Statement/Question:
Matthew 18:20, as I read it in the proper context, say from vs.15 to vs. 22, if I am not mistaken, this is addressing a situation where two persons in the Body of Christ are having a dispute over a matter, or one has wronged another, this is the Lord’s instruction, both individually and collectively, on what to do about it! And it continues to vs. 22! It seems to me, and I am open to be corrected, that we have drawn out vs. 20 from right in the middle of it, and use it, (or perhaps very sadly MISUSE it to apply suddenly to the Breaking of Bread or The Lord's Table, and have built an entire doctrine around it! I honestly don't understand why. I would really like to have a clear answer from the Word of God alone on this!
Whenever I’ve been discussing these things with various individuals, and they take a verse out of context in order to support their claims, I'll point that out. They tend to shrug and say, “Yes, but the principle still applies, does it not?” So, a couple years ago, when I was thinking about that, I realized that it was a means to justify taking Scripture out of the context it is given to us in, and “massage” the Word of God to mean something else entirely.
Answer:
We find this comment/question a little amusing because what this person finds fault with is the very thing that our questioners have been doing—that is, taking the verse out of its context.
Context, Context, Context
Someone said that in buying real estate there are three important rules you must follow to insure the best investment of your money. The first rule is location, the second is location, and the third is location. Similarly, in correct Bible interpretation the three most important principles are: #1) context, #2) context and #3) context. What we are saying here is that context is vital to understanding Scripture.
To say that Matthew 18:20 refers to Christians in the mission field, or having a social visit at a coffee shop, etc., is to take the verse out of its context. This is what our questioners have done. As mentioned earlier, Matthew 18:18-20 has to do with the local assembly acting in its administrative capacity in binding and loosing disciplinary actions. The Lord is there in the midst sanctioning the ground upon which the assembly is gathered and authorizing its administrative actions.
When a person makes an application from a particular verse in the Bible, he takes it out of its context and setting, and applies the principle of it (loosely or otherwise) to another situation altogether. This is acceptable, as long as we remember that it is an application and not the interpretation of the passage. As stated already, we will run into problems if all we ever hear is the applications of verses; we could begin to think that they are the interpretations. If we have a steady diet of this—which our generation has unfortunately had—we could lose the sense and meaning of the passage altogether and begin to build doctrines from it that have no connection with the context. One of the problems that we see today is that there are too few people who have put in the time to learn the truth of Scripture in its context.
If someone has taught that the context and interpretation of Matthew 18:20 is the breaking of bread, they are wrong! We have never heard anyone teach that this verse is referring to the breaking of bread, as our questioner says, though many times it has been read as an application in the breaking of bread. Perhaps hearing it read so many times in that meeting, he or she has thought that that is the meaning of the passage—but this is an assumption on the questioner’s part.
In speaking of interpretations and applications of Scripture, someone rightly said, “An apple never falls far from the tree.” Similarly, an application should not “fall” too far away from the interpretation of the passage, or it will lose its power. Matthew 18:20 being read in the breaking of bread would be an example of the apple falling under the tree. The principle in the verse has to do with the Lord being in the midst of the assembly to sanction the ground upon which the saints are gathered. Since this is true of all assembly meetings, whether it is a meeting for administrative actions, the breaking of bread, a prayer meeting, etc., the verse could be used to emphasize the fact that the Lord is in the midst on those occasions. On the other hand, to make an application from Matthew 18:20 for the comfort and encouragement of a couple of Christians who run into each other on the street or in the mission field is a bit like the apple falling down the road from the tree. It is somewhat of a stretch in the application, because those situations have nothing to do with an assembly meeting of any kind. But, as we have said earlier, if someone can get comfort from it, we wouldn’t want to take that away from him.
So then, to make this perfectly clear, the brethren who read Matthew 18:20 in the breaking of bread are not using the verse in its strict interpretation. And it is quite acceptable to do this, as long as we understand that it is an application that is being made for the occasion. The problem is that our questioner evidently hasn’t understood this. This person has assumed that the brethren are teaching that the verse has to do with the breaking of bread. And in checking it with the context, he or she has thought that it has been misinterpreted—but all the person who read that verse in the breaking of bread meeting was doing, was referring to the principle involved. He was making an application. So, it is not a “misuse” of the passage, but a misunderstanding on the part of our questioner. This shouldn’t be difficult for our questioners to accept because they have no problem making applications from that verse for all sorts of far out situations.
Eating the Sin-offering
But why is it that these people have misunderstood this? Can we rightly put all the blame on them? It may very well be that there is a moral hindrance on their part, resulting from not wanting the truth. But we believe that the brethren need to take some of the blame too. We need to “eat the sin-offering” in regard to this (Lev. 6:26). The Israelite who failed in some way was to bring a sin-offering to Jehovah to be forgiven and restored. When he did, the priest who offered it was to eat the sin-offering in the holy place. Even though it was not the priest who sinned, he was still to eat it, thus signifying the owning of his part in it. This is because the priests in Israel were responsible to teach the people what was necessary for them to go on with the Lord (Deut. 17:8-13; 31:11-12; Mal. 2:7); if someone failed in this, the priest was partly responsible, and therefore, he was to eat the sin-offering.
Similarly, in a Christian gathering, those who are older are responsible to see that the younger generation get the truth. If the younger brethren don’t want it, that is another thing. But sad to say, many of the comments that are being made in our Bible reading meetings in recent years are merely applications and clichés in connection with the passage under consideration, rather than the real teaching (interpretation) of the passage. This is partly because those who participate in the Bible meetings may not have been diligent to learn the true meaning of the passage, so they default to some “nice little thought” that they have enjoyed. The result is that we have a whole generation (or maybe two) that has grown up around us that is quite untaught as to the true interpretation of many passages in Scripture. Perhaps those of us who are older need to take some of the blame for this.
Summary:
To say that Matthew 18:20 has nothing to do with the ground upon which the assembly is gathered is altogether wrong; it is the strict interpretation and teaching of the passage. Matthew 18:18-20 is the first mention of the local assembly in the Bible; it is seen acting in its administrative capacity in binding and loosing.