Commentaries Discussing the Command to Go and Be Reconciled

In Matthew 5:23-24, Jesus gives what appears to be a simple command, though one that is almost never obeyed: before I may offer worship to God before other people, I must see that any offenses which I am aware that others hold against me are being reconciled and have been reconciled at least to some degree. This post quotes and discusses commentaries on this passage and its subject.

In this part of the series on Jesus’ command to “go and be reconciled” in Matthew 5:23-24, I will provide quotations from a few commentaries, both old and new and of varying authoritativeness, that discuss this passage.

As an introduction, John Wesley wrote the briefest and most pointed commentary of any I looked at:

[Source link: John Wesley’s Notes on the Bible at Wesley Center Online, wesley.nnu.edu.]

After establishing that rather simple proposition that almost no one in the modern Church puts into practice, I move on to my first subject heading:

Charles Spurgeon agreed with my reading of the passage as saying that the person who becomes aware that they have offended a fellow believer has the initiative to go to the offended and is disqualified from giving and from the other practices of communal worship until this is done:

[Source link: Spurgeon Bible Commentary at bibliaplus.org ].

In saying this, Spurgeon was in agreement with what Matthew Henry wrote two hundred years earlier:

[Source link: Matthew Henry Concise Commentary on Biblehub.com ].

Another fairly standard 19th Century commentary had a similar interpretation.

[Source link: Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary on Biblehub.com].

Albert Barnes, also from the 19th century, wrote:

[Source link: Barnes’ Notes on Biblehub.com ].

Indeed, the position that Matthew 5:24 states a command to or a duty to be discharged by believers who know that another believer holds an offense against them appears to have been almost universal among commentators until fairly recently. Likewise, until recent times nearly all commentators said this command or duty takes precedence over nearly everything else the offending believer might do in the Church. That does not mean that Matthew 5:24 was commonly practiced–it is too hard! But it does mean that nearly everybody said it ought to be practiced.

This has changed in recent years, with some commentators–followed, at least in practice, by most pastors–now saying that Matthew 5:23-24 does not directly apply to anyone today, based on one of several arguments. But as I showed in the previous two installments, the plain words of verse 24 do appear to be applicable to us, and the hyperbolic condition stated in verse 23 only broadens the scope of its application. And I will show in the next few installments that its context in the Sermon on the Mount only reinforces it, as the most critical practical part of a warning against allowing anger to be harbored among believers.

And only some commentators have abandoned the traditional interpretation. Many other modern commentators still teach it. Take this example:

[Source link: Comentario Bíblico Mundo Hispano a Bibliatoda.com].

This translates: “In vv. 23-26 Jesus teaches that the disciple’s conduct is more important to God than fulfilling certain practices. Moreover, in vv. 23 and 24, Jesus implies that God will not accept the offering of one who offended a brother and has not taken steps to reconcile with the one he offended.”

Or this discussion out of Grant Osborn’s textbook on the Gospel of Matthew:

Or this modern commentary that connects Jesus commands in verses 23 and 24 to his warning about anger in verses 21 and 22, his parable about being taken to court in verses 25 and 26, and a parallel saying out of the Mishna Yoma which might have been recognized by Jesus’ Jewish audience:

And, in another place, Osborn, previously cited, explains why the person who has become aware of an offense has the duty to seek to reconcile it by comparing anger in the church to a “destructive… cancer:”

Osborn goes on to say flatly:

And this modern commentary explains why this passage places the initiative on the offender, while Matthew 18:15 ff (discussed in previous episodes) places it on the offended believer, by explaining that both offender and offended have a responsibility to seek peace and so demonstrate reconciliation that preserves the Christian community:

[Source link: Comentario Bíblico Mundo Hispano a Bibliatoda.com].

This translates: “Note that here the offending one has the responsibility to take the initiative. In 18:15 ff. Jesus places this responsibility on the offended. A practical reason for this is that one is often offended when the brother who “offended” him did so unintentionally, or without knowing, or perhaps there was no offense at all, except in the mind of the “offended.” Since this is something between brothers in the faith, it is good for both to feel responsibility to seek peace. This will avoid discord in the congregation. In order for the gospel of reconciliation we preach to be convincing and accepted, the body of Christ, the church, must demonstrate reconciliation in community.”

The 2004 edition of another commonly used commentary explains placing the initiative on th offender this way:

And I note that the quotation from Charles Spurgeon that I gave earlier clearly agrees that the present passage places the initiative on the offender:

[Source link: Spurgeon Bible Commentary at bibliaplus.org ].

Osborn notes that even the tenses of the imperatives in verse 24 suggest that reconciliation involves movement from one situation toward another, that is, a process:

The following quotation from an online commentary on a popular Bible site amplifies this, pointing out that reconciliation between believers involves a “process” that is parallel to the “work” God does within us:

[Source link: Article, “The Importance of Forgiveness and Reconciliation” on Biblehub.com].

That same online commentary points out that peacemakers, in bringing reconciliation, do “work” and cause the believers they are reconciling to “work” to resolve their conflicts.

[ Source link: Article, “The Importance of Forgiveness and Reconciliation” on Biblehub.com].

This recognizes that peacemaking, and the reconciliation associated with it, are not instantaneous; they take time and “work.”

These descriptions of the roles of forgiveness and love in reconciliation also seem to highlight that it is a gradual work of restoration of relationships. It takes time:

[Source link: Article, “Reconciliation: Between Man and Man” on Biblehub.com].

Here is another quotation explaining three reasons that reconciliation of offenses between believers is important:

[ Source link: Article, “The Importance of Forgiveness and Reconciliation” on Biblehub.com].

In the next quotation, Osborn argues that anger–and the name-calling and contempt that flow from it–destroy community harmony and prevent us from helping each other in our respective areas of weakness:

This contempt and the behaviors it can cause are the reason many say that the Christian church is the “only army in the world that shoots its wounded.” The only answer to this is reconciliation.

The IVP Commentary explains that reconciliation is important because our relationship with God is partly contingent on our treatment of others, and is urgent because, once your grudge has gone to a contemptuous judgment that I am unworthy to exist in your world–which can happen very quickly sometimes– I will probably be imprisoned by that judgment for the rest of my life with possible eternal consequnces:

Thus, it is important that I seek reconciliation promptly, urgently.

Osborn’s quotation comparing retained anger to a “destructive… cancer” also supports both the importance and the urgency of seeking reconciliation:

In another place, Osborn speaks of the serious consequences for the church of animosity that takes hold between its members, which is a sin, and the need to show forgiveness to receive it ourselves:

As long as there is animosity between members, worship is compromised, and the church is “doomed.” This certainly makes reconciling that animosity sound urgent!

This quotation speaks for itself:

[ Source link: Article, “The Importance of Forgiveness and Reconciliation” on Biblehub.com].

Finally, I return to Barnes’ discussion of the unacceptable worship of hypocritical worshippers who come to worship controlled by the effects of anger, as showing the reason the offender must take the initiative to seek reconciliation of that anger:

[Source link: Barnes’ Notes on Biblehub.com ].

“God is not deceived, and he will not be mocked.“