Category Archives: Christian apologetics

Not every prayer offered in faith may be effective; but which ones always will – James 5:15

BY RICHARD LENTZ

Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous man is powerful and effective. (James 5:13-16)

I have had some concerns about the meaning of the above verses for years. It seems that they saying that if you are physically ill and are not getting better that you will get healed if you call in the elders to pray for you and they anoint you with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer must be offered in faith of course which means praying without doubting that God will answer those prayers. And those who are doing the praying must be righteous, for it is seems that it is only the prayer of the righteous that is powerful and effective.

Although I do like the sentiment that if I pray hard enough or have enough faith or have achieved just the right amount of righteousness that my prayers for physical healing will be answered, I do have some questions about this understanding of the passage. For example, how fervently do I need to pray? How much faith is required? How righteous do I or the others praying need to be? And if my prayers for physical healing aren’t answered, does that mean that I wasn’t praying hard enough or that my faith was not strong enough or that I wasn’t righteous enough?

What I’ve also noted over the years is that some who pray for physical healing are healed even though they have doubts that they will or aren’t as righteous as God desires; that some who are godly and who have bucket loads of faith aren’t healed even though they pray with full confidence that their request will be honored by God; and some who are ungodly or who don’t pray at all are often healed of their ailments anyway. It seems to me that getting healed physically frequently has little to do with our faith or lack thereof, to our personal righteousness or the absence of it, to how fervently we pray, or to whether or not we ask others to pray for us or to anoint us with oil.

And so what exactly are these verses promising when they say that a prayer offered in faith will make a sick person well? Are they promising that if we pray with an appropriate amount of faith or righteousness that we will be healed from whatever ails us physically? Or are they promising a different kind of healing from a different type of ailment?

Clue #1 – What Follows “Therefore”

 One clue to what these verses are promising is found in the portion that follows the word “therefore”:

Therefore, confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. (vs. 16)

Note that the promise of being healed in this verse is conditional. What is required is mutual confession of sin and praying for one another. This suggests that the sickness the person is experiencing has something to do with their personal sin. This could mean that what ails them physically is a direct result of sin in their life and that they won’t be physically healed until their spiritual problem – their sin issue – has been addressed. But it could be that James was not talking about physical healing at all but instead was addressing how to get healed from what ails someone spiritually.

One thing to note in this respect is that James never mentions physical healing specifically in these verses. He simply mentions healing in general without indicating what type of healing he was addressing. Although James could have been talking about how to get healed from a physical ailment, it could just as well be that he was addressing how to get healed from a spiritual one.

Clue #2 – What the Trouble Is

Another clue in identifying what type of sickness James was addressing and what type of healing is being promised is to note what precedes the verses that talk about “a prayer of faith” and “the prayer of a righteous man”. Here’s what comes before these verses:

Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. (vs. 13)

Although “any one of you in trouble” could be interpreted as “anyone suffering from a physical ailment” or “anyone happy” could be understood as “anyone glad they are not”, it seems to me that James was referring to a different kind of trouble and a different source of happiness. If “trouble” in verse 13 is meant to be linked to what follows the word “therefore” in verse 16, then this person’s trouble may have something to do their spiritual condition. If that condition is healthy, they should praise the Lord for it. If not, then they need to pray to be healed from what is causing them to be sick spiritually. And if their prayers for spiritual healing are ineffective, then:

He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. (vs. 14)

And then follow this instruction:

Confess your sins to each other and pray for each other. (vs. 16)

Connecting “trouble” in verse 13 with “confess your sins” in verse 16 provides a significant clue about the type of sickness James was addressing. What follows verses 13-16 must also be taken into consideration however if one wants to have a better understanding of what kind of sickness James was talking about and what type of healing is being promised.

Clue #3 – Elijah’s Prayer

James followed verses 13-16 with an example of a prayer offered by a righteous man and what it accomplished. That man was the prophet Elijah. Here’s is what James said about him:

Elijah was a man just like us. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops. (James 5:17-18)

It may seem at first glance that Elijah was praying about the weather and by noting this James was simply reinforcing that if you are righteous and have faith that your prayers, like those of Elijah, will most assuredly be answered. But there is much more to this incident than what James noted. The entire chronology is recorded in 1 Kings 16:29 thru 1 Kings 18:46. Here are some highlights of this:

  • Ahab, the king of Israel, provoked the anger of the Lord by serving Baal, setting up an altar for Baal in the temple, and doing “more evil in the eyes of the Lord than any of those before him. (16:29-33)”
  • In response to this evil, Elijah said, “As the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, whom I serve, there will be neither rain in the next few years except at my word. (17:1)”
  • The drought continued for three and a half years. At the end of this period God told Elijah to present himself to Ahab (18:1). Elijah did so.
  • Elijah then told Ahab that it was his disobedience of God that was the cause of the troubles Israel was experiencing. He also told Ahab and the Israelites that they needed to make a choice on whom they were going to worship; they had to choose either God or Baal (18:18-21).
  • The people did not respond; they remained silent (vs. 18:21).­
  • Elijah then set up a contest on Mount Carmel between the priests of Baal and himself to prove whose god was strongest – whose god was real. Elijah showed through what took place that Baal was powerless – that he didn’t exist at all –  and that the Lord God is in only God (18:22-38).
  • Upon seeing what happened on the mountain, the people “fell prostrate and cried, ‘The Lord — he is God! The Lord — he is God! (18:39).”
  • Following this act of contrition and repentance, Elijah said that the rains would return. And they did (18:41-45).

Note that the troubles the Israelites experienced were a direct result of sin and it wasn’t until they repented that their troubles ceased. Could it be that this is the type of trouble James was referring do when he asked, “Is any one of you in trouble?” Could it be that how the Israelites responded to their troubles – by contrition and repentance – is the action James was instructing believers to take when they are experiencing similar troubles – that they need to “confess their sins to each other and pray for one another”? 

Clue #4 – James’ Conclusion

Here’s how James concluded:

My brothers, if one of should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins. (James 5:19-20) 

These verses describe a situation where a sinner who has wandered from the truth is turned back from the error of his way by a brother and as a result is saved from death and a multitude of other sins. Could this be further clarification of the type of trouble James mentioned in verse 13 and what to do about it? Could the troubles the Israelites experienced due to their sin and what it took to remedy this be an illustration of this in verses 17-18? Could the one who restores the brother in verse 19 be one of the elders the troubled person asks to pray for him in verse 14 or one of those this person confesses his sins to in verse 16?

Clue #5 – The Whole Context of James

One last thing worthy of note is the entire tone and context of the book of James. James was writing to believers who didn’t seem to understand that their faith needed to be evidenced by works. James then described what some of those works ought to be. When James did this, he didn’t say, “You need to have more faith,” or, “You need a better relationship with God.” What James did say is that how we speak and act provides evidence of what we believe. And if our faith doesn’t result in what ought to characterize a healthy relationship with God, then something is wrong with it; it is useless and ineffective; it is dead (James 2:26). It seems to me that the entire book of James is about what one needs to do to avoid being spiritually ineffective. And if our ineffectiveness is the result of being spiritually sick, maybe it’s time to call in someone who can be of help in turning us away from the error of our ways so that we don’t continue to wander away from the truth and fall into additional sin.

What prayers offered in faith will always be effective

And so, what prayers offered in faith will always be effective? I believe it is prayers for spiritual healing. If we are spiritually sick and have a sincere desire to be brought back into a healthy and fruitful relationship with God, and if we then do what James instructs us to do – if confess our sins to one another and ask others to pray for us – God promises that He will forgive ours sins and heal us from what ails us spiritually.

That’s my understanding of these verses, at least as I see it today.

One upright man among a thousand, but no upright woman. Really? – Ecclesiastes 7:28

BY RICHARD LENTZ

“While I was still searching but not finding — I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them (Ecclesiastes 7:28, NIV).”

I’ve got to admit that the above verse may be one of the most perplexing in the entire Bible. On the surface it appears that Solomon, the writer of Ecclesiastes, was comparing men with women and that though he could find at least one upright or righteous man among a thousand men, he could not find even one upright woman among that same number of women. I’ve even heard a number of sermons over the years that were consistent with this understanding of the passage;  that men are somehow more upright than women, perhaps because it was Eve who was first tempted by Satan in the Garden of Eden.

I believe this understanding of the passage is flawed, that it results from a misunderstanding of the context in which it was written, and that taking into consideration Solomon’s background may give us a better understanding of what this verse means.

Solomon’s Thousand Wives

The first thing to note is that Solomon seems to have had at least one woman in his life who he deeply loved and respected. The Song of Songs, probably written by Solomon early in his life, is a vivid and wonderful expression of the longing he felt for this one woman.  Although we don’t know who this woman was, she could have been the daughter of Pharaoh (1 Kings 3:1). What is apparent is that Solomon had a very high opinion this woman and was totally enamored by her beauty and her charms.

The problem that Solomon may have had with regards to women is that he was not satisfied with having just one in his life. He eventually had a harem that totaled one thousand. 1 Kings 11:1-6 gives some details regarding this and what happened because of it:

King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women beside Pharaoh’s daughter — Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord; he did not follow the Lord completely, as David his father had done. 

1 Kings 11:11 describes God’s response:

So the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates.” 

Who then was Solomon referring to then when he said, “I found one upright man among a thousand?” I believe he was referring to himself. I don’t think he was saying, “I found one upright man, me, among a thousand men,” however.  I think he was saying, “I found one upright man, me, among a thousand women.” If this is so, then the women he was referring to were most likely the thousand he’d gathered into his harem. And it appears according to I Kings 11 that none of them, including the daughter of Pharaoh, worshipped God.

An Upright Man who Lost His Focus

What then does upright mean in this context? The mistake I believe many make at this point is bringing a New Testament understanding of uprightness into the passage and equating upright with being righteous. This can lead to concluding that the passage is talking about a righteous man who was unable to find a righteous woman. But I think that in the context of Ecclesiastes that being upright has more to do with where a  person decides to look for wisdom regarding how best to live life “under the sun (Eccl. 1:3),” and not the result of that decision.  Solomon was an upright man in the sense that he looked upwards to God for wisdom and guidance, at least early in his life. The same could not be said to be true regarding the thousand women he gathered into his harem. It seems that none of them was upright in their spiritual lives, not in the same sense that Solomon was or should have been. All of them worshipped other gods.

1 Kings 11:4 notes the influence that Solomon’s thousand wives had on his own spiritual focus:

As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 

Solomon may have been sharing his feelings about this in Ecclesiastes 7:25-26:

So I turned my mind to understand, to investigate and to search out wisdom and the scheme of things and to understand the stupidity of wickedness and the madness of folly. I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.

If this verse is referring to how Solomon felt about his decision to have so many women in his harem, then he found the results to be more bitter than death, used words like stupid, madness, and folly to characterize his choice, and acknowledged that these women  became snares, traps, and chains

Solomon may have been an upright man at one point in his life. But because of his decision to have so many wives, he lost his upward focus and his heart turned to other gods.

Solomon concluded this portion of Ecclesiastes with these words:

This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes (Eccl. 7:29). 

If Solomon is referring to himself in this verse, what he’s noting is that his life was characterized at one time by an upward or upright focus but that eventually he quit relying on God’s advice and instead followed his own schemes, a decision he came to regret.

A Better Choice

What would Solomon have done differently if he had an opportunity for a do-over in this area of his life?  I think he would have stopped at one. A clue to this is may be found in the advice he gave in Ecclesiastes 9:9:

Enjoy life with your wife, whom you live, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun.

He also advised this is Proverbs 5:18-19:

May your fountain be blessed and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, and a graceful deer — may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love. 

The focus of Ecclesiastes 9:9 is what do to when you feel that life is meaningless. The focus of Proverbs 5:18-19 is what to do if you are attracted to the charms of a person other than your own spouse. Both have the same message. They are urging men and women who are married to be satisfied with the spouse they have and to quit looking elsewhere for fulfillment in this area of their lives.

As we grow older and our lives, bodies, and circumstances change, we need to adapt to those changes and reject the notion that “changing models” or “adding to the harem” is somehow better than living in a committed and meaningful way with the spouse we already have.

That’s my understanding of this passage and its implications, at least as I see it today.

Don’t Presume to be a Teacher – James 3:1

Ways you may already be one; and why you need to be careful what you say if you are!

BY RICHARD LENTZ

While attending a small group Bible study a number of years ago, I became concerned when one of the participants started defending an interpretation of a passage that I knew was very different than the writer’s original intent. I don’t recall what the specific verse was or what he was saying about it at the time. But I noted that several in the group seemed to be persuaded by his arguments even though the content of what he was sharing may have been biblically weak, perhaps because of the skill in which he articulated his viewpoint. After the study I cautioned my friend that he needed to be careful about what he shared as others could be influenced by what he said. I then quoted this verse to support my advice to him:

“Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly (James 3:1, NIV).”

My friend responded by saying that since this verse is addressing only those who are in an official position of a pastor or teacher and that he was neither, it didn’t apply to him. Our pastor seemed to support my friend’s conclusion regarding this passage when his sermon some time later focused on this same passage and the pastor said, “Since most of you aren’t teachers, I guess this verse has little to do with you.”

This may be too limiting.

I think that my friend’s understanding of this verse as well as my pastor’s, that it applies only to those who feel called to teach or are in an official position of a pastor or teacher, is too limiting. I believe that this verse is actually addressing anyone who presumes to teach in any fashion, and it seems that there are a lot of situations where we do this without being in the actual position of a teacher.

One of those situations is in parenting. Consider for example these verses:

Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road when you lie down and when you get up (Deut. 11:18,19).”

In this passage, God is commanding parents to make the spiritual nurturing of their children a full-time profession. Parents do this first by embracing God’s Word in their own hearts and minds and then by teaching it through their lives and their words. Parents may not feel called to be teachers in this context but God says that they are.

Parents are not the only ones called to teach. Jesus said that all Christians are supposed to be teachers. An example of this is  found in the instructions Jesus gave His disciples prior to His ascension to heaven:

”All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you (Matt. 28:18-20).”

This command is part of what some call, “The Great Commission.” God is asking all those who have made a commitment to Jesus to teach others the importance of obeying Him. Being a teacher in this respect is not an option. It’s an obligation.

A similar sentiment is found in this verse:

“Though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food (Hebrews 5:12).”

I believe that the writer of Hebrews was voicing in this verse his disappointment that some Christians had not matured enough spiritually to become the teachers God wanted them to be. The implication of this verse is that all Christians are called to teach what God says is true. The Christians the writer was addressing were apparently faltering in this role, perhaps because they themselves didn’t understand what is true from God’s perspective.

It ignores the context of the passage.

Pointing out areas where we are all called to be teachers doesn’t explain the full implications of James 3:1, however. The stumbling block in understanding this verse may be the phrase, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers.” Expanding the application of this verse to include situations where we are commanded to teach doesn’t address circumstances where we aren’t commanded to teach but are presuming to do so anyway. It also ignores the content of the next eleven verses which have little to do with teaching in general but instead are noting the effect of our words. Here are those verses:

We all stumble in many ways. Anyone who is never at fault in what they say is perfect, able to keep their whole body in check.

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and sea creatures are being tamed and have been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. 10 Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. 11 Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? 12 My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

The focus of James 3:2-12 is on the danger of not weighing our words carefully and how harmful what we say can be to ourselves as well as to others. It’s warning about the damage that can be caused by a tongue that is out of control.

The effects of an uncontrolled tongue include the following:

  • It can reveal an area of life the speaker is stumbling in themselves, a part of their lives they are not able to keep under control.
  • Just like a rudder on a ship, it can affect the direction a person takes, whether that be for better or for worse.
  • Just like a forest fire that is started by small spark, it (an uncontrolled tongue) , though being very small, can cause great damage.
  • It reveals what is in one’s heart, and some of what is found there is not good.

It seems to me that all of James 3:1-12 including the first verse is addressing those who don’t weigh their words carefully and who tend to say what they want and to speak their minds without considering the consequences. It’s warning those who think they are off the hook because they aren’t in the official role of a pastor or teacher that they won’t get a “Get out of jail free” card if they speak rashly and what they say harms others or leads someone astray.

Be careful about every word you utter.

I believe that we presume to be a teacher anytime we share an opinion and that opinion has the potential of influencing someone else’s thinking or to affect their actions. And I cannot think of very many times when what we say cannot have an effect on someone else  Nothing we say can truly be considered trivial or inconsequential. Nearly all our words can affect what people think, can alter how others act, and can change what people feel about themselves, about others, and about God.

It seems to me that this verse is saying that we need to be careful about every word we utter and that we won’t get off the hook or get a free pass simply because we’re not in the official role of a teacher or a pastor.

That’s my understanding of this passage, at least as I see it today.

Train up a child according to his way – But whose way is “his” way? – Proverbs 22:6

BY RICHARD LENTZ

Training up a child – Proverbs 22:6

“Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it (Proverbs 22:6, NIV).”

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard the above verse quoted in church services during the dedication of someone’s child. And as I’ve heard it explained, “the way he should go” means, “The Lord’s way,” and that what God is promising is that if a parent raises a child according to the ways of the Lord that the child will continue to follow those ways when they become an adult.

This understanding of the verse seems to make sense when you note how it is footnoted in the New American Standard translation of the Bible. This version indicates that the “way he should go” literally means, “according to his way.”  If one substitutes the second phrase for  the first, the verse would read,

“Train a child according to his way, and when he is old he will not turn from it.”

The predominant conclusion among those who quote this verse with this understanding of it seems to be that “his way” means “God’s way” and that if we teach a child to follow God’s commandments and the ways of His wisdom when that child is young, when that child becomes an adult they will not turn away from those ways.

Is this a guarantee that if a child is raised right that they will pursue what’s right?

I used to think this was a pretty terrific promise. What parent would not want to know that they could ensure their child’s future spiritual health by teaching them the ways of God’s wisdom and exhorting them to follow His commandments.  This presumes of course that children simply need to be pointed in the right direction and that once they understand it and know its benefits will embrace it. Seems like a pretty good principle of parenting: teach what is right in God’s eyes and what follows will be a lifetime of obedience to Him.

Over the years I noted, however, that there is a huge gap between what is happening in the lives of the children of Christian parents and what some conclude this verse means; that if we parent right our children will follow what’s right when they grow older. Time after time I saw parents raise their children according to what they deemed to be sound biblical principles only to see those children abandon God’s ways when those children reached adulthood. I also observed that Christians who raised multiple children didn’t always have the same outcome even though they seemingly raised all their children according to God’s wise advice. One child might end up following the ways of the Lord when they became an adult, for example, while the other or others might choose a more worldly path. Godly parents who seemingly did everything right might not even have one child who stayed in a relationship with God into adulthood. It seemed that good Christian parenting no matter how much focused on what’s right in God’s eyes didn’t guarantee that a child would continue to be obedient to God when that child reached adulthood.

Treating this verse as a promise that if a child is trained according to the Lord’s ways that when that child grows old they’ll keep following those ways didn’t stand the test of reality. Although some might attribute bad results in this regard to bad parenting,  I suspected that it was my understanding of Proverbs 22:6 that was flawed.

Does “His way” mean “the Lord’s Way”? 

I then began thinking about the significance of the word “his” in “according to his way.” Since “his” is a pronoun, it has to have an antecedent; a noun it refers to. The general rule of thumb is that the antecedent for a pronoun is the closest noun in the same sentence or paragraph. The problem when assuming that the antecedent for “his” is “God” or “the Lord” is that neither is mentioned in this verse. There are references to “the Lord” in other verses in the chapter but these have no textual connection to Proverbs 22:6. The implication of this is that “his way” cannot be accurately interpreted “the Lord’s way.” It’s more likely therefore that “his way” is “the child’s way” since “child” is the only personal noun referenced in the verse.

If “his way” really means  “the child’s way,” then the passage would more accurately be translated, 

“Train up a child according to the child’s way, and when he is old he will not turn from it.”

What if “his way” really means “the child’s way”?

If this is the correct translation of the verse, if “his way” is really “the child’s way,” then it may be telling parents that if they train up a child according to the child’s natural inclinations that when that child grows old they will keep on living according to those inclinations.

In order to understand the implications of this, it’s important to understand what a child’s natural inclinations are. According to the Apostle Paul,

There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one (Romans 3:10,11).”

Paul said that no one inherently does what is good. Nobody is naturally inclined to be obedient to God. This includes children. So what happens if you let a child be themselves? If they have the choice between doing what is right in God’s eyes or pursuing what’s wrong, will they automatically embrace the good and forgo the bad? I suspect that if a child is raised according to what they are naturally inclined to do and those inclinations are wrong in God’s eyes that they’ll continue to live that way well into adulthood.

Many if not most children seem to have an abundance of good qualities, however. Whether these are caught, taught, or are innate is a subject for debate. But regardless of how a child has acquired these positive traits, what happens if those traits are nurtured? If children are raised according to their positive character traits whether they acquired or inherent, will they continue to embrace them when they become adults?  I suspect that they will.

Children also have natural talents and gifts. These as well as other paths they choose in life may have very little to do with right or wrong. They simply represent traits and desires that make them different from others, including their parents. If parents encourage their children to pursue and develop interests and abilities that are inherent within them, ones that may be neutral in God’s,  will that child continue to pursue those interests  when they become adults?  Once again, I believe that they will.

This verse could be both a warning and a promise.

If this verse means that when you train up a child according to the child’s way that when they grow old they won’t depart from it, then it could therefore be both a warning and a promise. It could be warning parents not to give into every whim a child has as many of these whims represent ungodly tendencies, ones a child will continue to pursue if not corrected early in their lives. It could also be a promise that when a child’s exhibits positive traits and gifts and these are nurtured and developed that these will continue to be a big part of the child’s life as well when they become adults.

That’s my understanding of Proverbs 22:6, at least as I see it today.

What the two or three coming together in Jesus’ name must do if they want Jesus to be with them – Matthew 18:20

BY RICHARD LENTZ

Where two or three are gathered

I’ve always been a bit bothered but what some people say that Matthew 18:20 means, a verse that reads,

“For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them (NIV).”

My first exposure to this verse occurred nearly four decades ago. I was involved in a ministry to servicemen at the time and every Sunday the leaders of the ministry would gather as a group in our small prayer room to pray for the ministry and for each other. There were typically about ten to fifteen of us who gathered for prayer and the head of the ministry, our pastor, would invariably begin our prayer time by quoting this verse from Matthew and then reminding us that we could pray with confidence knowing that Jesus was in our midst.

Is it about praying in groups?

At first I thought this was pretty neat. Jesus was with us as we prayed and that was a pretty big deal. And why was He with us? According to our pastor, it was because we were gathered as a group praying in Jesus’ name. But at some point I began to question how our pastor was using this verse. It seemed that he was saying that because we were praying in a group that our prayers had more power than if we were praying for the same things individually. “if Jesus is only around when I’m praying in a group,” I thought as I considered this, “where is He the rest of the time? And if Jesus bestows some special blessing on those participating in sessions of group prayer, does that mean that when I pray alone that my prayers are less effective or that Jesus might not even be with me?”

I then remembered that Jesus said this regarding personal prayer:

“When you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done is secret, will reward you (Matthew 6:6).”

This verse seemed to indicate that when I prayed, I ought to find a private place where I could commune with God and that I could expect to be rewarded for doing so. This contradicted what our pastor was saying; that it’s when we pray as a group that we are assured of Jesus’ presence and any special blessings that come with it.

Is it about church discipline?

I came to a different understanding of what Matthew 18:20 means a number of years later when I went to a Christian conference on how to resolve interpersonal conflicts and heard the speaker explain what he thought the context of this verse was. He said that it was intended to be the capstone of a set of instructions given in Matthew 18:15-17 regarding how to deal with individuals in our churches who have sinned against us. These verses read,

“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, threat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

The speaker said that if a brother in Christ sins against us, we are first to try to resolve it privately. If that doesn’t work, we should bring in one or two others who can confirm that this person sinned and are willing to confront that person with their sin. If that doesn’t resolve the issue, the person should be brought before the entire church and the issue explained so that the whole assembly can confirm who is at fault. If the errant party still refuses to repent, they should be asked to leave the church. The congregation is then to have nothing to do with the one who sinned. They are to treat this person like a non-believer, a pagan, or like tax collectors, who were hated by the Jews in Jesus’ day. The speaker concluded by saying that when two or three are gathered in Jesus’ name to confront a brother with his sin, that is where Jesus will be, overseeing and endorsing a process that could result in throwing an unrepentant sinner out of the church.

Is it about forgiving others?

I initially thought that what this speaker said about Matthew 18:20 made sense. I had even seen it become the written policy of some congregations if they found a need to discipline a member of their church. But I was a bit troubled by this understanding of the passage. For one thing, when I did see it applied this way, it rarely if ever resulted in the person repenting. It just humiliated them. It seemed to contract Paul’s statement in Romans 2:4 as well, a verse that says that it’s God’s kindness that leads sinners to repentance, not His harsh treatment of them. It also failed to take into consideration Peter’s question following Jesus’ instructions,

“Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times (Matthew 18:21)?”

Peter seemed to be responding directly to Jesus guidance regarding how to deal with a brother who has sinned against a fellow believer. If this is so, then the outcome if that person refuses to repent is not to sever our relationship with them or to ostracize them but is to forgive them. Perhaps it’s when we’re willing to forgive a brother for his sins even if he refuses to repent where we’ll find Jesus in our midst blessing what we’re doing.

Is it about protecting the rights of the accused?

As I thought about this a bit more, I began to think that Jesus’ statement that He is with us when we’re dealing with the sins of a brother could be more of a warning than the endorsement of a process for confronting and disciplining those who have sinned. What Jesus may have been saying is that we need to tread lightly if our brother has sinned against us and we think we need to confront them with their sin. Matthew 18:15 indicates that this needs to initially be done discretely.The purpose of involving more people in the process is not to increase the number accusing the errant party, however, but is perhaps to make sure we’re on firm footing when doing so.

This makes sense when you consider Jesus’ reference in verse 16 to a principle established at the time of Moses; that when accusing a brother of something, it must be confirmed by two witnesses. According to instructions given to Moses by God, no one could be put to death for murder on the word of one witness alone (Numbers 35:30) and no one could be convicted of any crime or offense unless at least two witnesses confirmed it (Deuteronomy 19:15). The purpose of this was to protect people from unsubstantiated accusations against them. The passage in Deuteronomy continues in verses 16-21 by describing a process of escalation, one very similar to the one Jesus proposed, where the matter could be taken before the priests and judges in office at the time. The purpose of this was make sure that the accuser was telling the truth, however, not to lay further blame on the accused. If it was found that the one making the accusation was lying, those judging the issue were told,

“Do to him [the accuser] as he intended to do to his brother [the accused]. You must purge the evil from among you (vs. 19).”

What was evil in this context was not what the accused may have done but instead was making an unsubstantiated accusation.

By referring to this principle in Matthew 18:16, Jesus may have been warning those who feel compelled to confront a brother with his sin that Jesus will be there in their midst making sure that the rights of the accused are protected. Those who are guilty of falsely accusing a brother of sin or who do so without adequate evidence will not get Jesus’ approval for their actions and could face His condemnation.

Is it about seeking and restoring the lost?

I still felt that didn’t have a complete understanding of the context of Matthew 18:20, however. I understood that I needed to be on firm ground if I felt the need to accuse a brother in Christ of sin. But with what attitude did I need to approach this?

I thought I found the answer to this in verses further back in the chapter:

“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost (Matthew 18:12-14).”

If the lost in this passage includes those who have sinned against us, then Jesus may be telling us that our goal in confronting them is not to beat them up emotionally or spiritually for what they’ve done wrong or to cut them off from the flock (our churches) if they wander away. It is to continually look for ways to bring them back into fellowship with the rest of the flock. Perhaps that is where Jesus is, in those situations where we know a brother has sinned and choose a path that restores them to fellowship rather than one that drives them away.

Is it about unlimited and unconditional forgiveness?

This understanding of Matthew 18:20, that its context could be how to restore a brother who has sinned against us and the importance of forgiving them, is consistent with the parable of the unmerciful servant that follows in Matthew 18:21-35.

This passage begins with Peter asking how often he needed to forgive a brother who sinned against him. Jesus responded by saying,

“I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times (vs. 22).”

I don’t believe that Jesus was giving Peter a fixed number of times that he was required to forgiven someone and that when Peter had forgiven that person that many times, he could quit doing so. It’s more likely that Jesus was saying that our forgiveness of others should be limitless.

Jesus then told the story of servant who owed his master ten thousand talents, a sum equivalent today to millions of dollars. His master threatened to throw the servant and his family in jail until the debt was repaid. The servant begged to be given more time to repay the debt and his master took pity on him and canceled the entire debt.

Later, the servant encountered someone who owed him 100 denarii, equivalent today to just a few dollars. The servant grabbed and choked the one who owed him so little and demanded that the debt be repaid. The debtor asked for patience, much like the servant asked of his master, but instead of getting pity from the servant was thrown in prison. When the master heard how unforgiving the servant had been after being shown such great mercy,

“In anger, … [he] turned him [the servant] over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed (vs. 34).”

Jesus concluded with these words,

“This is how my heavenly father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart (vs. 35).”

That almost put the icing on the cake in terms of my understanding of this passage. Where two or three are gathered in Jesus’ name to forgive others to the same extent that they’ve been forgiven, that is where Jesus will be.

Or is it about treating pagans, tax collectors, and sinners the way that Jesus treated them?

If this is what the passage is about, forgiving others to the same extent that we’ve been forgiven, then what did Jesus mean when He said,

“If he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector (Matthew 18:17).”

I continued to struggle with this final piece of the puzzle until I remembered how Jesus treated pagans, sinners, and tax collectors. Jesus didn’t cut himself off from them but instead deliberately sought ways to connect with them. When Jesus traveled to Jericho for example, He chose to stay at the home of a Zacchaeus, a Jew who was collecting taxes on behalf of the hated Romans (Luke 19:1-10). Jesus reminded those who objected to this that,

“The Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost (vs. 10).”

Jesus also invited Matthew, a tax collector, to be one of His twelve disciples (Matthew 9:9-12). Jesus was criticized by the Pharisees for doing so as well as for socializing in general with tax collectors and others the Pharisees considered “sinners” (vs. 11). The Pharisees eventually labeled Jesus as a friend of tax collectors and “sinners” (Matthew 11:19), a label Jesus willingly and gladly embraced. Jesus told those accusing Him of hanging out with the “wrong” people that,

“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners (Matthew 9:12-13).”

I suspect that Matthew had Jesus’ treatment of tax collectors and “sinners” in mind when he heard and later wrote that we’re to treat those who sin in the same way that Jesus treated them.

So when is Jesus in our midst?

Jesus came to seek and save the lost, not to drive them away or to keep some space between “them” and “us”. He sought out the sinners, pagans, and tax collectors of His day and tried to connect with them. He showed them the way to the Kingdom of God not by beating them up emotionally or spiritually but by loving them and spending time with them. He socialized with those His religious culture rejected, forgave these “rejects” for their sin and tried to draw them into a relationship with Him so they could benefit from His love and forgiveness.

I believe that it’s when we treat those who have sinned against us in the same way that Jesus treated the pagans, sinners, and the tax collectors of His day that we’ll find Jesus in our midst.

That’s my understanding of Matthew 18:20, at least as I see it today.