007: Forced Forgiveness: Misinterpreting Matthew 18 with Dr. Scot McKnight

TW/CW: references to sexual assault

Have you ever had Matthew 18 used against you?

Far too often, the forgiveness passage in Matthew 18:15–17 is weaponized against those who experience hurt and harm. Victims are forced to face their abusers, and there is no real reconciliation. The abuser walks away “forgiven” and restored, and the abused walks away humiliated and put in their place.

Yes, forgiveness is important. And, forgiveness cannot be forced. It must be a freely made choice on our part.

This conversation isn’t about holding on to our offenses, grudges, or dismissing what happened to us. It’s not about releasing our abusers from accountability or letting go of our desire for justice.

It is about the ways forgiveness has been weaponized and abused in the church. It’s about having a truly biblical and scholarly understanding of how those passages are meant to be understood. It’s about protecting ourselves from future manipulation and further abuse.

Join me and New Testament scholar Scot McKnight as we dive deep into the original language and nuance of this passage. Discover what it really says about interpersonal conflict and its role in cases of abuse or an imbalance of power. Learn about the role of repentance as implied in the original Greek, even when it doesn’t show up in our English Bibles.

Get the full show notes here.
—————
Episode Resources and Links

• That Sounds Fun podcast Episode 494: Dr. Scot McKnight on When You Feel Like Your Church Is Falling Apart
• That Sounds Fun podcast Episode 879: The Gospel of Matthew with Dr. Scot McKnight

—————
Guest Spotlight
Website  |  Instagram  |  Twitter

The Second Testament: A New Testament Translation at Bookshop.org | on Amazon
PIVOT at Bookshop.org | on Amazon
A Church Called TOV at Bookshop.org | on Amazon
—————
Don’t Miss the Next Episode!
Subscribe for free and never miss out on these conversations with old and new friends like Laura Barringer, Steve Carter, Chuck DeGroat and many others. Is there a guest you’d like to hear from? Let us know!

—————

We need your help. Your gift of just $25 will make a big difference and help us continue this work. Donate today.

—————

Sign up to receive our weekly Podcast Newsletter with new episodes, updates, exclusive discounts, and more!

Subscribe using your favorite podcast app:
Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

Leave us a rating and review on Apple or on Spotify. This all helps us to grow and continue providing quality content for you and our community of listeners.

—————
As an Amazon and Bookshop.org affiliate, I may make a small commission at no extra cost to you.

Transcript

Scot McKnight  0:00  

You can never demand that an abuser go one on one with the abuse. So I don’t think this text, this text is not designed for that situation. It’s designed for an interpersonal conflict that’s manageable and yet requires repentance, and if there is no repentance, there is going to be no reconciliation. My contention is that churches misuse this as a template for everything that happens that needs to be reconciled, and it’s a mistake.

When there’s a power differential, I think Matthew 18 should not be used. The word is sibling—if your pastor sins against you, that’s a power differential. Some people would say we’re all siblings. Okay, that’s a beautiful little Christian idea, and I agree with it in general, but that’s not what’s happening. Forgiveness, in this case, is dependent upon repentance.

Brian Lee  0:55  

Welcome to episode number eight of the Broken to Beloved Podcast. I hope to provide practical resources through compassionate conversations, to grow in trauma awareness, set up safeguarding practices to prevent or avoid future trauma and move toward healing and wholeness. I’m your host, Brian Lee, and I’m so glad you’re here today.

We’re talking with Dr. Scot McKnight about forgiveness. It is an incredible conversation. He’s a New Testament scholar, and we go deep into Matthew 18, how it’s been misused and abused and his reading of it as an expert in Matthew.

Scot is a New Testament scholar who’s written widely on the historical Jesus and Christian spirituality. He’s a visiting professor of New Testament at Houston Theological Seminary and at Westminster Theological center in England. He earned a bachelor’s degree from Cornerstone University, a master’s from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and his doctorate from the University of Nottingham. He’s written more than 80 books, including the popular Jesus Creed, as well as A Church Called Tov and PIVOT. And without further ado, let’s get into our conversation with our friend, Dr. Scot McKnight.

Dr. Scot McKnight, welcome to the podcast.

Scot McKnight  2:05  

Brian. Good to be with you and good to be back. Thank you.

Brian Lee  2:08  

It’s so good to see you again. I so appreciate your voice. Obviously, the work we’ve talked a lot about A Church Called Tov and PIVOT, and I’m excited for this conversation in light of what does you know, quote, unquote, biblical forgiveness actually look like, so I’m just looking forward to getting into that with you.

Scot McKnight  2:11  

Okay, very good.

Brian Lee  2:12  

There’s a quote from A Church Called Tov. You say scripture should never be used to deflect attention away from what happened, to focus instead on how the allegations were brought to light. And I think that is so important, especially in cases of spiritual abuse or gaslighting or any of the things that we see where scripture is so often taken out of context or misconstrued, tell us why you added that sentence in there.

Scot McKnight  2:55  

It’s very difficult to discern with infallibility, the the motivations of people. But it is, it is a pattern in abuse cases for the person with power to deflect and divert attention away from the major issue that is this person screamed at me in front of other people and insulted me and my family. Okay? 
Now they may be saying, well, he was having a bad day. And all these things, those, all those things can be factored in. We need to keep the main thing the main thing, and keep us and keep focused on it. And I believe that in many cases, for instance, whistleblowers will be accused of not following proper procedures. Yep, all right, so I’ve, I’ve always counseled whistleblowers go through the proper process, stick with the rules as much as you can, because I know it will be used against you if you don’t do this. 

Now some of those rules are actually systemically favoring the person in power, and so at points, you’ve have to say, I’m not, I’m not going to follow that procedure, and I’m going to have to jump outside that, but so far as possible to try to follow the procedure, because everything that is not done according to their expectations will be an opportunity for diversion and deflection and to blame the person who is bringing the allegations rather than taking responsibility for the offensive actions. There we go. I think that’s why I said that.

Brian Lee  4:37  

It was a while ago now, but that sounds about right.

Scot McKnight  4:39  

Make sure you tell Laura that I wrote that sentence.

Brian Lee  4:43  

That’s good. And I remember you guys not being sure sometimes who wrote which?

I mean, you’re a New Testament scholar. You’ve been parsing and working with and teaching for a long time now. For listeners who may not be familiar with you or your work, would you just. Fill us in on your academic background.

Scot McKnight  5:03  

Well, I have been teaching New Testament at seminaries and undergraduate institutions for 41 years. I’ve had three primary institutions, and I’m going to begin, I like to tell people my last decade will be teaching in a variety of institutions, so far as I’m able to teach and continue to be creative, and they want me to teach. So I will be again teaching this fall at Houston Theological Seminary in Houston, Texas, and then in the fall of ‘25 I will teach a course in Nottingham, England for Westminster Theological center.

So I’ve been teaching, and I began writing my first book, I think was published in 1988. I’m not certain of that, but I think that, but I for some reason, that’s a that sticks in my head. I’m not one to pay attention to dates like that, but I have been basically writing since I went to seminary and started writing papers and stuff and thinking about academic writing. So my career has been one of teaching and writing and speaking and some part time preaching.

Brian Lee  6:16  

Yeah, at this point, do you have any idea how many books you’ve published at this point?

Scot McKnight  6:20  

I don’t count technically, but, but Kris does, and she thinks it’s right at about 100 right now.

Brian Lee  6:28  

Wow. So to say that you have expertise in the topic would be a slight understatement, and no exaggeration. Let’s just jump right in the topic. And if I think I remember hearing correctly, you’ve been with Annie F. Downs a couple times on her podcast. That sounds fun with the gospel series and a couple of other things. I think I heard you on that interview mention that Matthew is your favorite gospel. Is that true?

Scot McKnight  6:50  

That’s very true. Yes, very true.

Brian Lee  6:53  

Why? Why is that one your favorite?

Scot McKnight  6:55

Okay, now. I don’t know. When I was when I was in college, I read a book by it was a brand new book from emergence by Ralph Martin called New Testament Foundations. And he was like a new, fresh introduction of the New Testament. It eventually became two volumes. And I think I got interested in Matthew there. But then I took a course.

My first course in seminary was on the Synoptic Gospels by a dear man named Walter Liefeld. And I got really interested in the gospel of Matthew at that point. And within that year, I believe it may have been the next year, I took a course on the gospel of Matthew with Grant Osborn, who was also a teacher of mine and a good friend, and then a colleague. Both of them were my colleagues eventually, and I just became fascinated by the gospel of Matthew.

I began buying books on Matthew, reading books on Matthew, reading journal articles, and I did my dissertation on Matthew, and then I taught on Matthew for a year, and I’ve taught for years. And so I like the themes. I like the Sermon on the Mount. I like the structure of Matthew, and it just so happens that I’m editing a very small everyday Bible study on the gospel of Matthew right now. I have finished writing it, and I’m finished editing chapter 14 today, so I have 14 more chapters left, for those who pay attention to how many chapters are in New Testament books.

Brian Lee  8:29  

That’s amazing. And I remember hearing a little piece of trivia about kind of his, his perceived personality, and just even how chapters would be lined up on how long, how big a piece of parchment, or whatever it was that they were writing on at the time would be.

Scot McKnight  8:35  

Yeah, okay, it is noticeable for the first few chapters of Matthew, and beyond that, things seem to be. Sections seem to be somewhere between 14 and 20 verses and about 17 you could actually say, and you can actually see part of this is a it’s called redaction criticism.

Matthew, when he wrote his gospel, had Mark in front of him somehow, his memory or somehow. And when he’s editing mark, and he starts getting what I would say toward the bottom of the page, he starts condensing, and sometimes very radically. He could take five verses of meth of Mark and make him one in Matthew so he can, just because he’s run out of space.

I think there’s something to this about Matthew.It can’t be proven. We don’t have access to the original manuscripts, obviously, but there’s something to this. And I’ve always sort of played with the idea. I’ve never written a word about this, and it would take almost ancient manuscripts and comparing the size of letters, oh, wow, on papyri and pen and quills and stuff like this, it would take some serious work, but I think it’s relatively true that Matthew has what I would call tendencies toward an obsessive compulsive personality.

Brian Lee  10:01  

I find that to be fascinating.

Scot McKnight  10:03  

He’s very ordered. Every time Mark, except one time, every time Mark says “kingdom of God,” Matthew edits it to “kingdom of heaven.” And when he says, “Father,” he adds “in the heavens.” He just, this is the way he operates. He just keeps things going in a very steady, patterned way. His thoughts are predictable. His what’s got, his grammar is predictable. I think there’s signs there of a certain kind of personality.

Brian Lee  10:34  

Well, and I love that you pick that up. For the rest of us who just don’t see it or don’t understand it, yeah, all those little subtleties and all those little nuances in not just the words, but in the style, the style of writing, and the way that comes out, and the comparative, the reductive, you know, all those things that you’re saying between the different gospels. 

Scot McKnight  10:53  

You know, Mark is, Mark is an early in the second century, someone said that Mark is unorderly. He doesn’t have structure like other gospels, Matthew structures him. But here’s the way I used to say it in my classes. Mark is from Indiana. Matthew is from Illinois, Luke is from New England, and John is probably on some mountain in Colorado.

Brian Lee  11:27  

Tell us what you mean by all of those: Illinois, Indiana, New England. 

Scot McKnight  11:31  

Mark is just very ordinary. It’s very ordinary Greek. I mean, people’s like to say how sophisticated is? I just don’t believe it. The Greek of Mark is common. I mean, you could pick up 100 different authors in the first century, and they can write better Greek than Mark. Mark, it’s not terrible, but it’s it gets the job done.

Matthew is is an improvement, and this is part of my way of criticizing or comparing Indiana to Illinois, just make Illinois a little bit better. Matthew is an improved Luke is sophisticated. I’ve Greek students who can read Mark, especially Matthew, and hand them a parallel passage in the Gospel of Luke, and they can’t make heads or tails of a lot of it, because Luke’s syntax and Luke’s grammar is sophisticated compared to mark and compared to Matthew, but especially compared to Mark.

John plays in a very spiritual way with ideas and terms and categories, and he turns things over and over. And he just keeps exploring. And he meditates, and he takes something like an image, and he goes to the top of the mountain, then he meditates on it. He contemplates.

These are four different personalities that work in these gospels. And those who read the Greek you most English translations are not going to let you see it like the NIV. There’s nothing wrong with the NIV. The NIV is for is 12th grade English grammar and vocabulary, and nothing higher. I think Luke’s Gospel is written at a higher level than 12, than our 12. We you won’t see it in the NIV. The NIV is made to be read and understood by people from the 12th grade and lower who have that kind of comprehension. 

Brian Lee  13:33

That’s fascinating.

Scot McKnight  13:35  

Luke, at times, uses some vocabulary that’s quite sophisticated, and no one else in the New Testament uses it lots of words in the Book of Acts are not found anywhere else in the New Testament. And I wanted, when I translated the New Testament, which is called the second testament, I wanted to try to help readers feel those differences. I don’t think it is as easy to do, and what I think I did, readers don’t always pick up, so maybe it’s just subtle at times, but these are four different personalities, and it’s worth knowing that when we read these gospels,

Brian Lee  14:13

Yeah, well, and that leads me right into my next question is, as a New Testament scholar, do you have a favorite translation?

Scot McKnight  14:20  

No, I don’t. And here’s why, the translation I use is dependent upon, number one, the audience to whom I’m speaking, I wondered, or the publisher for whom I’m writing like, if I’m writing for Zondervan, the Harper, Christian resources for the everyday Bible studies, they want the NIV. If I’m writing for fortress, they want the NRSV. So it just depends. But I have a favorite translation, It’s mine.

Brian Lee  14:51  

That makes a lot of sense.

Scot McKnight  14:53  

But it’s made for different context. It’s made for those who can, who are familiar with the English translation and they want. To feel what Greek feels like to the person who’s reading it, the text in Greek. So it’ll be a more it’s not, it’s clunky, it’s chunky. Sometimes people go out not quite sure what that means. And I’ll say that’s exactly the way the Greek works. It’s not real clear. And that’s what, that’s what I do. I try to give people a feel for what the Greek text looks like.

Brian Lee  15:23  

Yeah, that’s fascinating. And your is your translation published anywhere for people to grab if they want?

Scot McKnight  15:29  

InterVarsity press. It’s called Second Testament: A New Translation.

Brian Lee  15:34  

We will make sure the link is there for everyone. Yeah. Let’s jump into the New Testament, into the passage is probably the most used and abused when it comes to forgiveness. In your favorite gospel, Matthew 18, right? Specifically, verses 15 to 17. Do you have a translation that you prefer to read out of when it comes to that passage? I think in Tov you use the NRSV?

Scot McKnight  15:57  

No, I don’t have, I don’t I’ve never thought about that question. I use the translations. I mean, on Tov, the publisher didn’t want us to get locked down on one translation, okay? And at times the pub, the editor was changing the translations to keep it underneath the word limit for a translation. Then, you know, got it. I would, I would just tell those publishers to leave us alone. Is the Bible. They’re making enough money as it is. But I use what whichever translation there is, and if I think it needs to be clarified by the Greek text, then I bring that out.

Brian Lee  16:34  

Okay, so Matthew 18:15–17. I’ll just read it in the New Revised Standard Version: “If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone, if the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

Dr. Scot McKnight, open it up for us. What are we reading there?

Scot McKnight  17:16  

The this is, this is someone who has sinned against you, all right? I think we should recognize that the word sinned against you can mean something violent, like stolen, burned down your house. But in this context, it has to do with interpersonal relationships of some sort. It’s unspecified. And I think Jesus wanted it that way because he wanted to teach about forgiveness.

And the person who has sinned against you is a now you’re you had a member. Is that? What it said the NRSV had member If the member listens to you, okay, the Greek is simply your brother. Okay? Brother is inclusive. So it could be translated as brother or sister, as in the NIV, or it could be translated as I would translate it, as sibling, okay? That way it lacks, that way it lacks gender specific. It’s not, it’s not meant to be a male, okay, so if you’re if your sibling sins against you, now there’s a relationship here.

This is a relationship that is determined by the family. This would be a relationship that would be close, all right? This would not be a relationship of some person you’ve never met in your life. All right? So this can be this needs to be taken into consideration pretty, pretty closely.

All right, go and attempt or convince this person between you and that person alone. In other words, go and talk to this person, and the presumption is that this other person will call them the offender. The offender has actually sinned against you. So the presumption is that there is a clear case, at least, to the person who’s been offended. It’s a clear case.

Now, when we bring these situations into view. What happens if the first person says, I didn’t do anything wrong? Now, we got a problem. Now we have to adjudicate whether what happened is actually worthy of this kind of treatment or not. And so the first strategy is to do this between two people, and if the person hears you. You’ve gained your sibling. And that’s sort of, you know, you’ve it’s almost a language of reconciliation, but it’s a it’s like a victory. This is an odd word here.

You’ve convinced them all right, if they will not listen to you, or if he or she does not agree with you, take with you. One or two people, so then the mouth of two or three witnesses, let everything be established. All right. So now it moved from an interpersonal case to a group case. And if you gain the person, and if they they don’t agree with you tell the church.

Now this is, this is extreme. Now it’s gone from one, a one on one to a, let’s say a one on three or four to a one on 30 house church, all right? And if they will not listen to the church, then treat them like a gentile or a tax collector, which is a slur that’s, that’s a label of someone who’s outside the circle.

All right, I think that this is about ordinary, inter-human relationships. I don’t think that this is a text that solves all let’s say conflict management theory. This is not about conflict management theory. This is about an interpersonal breakdown. This is not about me going to you about what you have said to a fourth person, to another person.

In other words, if I come to you, let’s say that you’ve gotten into it with your neighbor and I come to you, that’s not what this text is about. This text is not covering that situation in general. It’s saying, look, in the community of faith, we want to have reconciled relationships, but if you coerce someone into reconciliation, you have actually made the situation worse, because now you have diminished the significance of genuine reconciliation and gaining someone requires repentance. It requires a person admitting that what they did was wrong.

If I come to you and I say, Brian, I think you did this to me, and you say, Scot, I did not do that at all. And we’re not even talking about intentions. We’re just saying that’s not this is not appropriate. We have tension now in the relationship. It has nothing to do with the original aggravating situation that arose because one was perceived and one was not. So if you come to me and you say, Scot, I was offended that you were so angry, if I say to you, you know, Brian, I wasn’t really angry. My voice was a little stronger, but I was just making a point, because that’s the way I communicate.

If, if you insist on the fact that I was angry and that I need to confess my sin, we’ve gotten ourselves into a into a deep complication. But I think in Tov, where we take this is that there are, in many churches today, demands that every interpersonal conflict of any sort begins one on one.

So this started for me when Laura, my daughter, asked me about Bill Hybels and some of the women who had made allegations against him, right? The church and Bill demanded that they come and talk to him personally first, because that’s Matthew 18, right? I would say, No, no, you can never demand that an abuser go one on one with the abused. So I don’t think this text, this text is not designed for that situation. It’s designed for an interpersonal conflict that’s manageable and yet requires repentance. And if there is no repentance, there is going to be no reconciliation. Okay? I’ve talked long enough you asked your questions.

Brian Lee  23:47  

I have many. You mentioned repentance. As far as I can see it. I don’t see that word in this passage. I see a lot of listen right? If the member listens to you, you’ve regained if you’re not listened to, if the member refuses to listen to them or listens to the church. Where do you bring in repentance? And because I see that in other passages, right? Luke 17:3 and couple other ones, I don’t see it here in Matthew 18. So what is the stipulation here with listens?

Scot McKnight  24:14  

All right? Sin is the first word. This is the standard word in the New Testament, early Christianity, for sin. Hamartanō, all right, sin requires repentance and restitution. There it is.

The word is convinced, and then the word is followed by gained. Now convinced means, I’ll see what I translate in verse, in verse 18, verse 15, “go and” what, what is your translation? “Go and convince the person?”

Brian Lee  24:49  

“Go and point out the fault” is the NRSV.

Scot McKnight  24:53

The Greek word is, is to persuade. In a sense, is to convince. All right, now, convincing is to convince them that they sin. If they are convinced that they sin, you have to make restitution, and you make restitution by repentance, by by admission, by confession, by repentance. So that’s where the repentance comes up in this text. It’s implied in the word sin, convince and gain.

Brian Lee  25:22  

Wow, that’s a lot of context that I think a lot of people miss out on, probably, and I really appreciate you pointing that out. I also really appreciate you pointing out the context and kind of the history and even the real life example with Bill Hybels and the women and the accusers.

If this text is not designed for a one on one with an abuser. Are there any passages that are designed that way or written in that context?

Scot McKnight  25:50  

Deuteronomy, 21 or 22 has a text in which it is implied that if a woman makes an allegation against a man for raping her, she is to be believed.

Brian Lee  26:10  

Wow. Okay.

Scot McKnight  26:13  

Now I would be very careful about saying that is always the case. The presumption, I talked to an Old Testament, I talked to three different Old Testament scholars about this, and once I got their attention about it, because they know this is Mosaic Law, etc, they want to go all over the place.

I said, look, it looks to me like the text presumes the innocence of the woman and that they are the believer, and they all said, Yes, that’s how that text works. Now, if they are in the city and her voice was not heard, it is presumed that they were sexually engaged in a volitional way. So in the city, if they all you have to do is cry out and then the the woman would be believed. So that’s, this is pretty graphic Old Testament text. 

Brian Lee  27:05 

It is, yeah, I’m finding it Deuteronomy 22.

Scot McKnight  27:07  

Yeah, it does presume the innocence and the believability, the credibility of the woman’s word. That’s a that’s a significant text. This text is not doing that, and I don’t think now look rape, sexual violence, would be a sin. But in general, in Judaism and in early Christianity, it would not be described with the word hamartano sin. It would be described with a word like seized or physically assaulted, something like that.

So I don’t I think using this text for that and saying, Well, he sinned against her, I would say that I think we can get a little bit more specific. He raped her, or he attempted to rape her, or he groomed her, or he attempted to seduce her, or he put her in a position where she was extremely uncomfortable. That is more, I think that would be the description made here, and then the woman would not be called to go convince the person. 

Brian, my my contention is that churches misuse this as a template for everything that happens that needs to be reconciled. Yes, and it’s a mistake. It is wise to go one on one before you go to Twitter. Sure, and it’s and it’s right, but people go to Twitter because the one on one didn’t work, and in a sense, the prayers didn’t work, and the two on three, two or three didn’t work, and the church is ignoring the situation and trying to hide it behind closed doors, and a person gets desperate, and they go public, and then all of a sudden, you get, you know, you most of the situations that you and I know about in churches today only worked out for justice because someone went public. So that’s a sad that is a sad description of the church’s Christian institutions willingness to handle allegations with integrity and vulnerability. 

Brian Lee  29:38  

Yeah, and quite often at great cost to the whistleblower. Right?

Scot McKnight  29:43  

Oh, whistleblowers, you know, when I’ve I don’t get this as much anymore, but when whistleblowers, or potential whistleblowers, write me, I’ve probably been asked this 50 times, and so I’ve given this advice 50 times. I tell them, you need to understand what you’re getting into. And I want you to understand, you need to be healthy. You need to be ready for blowback, pushback, insults, labeling, loss of friendship, loss of job. And so that’s, that’s the first thing.

And then the second thing is, I think the goal of a whistleblower predominantly should be to be heard, rather than to think that they’re going to bring transformative change, transformative redemption, transformative justice. So the goal is to is to get your voice heard. And what I mean by heard is not okay, you reported, we’re going to move on, is actually that it gets some traction. That’s your goal. Is to get traction.

Most Christian institutions have a pattern. My wife would say it’s 99% of pretending to listen and doing nothing. So whistleblowers need to realize that when they get into these situations, that’s what is is going to happen if they’re looking for this person. I’ve seen this so many times. I think the pastor needs to be fired. I think that should not be the goal. Yes, maybe that’s what is right and just and you have a final goal or an ultimate goal, but in most situations, that’s not what’s going to happen. In most situations, you’re going to suffer as a whistleblower more than you’ve suffered already. And in most situations, that pastor is not going to lose the job. That Pastor might be put on hold, on the shelf for a while, or, more commonly, the elders are going to talk to him. He’s going to take a couple of weeks off, and he’s going to be back in the pulpit every Sunday, right? Everything’s going to be the same. And I think whistleblowers need to realize that this situation. 

But for me, what whistleblowers need to understand most is that they are going to become a victim of the institution of the leaders, whoever they made allegations against and that out that person’s advocates and friends will also become your enemy, and you will become their victim as well. Yeah, and it’s very painful.

Brian Lee  32:19  

Yeah. That is very sobering. For people who have experienced some kind of relational rupture that maybe wasn’t connected to sexual assault or rape or abuse of that kind, for example, my story doesn’t include that. It’s it’s much more spiritual abuse or abuse of power, right? How do you apply Matthew 18 in those circumstances? Is it the same? Is it different? When there’s a power differential there?

Scot McKnight  32:45

Okay. When, when there’s a power differential, I think Matthew 18 should not be used. The word is sibling, brother and sister. This is a family relationship. This is not a hierarchy. This is not if, if, if your father sins against you, that’s a power differential, if your pastor sins against you, that’s a power differential. So this is a sibling.

Now, some people would say we’re all siblings. Okay, that’s a beautiful little Christian idea, and I agree with it in general. But that’s not what’s happening here. Okay? I think what has to be explored here is how, how ready the whistleblower is for the situation of confrontation.

Secondly, how safe the situation is. And third, I would say, if that, let’s just say if you decide to confront the person who was your spiritual abuser, or go and talk to them. I think you should have a witness or two present who is an independent observer, rather than the pastor’s best friend or an associate pastor who is also in a power differential situation with that pastor, so that there is, and it’s not the responsibility of this third person, this third party, to adjudicate the situation, but primarily only to witness the situation and to be able to describe what actually was said and happen.

But again, I would tailor my expectations for the outcome to a world that is fallen and realistic. In other words, I wouldn’t expect immediate change or repentance that can happen, but I would also expect that there would be a genuine set of descriptions of what impacted you or impacted the person who’s offended or who was abused by the person in power. Describe it, and I would prevent the offender or the alleged offender from being able to interrupt the situation and correct things as they’re being described. I’d say no, you’re going to have to wait till this is over, and then I think you could have an official response. That could be interpersonal, and in presence with another safe person in that room, a witness, or it could be could go into writing, and in most cases, people in power are on the narcissistic spectrum, and they are going to respond by accusing even more they will turn the whistleblower into the offender who is victimizing the person in power with allegations that are unjust and not right.

Now, this is pretty pessimistic, and it’s not because I’m a pessimist. I’m a natural optimist, but I will tell you that when it comes to these situations, churches in general, don’t know how to handle them. They don’t have safe policies, they don’t recognize power differentials, and the whistleblowers, 95% of the time, are going to suffer more?

Brian Lee  36:03

Yeah. I mean, that’s what it feels like I went through three times. That is also extremely helpful, if not a little sad and somewhat deflating, I think, for people who may be wondering what they should do next, right? And at the same time, I think it also offers a lot of freedom for people who have been bullied into Matthew 18 a situation, they’ve been bullied into forgiveness, they’ve been bullied into a forced reconciliation with their abusers, whether it’s physical, sexual, verbal, spiritual, any of those things, I think even financial abuse.I think for churches who take advantage of those in that kind of a way there’s so much there.

Another passage I think that I’ve come to quote a lot when it comes to forgiveness is Luke 17:3 in the New Living Translation, it says, “If another believer sins, rebuke that person, then if there is repentance, forgive.” And it goes on in verse four, “Even if that person wrongs you seven times a day, and each time turns again and asks for forgiveness, you must forgive.”

And I think that’s another one that’s been abused quite a bit in terms of, hey, every time they ask forgiveness, you just have to forgive. And yet, there’s that stipulation there, I think that gets passed over a lot if there is repentance. 

You know, we talked about it a little bit in, in the implied nature of just the word sin being in the Matthew 18 passage. So when you see sin, and when you see you know a couple of those other words that it that it implies forgiveness, or, I mean, it implies repentance. How do you take this in Luke 17:3-4?

Scot McKnight  37:38

Yeah. I mean, everything hinges on on the Greek word metanoeō, “repent,” which I translate, “convert,” convert. The English word “convert” matches the Hebrew and the Greek idea of turning around so in Luke 17 three, the entire issue hangs on the fact that there was sin, that the person has rebuked them properly, accurately, and the person actually admits to what they did, confesses what they did, repents from what they did, and alters their behavior on the basis of the rebuke, then release the person from What they did, or forgive the person.

The Greek word for “forgive” is to release someone from something. So forgiveness, in this case, is dependent upon repentance. But it’s not just “Okay, I was wrong, sorry. Let’s move on.” That’s just shallow. There needs to be an admission of what they did, and that requires insight and perception on the part of the sinner, and there needs to be, at the same time, look at, look at this: If the person sins and you rebuke them, this is, this is from the perspective of of the victim, if the person sins and you rebuke them and the person converts, then you release the person. Now you are the judge of whether that person has repented.

Brian Lee  39:15

Wow, not someone else, not an external party.

Scot McKnight  39:18

Well, there, you could, you could bring that in. You sure want someone to help you understand, do you think this person?

Brian Lee  39:23

Well, I ask that only because I’ve heard so many stories of, oh, well, this person said they repented, so you should just forgive them.

Scot McKnight  39:30

That’s right. That’s right. Well, that’s an unsafe environment, Brian. It’s an unjust environment. The issue is whether the person has genuinely repented. And I don’t think that you need to drag people through the dirt, and I don’t, I don’t want to go in that direction, but a lot of people will say what they need to say to get out of the situation, yes, and be able to move on.

And the point is, we need to have a proper, a skepticism of the human heart, and it’s a willingness and ability genuinely to admit fault and repent and change. And this is best known by a person’s character and by their past behaviors. So I would say in this situation, the person who has been victimized is the one who decides if and when they forget.

Brian Lee  40:32  

Wow. Thank you for that.

Scot McKnight  40:37  

The actor and these in that verse, Luke 17:3 is the victim.

Brian Lee  40:32  

You mentioned one of the stipulations to rebuke, to rebuke someone properly. What does that mean?

Scot McKnight  40:37  

Um, it’s nothing spelled out, but I think it means to point out what they’ve done in a way that is pastorally responsible, instead of screaming at them. But if a person’s angry and they’ve been traumatized by someone, don’t expect them just to be a pure, rational, stoic sure describe things in an analytical way, the way you would get in a textbook. That’s not what’s going on here.
Someone may cry, they may get angry, they may yell at someone that’s entirely appropriate. Traumatized people are traumatized people they’ve experienced trauma, and getting into that situation can be extremely triggering and volatile for them.
So I would say that that the facts of the case have to be clear, the significance of the impact on the person the victim has to be clear, and the expectations of the victim for the person to admit what has happened and to confess what had happened in an appropriate way.

Sometimes that would have to be with more than one person. Sometimes have to be a group, and sometimes it might have to be in front of the church, and sometimes it might have to be public and to admit what they did, and then to create enough safety for the victim to be able to process that act of repentance and then decide how and when their forgiveness will be administered.

Brian Lee  42:00  

Yeah, thank you. And am I reading this correctly, where, if it says if another believer or brother is also to be translated as as that sibling kind of in that peer relationship?

Scot McKnight  42:12  

Yeah, that’s a sibling.

Brian Lee  42:16

Yeah. Okay, yeah, Scot, this has been incredibly illuminating and helpful and honestly validating. And I really came in wanting to be as open as possible to being absolutely wrong about these passages and willing to be corrected by an expert if you had a different opinion than my understanding of it. And I’ve come out on the other side feeling incredibly validated, which is just it feels nice to be honest.

But I think it’s going to be so helpful for people and for listeners who have been through this experience time and time again, where again they’ve had that forced forgiveness, forced reconciliation in a situation with a strong power dynamic and strong power differential to come out with a better and clearer understanding of what these scriptures actually say and actually mean. So thank you so much.

Scot McKnight  43:02  

Well, thank you. These are difficult topics, and it’s because they’re complicated with different human beings. In the situations, there are no simple procedures that are always going to work out in the right direction or with clarity. But I think some of the some of the things we’ve talked about can be fundamentally important principles.

Brian Lee  43:22  

Yeah, if people want to connect with you, where can they find you?

Scot McKnight  43:26  

Well, I’m on Substack. It’s Scot McKnight. Scot has 1 “t” and I’m on Twitter. Scot McKnight and I’m on Facebook. Scot McKnight, all right.

Brian Lee  43:36  

Scot, thank you again, so much for your time, for your expertise, and for sharing it with all of us. We’ll provide links for everything in the show notes below, thank you again for being with us today.

Scot McKnight  43:45

Well, thank you, Brian, for all you’re doing and Broken to Beloved and thank you for this opportunity, and I know you can further help your audiences in the procedures of working through and reconciling in relationships. Thank you.

Brian Lee  44:01 

Wow. What a conversation. I’d love to hear your thoughts and takeaways, what you walk away with from it. If you enjoyed it as much as I did, be sure to follow Scot and say thanks for being on the show. You can find links and all the things in the show notes@brokentobeloved.org.

Subscribe or follow the show to get new episodes automatically. If you enjoyed this episode, please leave us a rating and review or share on your socials and tag us. I’d love to see who’s listening and hear your takeaways.

As a 501c3 nonprofit, our work is made possible by our generous donors. If this has been helpful to you, would you consider joining us? You can support us today at brokentobeloved.org/support. 

Coming up on the show, we have Steve Carter, Geoff and Cyd Holsclaw, Chuck DeGroat, and many more.

Thanks so much for taking the time out of your day to listen. I hope it’s been helpful. And here’s to moving toward healing and wholeness together. I’ll see you next time.