The Rule of Christ

Year A + Proper 18 (RCL)

Matthew 18:15-20

Radio and television preachers are a lot like politicians – they think they have to say what their audience wants to hear, or they will lose their ratings (and their jobs). That makes it easy for them to stake out a position and dig in their heels. They hope that, in so doing, a majority of their listeners will support them (and keep sending money).

Jesus was the opposite of this. He never hesitated to tell people things that they did not want to hear. Today’s gospel is a good example. The Jewish laws of justice, retribution, and compensation were very elaborate and clear. If you offended someone or harmed them in some way, you had to pay a specific price in order to make amends.

In some denominations, such as the Old Order Amish and Mennonites, a person who violates the sense of the community, and refuses to repent, is shunned – not only denied membership in the community, but actually considered dead. Roman Catholic canon law required a similar punishment as the most extreme form of excommunication until 1983.

Today’s passage from the Gospel of Matthew has sometimes been used to justify this practice, or others less severe but just as one-sided.

The fundamental question for us is this: was Jesus telling us that some members of the church could or should be kicked out? If so, what are the criteria for deciding when to do this, and for determining which party to a dispute is in the wrong?

The Rule of Christ, as this passage is often called, is actually focused on setting things right, not triumphing over an adversary.

It rests on a foundation of reconciliation and caring about the welfare of the person who has offended. In addition, Jesus is more interested in the health of the community, the ecclesia (Greek for “assembly” or “church”) than that of any one person – and that includes both the offender and the offended.

Discipleship entails sacrifice. Jesus told his followers to give up almost everything, to go out without money or food, to take only enough clothing to get by. Their mission was not to live comfortably, but to bring the Good News of the Kingdom to one and all.

But Jesus was also a realist. When he sent the disciples out two by two, he gave them permission to accept that, sometimes, their message would not be received. In those cases – and he must have expected the disciples to try everything possible before using this recourse – they were to simply walk away. Shaking the dust off their sandals was not meant to be an expression of disgust or rejection of those who would not receive the word. Rather, it was a way of saying, “get rid of everything that you are feeling about this situation; just put it behind you and learn from it.”

In the same way, the last recourse in Jesus’ Rule is that the person who has offended and utterly resisted change should be treated in a particular way: “as an outsider (Gentile, non-Jew) and a person you don’t want to associate with (tax collector).” [Matthew 18:17 ] That may seem harsher than all the rest of what Jesus has been saying, so let’s look at it closely.

How did Jesus himself treat Gentiles and tax collectors? Earlier in the Gospel of Matthew, we find one example. A Canaanite woman asked Jesus to heal her daughter. At first, Jesus said “it is not right to give the food for the children to the dogs.” [Matthew 15:21-28] It seems that he was calling her a dog and reflecting the commonly-held view of Jews of his day – that they were superior to the Gentiles. However, that did not last more than a few seconds. Jesus ended up by praising the mother (“Woman, great is your faith.” [Matthew 15:28]) and healing her daughter.

If we look closely, we see that Jesus’ relationship with Gentiles and tax collectors consisted of three things. First, he reached out to them. He went to where they were; he associated with them (though doing so sometimes violated Kosher laws); he even dined with them. In no way can we find a single example where Jesus kicked them out of his company, sent them away, or otherwise rejected them. What about tax collectors? Jesus not only associated with them, he called at least one to be a member of his inner circle.

It sometimes seems that those who say “what would Jesus do?” are people who are not really asking a question at all – they have already made up their minds, and guess what? – according to them, Jesus would do exactly what they have decided to do! If we want to know what Jesus would do in cases where a person just won’t change his opinion or make amends, we have only to look at the gospels. The only people whom Jesus rejected were the “church people” of his day – the scribes and Pharisees, the people that society assumed were the “correct” ones.

So, let’s summarize the theology of this passage from Matthew. First, the emphasis is on working out a difference for the good of the whole community. Rather than publicly disputing or accusing, the two parties are expected to meet privately and try to work things out.

If that doesn’t work, a small number of others, presumably people who are respected by both parties or who are particularly objective or good at resolving disputes, are brought in.

If that, too, fails, then the matter is brought before the whole ecclesia. Once again, the emphasis is on healing the entire community, not purging it of bad influences. The crux of Jesus’ teaching is that, if despite all this, the parties to the dispute will not agree, then they are to be treated like the very people to whom Jesus reached out the most often – Gentiles and tax collectors. The ecclesia’s response must be to eat with them, to be involved in their lives, to continue to offer them the promise of the Kingdom, and to offer them the opportunity to repent and change, seventy times seven times and more.

The clearest indication of the true meaning of this isolated passage comes when we look at what came immediately before it, and what follows it.

Matthew 18:10-14 is the parable of the Lost Sheep, in which Jesus says “If a shepherd has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray?” [Matthew 18:12] Can there be any way to read this and conclude that a community is permitted to abandon a lost sheep?

Matthew 18:21-22, which immediately follows our passage today is the brief scene in which Peter asks Jesus how many times he has to forgive his neighbor. We all know what Jesus’ answer to that was!

Taken in context, and looking closely at the fate of the offender as described by Jesus, we can see that, rather than shunning or rejecting those with whom we disagree, we are actually called to forgive without limit, to work to bring back the lost sheep, and to treat that person as a very special member of God’s Kingdom.

And why in the world should we do this?

Because we realize how easy it would be for one of us to be that lost sheep, and because we have already been taught that we will be forgiven only as much as we ourselves are willing to forgive. Amen!