Matthew 18, Covenant Community, and the Formation of a Restorative Church
Introduction: Reconciliation as the Shape of the Kingdom
The New Testament vision of the church is not merely a collection of forgiven individuals but a reconciled community whose shared life embodies the reconciling work of Christ. Paul’s language is unmistakable: God “gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:18), and through Christ has “broken down the dividing wall of hostility” to create one new humanity (Eph 2:14–16).
Reconciliation is not an optional ethic of the kingdom—it is its very form.
Within this theological horizon, Matthew 18:15–20 stands as one of the most concentrated teachings on the internal life of the messianic community. Yet it is frequently reduced to a procedural manual for church discipline. Such a reduction obscures the depth of Jesus’ instruction, which is rooted in covenantal ethics, Second Temple communal practice, and a profoundly pastoral vision of restoration.
To read Matthew 18 faithfully is to read it as a call to become a people who actively shepherd one another from relational dissonance into covenant harmony—a people whose life together sounds like a symphony of grace.

I. Covenant Consciousness and the Social World of Matthew 18
First-century Jewish identity was fundamentally corporate. Individuals existed within networks of kinship, covenant, and communal obligation. The holiness code of Leviticus provides a direct conceptual background for Jesus’ teaching:
“You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall surely rebuke your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him” (Lev 19:17).
Here rebuke is not a violation of love; it is an expression of it. To refuse to confront wrongdoing is to allow estrangement to deepen and covenant fidelity to fracture.¹
Matthew’s Gospel reflects this same covenant consciousness. The term ekklesia in Matthew 18:17 does not refer to an institutional church in the later sense, but to the gathered covenant assembly of the Messiah’s people—ALL OF ISRAEL renewed and reconstituted around Jesus.²
Second Temple Jewish sources confirm that graded processes of confrontation and restoration were normative. The Qumran community’s Rule (1QS 5–7) describes private admonition, then small-group adjudication, and finally communal involvement.³ Jesus’ instructions mirror this pattern but transform it with a distinctly messianic emphasis: every stage is oriented toward restoration rather than exclusion.
II. ἁμαρτάνω (hamartanō): Sin as Relational Dissonance
The teaching begins with a condition: “If your brother sins against you…” (Matt 18:15). The verb ἁμαρτάνω (hamartanō) is typically rendered “to sin,” yet its semantic range in Greek and in its Hebrew conceptual background (ḥāṭāʾ) includes the idea of missing alignment with covenant fidelity.⁴
Within Israel’s Scriptures, sin is never merely private wrongdoing; it is a rupture of relational and communal shalom. Thus, the issue in Matthew 18 is not limited to overt moral transgression. It includes any action or interaction that creates relational misalignment within the covenant body—whether through clear offense, misunderstanding, or failure of communication.
R. T. France notes that Matthew intentionally leaves the type of offense unspecified, suggesting that Jesus envisions a wide range of relational breaches.⁵ The concern is not legal classification but relational restoration.
This insight reframes the entire passage. The question is not simply, “Has someone committed a punishable offense?” but “Has the harmony of the body been disrupted?”
III. Edification and Positive Shepherding: A Covenant Response to Offense
At this point, the Hebraic mindset of covenant interpretation becomes essential. In contrast to modern Western assumptions that prioritize individual rights and subjective offense, covenant communities are called to interpret one another’s actions through a posture of edification and charitable discernment.
This reflects what we have articulated pastorally as positive shepherding—the deliberate choice to interpret others’ actions in the most life-giving trajectory possible, refusing to default to suspicion or accusation. Such a posture is not naïve; it is covenantal.
It seeks clarity before judgment and restoration before division.
In this light, Jesus’ first instruction—“go and tell him his fault between you and him alone”—is not an act of confrontation driven by grievance. It is an act of shepherding love that seeks to re-tune the relationship before it fractures further.
John Nolland observes that this private approach protects the offender from unnecessary shame in an honor–shame culture while also guarding the community from gossip and factionalism.⁶ It is a deeply pastoral act: truth spoken in love for the sake of restoration.
IV. From Dissonance to Harmony: συμφωνέω (symphoneō)
The passage culminates with the striking promise:
“If two of you agree (συμφωνήσωσιν) on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven” (Matt 18:19).
The verb συμφωνέω (symphoneō) literally means “to sound together,” from which we derive the word symphony.⁷ The image is not juridical but musical—distinct voices brought into relational harmony.
This is the telos of Matthew 18. The goal is not merely to resolve conflict but to restore relational resonance within the body of Christ.
Our theological emphasis on edification illuminates this movement. Edification is not mere encouragement; it is the active building up of others into maturity and unity through life-giving speech and covenantal care. In this sense, edification becomes the pastoral bridge from hamartanō (relational misalignment) to symphoneō (relational harmony).
Thus, Matthew 18 can be read as a discipleship pathway:
- Recognize relational dissonance (hamartanō)
- Pursue restoration through shepherding love
- Invite communal discernment when necessary
- Arrive at relational harmony (symphoneō) under Christ’s lordship
Where such harmony exists, Jesus promises His presence: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them” (Matt 18:20). This is not a general statement about small gatherings but a declaration about the presence of Christ in reconciled community.⁸
V. Binding and Loosing: Authority Under Christ
Jesus’ language of “binding and loosing” (Matt 18:18) draws directly from Jewish legal discourse, where rabbis used these terms to describe authoritative rulings concerning what was permitted or prohibited in covenant life.⁹
By entrusting this authority to the gathered community, Jesus grants the church a profound responsibility: to discern, under His lordship, how the life of the kingdom is to be embodied in concrete situations.
Yet this authority is not autonomous. It is exercised within the bounds of Jesus’ teaching, the witness of Scripture, and the guidance of the Spirit. Craig Blomberg emphasizes that the church’s authority is derivative—it reflects heaven’s will rather than creating it.¹⁰
Thus, the process of Matthew 18 is not juridical in the modern sense; it is pastoral, covenantal, and Spirit-guided, aiming to align earthly relationships with heavenly realities.
VI. The Final Step: Reframing “Gentile and Tax Collector”
The final stage—treating the unrepentant individual “as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matt 18:17)—must be read in light of Jesus’ own ministry. Jesus did not avoid Gentiles and tax collectors; He pursued them, ate with them, and called them into restored fellowship.
Therefore, this step does not authorize hostility or abandonment. It acknowledges a broken state of fellowship while maintaining a posture of ongoing invitation to repentance and restoration. Dale Allison notes that the text assumes the continued possibility of repentance even after exclusion.¹¹
Thus, even in its most severe form, Matthew 18 remains oriented toward redemptive hope.
VII. The Shepherd’s Burden: Forming a Culture of Restoration
For pastors and leaders, Matthew 18 is both a gift and a weight. It calls for the cultivation of a community in which:
- Sin is taken seriously without being weaponized
- Confrontation is practiced in humility and love
- Accountability is understood as covenant care
- Unity is pursued without compromising holiness
Irwyn Ince describes such a church as a “beautiful community,” one that displays the reconciling power of the gospel precisely in its diversity and its conflicts.¹²
Such a culture does not arise naturally. It must be formed intentionally through teaching, modeling, and the consistent practice of edification, repentance, and forgiveness.
It requires a reorientation of vision—seeing one another not as adversaries but as brothers and sisters for whom Christ died and in whom the Spirit dwells.
It takes confrontation and brokenness and transforms the situations into intimacy through Grace. It moves people from transactional love into relational love.
VIII. Living the Symphony: A Discipleship Vision
To embody Matthew 18 is to embrace a cruciform way of life. It calls believers to lay down pride, resist self-protection, and move toward one another in humility.
It calls the offended to become shepherds, the offender to become a penitent, and the community to become a place of healing.
Such a life is costly, yet it is precisely this life that reveals the presence of Christ among His people. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer reminds us, the Christian needs another Christian “for the sake of Jesus Christ.”¹³ Matthew 18 gives concrete form to that need.
In a fractured world, a reconciled church becomes a living apologetic—a visible sign that the kingdom of God has broken into history.
Conclusion: The Church as a Symphony of Grace
Matthew 18 does not merely provide a process for handling conflict; it offers a vision of a people who live in relational harmony under the lordship of Christ.
It calls the church to become a symphony of grace—a community where dissonance is not ignored but shepherded into harmony, where sin is confronted but always for the sake of restoration, and where unity is guarded as a sacred trust.
IT STARTS WITH ME
Where such a community exists, Christ is present.
Where reconciliation is practiced, the gospel is proclaimed.
Where harmony is restored, the kingdom is revealed.
Discussion Questions
- How does understanding hamartanō as relational and covenantal misalignment reshape our approach to conflict in the church?
- In what ways does the concept of symphoneō challenge individualistic approaches to unity, prayer, and decision-making?
- How can a culture of “positive shepherding” and edification transform the way offenses are interpreted and addressed within a congregation?
- What safeguards are necessary to ensure that the authority of “binding and loosing” is exercised faithfully and not abusively?
- What concrete practices can your community adopt to move from relational dissonance to genuine covenant harmony?

Bibliography
Allison, Dale C. Matthew: A Shorter Commentary. London: T&T Clark, 2004.
Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. NAC. Nashville: B&H, 1992.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Life Together. New York: Harper & Row, 1954.
Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.
France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
Ince, Irwyn L. The Beautiful Community: Unity, Diversity, and the Church at Its Best. Downers Grove: IVP, 2020.
Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 8–20. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.
Moen, Skip. “Four-Part Harmony.” https://skipmoen.com/2014/02/four-part-harmony/.
Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Wright, N. T. Matthew for Everyone. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004.
Choi, Ray. “Binding and Loosing.” https://raychoi.org/2025/05/13/binding-and-loosing/.
AOR Hope. “Misapplications of Matthew 18:15–20.” https://www.aorhope.org/post/misapplications-of-matthew-18-15-20.
Courtier, Dean. “Restoring Relationships the Biblical Way.” SermonCentral.
Bible Remnant. “Matthew 18 Commentary.” https://bible-remnant.com/new-testament-bible-books/matthew/chapter-18/.
Footnotes
- Lev 19:17; cf. Craig S. Keener, Matthew, 452–455.
- Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8–20 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 430–435.
- 1QS 5–7; cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 782–790.
- BDAG, s.v. “ἁμαρτάνω.”
- R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 690.
- John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 748.
- BDAG, s.v. “συμφωνέω.”
- Craig S. Keener, Matthew, 456–458.
- Davies and Allison, Matthew, 787–790.
- Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (Nashville: B&H, 1992), 278–280.
- Dale C. Allison, Matthew, 314.
- Irwyn L. Ince, The Beautiful Community (Downers Grove: IVP, 2020), 45–62.
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together (New York: Harper & Row, 1954), 23–26.