Forgiveness within the Church

Before we proceed to deal with the theme of the three readings today, let me settle a curious detail --- the order of the Ten Commandments. Nowadays, the order we know goes like this: ... thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shall not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour, thou shalt not covet ... etc. (Exodus 20:13-17, Deuteronomy 5:17-21). Even between Exodus and Deuteronomy, there is a variation between Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21. Even here, it is difficult to defend the position that Moses wrote the whole of Torah. If he did, he must have been a rather poor proofreader because it is easy to spot inconsistent texts within the Pentateuch.

I have to confess that despise teaching the gospel of Mark for more than 35 years, I allow an instance of inconsistency to tease me right under my nose for so many years without noticing it! I discovered it only last night and it was rather indirect. The offending verse came from Romans 13:9. Suddenly, I noticed that the Pharisaic Paul wrote adultery, kill, steal, false witness and covet. Why? Was there any significance?
Then it dawned to me that there are also similar lists of the Ten Commandments in the gospels (Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20 and Matthew 19:18). Like Paul who wrote to Gentiles, Mark and Luke began with "adultery". Matthew begins with "kill". The discrepancy can be traced to LXX. In the Greek translation of Exodus and Deuteronomy, "adultery" goes before "kill"! Again, Exodus and Deuteronomy differ, not just in the explanation of Sabbath, but also the order of the commandments. Exodus goes like this: adultery, steal, kill, false witness, covet ...
Deuteronomy: adultery, kill, steal, false witness, covet ...
Therefore, the authors of the New Testament followed the order of Deuteronomy, except for Matthew who wrote for Jewish Christians.
The logical follow-up question to ask is why LXX translated the Ten Commandments in an order different from the Hebrew text such as MT? This is an interesting project which this limited space cannot contain. I had better return to the main theme of the three Sunday readings.

Ezekiel 33:8-9 make it the duty of believers to warn their brothers of God's punishments for the wrong things they are doing. If we evade this duty or tell a white lie out of embarrassment, God will hold us responsible for the blood of our brothers. Our duty is communal, like the duty of a watchman warning the people of the approach of enemies (vv.33:2-6). This is the basis for the teaching in Matthew 18:15-17.
In his homily, Deacon Tsang brought our attention to a similar passage in Luke 17:3-4. The treatments of the issue are totally different. Luke took forgiveness personally while Matthew communally. Matthew's approach is the same as Ezekiel's. It is for the good of the community that we reconcile. Like what Paul teaches in the Romans, love fulfills all commandments. So, it should be out of love that we reconcile. We reconcile for the good of our brothers.

In reality, our brothers may be stubborn and irreconcilable. So, Matthew outlines the procedure of reconciliation. Assuming that you are on the right side and your brother "sins against you". If you are on the wrong side, of course you should be the one to apologize. But I don't think Matthew intends to talk about personal grudges. If it were and you brought the Church in to fight on your side against your brother, it would be an abuse of church authority. You outnumber your brother with the Church. God forbids! Of course, every believer should be a peacemaker, an ambassador of reconciliation and the Church as a whole should also work as a peacemaker and ambassador of reconciliation in the world. There is no doubt about it.
If the whole issue escalates to the Church level, it must be something about faith and morality. The teaching of the Church, the Magisterium has the final say. Does "treating him as a Gentile and tax-collector (v.18:17)" mean excommunication? Not quite. Matthew himself had been a tax-collector before following Jesus and Gentiles were targets of evangelization. Excommunication is out-of-fashion nowadays. We should keep the dialogue open. A day will come for our reconciliation.

Another line of argument against understanding the conflict on the personal level comes from v.18:18. In v.16:19, Simon Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and to loose. Without v.18:18, Peter's personal power is absolute. With v.18:18, the authority to forgive is also shared by the Church. Therefore, it is impossible to interpret the whole text on the personal level, Though it is understandable that if I forgive my brother, heaven forgives because God requires us to forgive, it is mind-boggling if I refuse to forgive, I am able to mobilize the heavenly court to bind my brother! How can it be possible? It is impossible, unless it is the Church. Verse 18:20 gives us the answer. Jesus is in our midst when we gather in his name. Then the Church is able to define her articles of faith and morality. A single person cannot form a community, a community of the redeemed, the Church.

Dear Jesus, I am sorry for all the controversies and division among us. I am sorry for my arrogance and pride. Forgive me for I have offend my brethren with my arrogance and if I have become the cause of divisions, cut me short. Amen.