Today I would like to examine the implications of Matthew 18:20.  As part of the important passage on biblical reconciliation, this verse has attracted a fair amount of attention.  However, I wish to examine it from a different angle in light of the understanding of the social context of second Temple Judaism and its implications on church structure.

Matthew 18:20 reads as follows:  “For where two are three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”  Most Christians approach this verse from the point of view that it allows for people to bind on earth what will be bound in heaven, and there is often an antinomian view that church leaders can make binding decisions that contradict the Bible (the Catholic view of apostolic succession and papal infallibility among this suite of erroneous beliefs).  Others, of a less authoritarian bend, claim that it means two or three members are able to make binding decisions in the absence of an elaborate church hierarchy.  What is meant by this passage?

To determine the answer, one must understand who the “two or three” people were who were authorized to make binding judgments authorized and supported by God.  To understand who meets the biblical standard for judgment (which has implications in 1 Corinthians 6 as well, which shows Paul’s displeasure that no one in the Corinthian church was seen as a competent judge), we must understand what is known as the “House of Judgment,” which is Beit Din in Hebrew and Aramaic.  Each congregation is supposed to have qualified people or counselors who are to deal with matters of discernment and reconciliation (especially when it comes to restoring a sinning brother who wishes to be restored to fellowship).  A Beit Din is also designed to prevent abusive leadership or authoritarian leaders who harm believers (see 3 John :9-11).

The Law gives seven qualifications for a man to be in the Beit Din.  Exodus 18:21 gives four of them:  “Moreover, you shall provide out of all the people upright men, such as fear Elohim, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of ten.”  Deuteronomy 1:13 give three more qualifications:  “Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.  And you answered me, and said, “The thing which you have spoken i good for us to do.” ”

So, we see seven different qualifications listed for these leaders, which are further explained by Paul in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 and Titus 1:6-11 (classic scriptures that provide the biblical qualifications for deacons and elders).  Nonetheless, the Beit Din appears somewhat broader than deacons or elders, in that no marriage requirement is listed (unlike those two offices), and in that there were suppose to be at least 10% of believers who qualified to be in that office (a far higher percentage of the membership in the vast majority of congregations than the amount of deacons and elders in a given area.)

Nonetheless, the rules for membership in a Beit Din, the people in a congregation qualified to make scriptural judgments, is stiff.  For one, such people must know and be able to apply the law of God in their own lives (for they must be people of good reputations, known by the believers as examples of godly behavior) and must have knowledge and expertise in wrestling with the application of God’s law in varying circumstances.  Such people, and their decisions, are transparent and accountable to all others who meet that standard of responsibility within the fellowship of believers as a whole.  Such leaders are to be recognized as chosen by God and qualified, not hirelings who have been trained and promoted merely by men.  Of key importance is their wisdom and integrity–they must hate lies and covetousness (two of the commandments that deal the most bluntly with the source of corruption–political games and the desire to exploit congregations for one’s personal gain).

Additionally, such people were not to take upon themselves fancy titles or set themselves up as “great ones” in the eyes of others.  The prohibition on calling leaders “Rabbi” (literally–great one) or “father” was to prevent the entrapment of believers in authoritarian cults that give high status and authority to men that belongs only to God.  Instead, leaders were to be servants of God’s people, shepherds showing care and protection, rather than hirelings seeking power, wealth, and prestige.

In these wicked days where knowledge and obedience to God’s law is crumbling before our eyes even in those institutions (the church, the family) that ought to be bulwarks of obedience, we need more than ever to recognize and strengthen the institutions of wise judgment within our congregations so that those who are faithful and honest men can help protect the integrity of the faith from the ravenous wolves who threaten to tear apart and devour the flock, as well as from the cares and desires of this world that play upon those believers whose knowledge in the noble standard of God’s law is not strong enough for them to resist evil as they ought.  For how can one learn God’s way unless there are teachers who know God’s way and can help instruct others in it?