Binding, loosing and ‘two or three’

Matthew 18:18–20 is among the most quoted passages in the New Testament, and among the least read in context.

‘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. 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. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst’ (Matt. 18:18–20, NASB).

Taken on their own, these verses seem to speak of spiritual power, infallible prayer and divine presence in worship. In Jesus’ discourse, however, they do not open a new subject. They close a specific procedure for dealing with a brother who sins (vv. 15–17) and prepare for Peter’s question about forgiveness (vv. 21–35).

The thesis of this article is simple: the three verses are the ratification of that procedure. Verse 18 gives authority to the community’s decision, verse 19 concerns the agreement of those involved in the case, and verse 20 grounds the whole thing in the presence of Christ. Detach them from this setting and you do not get a broader meaning. You get a different one.

The context: a single discourse

Matthew 18 is a unified discourse on the life of the community, and each section prepares for the next:

vv. 1–5: who is the greatest? The one who becomes like a child.
vv. 6–9: woe to the one who causes one of these little ones to stumble.
vv. 10–14: the lost sheep. ‘So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish’ (v. 14).
vv. 15–20: what to do when a brother sins.
vv. 21–35: how often to forgive, and the parable of the unforgiving servant.

The procedure of verses 15–17 runs as follows:

‘If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 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. 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’ (Matt. 18:15–17).

Three details matter for everything that follows.

The aim is recovery. The verb in verse 15 is ἐκέρδησας (ekerdēsas, ‘you have won’ or ‘gained’). The procedure succeeds not when someone is expelled but when a brother is won back. It is no accident that it follows immediately after the parable of the lost sheep.

The ‘two or three’ come from the Law. Verse 16 cites Deuteronomy 19:15: ‘A single witness shall not rise up against a man … on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.’ This is the language of the courtroom, not the prayer meeting. When ‘two or three’ reappears in verse 20, the reader still has verse 16 ringing in the ear.

The sin is a personal offence. The words ‘against you’ (εἰς σέ, eis se) are missing from some of the earliest manuscripts, including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The Nestle–Aland critical edition (NA28) places them in square brackets, and the NASB omits them. Even without them, though, Peter’s question in verse 21 (‘how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?’) reads the whole section as a discourse about offence between brothers.

Binding and loosing (v. 18)

In context, ‘binding and loosing’ is the community’s decision about the brother’s standing: either he remains in fellowship, or he is to be treated ‘as a Gentile and a tax collector’.

Who is speaking, and to whom. The verbs are δήσητε (dēsēte, ‘you bind’) and λύσητε (lysēte, ‘you loose’), both plural. In Matthew 16:19 the same promise is made to Peter, in the singular. Here it is addressed to the community that verse 17 calls the ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia, ‘assembly, church’), that is, to the very body that has just heard the case.

Where the expression comes from. In Jewish usage, אָסַר (asar, ‘to bind’) meant to declare something forbidden, and הִתִּיר (hittir, ‘to loose’) to declare it permitted. The same language was used for imposing or lifting a ban on a person. Josephus describes the power of the Pharisees under Queen Alexandra (76–67 BC) in these terms: they became the real administrators of the state, binding and loosing whomever they wished (Jewish War 1.111). This is the language of government and judgement, not of exorcism. The closest New Testament parallel is John 20:23: ‘If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.’

What the grammar says. The Greek ἔσται δεδεμένα (estai dedemena) is a periphrastic future perfect, literally ‘shall have been bound’, and the NASB renders it exactly so. In 1939 Julius Mantey argued that this is the correct translation: the community recognises on earth what has already been settled in heaven. Henry Cadbury replied in the same issue of the Journal of Biblical Literature that in general conditional sentences such as this a simple future conveys the sense adequately (Cadbury 1939). The question remains open, but neither reading gives the church independent power. Either the church recognises a heavenly decision, or God confirms a decision reached according to his word and on the evidence of witnesses.

Misreading: ‘power’ over the spiritual realm

In many circles the verse has become a formula: ‘I bind the spirit of sickness’, ‘I loose blessing over this house’. On this view the believer has authority to effect healings and deliverances by speaking the right words. The text will not bear this reading, for four reasons.

The object is missing. There are no demons, illnesses or blessings in the passage. The object of verses 15–18 is a brother who has sinned.
The vocabulary is legal. ‘Binding and loosing’ belonged to the court and to the governance of the community. Matthew 12:29 (‘binds the strong man’) is often cited as a parallel, but it describes Jesus’ own work against Satan and uses a different image. It is not a formula handed to the disciples.
The direction is reversed. If the periphrastic carries its full weight, the movement runs from heaven to earth. The charismatic formula assumes instead that a word spoken on earth binds heaven.
The New Testament never uses it. In Acts, healings and deliverances happen ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ (Acts 3:6; 16:18), never through ‘I bind’ or ‘I loose’.

Misreading: the threat of losing salvation

The opposite use is more serious. The verse becomes an instrument of control: ‘If the church binds you, you are bound in heaven too’, meaning lost. Or: ‘If you leave this church, you lose your salvation.’ Here too the context says otherwise.

‘As a Gentile and a tax collector’ describes a relationship, not an eternal verdict. In Matthew, Gentiles and tax collectors are the objects of mission. Jesus eats with tax collectors (9:10–11) and is called their friend (11:19). Matthew himself was a tax collector (9:9). And the Gospel closes with the commission to ‘all the nations’ (ἔθνη, ethnē, 28:19), the same root as ἐθνικός (ethnikos, ‘Gentile’) in verse 17. To treat someone as a Gentile is to begin evangelising him again, not to consign him to perdition.
The aim is still recovery. The procedure exists to ‘win’ the brother (v. 15), immediately after we are told that the Father does not want to lose even one (v. 14).
Discipline touches fellowship, not the gift. Eternal life is given to the one who believes (John 5:24; 10:28), and it does not depend on a congregational vote. Paul confirms this in the severest case of discipline in the New Testament. The man at Corinth is to be ‘delivered to Satan’, but ‘so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus’ (1 Cor. 5:5). Exclusion from fellowship presupposes that salvation remains.
An unjust decision does not bind heaven. The text assumes a procedure carried out in truth, with witnesses and a church that listens. A leader who threatens those who leave is not applying Matthew 18. He is wielding it as a weapon.

The agreement of two (v. 19)

The ‘two’ of verse 19 are people already present in the case, and the ‘anything’ they agree about is the case itself.

The verb. Συμφωνήσωσιν (symphōnēsōsin, ‘they agree’, from which we get ‘symphony’) denotes an agreement reached, not simply praying together.

The object. ‘About anything’ translates περὶ παντὸς πράγματος (peri pantos pragmatos, ‘concerning any matter’). The word πρᾶγμα (pragma) often has a legal sense: ‘case, lawsuit’. Paul uses it this way in 1 Corinthians 6:1: ‘Does any one of you, when he has a case (pragma) against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous …?’

The Jewish background. According to the Mishnah, property cases were judged by a panel of three: each party chose one judge, and the two chose the third together (Sanhedrin 1:1; 3:1). On this basis J. Duncan M. Derrett read the ‘two or three’ as arbiters convened to settle the dispute (‘“Where two or three are convened in my name”: a sad misunderstanding’, Expository Times 91 [1979–80], 83–86). D. A. Carson prefers to see the ‘two’ as the offended and the offender coming to reconciliation, with the witness as the third (‘Matthew’, Expositor’s Bible Commentary 8, 403–4). The two readings differ in detail but agree on the point: verse 19 speaks of agreement about the case, not of prayer in general. The Father stands behind the decision reached, or the reconciliation achieved, by those who follow the procedure.

Misreading: the ‘prayer of agreement’

This is the most widespread reading: if two believers agree in asking for anything (a healing, a job, a house), God is bound to grant it. The problem is not praying together, which is good and biblical (Acts 1:14; 4:24). The problem is turning this verse into a guarantee.

It detaches ‘anything’ from ‘case’. The ‘anything’ covers any matter between brothers, not any desire.
It contradicts the rest of Scripture on prayer. John sets the condition ‘according to His will’ (1 John 5:14). Paul prayed three times about the thorn in the flesh and received a no (2 Cor. 12:8–9). Neither knows of a technique that obliges God.
It turns a promise into a mechanism. Jesus promises the Father’s support to those who seek a brother’s reconciliation. The ‘prayer of agreement’ makes it a tool for obtaining things.

Where two or three (v. 20)

Verse 20 explains why the community’s decision carries weight: Christ himself is present among those who judge in his name. It is not a formula for worship.

‘In My name’. The Greek is συνηγμένοι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα (synēgmenoi eis to emon onoma, ‘gathered in my name’). This does not simply describe a group of believers. It describes people convened under Jesus’ authority, as the witnesses of verse 16 are convened under the authority of the Law.

A rabbinic parallel. The Mishnah preserves a saying of Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradion: if two sit together and words of Torah pass between them, the Shekhinah (the divine presence) rests among them (Pirqe Avot 3:2). The rabbi belongs to the second century, so the saying is not Jesus’ source. It does show a shared way of thinking. The comparison is telling: where the rabbi puts the Torah, Jesus puts his own name; where the rabbi puts the presence of God, Jesus says ‘I am’. It is one of the highest Christological claims in the Gospel, and it arrives in the middle of a rule of discipline.

Matthew’s frame. The Gospel opens with Immanuel, ‘God with us’ (1:23), and closes with ‘I am with you always’ (28:20). Christ’s presence with his people runs through the whole book. It is not a privilege tied to a minimum headcount.

Misreading: ‘the Lord is present, so whatever happens comes from him’

On this reading the verse becomes a cover: there are more than two of us, so the Lord is in our midst, so whatever happens in the service (manifestations, prophecies, practices) is his work and not to be questioned.

The verse is not about worship. It is about a judgement concerning a brother who sins.
Presence is not automatic approval. The Corinthians gathered as a church, yet Paul writes: ‘you come together not for the better but for the worse’ (1 Cor. 11:17). Of prophecy in the assembly he commands, ‘let the others pass judgment’ (1 Cor. 14:29), and to the Thessalonians, ‘examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good’ (1 Thess. 5:21).
It inverts the text. In Matthew 18 Christ’s presence is the reason to correct sin. Using it to shield a practice from all correction makes the verse say the opposite of what it says.

Misreading: ‘you need at least two or three’

The opposite error treats ‘two or three’ as a threshold: below it the Lord would not be present, or there would be no real gathering.

‘Two or three’ is the number of witnesses. It is the legal minimum of Deuteronomy 19:15, not a threshold for God’s presence.
Presence is promised to the individual believer too. Jesus says that the Father and the Son will make their home with the one who loves him (John 14:23). Paul prays that Christ may dwell in their hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17).
Not even the rabbinic parallel sets a minimum. The same passage of Avot 3:2 adds that even one who studies Torah alone receives his reward.

In fairness: that the Lord is present when the church gathers is true and is taught elsewhere (for example 1 Cor. 14:25). Indeed, when Paul applies discipline at Corinth he follows the pattern of Matthew 18: the church assembles ‘in the name of our Lord Jesus’ and acts ‘with the power of our Lord Jesus’ (1 Cor. 5:4). The error lies not in affirming Christ’s presence, but in grounding it in this verse and drawing conclusions the text does not authorise.

The forgiveness that follows (vv. 21–35)

Peter sees the connection clearly: if the community can ‘bind’ someone who will not repent, is there a limit to his own personal forgiveness?

‘Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven”’ (Matt. 18:21–22).

‘Seventy times seven’ translates ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτά (hebdomēkontakis hepta), the same expression the Septuagint uses for Lamech’s vengeance in Genesis 4:24. Lamech’s limitless vengeance becomes limitless forgiveness. Then comes the parable of the servant who, released from an enormous debt, has his fellow servant imprisoned over a trifling sum. The conclusion is blunt: ‘My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart’ (v. 35).

Jesus’ answer does not cancel the procedure of verses 15–20. It distinguishes two levels.

	Personal level	Communal level
Text	vv. 21–35	vv. 15–20
Who acts	The offended brother	The church, with witnesses
What is done	The debt and the resentment are released	The brother’s standing in fellowship is declared
Limit	None: ‘seventy times seven’	The brother’s repentance
Aim	A heart free of grudges	The brother’s recovery

The two levels guard each other. Personal forgiveness does not abolish discipline: one can forgive from the heart and still bring the case before witnesses, because the aim is the brother’s good. Discipline, however, does not license resentment: whoever sits among the ‘two or three’ must already have forgiven. Otherwise verse 18 becomes the unforgiving servant’s tool.

Verse 34 (the servant handed over ‘to the torturers’) is also often read as loss of salvation, and many commentators see final judgement there. Verse 35, however, speaks of a Father and his children (‘My heavenly Father’, ‘each of you’, ‘his brother’). Read that way, the parable warns of God’s severe discipline of children who will not forgive, not of the revocation of eternal life, which is given by grace to the one who believes and not according to the measure of his forgiveness.

Conclusion

Matthew 18:18–20 is not out of place. It is the point at which the procedure for a sinning brother receives its authority. Heaven backs the decision (v. 18), the Father backs the agreement about the case (v. 19), and Christ is present among those who judge in his name (v. 20). Immediately afterwards Jesus prevents that authority from becoming a weapon by demanding forgiveness without limit (vv. 21–35).

Verse	Misreading	What the text says
v. 18	Believers have power to bind demons and diseases	The church declares the fellowship standing of a brother who sins
v. 18	Whoever is ‘bound’, or leaves the church, loses salvation	Discipline concerns fellowship and aims at recovery (v. 15; 1 Cor. 5:5)
v. 19	If two agree, God must grant anything	The Father backs the agreement reached on a case between brothers
v. 20	The Lord is present, so whatever happens in worship is his	Christ is present to give authority to correction, not to exempt anything from it
v. 20	You need at least two or three for the Lord’s presence	‘Two or three’ is the number of witnesses (Deut. 19:15), not a threshold

Three practical applications for a congregation:

Before quoting the verse, quote verse 15. Whoever begins with ‘if your brother sins’ is unlikely to use the rest as a formula.
Discipline is measured by its aim. If the goal is not to ‘win the brother’, it is not the procedure of Matthew 18.
Whoever judges must already have forgiven. The order of verses 15–35 is also the order of the heart.

Notes and sources

Primary sources

English Bible text: New American Standard Bible (1995). Greek text: SBLGNT / NA28.
Josephus, Jewish War 1.111 (Whiston trans.; in Thackeray’s Loeb translation the passage straddles 1.111–112).
Mishnah, Pirqe Avot 3:2; Sanhedrin 1:1 and 3:1.

Studies

J. R. Mantey, ‘The Mistranslation of the Perfect Tense in John 20:23, Mt 16:19, and Mt 18:18’, Journal of Biblical Literature 58 (1939), 243–49.
H. J. Cadbury, ‘The Meaning of John 20:23, Matthew 16:19, and Matthew 18:18’, Journal of Biblical Literature 58 (1939), 251–54 (PDF).
J. D. M. Derrett, ‘“Where two or three are convened in my name”: a sad misunderstanding’, Expository Times 91 (1979–80), 83–86.
D. A. Carson, ‘Matthew’, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 403–4.