Ever since Cain declared “Am I my brother’s keeper?”, it’s been clear that the answer is yes. God does hold us responsible for looking after those around us.
The extent of that responsibility is a bigger question. Sure we should help each other out, but ultimately other people are responsible for themselves – aren’t they?
God gives Ezekiel a command that goes well beyond any notion of “helping out”. Ezekiel was going to be held responsible for other people’s actions, and specifically their wrong actions. If someone else does something wrong and he fails to try and prevent them doing so, then he is going to suffer the same punishment as the wrongdoer.
That seems pretty extreme. Helping someone we think deserves our help is fine. Once it gets into dealing with people who do bad stuff then we’re more inclined to want to move away – don’t get involved – I’m not responsible. Ezekiel doesn’t get the choice – he has the responsibility whether he wants it or not.
What about the situation where not only does someone do something wrong, but it us who is harmed? Now the bad stuff is personal. What then?
Jesus takes the disciples through exactly that scenario.
First we have to try to fix it up with the person who has injured us. That’s not always easy – our natural inclination is often to not want to have anything to do with the person who has hurt us. We just want them to fess up and put it right. The brotherliness is put on hold at that point, and we may feel able to forgive them later.
Jesus points out that our responsibility to others doesn’t stop if they do something to harm us, we still have to engage. We have a responsibility to try and work it out.
So that’s kinda uncomfortable but maybe we can get there. But if the other party just blows us off? Then we are entitled to go after them! Sorry but Jesus is still going to require us to go through due process. Gather your witnesses and make your case. And yes there’s an appeal process.
At this point we need to pause and note that Jesus isn’t just making this up. The process he outlines is exactly what is found in the Jewish law, in the book of Deuteronomy (a single witness cannot be relied on so you need corroboration from multiple witnesses). So his listeners would have been following along so far. This is a bit long-winded but it’s ok, we get to payback in the end. Jewish law is based around the idea of reciprocity. If you do something bad to me, I am entitled to do the same thing back to you. We’re ok with that – it’s what we call justice.
The exact passage in Deuteronomy that Jesus quotes finishes with the famous saying “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. We should note that a key part of this law is that there is strict reciprocity – we can’t claim more than we have lost. There is no concept of exemplary damages here! It also seems a bit too crude for our tastes, typically we’re ok with compensation, we’ll pass on the eyes and the teeth – although when it comes to a death it seems we might be more inclined to revert to the strict interpretation.
Back to Jesus.
His listeners are with him so far, they know where this ends. Justice will be served.
However Jesus then veers off script. When you’ve gone through all that, and still the other party refuses to acknowledge what they have done, the final stage is – you walk away.
There is no call to punish or further attack the offender.
Like, what?? No come back, no justice, no nothing! This goes against every instinct we have.
But maybe we shouldn’t be surprised. Even at time of Ezekiel this argument was going on: “Your people say, “The way of the Lord is not fair!” But it is their way that is not fair.”
And Jesus had already made his position crystal clear. Jesus never accepted the idea of equivalent punishment. In an earlier part of Matthew’s gospel, he explicitly repudiates this approach – to the extent that you can’t even fight back when you are attacked, you should accept more blows, even invite them! The punishment should fit the crime – that doesn’t seem to be any part of Jesus’ thinking … In today’s passage the message is not so obvious, but no less extreme.
When it comes to our desire for payback, the teaching of Jesus doesn’t seem to leave a lot of wiggle room. Every fibre in us wants to argue for ‘fairness’ and people ‘getting their just deserts’. This may be a case where, in our civil society, we have no choice in following the ways of the world, because we live in the world. But Jesus is pointing to a possibility beyond that, where the command to love is absolute and pays no heed to injury done to us. He lived, and died, and rose again in that world and asks us to follow him into it.
Paul in the second reading summarizes it as “Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.” If evil is done to us then we should certainly push back – but in the end our final recourse is to walk away. Nothing more. Jesus does not give us any permission to seek punishment or retribution. Sometimes the Kingdom is very strange.