If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the
church. If he refuses to listen to the church, treat him like a Gentile
or a tax collector. – Matthew 18:17 (NET)
Stern words from Jesus.
The context, of course, is relationships between covenant brethren. Jesus
has said “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault when the two of you
are alone. If he listens to you, you have regained your brother.
But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you, so that at the
testimony of two or three witnesses, every matter may be established” (Matthew 18:15-16).
The introductory verse to this study follows from this statement, presenting
something resembling a system for dealing with intra-Jesus-community conflicts.
So how are these words generally
interpreted? Upon first reading, is there a thought of something along
the lines of “Yes. That’s right. If the necessary efforts have been
made, and if the response is not correct (meaning, the response is not that
which the community wishes to see), then that individual is to be marginalized
and ostracized---treated as a Gentile (or a pagan) or a tax collector, for he
is unrepentant and beyond reach”?
One could venture to say that, instinctively, especially in
light of an often all too parsed reading of Scripture, that such thoughts do
indeed tend to present themselves. In general there is a custom,
especially within the church world, to the creation of an “us vs. them”
mentality, with the “us” being those inside the church, and the “them” being
the pagans, heathens, and veritable Gentiles and tax collectors that stand
outside of and presumably opposed to the church and its claims on behalf of the
Christ and His cosmic and unquestioned Lordship of all. This treatment, though
probably stemming from a customary reading of the text, would also and unfortunately
be patently incorrect.
Without going into too much
detail, it is worth recounting that the Jews, in recognizing their role as the
Creator God’s elect and chosen covenant people, and according to the
prescriptions of the Mosaic law and the rather large assortment of traditions
grafted on to that law, kept themselves separate from Gentiles. Purity
laws, and especially those encouraged by the strictest of the orthodox in the
days of Jesus the Matthean community, demanded that there be no mixing with
Gentiles. For them, and painting with an extraordinarily broad brush,
Gentiles were those people that stood against the claims of their Creator God,
while also functioning in an ongoing role of oppressors (very much an us vs.
them mentality).
Tax collectors, of course, were
the hated group (often of their fellow countrymen) that collaborated with their
Roman oppressors to continue their ongoing exile from the place and situation
that it was believed their God had promised to them. This disdain went
well beyond the general disgust that is almost universally felt towards those
that collect taxes, as their presence and their role were constant reminders of
Israel’s covenant failures, and their God’s ongoing punishment of them as His
covenant people.
If these basic facts are taken into consideration, then it
would seem rather odd to say that an assessment of Jesus’ statement that
affirms an isolation and ostracizing of unrepentant individuals through
treating them as Gentiles or tax collectors is an incorrect statement.
Still, that statement stands, and this study resolutely denies that Jesus came
anywhere near to implying that an unrepentant individual should be isolated,
ostracized, or condemned. At the same time, His statement is unquestionably affirmed, and said individual should absolutely be treated like a Gentile or a tax collector.
No comments:
Post a Comment