Thursday, March 22, 2012

Proverbs 25.21-22 "coals of fire on his head"

The IVP Bible Background Commentary : Old Testament
 25:22. heap burning coals on his head. The Instruction of Amenemope also advises the wise person to shame fools or their enemies by pulling them out of deep water and by feeding them one’s bread until they are so full that they are ashamed. Similarly, the precepts and admonitions in Babylonian wisdom literature states that the wise man should not “return evil to the man who disputes with you” and should in fact “smile on your adversary.” This is surely the direction this proverb goes, but the metaphor of heaping burning coals on the head remains elusive. Suggestions offering cultural explanations have included the following: (1) there is an Egyptian ritual (mentioned in a late demotic text from the third century B.C.) in which a man apparently gave public evidence of his penitence by carrying a pan of burning charcoal on his head when he went to ask forgiveness of the one he had offended; (2) in the Middle Assyrian laws there is an example of a punishment in which hot asphalt was poured on the offender’s head. Both of these have difficulties. The first is in a late text and the action referred to has been variously interpreted. The second is hot tar, not coals, and is a punishment much like tarring (and feathering) in more recent history. Paul quotes this proverb in Romans 12:20.
Matthews, V. H., Chavalas, M. W., & Walton, J. H. (2000). The IVP Bible Background Commentary : Old Testament (electronic ed.) (Pr 25:22). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.


The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures
25:21-22. Kindness to one’s enemy-giving him food and water-is like heaping burning coals on his head (quoted by Paul in Rom. 12:20). Sometimes a person’s fire went out and he needed to borrow some live coals to restart his fire. Giving a person coals in a pan to carry home “on his head” was a neighborly, kind act; it made friends, not enemies. Also the kindness shown in giving someone food and water makes him ashamed of being an enemy, and brings God’s blessing on the benefactor. Compassion, not revenge, should characterize believers (cf. Prov. 24:29). Alternately, light on this passage may come from an Egyptian expiation ritual, in which a person guilty of some wrongdoing would carry a pan of burning coals on his head as a sign of his repentance. Thus treating one’s enemy kindly may cause him to repent.
Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-). The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures (Pr 25:21–22). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
 

The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15-31 by Bruce K. Waltke
21     The proverb presupposes that one has a neighbor who hates him (cf. 25:16-17).  The context of teh admonitions represents the enemy in urgent nee, concretized as being hungry (verset Aa) and thirsty (verset Ba), two sides of the same situation.  The admonitions urge the son to meet the need immediately, instantiated as to relieve his pangs of hunger by feeding him nourishing food (verset Ab) and to slake hi thirst for liquid by giving him water to drink. If [see 1:10] the one who hates you [see 25:17] is hungry [see 6:30; 10:3], give him. . . to eat [lit. "cause him to participate in eating/consuming/devouring";*  see 1:31; 25:16] food  [see 9:5].  And if signifies a hendiadys (cf. 9:5; 23:7).  He is thirsty refers to the mouth yearning for liquid to ease its unpleasant dryness just as the stomach craves for food to ease its hunger pangs.  Give him . . . to drink [lit. "cause him to participate in drinking"] water (see 9:16; 21:1).  The mention of "water" not wine, suggests that the son should meet his basic needs (cf. 9:5, 16; 25:25).**
22     Initial for signals that v. 22 gives reasons to meet the needs of your enemy.  First, you, which is tautological and so emphatic, will bring him to godly repentance for hating you (v. 22a), and second, the LORD (see I:67] will repay [see 6:31] you.  In verset A the food and water of v. 21 are implicitly compared to burning coals (see 6:28), which is placed emphatically before both subject and verb. The meaning of the phrase are taking [and heapingon the head (hoteh 'al-ro so) is debated.***  The preposition "on" supports the almost universally accepted interpretation from the days of the Septuagint translators down to the NRSV that hth means "to heap on the head."  More specifically it means t"to take/carry and [to heap] on this head," the proposition 'al assuming the delided verb of motion "to put/heap."****  The parallels in Egyptian instruction literature and i the retual of repentance substantiate this traditional understanding.  However, commentators accepting the that the meaning of the expression do not agree about its significance.  some think that heaping coals of fire on a person's head is a form of punishment and of appeasing one's need for vengeance, but the parallel, "the LORD will reward you," negates that interpretation.***** In the book of Psalms, the psalmist prays that the LORD will revenge the wrong, but he never himself pours the coal on his enemy's head.  The book of Proverbs rejects any form of personl revenge (17:13; 20;22; 24:17, 18).  Both the Old and New Testament instruct the covenant community to love, not heate, their enemies (Lev. 19:17-18; Ps.35:13; Matt. 5:43).  Most interpretators agree that "coal of fire" is a morally good deed, one pleasing to the LORD.  The LXX adds to the end of verset B agatha, "the Lord will reward you for your good." The apostle Paul uses this Septuagint text to reprove taking revenge and abstracts from it the principle to overcome evil with good (Rom 17:17-21).
Waltke, Bruce K. The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15-31. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2005. Print.


Commentary on the Old Testament
by Keil and Delitzsch
Pro_25:21-22
21 If thine enemy hunger, feed him with bread;
     And if he thirst, give him water to drink.
22 For thereby thou heapest burning coals on his head,
     And Jahve will recompense it to thee.
The translation of this proverb by the LXX is without fault; Paul cites therefrom Rom_12:20. The participial construction of 22a, the lxx, rightly estimating it, thus renders: for, doing this, thou shalt heap coals on his head. The expression, “thou shalt heap” (σωρεύσεις), is also appropriate; for חָתָה certainly means first only to fetch or bring fire (vid., Pro_6:27); but here, by virtue of the constructio praegnans with על, to fetch, and hence to heap up - to pile upon. Burning pain, as commonly observed, is the figure of burning shame, on account of undeserved kindness shown by an enemy (Fleischer). But how burning coals heaped on the head can denote burning shame, is not to be perceived, for the latter is a burning on the cheeks; wherefore Hitzig and Rosenmüller explain: thou wilt thus bring on him the greatest pain, and appease thy vengeance, while at the same time Jahve will reward thy generosity. Now we say, indeed, that he who rewards evil with good takes the noblest revenge; but if this doing of good proceed from a revengeful aim, and is intended sensibly to humble an adversary, then it loses all its moral worth, and is changed into selfish, malicious wickedness. Must the proverb then be understood in this ignoble sense? The Scriptures elsewhere say that guilt and punishment are laid on the head of any one when he is made to experience and to bear them. Chrysostom and others therefore explain after Psa_140:10 and similar passages, but thereby the proverb is morally falsified, and Pro_25:22 accords with Pro_25:21, which counsels not to the avenging of oneself, but to the requital of evil with good. The burning of coals laid on the head must be a painful but wholesome consequence; it is a figure of self-accusing repentance (Augustine, Zöckler), for the producing of which the showing of good to an enemy is a noble motive. That God rewards such magnanimity may not be the special motive; but this view might contribute to it, for otherwise such promises of God as Isa_58:8-12 were without moral right. The proverb also requires one to show himself gentle and liberal toward a needy enemy, and present a twofold reason for this: first, that thereby his injustice is brought home to his conscience; and, secondly, that thus God is well-pleased in such practical love toward an enemy, and will reward it; - by such conduct, apart from the performance of a law grounded in our moral nature, one advances the happiness of his neighbour and his own.
Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Julius Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament

The Gospel of Peace: Making It Real - Lesson 21 - “Going to the Law” - 1 Corinthians 6.1-11


Lesson 21 - “Going to the Law” - 1 Corinthians 6.1-11
ID: Inductive Questions (Asking the text questions like who, what, where, when, why, & how?”) 
CR: Cross References (Comparing Scripture to Scripture, understanding the vague by the clear.) 
WS: Word Study (Understanding definition, theological meaning, and usages in other passages.)
The WORD: What does the Bible say?
 Context:   Chapter five deals with a situation of sexual immorality in the church.  What are some principles in chapter five that can apply to the situation described in 6:1-11?  Also, review the verses that follow (6:12-20) and think about principles there that are connected with this text. 
1.      WS:  What did Paul mean by “going to law (krinō) before the unrighteous”?
2.      (1) Think of three or four words that could describe Paul’s initial reaction to the Corinthians taking each other to court (“going to law before the unrighteous”)?  Why did Paul feel that way about how the Corinthians were handling their legal disputes?
3.      ID:  (1-8) What are the different terms Paul uses to refer to the Christians and non-Christians in verses 6:1-8?   What is he seeking to reinforce by using these particular terms?
4.      ID:  Paul gives several reasons that believers “going to law before the unrighteous” or suing believers is bad.  List them.
5.      ID:  What did Paul point to in order to show that believers should be competent to judge matters of this life?
6.      CR: Can you think of examples (like Gen. 13:6-9) where Bible characters worked out disputes without going to court?  What can we learn from their examples (good or bad)?
7.      ID: (7-8) What words in these verses indicate of what kind of “lawsuits” are being discussed?
8.      ID: (9-11) How do the final verses support Paul’s position on lawsuits?

The WALK: What should I do?
1.      What should a Christian’s first priority be in disputes with a brother?
2.      What does it tell non-Christians about us if we can't resolve our differences between each other?
3.      Where do modern Christians go to resolve their “legal” disputes?
4.      What are some advantages and disadvantages of settling a “lawsuit” between brothers in a church setting or with Christian mediation instead using of the courts?
5.      Does this mean that Christian’s should never use the government courts?

Page 2 -----------------------------------

Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics with commentary by Norman L. Geisler


Article XXI

WE AFFIRM  the harmony of special with general revelation and therefore of biblical teaching with the facts of nature.
WE DENY  that any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.
This article continues the discussion of the previous article by noting the harmony of God's general revelation (outside Scripture) and His special revelation in Scripture. It is acknowledged by all that certain interpretations of Scripture and some opinions of scientists will contradict each other. However, it is insisted here that the truth of Scripture and the facts of science never contradict each other.
"Genuine" science will always be in accord with Scripture. Science, however, based on naturalistic presuppositions will inevitably come in conflict with the supernatural truths of Scripture.
Far from denying a healthy interchange between scientific theory and biblical interpretation, the framers of this statement welcome such. Indeed, it is acknowledged (in article XX) that the exegete can learn from the scientist. What is denied is that we should accept scientific views that contradict Scripture or that they should be given an authority above Scripture.

Article XXII

WE AFFIRM  that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
WE DENY  that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.
Since the historicity and the scientific accuracy of the early chapters of the Bible have come under severe attack it is important to apply the "literal" hermeneutic espoused (Article XV) to this question. The result was a recognition of the factual nature of the account of the creation of the universe, all living things, the special creation of man, the Fall, and the Flood. These accounts are all factual, that is, they are about space-time events which actually happened as reported in the book of Genesis (see Article XIV).
The article left open the question of the age of the earth on which there is no unanimity among evangelicals and which was beyond the purview of this conference. There was, however, complete agreement on denying that Genesis is mythological or unhistorical. Likewise, the use of the term "creation" was meant to exclude the belief in macro-evolution, whether of the atheistic or theistic varieties.

Article XXIII

WE AFFIRM  the clarity of Scripture and specifically of its message about salvation from sin.
WE DENY  that all passages of Scripture are equally clear or have equal bearing on the message of redemption.
Traditionally this teaching is called the "perspicuity" of Scripture. By this is meant that the central message of Scripture is clear, especially what the Bible says about salvation from sin.
The Denial disassociates this claim from the belief that everything in Scripture is clear or that all teachings are equally clear or equally relevant to the Bible's central saving message. It is obvious to any honest interpreter that the meaning of some passages of Scripture is obscure. It is equally evident that the truth of some passages is not directly relevant to the overall plan of salvation.

Article XXIV

WE AFFIRM  that a person is not dependent for understanding of Scripture on the expertise of biblical scholars.
WE DENY  that a person should ignore the fruits of the technical study of Scripture by biblical scholars.
This article attempts to avoid two extremes. First, it affirms that one is not dependent on biblical "experts" for his understanding of the basic truths of Scripture. Were this not true, then a significant aspect of the priesthood of all believers would be destroyed. For if the understanding of the laity is contingent on the teaching of experts, then Protestant interpretive experts will have replaced the teaching magisterium of Catholic priests with a kind of teaching magisterium of Protestant scholars.
On the other hand, biblical scholars do play a significant role in the lay understanding of Scripture. Even the very tools (Bible dictionaries, concordances, etc.) used by laypersons to interpret Scripture were produced by scholars. And when it comes to more technical and precise understanding of specific Scripture the work of experts is more than helpful. Hence the implied exhortation in the denial to avail oneself of the fruit of scholarship is well taken.

 

The Gospel of Peace: Making It Real - Lesson 20 - “Gentle Restoration ” - Galatians 6.1-5


Lesson 20 - “Gentle Restoration ” - Galatians 6.1-5
ID: Inductive Questions (Asking the text questions like who, what, where, when, why, & how?”) 
CR: Cross References (Comparing Scripture to Scripture, understanding the vague by the clear.) 
WS: Word Study (Understanding definition, theological meaning, and usages in other passages.)
The WORD: What does the Bible say?
 Context:   Galatians 5:13-26 (esp. 14-15, 26) provides important context for 6:1-5.  Read it slowly and think about how it relates to today’s passage.  Also, note what follows this passage in 6:6-10.
1.      WS:  (1) Overcome (nkjv) or captured (esv) is a translation of (prolambanō).  The New Living Translation says “overcome” in a sin and the NET Bible says “discovered” in a sin.  Which one captures the sense here?  Check some word study resources and commentaries for help. 
2.      WS/ CR:  (1) What does it mean to restore (katartizō) a brother?  (Notice the English words used to translate this Greek word in Matthew 4:21, 1 Thessalonians 3:10, and Hebrews 13.21)
3.      ID:  (1) With what kind of spirit should you respond to a brother that is struggling with a sin? What warning does Paul give?
4.      CR: (2) What is the “law of Christ”? According to verse 2, how do we fulfill the law of Christ? What are some practical ways to do this in the context of restoring a brother?
5.      ID: (3) What are some attitudes that might prevent us from helping a brother who is struggling with sin? (see Gal 5:26)
6.      ID:  (5) What is the difference between carrying each other's burdens (v2) and carrying your own load (v5).  Why are we told to do both?
The WALK: What should I do?
1.      How do you distinguish between constructive confrontation and being a busybody?
2.      “You who are spiritual” can have reference to our general spiritual maturity and / or to our current disposition.  What are some things we should check in our hearts before gently confronting a brother?
3.      Do you think questions like “What was going on there?” or “Help me understand what it happening?” would be helpful for understanding a situation before talking with someone or just open the door for excuses?  (James 1:9)  Why?
4.      How do we decide when we should or should not just overlook a fault? (Pages 53-57 of The Peacemaker: Handling Conflict without Fighting Back offer some helpful thoughts to discuss.)
5.       

Going further:3rd G: Gently Restore” on the blog Reflections on the Journey of Living out Matthew 5:9 offers more thoughts on restoring a brother.




Page 2 -----------------------------------------



Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics with commentary by Norman L. Geisler


Article XIX

WE AFFIRM  that any preunderstandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and subject to correction by it.
WE DENY  that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself, such as naturalism, evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism.
The question of preunderstanding is a crucial one in contemporary hermeneutics. The careful wording of the Affirmation does not discuss the issue of whether one should approach Scripture with a particular preunderstanding, but simply which kinds of preunderstanding one has are legitimate. This question is answered by affirming that only those preunderstandings which are compatible with the teaching of Scripture are legitimate. In fact, the statement goes further and demands that all preunderstanding be subject to "correction" by the teaching of Scripture.
The point of this article is to avoid interpreting Scripture through an alien grid or filter which obscures or negates its true message. For it acknowledges that one's preunderstanding will affect his understanding of a text. Hence to avoid misinterpreting Scripture one must be careful to examine his own presuppositions in the light of Scripture.

Article XX

WE AFFIRM  that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extra-biblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.
WE DENY  that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.  What is in view here is not so much the nature of truth (which is treated in Article VI), but the consistency and coherence of truth.
This is directed at those views which consider truth paradoxical or contradictory. This article declares that a proper hermeneutics avoids contradictions, since God never affirms as true two propositions, one of which is logically the opposite of the other.
Further, this Affirmation recognizes that not all truth is in the Bible (though all that is affirmed in the Bible is true). God has revealed Himself in nature and history as well as in Scripture. However, since God is the ultimate Author of all truth, there can be no contradiction between truths of Scripture and the true teachings of science and history.
Although only the Bible is the normative and infallible rule for doctrine and practice, nevertheless what one learns from sources outside Scripture can occasion a reexamination and reinterpretation of Scripture. For example, some have taught the world to be square because the Bible refers to "the four corners of the earth" (Isa. 11:12). But scientific knowledge of the spherical nature of the globe leads to a correction of this faulty interpretation. Other clarifications of our understanding of the biblical text are possible through the study of the social sciences.
However, whatever prompting and clarifying of Scripture that extrabiblical studies may provide, the final authority for what the Bible teaches rests in the text of Scripture itself and not in anything outside it (except in God Himself). The Denial makes clear this priority of the teaching of God's scriptural revelation over anything outside it.

Article XXI

WE AFFIRM  the harmony of special with general revelation and therefore of biblical teaching with the facts of nature.
WE DENY  that any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.
This article continues the discussion of the previous article by noting the harmony of God's general revelation (outside Scripture) and His special revelation in Scripture. It is acknowledged by all that certain interpretations of Scripture and some opinions of scientists will contradict each other. However, it is insisted here that the truth of Scripture and the facts of science never contradict each other.
"Genuine" science will always be in accord with Scripture. Science, however, based on naturalistic presuppositions will inevitably come in conflict with the supernatural truths of Scripture.
Far from denying a healthy interchange between scientific theory and biblical interpretation, the framers of this statement welcome such. Indeed, it is acknowledged (in article XX) that the exegete can learn from the scientist. What is denied is that we should accept scientific views that contradict Scripture or that they should be given an authority above Scripture.

The Gospel of Peace: Making It Real - Lesson 19 - “How Often Shall I Forgive?” - Matthew 18.21-35


Lesson 19 - “How Often Shall I Forgive?” - Matthew 18.21-35
ID: Inductive Questions (Asking the text questions like who, what, where, when, why, & how?”) 
CR: Cross References (Comparing Scripture to Scripture, understanding the vague by the clear.) 
WS: Word Study (Understanding definition, theological meaning, and usages in other passages.)
The WORD: What does the Bible say?
 It is important to understand the Guidelines for Interpreting Jesus’ Parables. Even in a brief study like this it would be helpful to at least do a quick review of key principles for interpreting a parable.  You will also want to use your Bible study tools to research the cultural setting of this parable in order to understand things like kings, debt, tormenters, etc.
1.      Context: What is the occasion of this parable?  That is … 1) What event(s), problem, other teaching(s) prompted this parable?  2) To whom did Jesus address this parable?
2.      ID: List the similarities and differences between the appeal and response of servant and the king (24-27) and appeal and response of servant with the servant (28-30)?
3.      Food for Thought: Why do you think his fellow servants were “grieved”?  Why did they tell the master?
4.      Food for Thought: Why do you think the first servant was unforgiving and impatient with the second servant?
5.      WS: What is the connection between the words patience (makrothymeō) in verses 26 and 29 and the words  compassion (splagchnizomai) in verse 27 and compassion/pity (eleeō)in verse 33 and the word
6.      CR: (35) Does this verse teach about judicial forgiveness or relational forgiveness? 
7.      ID: What is the main idea or central point of this parable?  (See the comments by Dr. David Stark.)
The WALK: What should I do?
1.       Why is it hard to forgive people who keep doing the same thing wrong over and over?
2.      Is it right to withhold forgiveness until we are feel the offender is properly repentant?
3.      Who owes you “100 denarii”?  Would the word compassion or pity currently describe your attitude and response?
4.      Has the realization of how much you have been forgiven by God helped to fuel your ability and willingness to forgive someone?
5.      What causes us to be stingy or incomplete with our forgiveness?


Page 2 -------------------------------


Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics with commentary by Norman L. Geisler


Article XVI

WE AFFIRM  that legitimate critical techniques should be used in determining the canonical text and its meaning.
WE DENY  the legitimacy of allowing any method of biblical criticism to question the truth or integrity of the writer's expressed meaning, or of any other scriptural teaching.
Implied here is an approval of legitimate techniques of "lower criticism" or "textual criticism." It is proper to use critical techniques in order to discover the true text of Scripture, that is, the one which represents the original one given by the biblical authors.
Whereas critical methodology can be used to establish which of the texts are copies of the inspired original, it is illegitimate to use critical methods to call into question whether something in the original text is true. In other words, proper "lower criticism" is valid but negative "higher criticism" which rejects truths of Scripture is invalid.

Article XVII

WE AFFIRM  the unity, harmony and consistency of Scripture and declare that it is its own best interpreter.
WE DENY  that Scripture may be interpreted in such a way as to suggest that one passage corrects or militates against another. We deny that later writers of Scripture misinterpreted earlier passages of Scripture when quoting from or referring to them.
Two points are made in the Affirmation, the unity of Scripture and its self-interpreting ability. Since the former is treated elsewhere (Article XXI), we will comment on the latter here. Not only is the Bible always correct in interpreting itself (see Article XVIII), but it is the "best interpreter" of itself.
Another point made here is that comparing Scripture with Scripture is an excellent help to an interpreter. For one passage sheds light on another. Hence the first commentary the interpreter should consult on a passage is what the rest of Scripture may say on that text.
The Denial warns against the assumption that an understanding of one passage can lead the interpreter to reject the teaching of another passage. One passage may help him better comprehend another but it will never contradict another.
This last part of the Denial is particularly directed to those who believe the New Testament writers misinterpret the Old Testament, or that they attribute meaning to an Old Testament text not expressed by the author of that text. While it is acknowledged that there is sometimes a wide range of application for a text, this article affirms that the interpretation of a biblical text by another biblical writer is always within the confines of the meaning of the first text.

Article XVIII

WE AFFIRM  that the Bible's own interpretation of itself is always correct, never deviating from, but rather elucidating, the single meaning of the inspired text. The single meaning of a prophet's words includes, but is not restricted to, the understanding of those words by the prophet and necessarily involves the intention of God evidenced in the fulfillment of those words.
WE DENY  that the writers of Scripture always understood the full implications of their own words.
This Affirmation was perhaps the most difficult to word. The first part of the Affirmation builds on Article VII which declared that Scripture has only one meaning, and simply adds that whenever the Bible comments on another passage of Scripture it does so correctly. That is, the Bible never misinterprets itself. It always correctly understands the meaning of the passage it comments on (see Article XVII). For example, that Paul misinterprets Moses is to say that Paul erred. This view is emphatically rejected in favor of the inerrancy of all Scripture.
The problem in the second statement of the Affirmation revolves around whether God intended more by a passage of Scripture than the human author did. Put in this way, evangelical scholars are divided on the issue, even though there is unity on the question of "single meaning." Some believe that this single meaning may be fuller than the purview of the human author, since God had far more in view than did the prophet when he wrote it. The wording here is an attempt to include reference to the fulfillment of a prophecy (of which God was obviously aware when He inspired it) as part of the single meaning which God and the prophet shared. However, the prophet may not have been conscious of the full implications of this meaning when he wrote it.
The way around the difficulty was to note that there is only one meaning to a passage which both God and the prophet affirmed, but that this meaning may not always be fully "evidenced" until the prophecy is fulfilled. Furthermore, God, and not necessarily the prophets, was fully aware of the fuller implications that would be manifested in the fulfillment of this single meaning.
It is important to preserve single meaning without denying that God had more in mind than the prophet did. A distinction needs to be made, then, between what God was conscious of concerning an affirmation (which, in view of His foreknowledge and omniscience, was far more) and what He and the prophet actually expressed in the passage. The Denial makes this point clear by noting that biblical authors were not always fully aware of the implications of their own affirmations.

The Gospel of Peace: Making It Real - Lesson 18 - “When Your Brother Sins” - Matthew 18:1-20


Lesson 18 - “When Your Brother Sins” - Matthew 18:1-20
ID: Inductive Questions (Asking the text questions like who, what, where, when, why, & how?”) 
CR: Cross References (Comparing Scripture to Scripture, understanding the vague by the clear.) 
WS: Word Study (Understanding definition, theological meaning, and usages in other passages.)
The WORD: What does the Bible say?
 1.      Context:   This passage usually seems to be thought of in terms of church discipline (and it does outline the procedure), but it also presents helpful tips about bringing offended parties back together (even where the offence is “normal” or relatively minor).  For this study, let’s be sure to not overlook this second application.
2.      ID: (1-4) According to verses 1-4, what is/are the distinctive(s) of greatness in the kingdom of heaven?
3.      ID: (5-9) What point is being made with the hyperbole in these verses?
4.      ID: (10-14) What is the main point being made in these verses?  What is the connection between the story about the sheep and confronting a brother?
5.      WS: (23-35) What is compassion/pity (splagchnizomai), and how did it fit into this parable that Jesus told?  (Also see Matthew 9:36; Matthew 14:14; Matthew 15:32; Matthew 18:27; Matthew 20:34)
6.      ID: What kind of tone, purpose, and perspective do verses 1-14 and verses 23-35 (esp. 27 & 35) set for verses 15-20?
7.      ID: (15-20) What is the procedure set out for restoring a brother who sins against you?
8.      ID: (15-20) What are some principles that can be deduced from these verses?
9.      ID: (15-20) Which “spiritual discipline(s)” does the passage indicate should accompany restoration of a brother?
10.  Food for thought: Read Matthew 18.15-20.  What was in the section that you did not expect?  What was not in the passage that you thought would have been included?  Do these verses relate to verse 35?  How?
The WALK: What should I do?
1.  Is compassion/pity a normal part of your life?  What have you done recently to demonstrate compassion/pity on someone (1 John 3:17-18)?
2.      Have you ever followed this four step reconciliation process?  What happened?
3.      How important is forgiveness and reconciliation to you?
4.      Can you think of someone that you should go and be reconciled with?
5.      Take a few minutes to pray for each other to be at peace with others.

 Page 2 -----------------------------------------

Living Out Matthew 18
When Christians think about talking to someone else about a conflict, one of the first verses that comes to mind is Matthew 18:15: "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you." If this verse is read in isolation, it seems to teach that we must always use direct confrontation to force others to admit they have sinned. If the verse is read in context, however, we see that Jesus had something much more flexible and beneficial in mind than simply standing toe to toe with others and describing their sins.
Just before this passage, we find Jesus' wonderful metaphor of a loving shepherd who goes to look for a wandering sheep and then rejoices when it is found (Matt. 18:12-14). Thus, Matthew 18:15 is introduced with a theme of restoration, not condemnation. Jesus repeats this theme just after telling us to "go and show him his fault" by adding, "If he listens to you, you have won your brother over." And then he hits the restoration theme a third time in verses 21-35, where he uses the parable of the unmerciful servant to remind us to be as merciful and forgiving to others as God is to us (Matt. 18:21-35).
Taken from  The Peacemaker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict  by Ken Sande, Updated Edition (Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 2003) p. 144 
Food for Thought
Jesus is clearly calling for something much more loving and redemptive than simply confronting others with a list of their wrongs. He wants us to remember and imitate his shepherd love for us--seeking after others, helping them turn from sin, and helping them be restored to God and those they have offended. Have you ever heard others in a conflict say, "We followed the Matthew 18 process"? Have you said it yourself? Read all of Matthew 18 and ask the Lord to give you the heart of a shepherd who seeks and gently restores the lost sheep. 
A Commitment to Biblical Conflict Resolution
As people reconciled to God by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we believe that we are called to respond to conflict in a way that is remarkably different from the way the world deals with conflict.1 We also believe that conflict provides opportunities to glorify God, serve other people, and grow to be like Christ.2 Therefore, in response to God's love and in reliance on his grace, we commit ourselves to respond to conflict according to the following principles:   ... Click here to read the rest.