20 Ancient Jews believed that the Shekinah glory of God was present in a just court. In order for a court to be considered just, it had to have a minimum of three judges. So also, it was believed that two people sitting together and reflecting upon the Law would enjoy the presence of God. In declaring, I am there among even two or three people who are gathered together in [his] name, Jesus was equating his presence with the presence of the Lord. This, then, was tantamount to a claim to deity.[238]
21 The conversation about confronting people who have sinned against us leads naturally to a related discussion about forgiveness. Peter’s question here was a source of discussion among ancient Jews who sought to balance God’s grace, God’s justice, and human nature. Indeed, they recognized that God is compassionate and gracious… slow to anger and abounding in faithful love and truth, maintaining faithful love to a thousand generations, forgiving iniquity, rebellion, and sin (Exodus 34:6); but there is apparently a limit to that grace because he also promises to not leave the guilty unpunished (e.g., Exodus 34:7). There is, then, a clear tension in God’s own character. Further, human nature is to aims to test that tension. The natural inclination to sin is difficult to overcome even for the most penitent, but there are also those who have no intention of actually changing. Instead, they resolve to go ahead and sin and just ask forgiveness later. Consequently, Jewish teachers recognized the need to assess the legitimacy of a person’s repentance in order to winnow out those who were merely taking for granted God’s grace. This led to the consensus that a person may be forgiven only up to three times for the same transgression. Therefore, Peter’s offer to forgive as many as seven times would have been considered by the other disciples and anyone else listening to be wildly generous.
22 It is not possible to determine with absolute confidence what Jesus said here. Different manuscripts say seventy times seven or seventy-seven. In a strange way, however, this only strengthens Jesus’ point, which was that the number does not matter. The man or woman of God is to forgive regardless of how many times the person has wronged them before, regardless of whether or not they are sincere in their repentance now. Indeed, the man or woman of God should forgive even if there is no repentance at all. Please note that forgiveness is not the same as reconciliation. Reconciliation marks the restoration of normal, friendly relations between two people. It requires that both parties are willing to restore friendly relations, and the offender(s) must be earnest in their repentance. This is why Paul wrote, As far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone (Romans 12:18). He realized that reconciliation requires the commitment of both parties. Forgiveness, then, is merely one party’s willingness to restore friendly relations. It is that party choosing to release anger and the right to justice, etc., thereby removing the barriers so that friendly relations may be restored when the other party repents. It is not necessarily removing boundaries, and in fact, it may involve erecting new boundaries to remove temptation, provide accountability, and ensure that the other party’s repentance is sincere and enduring.
23-35 Like many of Jesus’ parables, the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant upsets the typical understanding of forgiveness. Most people think of how much forgiveness they need and how much they should forgive others as entirely distinct issues. In doing so, they generally hold double standards in which they expect others, including God, to forgive them over and over, but they will often put limits on the forgiveness they extend to others. Jesus here reminded the disciples that this double standard is inappropriate and offensive to God. Indeed, this theme was introduced in the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:12, 14-15. Now, Jesus elaborated by sharing why it is so important that God’s people forgive as they have been forgiven.
24 The modern use of the word talent as a special ability or skill evolved from the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:14-30. In Jesus’ time, a talent was a measure of weight equal to approximately 75 pounds. Because Jesus did not specify whether the talent was in gold, silver, or some other measure, it is impossible to gauge a precise monetary value on this debt. However, an approximate idea can be obtained by assuming the talent was of silver. Generally speaking, a silver talent was worth 6,000 denarii, which was considered a day’s wage for most people.[239] Given that 6,000 days is equal to 16.4 years, it becomes possible to estimate an approximate value based on the current wage data. According to the US Census Bureau, the median household income from 2019-2023 was $78,538 per year.[240] Thus, one talent would be worth nearly $1.3 million dollars in 2023. To put this into perspective, the per-person GDP of first-century Roman Empire has been estimated at $570,[241] and the population of the empire has been estimated between 59 million and 76 million people.[242] Thus, ten thousand talents was worth between ¼ and ⅓ of the annual GDP of the entire Roman Empire.
26 Despite the servant’s assertion that he would pay you everything, the king knew there was absolutely no chance that any one person could repay the debt this man owed.
28 A hundred denarii was equal to 100 days’ wages for the typical first-century laborer. Given the median household income (see note on vs. 24), this would be approximately $30,206.92. To be certain, this represented a considerable personal debt, but it was orders of magnitude smaller than the debt the first servant was just forgiven. The Christ-follower will remember that his/her sin against God is orders of magnitude greater than any sin another person has committed against him/her.
30 In the first century, prison was not generally used for criminals. Rather, it was more often used to house people who could not pay their debts. Of course, being in prison severely curtailed one’s ability to earn money. Therefore, being thrown into prison, even for a relatively trivial sum, was often a life sentence.
35 Jesus here drove home the point of the parable, which was that God expects us to forgive others because he has forgiven us of so much more. The earnest Christ-follower will keep this always in mind and so forgive, not because the other person is worthy but because God has forgiven.
[220] Hahn 2007, Matthew 18:1-4
[221] Hahn 2007, Matthew 18:1-4
[222] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 18:1-4
[223] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 18:1-4
[224] Hahn 2007, Matthew 18:1-4
[225] Hahn 2007, Matthew 18:1-4
[226] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 18:1-4
[227] “G4624 – skandalizō – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (kjv)”, n.d.
[228] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 18:6-7
[229] Keener and Walton 2016, Matthew 18:6
[230] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 18:6-7
[231] “G4625 – skandalon – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (kjv)”, n.d.
[232] “G2706 – kataphroneō – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (kjv)”, n.d.
[233] “G264 – hamartanō – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (kjv)”, n.d.
[234] “G1651 – elegchō – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (kjv)”, n.d.
[235] McKnight and Barringer 2020, 51
[236] McKnight and Barringer 2020, 51
[237] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 18:18-20
[238] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 18:20
[239] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 18:23-25
[240] “US Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States”, n.d.
[241] “How wealthy were then ancient Romans?”, n.d.
[242] “Demography of the Roman Empire – Wikipedia”, n.d.