Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Mark

[jimwalton]

This is an excellent discussion. I thank you for it.

> You've glossed over the fact that the agreement is specifically on matters οὗ ἐὰν αἰτήσωνται, which takes it out of the realm of disciplinary action in the Church and into the realm of petition(ary prayer) more broadly.

If I glossed over it, it wasn't intentional, but I'm quite sure I gave my perspective on that. I mentioned that the asking in Mt. 18.19 is solidly in the context of Church discipline, since the "two of you" in v. 19 refers back to the "two or three" of v. 16. This is a distinct connection of thought that keeps it in the realm of Church discipline and doesn't extrapolate it to a general saying of general applicability. I also specifically mentioned that Matthew's additions of "on earth" and of the "Father in heaven" are nods to godly decisions expected of godly people on Earth that will be ratified by the Father in heaven, viz., when the church must discipline a person. Jesus then adds that no only will it be ratified by the Father in heaven but also that Jesus Himself will be in the midst of them, not only affirming the godliness of their decision but indwelling the church with Presence and glory. The whole text ties together so well.

So I don't think there's any sense in which I glossed over it.

> But asking God *for* something in this situation doesn't.

The *for* emphasis is an English rendering, and not necessarily delivered to us by the Greek. The Gk. preposition, as I'm sure you well know, is περὶ, which can run a gamut of meanings (around; on all sides; in the vicinity of; about; concerning), depending on the context. With the genitive, as in Mt. 18.19, it implies general relationship and means "about; concerning." As to the "anything" (παντὸς ), without the article, the general is set aside and the individual is intended: "Whatever." It pertains specifically to the matter at hand, viz., church discipline. The Greek favors the interpretation I am giving it, which, of course, is why I take this interpretation. We follow the evidence where it leads.

> Derrett ... Hagner ...

I agree that I don't care for their interpretations either.

> In any case, that's why 18:19 is more easily understandable as an even more generalizing statement/principle that builds on 18:18. And then, just as 18:19 may "riff on" 18:18, it seems like 18:20 then riffs on 18:19 itself: the idea that the divine presence is also there where there's a gathering of believers.

This is where we part ways. I don't see 19 as generalizing 18 but rather as paralleling it—saying it again in a different way. Church discipline should not be a merely human action (someone's collar got ruffled or feelings hurt), but an expression of divine will carried out in the human sphere. After being told that we are responsible for such discipline, the connection is made that it must be a partnership of human discernment and divine righteousness working in tandem (18-19), and if that is truly the case, Christ Himself will inhabit the process (20).

> I wonder if the form of the saying in 18:19 isn't actually the product of two sorts of traditions and/or rhetorical conventions in combination: the device of rhetorically exaggerating the importance of even mundane human acts (see something like Luke 15:10), + this more general tradition which I've been referring to, of all petitions being answered.

Obviously, I don't feel the need to go in this direction. The text holds together as is.

> Read this way, 18:19 shouldn't be understood like "as long as there are a minimum of two who agree," but rather "even if there are only two who agree"

Rather than either of these, at its core the text is talking about something being true or not. The point isn't really in the numbers, though the numbers make the point: Let's make sure it's true before we proceed. Collect the evidence, interview the eyewitnesses, follow due process and not emotions, popularity or power.

> The numerical agreement with the uses of 'two' in Mt. 18:16 is fortuitous. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:788, speculate about a possible original link between the 'two' in v. 19 and the 'two by two' for the sending out of the missionaries in Mk. 6:7.

These are friendly academic speculations, but can't be held up as authoritative. You had mentioned before that some thought the latter verses to be patched in at a later time, but we don't have the textual variations to give evidence to that position. In the same sense I think we are remiss to cavalierly dismiss the "two" between vv. 16 & 19 as circumstantial and fortuitous. Matthew is much more intentional than that, especially in matters pertaining to Law (v. 16), a focus of Matthew's Gospel. To me it would be more than odd if Matthew just plugged in "two" in v. 19 haphazardly, especially since he uses the term Πάλιν ("Again," v. 19), repeating something already said.

In any case, I hope I've at least presented a reasonable case that your initial conclusion (Mark 11:24 is reckless and false) is not so easily declared.