Matthew 18:20
“For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
I sat quietly as a young lady led us in prayer. It was hard. I had to bite my tongue.
Wait . . . I have a confession to make: In the past, I have been hyper-critical of what people say and how they say it. I used to evaluate everything everyone said in a sermon or prayer. I think it was the residual seminary-know-it-all. Back then, if you went off even in the slightest, I would become hara (Heb. “red nosed,” “angry”). But I have learned to set aside my hara. I get it. I am not perfect. You are not perfect. Other people are not perfect. I try to be like my hero Martin Bucer, who taught that there are very few things to become hara about. Today, during public prayer, I am not so critical. (It can get kinda long and boring, but that is another subject).
So I sat there praying with this group of people, saying my “umms” and shaking my head at the appropriate times (I hope). Then something made me hara. I tried to brush it off, but it was too difficult. She said the unthinkable . . . I cannot believe she used this verse. It was manipulative, irresponsible, and downright misleading. What was her crime? She used the “where two or three are gathered in my name . . .” trick. She misused Matthew 18:20. Of course, this is tongue-in-cheek. She did not really have any ill-intentions. She was just following the folklore about this verse, which she had probably heard herself countless times in the past. We have all done it so don’t get smug. Let’s look at the verse.
Matt. 18:20
“For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
It happens all the time: Prayers which invoke the presence of Jesus during the gathering . . . well, so long as there are “two or three.” What does this mean? Does it mean that Christ is more likely to answer your prayer? Does it mean that Christ’s actual presence is in the middle of your prayer circle . . . a ghost, phantom, or floating entity? Maybe he is there holding our hands. And which is it, for goodness’ sake? Two, or three? The idea is this: we have to have more than one person to get this mystical real presence of Christ invoked and some people have made a sacrament out of this.
However, this is not what this verse means. And I do get somewhat red-nosed about this because it can mislead us about the power of God and our prayer life.
Matthew 18:20, like every other passage of Scripture, has a context. When we look at the context we find that the pericope (single unit of thought) in which this verse occurs starts in verse 15:
Mat 18:15
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.”
Notice, this is the section dealing with how to engage a brother or sister in Christ who has sinned against you. The first act is to go alone and discuss the issue. It is emphatic that one does not spread the details of another’s offense before you talk with him or her one on one. Notice the numbering system here.
The passage continues:
Matt. 18:16
“But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.”
Here is the second step. If your brother or sister does not repent of their sin, then you are to get some witnesses. Now, these people are not your wingmen who are coming to back you up just in case things get ruff. They are objective parties who are going to listen to both sides of the issue. But notice here the numbering: this is where the “two or three” phrase is first brought into the picture. This is a reference back to the Mosaic law:
Deut. 17:6
“On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.”
This is a system of accountability. God’s law has never allowed for the conviction of another without a “fair trial.” In Matthew, we have the same situation. There is a brother or sister who has been charged with an unnamed offense. God says if you cannot take care of it on your own, get some others to listen to each side. The final act, if the previous encounter was unfruitful, is to bring it before the church (pastors, elders, etc). If he or she is deemed guilty by the church and still does not repent, disassociation is necessary. Why? Because the case has been brought through a process that God approves of. “Two or three” have gathered in the name of Jesus (i.e., seeking his will) and Jesus was among them (placing his stamp of approval on the decision made). Now, this does not mean that we are to see this prophetically, as if the process guarantees that the outcome is always going to be true. Jesus being in their midst simply means that this is a God-ordained process.
So, to be brief, this passage has to do with church discipline and Christ’s approval of a process, not to do with some special presence of Christ in prayer gatherings.
But one of the reasons why I got hara about this the other day was because of how misleading this can be. When we say that Christ is present in our midst when we are praying with two or three others, we imply something terrible about personal prayer: that he is not present when we pray alone. This is not true. Christ’s presence cannot be any greater in one situation than another. He does not hear you better when you have others with you. He is not more inclined to listen to your cries as long as you have a couple of buddies holding your hands saying “umm” and “amen.” There is simply no way to have more of Christ’s ear than you do right now. He is in your midst now because, being omnipresent, he is always in the immediate presence of everything in all creation.
“Lord, you promised that when two or three people are gathered in your name, you will be in our midst. Well, here we are. Because of this we call upon you to bless us and answer our prayer.” This prayer is the very essence of idolatry. Now, take that statement in the context of my realization that we all commit idolatry more often than we realize. But this misunderstood prayer invokes the presence of our God through a formulaic incantation, which is empty of any power and resembles the manipulative schemes of a polytheistic system which is continually dependent on the physical presence of their gods if blessing is to occur. We are not limited to such. Our God is bigger than that. So think again before you pray in such a way.
141 replies to "“Where Two or Three Are Gathered” . . . and Other Bad Interpretations"
Thanks for an enlightening post Michael. Just FYI, I’m only an occasional reader of this blog, but I think I understood your tone and I definitely learned something useful. So, contrary to the concerns expressed by some of your readers about the manner in which you approached this subject, I thought you did a nice job with this one. I also appreciated the story because it was an effective “hook” which got me to read the post when I otherwise might not have. I didn’t think you came across as overly critical or harsh, given all your caveats (mentioned by Rebecca above). And this from a Mormon who very well could have taken offense at your use of “incantation,” “polytheistic,” and “physical presence of their gods,” but didn’t…since your use of these terms was neither central to your argument nor relevant to my faith–properly understood 🙂
Take your partners for dancing on the head of a pin.
Thanks for the article, very informative & applies for many other scriptural verses used in a similar way.
I have heard this verse used many times and, more often than not, it is used in a slightly different way than the author has suggested; in fact it contrasts the article (although it is still used out of context!). Let me explain …
If a small group has gathered for public prayer when expectations have been for a greater number, the verse is often used to say ‘well, we were expecting more Lord, but you said that EVEN if 2 or 3 are gathered, you will bless.’
In my experience, the verse is used in this context 🙂
CMP, Amen and AMEN! This too is one of my hara scriptures. When people use this scripture in the way you have discussed it shows they do not read scripture. They just repeat what they have heard all their life. Also, you used the word “ruff” look it up, you should have used rough . . . but who cares its just wurds!
I am SO guilty of this! But, I have recently began to question what it meant/implied whenever I “invoked” the Holy Spirit like this. Thanks so much for the correction!
Michael, Your post made me think about how we use or misuse Scripture in prayer, and how important it is not to just know Scripture but to understand it. It also brought to mind a question I discussed recently with a friend, and that is, why do we ask elders to pray in certain situations. My question was, are the prayers of elders better than other believers? My friend and I concluded that elders could be assumed to be mature believers and therefore effective in prayer, but I wonder what your thoughts are (and please excuse me if you have written about this elsewhere–you can just direct me to it.)
Mary, I think you are right. James does call on us to have elders involved in such things and I think that the assumption is that the elders of the church are those who are mature in the faith. We always want wisdom being our guide.
Great post. A point to consider: The sin in view here is serious enough to warrant excommunication if repentance does not occur. Also, it should be noted that this is not a commanded procedure for all offenses that might occur within the Church. Sometimes calling for a pastor’s intervention before (or without) going directly or alone to the offender is appropriate. It all depends on the circumstances.
Very interesting exegesis. I’ve heard this passage mangled many times over the years, so I appreciate your clarity with this.
I do agree with your analysis of the use of this scripture. I also cringe when I hear some of these quotes being misused. It also makes me drift off from the focus of the prayer because I start analysing how could God only be with us if 2 or 3 are there only, and to add insult to injury, I often hear, “….and God could you go up there to the hospital and touch so and so”….This makes me wonder if the person do not recognise God as omnipresent. I really don’t like when the scripture is misused for the persons benefit.
Wonderfully written…and hara’esque’ induced satire appreciated. Alot. I love good Christian banter (it keeps levity where it should be…)
When I was actively pastoring…I didn’t find that people wanted to know these types of things. They are happy with their folklore. We seminary types go all gaga over contextualization…and many peeps in the congregation don’t want their folklore rocked.
My dad was visiting a “if you sin a worse thing might come upon you” type analogy last night, since there is some speculation that my elderly grandfather has maneuvered his finances away from my grandmother. While I disagree in principle, my father has no proof…but went on to tell me a story that happened when his mother (my other grandmother) was nearly outmaneuvered by her 2nd husband. He summarily had a stroke and was incapacitated for the rest of his life. Since my maternal grandfather has suffered two mini-strokes recently, this constituted “proof” of God visiting sin upon him. Then, my hara moment…my dad invoked Job as the archetype of one who has affliction due to sin. He said something about “Satan’s job” was to bring turmoil in light of sin…
I asked my dad to go back and re-read the narrative to see who initiated the discussion about Job, that it might change his opinion.
I once recall a “brother” chastising another by saying, “If you had the Holy Ghost in you, it would bear witness with the Holy Ghost in me.” I was aghast…here was a self-proclamation of judgment since “disagreement” had been interpreted as being “nonChristian.”
Maybe most of my hara moments come from Pentecostals, since I was raised similarly and left that understanding when, as an undergraduate Bible college student, I had the epiphany that nearly all the scholars I was reading happened to be Baptist. My parents couldn’t help me 20 years ago with contextualization…and they don’t readily accept these tidbits now.
What’s a contextualizing person…
isn’t the heart of it all that He is with us in prayer always, also taking delight in our gathering together with Him, surely greatly so in prayer too, as His prayer is that we be one as He is One. I find special promise fulfilled–deep fellowship and communion.
Matthew 18:18-20 could be expanding the thought of verses 15-17, and using vv. 18-20 as a broader base to support the narrower application of verses 15-17. The idea I have is that it is like arguing that a dictator certainly has the power to change a line in a law, given that he has the power to strike down the whole law and create a new one. Of course the Church has the authority to disown a rebellious member, since all the powers of heaven and earth are given to the Church in Christ. It’s not just 18:20, but 18:18-20.
Similar ideas are in Matthew 16:19, John 20:21-23, and First John 5:14-16.
James 5:14-20 may also be relevant.
I have a consideration. What if, just what if the lady in question recognized that we must prayer in accordance to God’s will, whether privately or corporately? And because she DOES understand that, she uses Matthew 18:20 not because it means to her that if 2 or more are present, then God shows up but rather as affirmation that if we do pray in His accordance that Jesus will be “with them”, for them and will sign off on any requests they have petition, unlike prayers where a group might ask for more materially. Not saying a church never has material or financial needs but we’re talking about prayers that if done correctly are a “shoe in”. And their amens mean that there is a number of them that are in unison with such a the prayer. All prayers are heard but what we want are results (the support of Jesus) and we get results (the support of Jesus) if we pray in unison for the purity of the church.
So, to me, if she were praying in the context that if we come together in prayer to Jesus that is according to His divine will and character, then He is with us. I guess it depends on her petition? And as long as she not only mentions “where two or more are gathered” but doesn’t fail to mention “if two or more are gathered in ‘Your name, in Your will’, there You will be. Right?
Enjoyed this. Thanks Michael
Whilst others are stating all manner of agreement with the original post, based on exegesis and hermeneutics, I am, for precisely the same reasons, NOT in agreement with the orginal post here.
Michael speaks of context, but jumped past the verse that immediately precedes this passage:
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Since this verse is AFTER the progressive path of going to one’s brother (just between the two you), taking one or two others along, and then telling it to the church. The verse is also AFTER the step has been given to the church to treat such a one as a pagan or tax collector.
It doesn’t follow that the verses about where ever two or more are gathered in my name should automatically associate back to the verse about taking one or two others along. In fact, most commentators historically have seen verse 19 as pretty clear evidence for the power of collective prayer to bind and restore.
Here is what Clarke writes:
“If two of you shall agree – ΣυμφωνηϚωσιν, symphonize, or harmonize. It is a metaphor taken from a number of musical instruments set to the same key, and playing the same tune: here, it means a perfect agreement of the hearts, desires, wishes, and voices, of two or more persons praying to God. It also intimates that as a number of musical instruments, skilfully played, in a good concert, are pleasing to the ears of men, so a number of persons united together in warm, earnest, cordial prayer, is highly pleasing in the sight and ears of the Lord. Now this conjoint prayer refers, in all probability, to the binding and loosing in the preceding verse; and thus we see what power faithful prayer has with God! It shall be done for them – What an encouragement to pray! even to two, if there be no more disposed to join in this heavenly work. “
Michael, interesting concern for context, but in interpreting from the context you skip from verses 15-17 to verse 20 and make no mention of how verses 18 & 19 apply. Verses 15-17 are about reconciliation and accountability, but verses 18 and 19 seem to relate that to prayer and spiritual warfare. Parallel passages you also overlook provide further insight into how prayer, Jesus’ presence, and spiritual warfare relate to reconciliation. These include: Mt. 16:19, Jn 14:12-14, Jn 20:21-23, 2Cor 5:18, & 2Cor 10:4. I think you may have an anti-supernatural bias that’s causing you to skip an important part of the context.
Nice thoughts, I agree. But the red nose isn’t really necessary. There are dozens of these little boogers in the Bible, and God still has it all under control
[…] http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/08/where-two-or-three-are-gathered-and-other-bad-interpre… Share this ►FacebookEmailMorePrintDiggLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. By RGH • Posted in Accountability, charismatic, doctrine, hermeneutics, prayer 0 […]
I respectfully disagree with your substance and tone, Michael. I notice in your picture on the website that it appears to be John Calvin over your right shoulder; am I correct? Calvin thought rather highly of John Chrysostom, as do both the Eastern and Latin churches, and yet Chrysostom is well-known for a prayer using this verse that goes as follows:
Almighty God, you have given us grace at this time with one accord to make our common supplication to you; and you have promised through your well-beloved Son that when two or three are gathered together in his Name you will be in the midst of them: Fulfill now, O Lord, our desires and petitions as may be best for us; granting us in this world knowledge of your truth, and in the age to come life everlasting. Amen.
Likewise, Wesley had the following to say about Matt 18:20 in his “Explanatory Notes on the NT”:
Where two or three are gathered together in my name – That is, to worship me. I am in the midst of them – By my Spirit, to quicken their prayers, guide their counsels, and answer their petitions.
In light of these (and others not cited), I am simply not persuaded by your exegesis, and wonder what is provoking this response on your part. Have you thought about why you mentioned the gender of the person who was praying so “offensively”?
Michael;
Good stuff yet again, and a good reminder of how we walk the tightrope of idolatry in many of our practices.
It is true though, that Jesus and God are somehow “more” present when we gather together. Yes, I agree, it is not some special power on our part when we join voices in prayer, but just as the presence of God was somehow different in the Jewish Temple than his simple omnipresense, when two or more are gathered something different occurs. The additonal allusion to “in my Name” echos the OT promise that even though a temple cannot contain the Most Holy God, he will put his “Name” there – indicative of something different than his omnipresence. It is a promise that when we gather in his Name, the true temple spiritually “appears”. To put it another way, our common communion IS the temple, not a building on a mountain in the middle east.
The Omnipresent God can be both omnipresent AND spacially present as presented in the person of Jesus. The incarnation is, at its bedrock, a clear definition of this principle. God was present in Jesus as part of the Godhead, as well as being omnipresent in the creation through which Jesus walked. As you stated in an earlier blog, this is not a contradiction, but it is a mystery.
Therefore, we should not be annoyed when others recognize that Jesus is somehow present in a different way when we gather in his name (to administer discipline or to worship and pray). But is is equally important for all of us to remember that although he may be present in some special way we cannot explain, it does not give us special, or more power in our prayers. It is, as you say, a indication that he is present in the process.
Many comments, for some reason, are very disrespectful and antagonistic. I am not sure why this is touching such a nerves, but it is. Those comments have been deleted. Please keep the tone respectful. Go out of your way to do so. Remember, these are public comments.
[…] C. Michael Patton: […]
Sorry Michael and others but I must take a radically different line. I’m not an untaught youngster but a Bible expositor of 60 years standing and author of two Bible commentaries as well as other Christian books. I am furthermore a Calvinist and non-Charismatic.
Of course any proper exegesis of this passage recognises that the narrow context is that of church discipline (vv. 15-17) but the passage also has a wider context. We must not blame others for ignoring the context provided by vv. 15-17 while ourselves ignoring the context provided by vv. 18-19! The binding and loosing of v.18, however interpreted, implies that the authority of the gathered church goes well beyond the specific issue of church discipline (‘whatsoever’ is a strong term). Above all, v.19 can only refer to the agreement in prayer of two believers seeking God’s help and favour about ‘anything’ (again a strong term). Even if this is deemed to be hyperbole, it emphasizes the special significance of united prayer … of believers praying together in agreement (‘with one accord’ cf. Acts 1:14). It is only after the context has been widened in this way that Jesus promises his presence where two or three are gathered together in his name. Corporate prayer came naturally to the early church (Acts 4:24, 12:5,12). Finally and clearly, Christ is present among his people when they gather not in some ghostly form but in the Person of his Holy Spirit (John 16:7).
Michael, I hope I didn’t hurt your feelings? When I read another’s writing partially tongue in cheek, I assume I can do the same. And sometimes I use a tad bit sarcasm to make my point. It isn’t always received well. Hope you know I had no intention of being mean spirited.
Hi, please pardon my skepticism but this is the first I hear of this. Can you further elaborate on how you arrived at the conclusion that ‘there I am in the midst’ is equivalent to ‘I side with you on this’ or ‘I approve this’. The thought is so foreign to how I’ve understood this passage that I’m having difficulty understanding the flow of your logic; it just seems (not that it is) arbitrary. Can you provide other theologians that hold the same view so I can further study this? I’d like to see how the text validates this. I don’t read Hebrew or Greek, but this position seems so fringe to me (granted I don’t worship in scholarly circles). You said the pericope (unit of thought ) starts at ‘x’ but where does it end? And could you explain (or maybe blog about) how invoking God’s presence is equal to idolatry? That one flew over my head. At some point in prayer we ARE invoking the presence of the Lord, are we not? And there is a difference between ‘controlling the Lord’ and ‘the Lord letting Himself be influenced by our prayers’ isn’t there (I’m thinking Abraham, Joshua, anybody who got a direct response in scripture really). God didn’t act ‘until’ the person prayed. Wouldn’t you say that God let Himself be moved by prayer (though not controlled by it?). Ok, sorry for the rant but this is a lot to take in for me, lol.
Of course you don’t even have to know the context of this particular verse to understand that when used as you describe it it’s way off base. We share the theological understanding of God’s omnipresence. Using the verse the way the lady in your example did totally ignores that understanding. What? God’s not here right now because I’m typing alone?
Wow I never realized this. I feel so mislead -_- I am glad I haven’t used that in a prayer yet. Now I have to spread the word….
Hi Michael,
You have me thinking! Thanks!
I have two concerns/questions.
#1 – I felt like you were downplaying the special presence of Jesus when two or three are in unity in His name. I was wondering if you could comment on this quote from R.T. France. It seems to indicate that there is something special about Jesus’ presence in this situation:
“Jesus’ spiritual presence among [his disciples] is the source of their authority to declare the will of God and to expect God to hear their prayers. And that presence is promised not to a formally convened ecclesiastical council, but to any two or three of his people who meet as his disciples.”
#2 – You wrote, “Lord, you promised that when two or three people are gathered in your name, you will be in our midst. Well, here we are. Because of this we call upon you to bless us and answer our prayer.”
I think this could also be taken as a very biblical prayer, not idolatry. I believe God loves to answer prayer “according to Jesus’ name.” In fact, that is our only hope in every prayer we pray! I also believe that God’s Spirit is not just an individual gift but a corporate one. In other words the Spirit unites His children to agree in prayer. When this happens it is a beautiful and powerful thing!
I think I understand your point in general, but I am afraid you may have gone too far in downplaying Jesus’ presence and the beauty and power of corporate prayer.
On a more personal level, I wouldn’t have believed this as strongly if I hadn’t been attending a church that really believes and lives out living in community. But I have seen something incredibly powerful about praying with others, in Jesus’s name, and in the unity of the Spirit. I would actually encourage people to pray more with other believers- for their benefit and the glory of God!
Blessings,
Brad
Praise God for comments above by Edgar, Bill B and Bruce. Thanks, gentlemen!
Promote better understanding of God’s Word. Someone who has the right heart and attitude will not purposefully distort the Word. Ignorance among Christians is probably the norm, as current Bible Studies and typical church sermons are obviously off center, otherwise our Christian brothers would understand what we are required and expected to understand. All this argument is an academic waste. If God’s Word is inerrant and timeless, just teach the importance of reading and really understanding the Word. Most Christians are total frauds when it comes to a real effort to understand Gods Word.
I assume pastors are more knowledgeable, but that cannot be assumed. Focus and start on the basics. Own and read the Bble. Opinions are only important to those narcissists who have a big awakening coming.
“Opinions are only important to those narcissists who have a big awakening coming.”
Please explain yourself further.
The feelings you describe, Michael, on seeing the way this verse was used out of context, remind me of when churches used to sing, “Lift Jesus higher, lift Jesus higher … he said if I be lifted up from the earth I will draw all men unto me, lift him up, lift him up, lift him higher …” In the context of the verse, “to lift up” meant “to crucify”, so basically all the people in church were singing “Crucify him! Crucify him!” Used to make me cringe. Of course there is a sense in which we should exalt Jesus and praise him, so their hearts were in the right place, … but why did they have to go and stick that verse in the song?!
Ok, Edgar convinced me, Mr. Patton, I’m going to have to admit that verse 19 especially makes it seem appropriate to use the phrase in the way you criticize. You had me going there for a while, but I can’t get around either the “any thing” or the “ask” in verse 19.
Dear Michael,
This verse, along with Rev. 3:20, are of particular nemesis in the realm of proper hermeneutics where the appplications becomes the interpretation.
I would add that another phrase that is incorrect theolgoically speaking is “God forgets our sin.” Now, you know that God is omniscient, “all-knowing.”
God can NOT forget, but He chooses to “not remember our sin (Jeremiah 33:33 (?) if I remember correctly.
Maybe you can do a series on incorrect theology phrasing that isused today?
Remember that verse 19 comes after verse 18. The agreement on earth cannot be disassociated from the binding and loosing which cannot be disassociated from the ciscipline of the erring brethren. “Anything” is certainly contextually based. It does not mean that if I get together with someone and agree that my mother should be healed or that we should plant such and such a church that this will be done. When one disassociates this from the context it becomes destructive and disallutioning. Hence, this blog post. Please don’t see “anything” outside the context here. Read some good exegetical commentaries. Lots of them out there for aid.
On “lifting Jesus up.” If I remember correctly that context is “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.” It prefigures the cross, but it’s about more than crucifixion. Moses put the serpent on a pole — in Hebrew a *ness*, from which we get the name for God, Jehovah Nissi, “the Lord my banner.” The cross with Jesus on it is our banner like the pole with the snake on it was a banner — or actually more literally like a guide-on for a military formation or battle unit. In that context the song makes sense.
But Michael, I think it does mean that if I get together with someone to search out the Lord’s will in a matter about which we are praying, I am more likely to discern the Lord’s will on how to pray about the matter than if I am alone, and in that sense the guiding presence of Jesus through the Holy Spirit is more manifest in a group than alone.
Rebekka, i don’t know what you said in your comments. However, I think it is a good sign that you are okay since none of your comments were deleted so take cheer!
Bruce, for me, all I have is this context so I cannot speak beyond it. If there is another passage which says that Christ is present only when we are in a corporate prayer gathering, I would be interested to know. However, here the “presence” of Christ is governed by the context of authority and binding and loosing in church discipline. But to invoke this passage in small prayer gatherings is, like I said, taking this verse out of context and, in my opinion, misleading and, can be, manipulative.
I agree with your analysis but as many times as I’ve heard someone take this verse out of context I’ve never “supposed” that they were trying to manipulate God or assumed that if I were alone God would not be there. God is in our midst when we seek Him in prayer, God is with me when I’m alone. Why don’t you pray about those feelings of “hara” maybe that’s the bigger issue.
I can’t believe it, but this post set the one day record for the most reads and the most links in the history of this blog. Tens of thousands of reads in one day! Facebook made it go completely viral. I wonder why. I can’t ever gauge these things.
Can you explain or define what you mean by ‘binding and loosing’ in regards to church discipline? Also, thank you for explaining the flow of logic…it makes total sense now (i.e. you can’t disassociate ‘agreement’ from the ‘binding’ from the discipline, etc.) I have to admit I misunderstood this scripture and will have to avoid referencing it in prayer though I should hope people here don’t think this means that somehow Jesus is no longer present during corporate prayer! Perhaps what we need is a response as to how this *can* be biblically supported (off the top of my head I’m thinking book of Acts or even OT examples of the Presence in Tabernacle days. For the record, I never thought that Jesus was AWOL if it was just me praying, but it does seem silly to fall back on this scripture to somehow validate his presence now that I see it in new light. Thanks.
Francisco,
I wish that was my biggest issue. I have a LOT bigger ones than my hara here!
Michael, I see what you are saying about the need to link verse 19 with the previous verses, but what is that link? It is clear that verses 19 and 20 are a continuation of the concept of two or three being brought together, and I think your insight about Christ being present in the sense of approving of the process is very helpful, but in verse 19 the action is asking and receiving rather than witnessing. It seems then that Christ is extending the concept from a witnessing function to an asking/receiving function. I think two other things ought to be considered from the even wider context of the New Testament. First, it is clearly not sufficient to simply invoke the name of Jesus in whatever we do, whether alone or in a group (this can clearly be misapplied, e.g. Matt 7:22-23), so what does it mean to do something properly “in his name”?
If a king sends a messenger in his name, that messenger is authorized to speak on behalf of the king. He is authorized to act in the name of the king, to gather in the name of the king, to witness in the name of the king, to ask in the name of the king, etc. Christ is speaking to his disciples here ultimately in preparation to send them forth into all the world to preach the gospel as his authorized servants (later they are sent two by two)–as opposed to those phoneys that he “never knew” but who try to use his name anyway. As these true witnesses are sent forth, they are told not to worry about where their next meal will come from, etc., because all that will be provided for the asking. Ask and ye shall certainly receive–if you ask only for those things for which you are authorized in the name of Jesus to ask). So these disciples are authorized both to witness and to ask in Christ’s name, or by his authority.
I remember when I was in college the first time I actually heard this passage preached on (though I had read it other times and heard others reference it). The guy preached/interpreted it just as you are now and it was one of those a-ha! moments. Totally made sense.
This is another example to show how people just don’t read their Bibles and how so many who do read it do not know how to read it.
Thanks for rightly diving the Word of truth (did I interpret that right:)?)
Re: one day post interest: Isn’t there such an interest because we greatly desire for the Spirit to lead us, together, into all truth with all scripture as encouragement and thru love of fellow body members. I’m wondering if some perceive that the tone was not all encouragement and love.
Michael Patton says,”Rebekka, i don’t know what you said in your comments.” Just keeping talking. Pretend I’m not even here.
“However, I think it is a good sign that you are okay since none of your comments were deleted so take cheer!” OK, that cheered me up. None were deleted cause they weren’t read. I feel better already. I’ll just go sit back over in the corner and watch everyone else dance.
Michael, I never said Jesus was *not* present when you pray alone. I said this verse implies that his presence is more profoundly manifest when prayer is harmonious and corporate. You are probably getting too many responses to read them all carefully.
I don’t know if Michael Patton read your comments, Rebecca, but I did. And commented on them, but I guess you didn’t notice