Where two or three are gathered...

[Pacman]

I have seen and heard this phrase used as a “justification” not to intentionally assemble with a group of believers for the purpose of “holy convocation” or worship... but I question if this is a valid interpretation of it based on the context. This seems to be speaking about a meeting for the purpose of settling a dispute when a fellow believer has “sinned” against us. And not about assembling together for worship and such.

Matthew 18:15-20 NASB
[15] "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. [16] But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. [17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. [18] Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. [19] "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. [20] For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."

 

[steve]

IF the focus of two or three gathered together is ultimately to become a larger group, does it matter?
You don’t need a quorum to study and worship. Sometimes small and tight can stay closer to truth.

 

[Pacman]

IF the focus of two or three gathered together is ultimately to become a larger group, does it matter?
You don’t need a quorum to study and worship. Sometimes small and tight can stay closer to truth.

Agreed if the “small and tight” group is meeting for that purpose. I’m mostly trying to discuss whether we should be using that passage within our explanations about our small groups. It seems like “cherry picking” because it’s not the context of the passage...

 

[steve]

I agree that it is taken out of context, but to what detriment?
Is there any other number given anywhere?
All it excludes is the guy going fishing by himself and claiming that “Me and God is all that’s necessary”.

 

[Pacman]

I agree that it is taken out of context, but to what detriment?
Is there any other number given anywhere?
All it excludes is the guy going fishing by himself and claiming that “Me and God is all that’s necessary”.

I think the detriment is we loose credibility with anyone who is studious enough to check it out and they discover that it’s out of context...

 

[steve]

Paul’s business plan seemed to be to go to synagogue until kicked out, and whoever was kicked out with him became the local assembly.

 

[steve]

The fact that it was said in a certain context doesn’t limit its truth.

 

[steve]

The Jews understand every verse to have layers of meanings.

 

[Pacman]

Full disclosure I’m not advocating going back to a “recognized” church or synagogue if the father has led you elsewhere or you have been extended the left foot of fellowship. I’m trying to say we need to be discerning about our application of verses and keep them in context.

 

[mrwill]

Jesus sent them out by twos. Paul and Barnabas went out as a pair. Later Barnabas and Mark and Paul and Timothy (if I remember right). I think two is enough, but it good to be concerned about the actual context. But in this case, we can see pairs in a wide range of situations and Jesus was with them in Spirit.

 

[frederick]

I’m trying to say we need to be discerning about our application of verses and keep them in context.

There are three rules for correct Bible interpretation that must always be applied; 1) context, 2) context, and 3) context.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I’d point out Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. Church in the Chariot.

Also Jesus counted himself and his father as being witness one and witness two. Add a believer and there’s an ekklesia with Christ in the midst.

 

[rustywest4]

I’d point out Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. Church in the Chariot.

Also Jesus counted himself and his father as being witness one and witness two. Add a believer and there’s an ekklesia with Christ in the midst.

Boom!

 

[rockfox]

I think the detriment is we loose credibility with anyone who is studious enough to check it out and they discover that it’s out of context...

Out of context yes, but the underlying principle applies in both cases. And even more important... it's more biblical justification than those who think that you're not part of a church if you don't attend a weekly service that has a building, government licensor, paid pastors and all the various attributes of the commercial churches.

Oooo, I just stumbled on a phrase there that really encapsulates the character difference between what we see in scripture and today...commercial churches.

 

[frederick]

Out of context yes, but the underlying principle applies in both cases.

I don't think anyone is arguing about principles that might genuinely apply. The concern I and others here have is that by taking a verse or verses out of context to justify a belief, it's easy to proof text an erroneous belief/principle. The espousers of the erroneous doctrine of monogamy-only do that continually so we would be better served to avoid being seen to do the same thing. My contention is that it is always best to understand a passage of scripture as the author/God intended it to be understood, in it's context, and thus avoid the errors of false-teachers. If the truth of the passage legitimately applies elsewhere, there's no problem as we see our Savior doing the same in His dealings with the false-teachers of His day. Shalom

 

[Pacman]

I don't think anyone is arguing about principles that might genuinely apply. The concern I and others here have is that by taking a verse or verses out of context to justify a belief, it's easy to proof text an erroneous belief/principle. The espousers of the erroneous doctrine of monogamy-only do that continually so we would be better served to avoid being seen to do the same thing. My contention is that it is always best to understand a passage of scripture as the author/God intended it to be understood, in it's context, and thus avoid the errors of false-teachers. If the truth of the passage legitimately applies elsewhere, there's no problem as we see our Savior doing the same in His dealings with the false-teachers of His day. Shalom

Exactly my point. Thank You Sir!

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Oooo, I just stumbled on a phrase there that really encapsulates the character difference between what we see in scripture and today...commercial churches.

My favorite phrase is Corporate Christianity.

 

[PeteR]

My favorite phrase is Corporate Christianity.

The greatest evidence of corporate Christianity is 'franchised' (read: satellite) 'campuses.'

Need a puking emoji...

 

[Joleneakamama]

Churches are listed in the yellow pages.....with other businesses and are "incorporated" with the state via 501 c3 tax exempt status.

Anyone who still has a functioning brain.... oh wait, that might be part of the problem.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Here is a comic that hubby says expresses our opinion of churches.