❌ *I do NOT run ads on this channel (my conviction), so I make no money from ad revenue.* ➡ If you’d like to support this work, please consider donating🙂🙏 (see links below) ✅ Patreon link: www.patreon.com/lionoffireministries ✅ Paypal link: www.paypal.me/lionoffireministries Also subscribe on RUMBLE: rumble.com/c/LIONofFIRE
Stay humble Brother. Your message is fresh! Don't ever let the growth of this chanel turn you into the "others" thank you for keeping the message clean, short and too the point without interruptions.
Yes I have heard that said in church before ' Where two or three are gathered in My name'. I always thought isn't God with me when I pray alone? What you have explained makes so much more sense!
I just looked up the scripture meaning, including Matthew Henry's commentary, and you're right. Wow! Never heard this before but glad you posted this video.
Yes, I agree with all that you have said. I pray that God bless this channel and the speaker. 🙌 Matt, your messages are of great value 👏 to me, and I appreciate each one🙏
Hi Matt…just the other day Jack Hibbs discussed this as part of a podcast. He was making the same point you’re bringing forth in this content. It’s wonderful having both of you dedicated Godly men to guide believers in the truth‼️
Where is Jack Hibbs on this topic. I searched, I couldn't find it. I found an endless number of the same sentiment that the church is definitely other elders defacto. The lack of logic in the argumentation bit withstanding. We all know it's a disciplinary measure by how are you defining you distinct set. Ambiguous elders has no restrictions. By this claim, the carnivorous clown circus is the true church.. I find this to be problematic and concerning. You guys seem quite satisfied with your system. That explains quite a bit about the current state of the world
Wow! I never thought about that. I also misunderstood that verse. What you say makes perfect sense. It relates to church discipline as the preceding verse about bringing two or three people to confront another over their sin says. Great message! Thanks for clearing that up.
Hi Matt. BIG WOW, I never realised that. So brilliant. Thanks so very much for sharing this, and opening my eyes. I’m sure so many people have learned something today.🙏🙏❤️❤️🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱
I didn't see any logic in his argument. There was none. I see this rhetorical stance is being used by a large number of people.. none of which are explicitl n the exclusive club they are defining as the church of truth. It is very odd that you are feeling this is a sound measure of definition
@@yankoek7171 sorry if I wasn't clear. When I said that a large group is using a rhetorical stance in which they are failing to be explicit in their definition of what composes a church elder. (because we are defining [incorrectly] what the proper church is.) Your rhetoric is a non-sequitur. You claim that the church elders involvement in disputes between believers defines who is the church proper. It's non-logical rhetoric. The word rhetoric comes from the Greek word rhētorikē, which means "the art of speech". The word rhetoric has evolved through several languages but it basically means your speech, your speaking, your conveyance. Your conveyance is that an unrelated scripture is somehow relevant.. but it's not the case. It's an unrelated scripture.
It is incorrect. Two or three gathered in the name of Jesus. The church is a definition of congregation. The individual is obviously not a congregation. Lord of hosts.
I totally misunderstood that verse. Thank you for your continued teaching. I am always learning something new and am very grateful to you Matt. God Bless you and your ministry. 🙏🏻❤️
This is how i always understand it when i hear or read it, but every time i hear someone resite this verse, they always suggest it means God is only there when ppl are gathered
💯yes, thank you for teaching this truth! It is absolutely about church discipline. This verse is very much misunderstood. I have tried to explain this to people before and they have disagreed with me. Thank you for the confirmation!
Very enlightening. I’ve always thought it meant what people routinely believe, but your angle is much more reasonable and valid. The only question I have is what kinds of witnesses? Eye witnesses? Or witnesses who can testify to the circumstances. If the accused assaulted someone of the opposite sex, and the witness was in another room, and only heard screams and perhaps saw torn clothing, is that valid?
@@riverwildcat1 what a strange question. This is very significant perspective you are displaying. how do you feel this relates to jurisprudence? Please express so we rational people can understand the value of your philosophy.
@ That’s not a strange question at all. The exact definition of “witnesses”, and what constitutes actual evidence - as opposed to hearsay - is vital to jurisprudence. No doubt there were rules about this back in the day.
@@riverwildcat1 his description of the church as being an arbitration of elders is the problem. Now you're talking about something to do with civil jurisprudence. It's bizarre how your supposed brains are working. When you bring A grievance of sin amongst brethren, the matter is brought to the elders of the community because the parties are supposed to be honest witnesses testifying. The matter is to be settled amongst civil brethren. There is no room to evade. Obviously. So your whole approach on these topics is bizarre
Nope. He is using bad semantics to promote a false doctrine. No shortage of this. Is there bad fruit of this doctrine? It's an essential concept to discredit the rational church.
@@donaldjoy4023 people feeling their church is the right church is a problem because of the subjective nature of their definition. It's just any gang. Isn't that obviously? The scripture is quite declarative In defining it as where two or three gather in the name Yeshua. (Yahweh our righteousness ) Here where we gather in the name of Yeshua we can testify to what we mean. We can lie about what we mean to each other? To what effect, and to what value? We who gather in the name of Christ should agree. We can establish what we will. And we should be reasonable in our beliefs. If we are in conflict, we are still established. We are witness to our disagreement. The church is the immutable and irrational elders? We establish the dispute
@@donaldjoy4023 wow, I just typed all that for nothing . That's not nice. I said that the gathering in the name of Christ is a rational doctrine that promote the rationality of the concept of unions. If one concludes it is the gathering of their denomination outside of the direct semantics of this simple statement of Christ.. we have of extra values coming from where? He has added meaning without substantiating the claim 🛄 so we are to accept his deferment to his authority. This conflict will be witnessed. Me and you can gather in the name of Christ and you can testify to my falsity of claim. We can witness you defer to the elders of your church.
The Church teaches that the Lord is truly present in a special way (1) where two or three are present in his name (2) in his Word - particularly when his Word is read out publicly by believers (3) in the Eucharist. That does not mean that the Lord is not also present in other ways. Creation declares the presence of the Creator. The Lord is present in all that he has created. He is also present to the individual believer when he prays alone.
Chose those that worship in truth and deed to pray with; we are usually in the same mind: Jesus wisdom! If I'm going to have two or three pray with myself, I first seek confidence in agreement then we can pray and Jesus will do it for us!
I thought you presented a valid point, but I thought you might go in a little bit of a direction with this passage. I think another misunderstood part of this passage is verse 17 where Jesus says “…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.” - Matthew 18:17. This passage is talking about excommunicating an unrepentant sinner for sure, but what think people misunderstand is that they come away from this thinking that once someone has been put out of the church Jesus then gives permission to treat that person with unloving disdain. But when you think about it a little harder, ask the question: how did Jesus treat Gentiles and Tax Collectors (or as some translations read “sinners”)? Did he treat them with unloving disdain? No. He instead loved them, even in the middle of their sins and alienation from God. He went to the cross for them, and for you and me too. This passage when taken in context with the gospel our Lord preached, is not a grant of permission to eventually treat people with hatred. Is it saying to put them and the sin they sadly cling to outside the church? Yes. Is it saying to stop loving them and start hating them? Absolutely not.
From the passage, it's pretty clear that the interpretation you gave is correct. This doesn't mean that the application of these two verses couldn't be justly utilized for another situation, such as a marriage. I've never heard these verses used as a justification for not joining a larger, organized, church congregation.
Chances are if we don't have Holy Spirit we don't have spiritual understanding, we only have understanding in the fleshly mind! I'm one with Holy Spirit, God is two, Jesus is three; if God, Jesus, has opened our eyes then we can open the eyes of them also with the Holy Spirit, if not either two things have happened, their subverted and have sin in their lives or they are not enlightened by Holy Spirit! Sin, Jesus will back off from us, no confidence and no comprehending truth until we repent and put away the sin. Got to be discerning! Binding and losing is only in our particular setting; in our circumstances! Consider a man that has his house in order, it's only in his house and his faith keeps it being pleasing to God, Jesus.
I've never heard it used by people to avoid church. I have heard it used when just a few believers are together as a means of encouragement since, even though there's not many people there, God still is. The Bible is pretty clear about the need to fellowship. Don't recall the exact verse, nor where it's found (Hebrews maybe?), but we're told not to forsake the assembling together.
The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head. Do you know the meaning of "binding" and "loosing" ?
Don’t really need an excuse to not attend church. I have been desperate for one for months now. Finding one that is suitable (conservative evangelical) that is interested enough to respond to help with social anxiety and isolation has probed impossible. Not having private transport doesn’t help. The Church is fractured and sin abounds. The only mob who have offered pastoral care have been the JWs (as a result of a neighbour), and of course I could not accept their theology. Pray for the Church, it needs it.
Thank you Matt. I was told the same version as everyone else. It’s insane how scripture can be misinterpreted. I downloaded the Matthew Henry app because of your suggestion. I appreciate and pray for you. 🙏🏽✝️🤍
Matt, do you think Christians should watch horror movies? I watch a ton of them and feel guilty. I've seen some really bad stuff. I've also seen some true gore on the internet. I have a morbid curiosity. I think it might have something to do with the fact that I was badly abused as a child. I would appreciate your advice.
Verse numbers are simply left over from scribes as a tool for hand writing copies reliably, and so the devil has us deceived. There's barely a true follower to be found among the crowd of fakes if you regularly read chapters to gain the truth revealed.
While I'm sure in light of the context of all the verse that you're right in your assessment but I don't see why it couldn't mean that in ANY circumstance where 2 or 3 are gathered in "HIS" Name that CHRIST would be there as well?
The general problem when interpreting Scripture is almost everyone reads it out of context. Go back to chapter 17 and read into 18. Jesus isn't speaking to the general public like the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is speaking to the disciples. The Apostles or the disciples aren't the general public. So when Jesus in Matthew 18:15-20 is talking about 2 or 3 He's talking about those in Church leadership ( bishops). We know this from verse 18. Only the Apostles have this ability to bind and loose. Hence, Jesus is talking about the Magesterium of the Catholic Church. Remember, at Pentecost not all "believers" received the Holy Spirit through tongues of fire. God bless
The catholic church does not have ultimate authority in scriptural interpretation. That is only a belief. Acts 2:2-3. ....tongues like fire rested on each of them ...v3 and All were filled with the Holy Spirit. 12 apostles, 12 were filled with the Spirit.
It means an authorised church, the one authorised church that jesus christ gave to the apostles and built on Simon. There is only one authorised apostolic church that jesus christ created I'll let you figure it out which church it is.
@lionoffireraw he did then there is no reason for jesus to change Simon's name to rock cephas. You now have to explain why jesus christ change Simon's name for no reason. And secondly that's only half of what the church is the second half of the church is the authoritative of the church that's the apostles
❌ *I do NOT run ads on this channel (my conviction), so I make no money from ad revenue.*
➡ If you’d like to support this work, please consider donating🙂🙏
(see links below)
✅ Patreon link: www.patreon.com/lionoffireministries
✅ Paypal link: www.paypal.me/lionoffireministries
Also subscribe on RUMBLE: rumble.com/c/LIONofFIRE
Stay humble Brother. Your message is fresh! Don't ever let the growth of this chanel turn you into the "others" thank you for keeping the message clean, short and too the point without interruptions.
@lionoffireraw you didn't want heaven without us so Jesus you brought heaven down what does that mean
Yes I have heard that said in church before ' Where two or three are gathered in My name'. I always thought isn't God with me when I pray alone? What you have explained makes so much more sense!
Thank you for this teaching! I misunderstood it too. Context is everything
I just looked up the scripture meaning, including Matthew Henry's commentary, and you're right. Wow! Never heard this before but glad you posted this video.
I really enjoy your videos, and i admire the fact that you don't run ads.
Yes, I agree with all that you have said. I pray that God bless this channel and the speaker. 🙌 Matt, your messages are of great value 👏 to me, and I appreciate each one🙏
I always misunderstood this verse until you explained it in context. God bless you Matt.....stay well brother.
Gilly wife of Mark
Hi Matt…just the other day Jack Hibbs discussed this as part of a podcast. He was making the same point you’re bringing forth in this content. It’s wonderful having both of you dedicated Godly men to guide believers in the truth‼️
Jack Hibbs!!! YES! You’re in good company with Jack 😎
Thank you 🙏
Where is Jack Hibbs on this topic. I searched, I couldn't find it. I found an endless number of the same sentiment that the church is definitely other elders defacto. The lack of logic in the argumentation bit withstanding. We all know it's a disciplinary measure by how are you defining you distinct set. Ambiguous elders has no restrictions. By this claim, the carnivorous clown circus is the true church.. I find this to be problematic and concerning. You guys seem quite satisfied with your system. That explains quite a bit about the current state of the world
Wow! I never thought about that. I also misunderstood that verse. What you say makes perfect sense. It relates to church discipline as the preceding verse about bringing two or three people to confront another over their sin says.
Great message! Thanks for clearing that up.
Hi Matt.
BIG WOW, I never realised that. So brilliant. Thanks so very much for sharing this, and opening my eyes. I’m sure so many people have learned something today.🙏🙏❤️❤️🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱
Context, very important. Makes sense
@tomcisneros5965 context, context, context...as Rosebrough says 😊
I didn't see any logic in his argument. There was none. I see this rhetorical stance is being used by a large number of people.. none of which are explicitl n the exclusive club they are defining as the church of truth. It is very odd that you are feeling this is a sound measure of definition
@@StalkedHuman
No scripture? Maybe look up the meaning or definition of rhetorical.
@@yankoek7171 sorry if I wasn't clear. When I said that a large group is using a rhetorical stance in which they are failing to be explicit in their definition of what composes a church elder. (because we are defining [incorrectly] what the proper church is.) Your rhetoric is a non-sequitur. You claim that the church elders involvement in disputes between believers defines who is the church proper. It's non-logical rhetoric. The word rhetoric comes from the Greek word rhētorikē, which means "the art of speech". The word rhetoric has evolved through several languages but it basically means your speech, your speaking, your conveyance. Your conveyance is that an unrelated scripture is somehow relevant.. but it's not the case. It's an unrelated scripture.
@@StalkedHuman
Maybe you've mistaken my comment with someone else? "You claim that the church elders "? I didn't claim that.
Church is not a building, it is believers coming together, this is a church.
@@YolBasDa the magisterium isn't a building.
Sometimes,we cannot tolerate any more. I am so thankful to God for HIS Grace. ✝️🛐
Very well said! Thank you, Matthew!
It is incorrect. Two or three gathered in the name of Jesus. The church is a definition of congregation. The individual is obviously not a congregation. Lord of hosts.
Thank you for this. This makes perfect sense.
Watching from Mississippi!
Hi Mississippi, much love from Australia! 🐨God bless, see you soon!
I discovered this some years ago. Thanks for posting this.
I totally misunderstood that verse. Thank you for your continued teaching. I am always learning something new and am very grateful to you Matt. God Bless you and your ministry. 🙏🏻❤️
Thank you for your clarification, good to know this.
This is how i always understand it when i hear or read it, but every time i hear someone resite this verse, they always suggest it means God is only there when ppl are gathered
Very good. Thank you Matt
Happy, blessed 2025, Matt! 💯 agree with you. Keep well, cheers! 🙂
Thanks, Matt! Exactly! Context governs interpretation.
💯yes, thank you for teaching this truth! It is absolutely about church discipline. This verse is very much misunderstood. I have tried to explain this to people before and they have disagreed with me.
Thank you for the confirmation!
Very well said and clarified. Thank you. 😊
Yes....always used incorrectly.Amen.
Thanks mate, for clairifying!😉
Very enlightening. I’ve always thought it meant what people routinely believe, but your angle is much more reasonable and valid.
The only question I have is what kinds of witnesses? Eye witnesses? Or witnesses who can testify to the circumstances. If the accused assaulted someone of the opposite sex, and the witness was in another room, and only heard screams and perhaps saw torn clothing, is that valid?
Great question. It doesn’t have to be an eye-witness.
@@riverwildcat1 what a strange question. This is very significant perspective you are displaying. how do you feel this relates to jurisprudence? Please express so we rational people can understand the value of your philosophy.
@ That’s not a strange question at all. The exact definition of “witnesses”, and what constitutes actual evidence - as opposed to hearsay - is vital to jurisprudence. No doubt there were rules about this back in the day.
@@riverwildcat1 his description of the church as being an arbitration of elders is the problem. Now you're talking about something to do with civil jurisprudence. It's bizarre how your supposed brains are working. When you bring A grievance of sin amongst brethren, the matter is brought to the elders of the community because the parties are supposed to be honest witnesses testifying. The matter is to be settled amongst civil brethren. There is no room to evade. Obviously. So your whole approach on these topics is
bizarre
Wow. I misunderstood that, too. Context is everything. People tend to cherrypick verses.
Amen 🙆♀️
Excellent point.
Nope. He is using bad semantics to promote a false doctrine. No shortage of this. Is there bad fruit of this doctrine? It's an essential concept to discredit the rational church.
@StalkedHuman How do you figure?
@@donaldjoy4023 people feeling their church is the right church is a problem because of the subjective nature of their definition. It's just any gang. Isn't that obviously? The scripture is quite declarative In defining it as where two or three gather in the name Yeshua. (Yahweh our righteousness ) Here where we gather in the name of Yeshua we can testify to what we mean. We can lie about what we mean to each other? To what effect, and to what value? We who gather in the name of Christ should agree. We can establish what we will. And we should be reasonable in our beliefs. If we are in conflict, we are still established. We are witness to our disagreement. The church is the immutable and irrational elders? We establish the dispute
@@donaldjoy4023 wow, I just typed all that for nothing . That's not nice. I said that the gathering in the name of Christ is a rational doctrine that promote the rationality of the concept of unions. If one concludes it is the gathering of their denomination outside of the direct semantics of this simple statement of Christ.. we have of extra values coming from where? He has added meaning without substantiating the claim 🛄 so we are to accept his deferment to his authority. This conflict will be witnessed. Me and you can gather in the name of Christ and you can testify to my falsity of claim. We can witness you defer to the elders of your church.
@@StalkedHuman His contextualizing makes perfect sense to me.
The Church teaches that the Lord is truly present in a special way (1) where two or three are present in his name (2) in his Word - particularly when his Word is read out publicly by believers (3) in the Eucharist. That does not mean that the Lord is not also present in other ways. Creation declares the presence of the Creator. The Lord is present in all that he has created. He is also present to the individual believer when he prays alone.
Chose those that worship in truth and deed to pray with; we are usually in the same mind: Jesus wisdom! If I'm going to have two or three pray with myself, I first seek confidence in agreement then we can pray and Jesus will do it for us!
I thought you presented a valid point, but I thought you might go in a little bit of a direction with this passage.
I think another misunderstood part of this passage is verse 17 where Jesus says “…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.” - Matthew 18:17.
This passage is talking about excommunicating an unrepentant sinner for sure, but what think people misunderstand is that they come away from this thinking that once someone has been put out of the church Jesus then gives permission to treat that person with unloving disdain. But when you think about it a little harder, ask the question: how did Jesus treat Gentiles and Tax Collectors (or as some translations read “sinners”)? Did he treat them with unloving disdain? No. He instead loved them, even in the middle of their sins and alienation from God. He went to the cross for them, and for you and me too.
This passage when taken in context with the gospel our Lord preached, is not a grant of permission to eventually treat people with hatred. Is it saying to put them and the sin they sadly cling to outside the church? Yes. Is it saying to stop loving them and start hating them? Absolutely not.
From the passage, it's pretty clear that the interpretation you gave is correct.
This doesn't mean that the application of these two verses couldn't be justly utilized for another situation, such as a marriage.
I've never heard these verses used as a justification for not joining a larger, organized, church congregation.
‘…two or three GODLY witnesses….’
Nowhere in the new testament are we commanded to build alters or church buildings.
Yes .
Chances are if we don't have Holy Spirit we don't have spiritual understanding, we only have understanding in the fleshly mind! I'm one with Holy Spirit, God is two, Jesus is three; if God, Jesus, has opened our eyes then we can open the eyes of them also with the Holy Spirit, if not either two things have happened, their subverted and have sin in their lives or they are not enlightened by Holy Spirit! Sin, Jesus will back off from us, no confidence and no comprehending truth until we repent and put away the sin. Got to be discerning! Binding and losing is only in our particular setting; in our circumstances! Consider a man that has his house in order, it's only in his house and his faith keeps it being pleasing to God, Jesus.
I've never heard it used by people to avoid church. I have heard it used when just a few believers are together as a means of encouragement since, even though there's not many people there, God still is.
The Bible is pretty clear about the need to fellowship. Don't recall the exact verse, nor where it's found (Hebrews maybe?), but we're told not to forsake the assembling together.
Hebrews 10:25
@lionoffireraw thanks. I don't know why I didn't come up with that. As soon as you said it, I'm like, oh yeah, that's right.
You know how I know it was the most misunderstood?
I was also misunderstanding it
The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.
Do you know the meaning of "binding" and "loosing" ?
Yes. It means to permit, or not to permit.
There is zero mention of apostolic succession.
@@lionoffireraw Do you know why Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven ?.
Too much in Scripture is taken out of context because so many are not looking at the entire chapter.. thank you Matt.
Lukewarm, Revelation 3:16 ,is also widely misunderstood. Blessings brother
Good video idea 👍🏼
Don’t really need an excuse to not attend church. I have been desperate for one for months now. Finding one that is suitable (conservative evangelical) that is interested enough to respond to help with social anxiety and isolation has probed impossible. Not having private transport doesn’t help. The Church is fractured and sin abounds. The only mob who have offered pastoral care have been the JWs (as a result of a neighbour), and of course I could not accept their theology. Pray for the Church, it needs it.
I feel you 😔
Matthew 7:1-2 is probably the most misunderstood as far as pure quantity goes (because of the unbelieving world)
it drives me crazy to hear people spout this verse! when you try to bring up the total context, ooooo, do they get mad!!!
Thank you Matt. I was told the same version as everyone else. It’s insane how scripture can be misinterpreted. I downloaded the Matthew Henry app because of your suggestion. I appreciate and pray for you. 🙏🏽✝️🤍
God bless you 😃
Matt, do you think Christians should watch horror movies? I watch a ton of them and feel guilty. I've seen some really bad stuff.
I've also seen some true gore on the internet. I have a morbid curiosity. I think it might have something to do with the fact that I was badly abused as a child. I would appreciate your advice.
Verse numbers are simply left over from scribes as a tool for hand writing copies reliably, and so the devil has us deceived. There's barely a true follower to be found among the crowd of fakes if you regularly read chapters to gain the truth revealed.
Guilty.🙋🏾♂️
While I'm sure in light of the context of all the verse that you're right in your assessment but I don't see why it couldn't mean that in ANY circumstance where 2 or 3 are gathered in "HIS" Name that CHRIST would be there as well?
The general problem when interpreting Scripture is almost everyone reads it out of context. Go back to chapter 17 and read into 18. Jesus isn't speaking to the general public like the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is speaking to the disciples. The Apostles or the disciples aren't the general public. So when Jesus in Matthew 18:15-20 is talking about 2 or 3 He's talking about those in Church leadership ( bishops). We know this from verse 18. Only the Apostles have this ability to bind and loose. Hence, Jesus is talking about the Magesterium of the Catholic Church. Remember, at Pentecost not all "believers" received the Holy Spirit through tongues of fire. God bless
The catholic church does not have ultimate authority in scriptural interpretation. That is only a belief.
Acts 2:2-3. ....tongues like fire rested on each of them ...v3 and All were filled with the Holy Spirit.
12 apostles, 12 were filled with the Spirit.
@decoydave Then what do you do with 1 Timothy 3:15?
@@richardounjian9270 you do what is says
@@decoydave In your initial comment you appear to reject what it says?
The Church is the Congregation or Assembly of Messianic Believers.
No, Luke 17:21 is the most understood verse by far.
It means an authorised church, the one authorised church that jesus christ gave to the apostles and built on Simon. There is only one authorised apostolic church that jesus christ created I'll let you figure it out which church it is.
He didn’t build a church on Peter. It was built on Christ! The universal body of believers.
@lionoffireraw he did then there is no reason for jesus to change Simon's name to rock cephas. You now have to explain why jesus christ change Simon's name for no reason. And secondly that's only half of what the church is the second half of the church is the authoritative of the church that's the apostles