...Like A Gentile Or Tax Collector (part 13 of 13)

However, something disturbing happens.  “After he went out, that same slave found one of his fellow slaves who owed him one hundred silver coins.  So he grabbed him by the throat and started to choke him, saying ‘Pay back what you owe me!’” (Matthew 18:28).  Applying this parable to Israel’s historical narrative, Israel, forgiven by their God and restored to their land and supposedly re-committed to their role to be the Creator God’s light-bearer to the nations, once again closed ranks.  Gentiles, who had certainly been tools in the hands of Israel’s God to chastise Israel, but who had also been used by that same God to restore Israel to its land and to rebuild its Temple, were again looked up as enemies by the covenant people.  

By Jesus’ day, the barriers of exclusion had again been raised, and Israel was concerned only with their position as their God’s covenant people and with their God acting on their behalf to establish His kingdom for them and set them above all nations.  Gentiles were not only not their concern of course, but they were widely understood to be a source and locus of defilement.  At the time of Matthew’s composition, the ongoing battle within the church was whether or not Gentiles had to accede to the ancient covenant markers of Judaism (circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath keeping) in order to fully participate in the covenant.  That, presumably, and playing off the parable, was the debt that they owed to the Jews.  They had failed to understand that they were the slaves that had been forgiven a great debt, and now they carried an obligation to extend that forgiveness to their fellow slaves, the Gentiles. 

Predictably and not unlike the first slave had done when confronted with his debt and its consequences, “his fellow slave threw himself down and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will repay you.’  But he refused.  Instead, he went out and threw him in prison until he repaid the debt” (18:29-30).  Continuing to draw the analogy then, while Gentiles had been locked away from participation in the covenant, Jesus goes to them (metaphorically---they generally came to Him) and brings them within its fold.    

However, this was not a universal situation.  Not all were guilty.  One must continue to recognize the multiple levels on which this is being heard (by Jesus’ original hearers and by the church communities in the late first century), acknowledging that some had understanding and were accepting of the non-exclusive (when it came to who could participate and who could not) kingdom message that Jesus had brought.  Consequently, “When his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were very upset and went and told their lord everything that had taken place.  Then his lord called the first slave and said to him, ‘Evil slave!  I forgave you all that debt because you begged me!  Should you not have shown mercy to your fellow slave, just as I showed it to you?’” (18:31-33) 

Now, this is not a judgment against the Jews, but rather an illustration of the historical situation, while also being an illustrated sermon of what Jesus has said is demanded of His people.  With the final words of this parable it is made clear what is the response of the God of Israel to those that fail to treat an offending brother as a Gentile or tax collector (according to what has been seen as the way that Jesus treats them), or if one fails to offer unending forgiveness to their covenant brethren.  Matthew writes: “And in anger his lord turned him over to the prison guards to torture him until he repaid all he owed.  So also my heavenly Father will do to you, if each of you does not forgive your brother from your heart” (18:34-35).  As forgiveness and love form the functional basis for relationships within the body that calls Jesus Lord, all believers do well to consider themselves fortunate enough to be considered as Gentiles and tax collectors, while also having the opportunity to consider others as Gentiles and tax collectors as well.        

...Like A Gentile Or Tax Collector (part 9)

Jesus goes on to add: “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.  Again, I tell you the truth, if two of you on earth agree about whatever you ask, my Father in heaven will do it for you.  For where two or three are assembled in My name, I am there among them” (Matthew 18:18-20).  It is following these assertions by Jesus that Peter, who is clearly presented by Matthew as making the connection between what Jesus has said about treating a brother as a Gentile or tax collector, binding and releasing and agreeing together, and the need for there to be an ongoing willingness to forgive as a marker of those that are part of Jesus’ messianic movement, asks Jesus his famous question about the quantity of forgiveness that need be on offer, suggesting that surely seven charitable acts of forgiveness ought to be enough.  Of course, based on what the audience of Matthew knows about Jesus’ demeanor and His dealings with all and sundry, there would be little astonishment to hear Jesus insist that forgiveness is to be extended “Not seven times… but seventy-seven times!” (18:22b) 

Now, some translations render Jesus phrase as “seventy times seven.”  Either way, it would have been well understood that Jesus has indicated that there is to be no end to forgiveness among brethren.  However, there are some historical considerations to be made here, which may serve to underscore an actual usage of “seventy-seven” (putting aside the importance of any use of 490 in the mind of a member of the nation of Israel in the first century).  Bear in mind that this Gospel, perhaps more than all the rest, reaches back into Israel’s Scriptures in order to shed greater light on Jesus’ status and His ministry, especially as the author goes to great lengths to show Jesus forth as the new Moses. 

Along with that, it has been well-established that Jesus’ words and deeds only make sense in the light of the history of Israel, as presented in its Scriptures.  Furthermore, Jesus’ presumptive audience would have been well-versed in Israel’s history, and based on the construction of this Gospel, the same should be presumed for Matthew’s audience.  Finally, when Jesus quotes Scripture to His hearers, or when the author quotes Scripture for his hearers in order to reinforce something that Jesus has said or to shape their thinking along certain lines, those quotations are not an isolated choosing of a statement that fits a certain need, but that single quote is designed to call an entire narrative to the minds of the hearers. 

Why make these points?  It is because of the uses of “seventy-seven” that are to be found in Scripture.  If one surmises and presumes (altogether reasonably) that Jesus is careful with His use of words, that Matthew is careful with the construction of his narrative and with those words of Jesus that he includes in that narrative, and a general familiarity on the part of the two audience’s (Jesus’ and Matthew’s) with the Scriptures that tell the story of Israel (from which they derived their sense of identity), then it is worthwhile to review those uses. 

The first use is found in the foundational story of Scripture, which is Genesis.  A verse in the fourth chapter reads “You wives of Lamech, hear my words!  I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for hurting me.  If Cain is to be avenged seven times as much, then Lamech seventy-seven times!” (4:23b-24)  Surely, this use of “seventy-seven” in connection with a wrong done and vengeance (without getting into the nature or direction of that vengeance, or the motivation for his words) would have some bearing on Jesus’ use of “seventy-seven” when speaking about wrongs done and forgiveness---dissuading any desire for vengeance. 

Joseph & Jesus (part 2)

A bit later, “they looked up and saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead” (37:25b).  We should note that “Ishmaelites” would have been family.  These men would have been related to this group through their great-uncle Ishmael, the brother of their grandfather, Isaac.  This adds an interesting kinship dynamic to the story to go along with the honor competition.  It is said that the Ishmaelites were heading to Egypt, so Judah said “What profit is there if we kill our brother and cover up his blood?  Come, let’s sell him to the Ishmaelites, but let’s not lay a hand on him, for after all, he is our brother, our own flesh” (37:26b-27a).  His brothers agreed to this and struck the deal.  Theoretically, by not killing him, and merely selling him as a slave, his brothers believed that they would have not have his blood on their hands.  We then go on to learn that Reuben was not a party to this, with the narrative indicating that he was quite dismayed upon learning that this had occurred.

Thinking back to the connection between the lives of Joseph and Jesus, we can see that link in the continuing demonstration of Joseph’s brothers’ animosity towards him.  When Jesus is betrayed by Judas, he is betrayed to Jewish leaders.  Ethnically, these would have been Jesus’ brethren.  With the honor and kinship model at play in the ancient world, it would indeed be something of a rare occurrence for members of Israel to willingly turn a fellow Israelite, and especially a messianic claimaint and potential king over to their foreign subjugators.  Thus, the honor competition, and Jesus’ apparent unwillingness to align His movement (and therefore His potential throne) with the powers-that-be of the day, trumped the broad familial tie.  Again, Jesus would accrue too much of the limited good of honor to Himself, and Jesus had not brought any of the ruling authorities into his circle of patronage and clientage.  Thus, He was not only of no use to them, but He also needed to be removed from the honor competition altogether.  Accordingly, they sought to kill Jesus. 

With that desire at play, they were able to successfully bring a charge of blasphemy against Him, which would merit the death penalty.  However, they did not carry out the execution themselves.  Yes, there were restraints on the execution of capital punishment, but this was clearly a special circumstance, and Jesus’ blood was not going to be on their hands.  Rather, they drew Jesus out of the metaphorical (and possibly literal) pit into which he had been placed, and carried Him to the Romans, in order to bring about His demise.  In a sense then, much like Joseph’s brothers believed to be the case when they handed their brother over to those that were effectively foreigners (though related), if the Romans also found Him guilty and carried out the sentence of death, then Jesus’ blood was on them.

Changing gears a bit, and fitting the two stories of Joseph and Jesus into the encompassing Scriptural themes of exile and exodus, it could be said that the entrance of Joseph into Egypt was the beginning of the people of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.  His presence there marked the beginnings of the first exile from the land of promise, which would be rectified by the exodus under the leadership of Moses a few hundred years later.  Just as Joseph was sold into Egypt by the Ishmaelites, to whom he had been handed by his brothers, Jesus was effectively sold into the exile of death by the Romans, to whom He had been handed by His brethren. 

Though sold into Egypt as a slave, we know that Joseph did not remain a slave.  He first found favor in the house of Potiphar, and then found favor in the eyes of the warden of the prison into which he had been unjustly cast.  Finally, due to what is said to be the Creator God of Israel’s gift to him of dream interpretation, Joseph found favor in the eyes of Pharaoh.  As the story goes, owing to the Spirit that was to be found in Joseph, Pharaoh said to him, “Because God has enabled you to know all this, there is no one as wise and discerning as you are!  You will oversee my household, and all my people will submit to your commands.  Only I, the king, will be greater than you”  (Genesis 41:39b-40). 

Thoughts of Jesus should not be too far removed from our mind upon reading these purported words from Pharaoh.  Bringing in some early post-Christ-era reflections on Jesus, what do we find in the Ephesians letter?  “And God put all things under Christ’s feet, and He gave Him to the church as head over all things” (1:22).  This is thought to be so because the great and powerful Creator God “raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly realms, far above every rule and authority and power and dominion and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come” (1:20b-21).  This is set forth alongside the idea that there was a people of God, a household of faith, chosen “in Christ before the foundation of the world” (1:4a)---a worldwide family of divine image-bearers that had always been the intention of the Creator.  It is these people, identified by their adherence to the Gospel of Jesus, and their submission to its claim that Jesus Christ is Lord of all, that faithfully submit to the commands of Jesus to love one another and to preach the message of the Gospel, through the enabling power of the Holy Spirit.  There is a household to be overseen.