If you would like to catch up on some recent posts, here is a place where you can easily access some posts you might have missed. I hope it helps… enjoy.
Continue readingA quick look back
Featured
2
The Accuser
The first reading today is one that often generates lots of questions. Here is the first reading and I suspect you can easily guess the types of questions:
“One day, when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, Satan also came among them. And the LORD said to Satan, “Whence do you come?” Then Satan answered the LORD and said, “From roaming the earth and patrolling it.” And the LORD said to Satan, “Have you noticed my servant Job, and that there is no one on earth like him, blameless and upright, fearing God and avoiding evil?” But Satan answered the LORD and said, “Is it for nothing that Job is God-fearing? Have you not surrounded him and his family and all that he has with your protection? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his livestock are spread over the land. But now put forth your hand and touch anything that he has, and surely he will blaspheme you to your face.” And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand upon his person.” So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD. (Job 1:6–12)
- What is Satan doing in the heavenly court?
- Why is God letting Satan “go to town” on Job?
- Is this like a heavenly “bet” between God and Satan, almost akin to the gods of Olympus getting ready to torment some poor mortal?
As the first reading continues, we discover the way in which Job’s world is “coming apart at the seams.” But he never blasphemes the Lord. I always imagine it is with great resignation that Job simply says, “Naked I came forth from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I go back again. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD!” In all this Job did not sin, nor did he say anything disrespectful of God.” (Job 1:6–12)
The setting for the opening chapter is like an ancient monarch holding court. He is surrounded by the “sons of God.” In ancient mythology these were originally lesser divine beings, but in the Bible they are the servants and attendants of God. To imagine them as angels, in the sense of later Christian theology, is probably an anachronism for the divine author of Job.
Among the “sons of God” is not “Satan” but “the Satan” (haśśāṭān) This is not a proper name, as in later Christian theology, but rather describes an office and a function: “the adversary.” It is a fair question to ask if the Satan is a member of the heavenly court, an intruder, or a member of the court who seems to have been God’s investigative agent checking up on things around the world – or perhaps the investigating attorney. What is clear is that across the breadth of the Old Testament the Satan is not associated with diabolos. The context of uses in other places suggest that the best understanding of the use in Job is as “the accuser.” Then again, it is less clear who is being accused, Job or God.
As readers, we are aware of Job’s integrity; the text informs us that God is also aware of it, and in fact takes pride in Job (v. 8). The Satan is skeptical and, in front of the whole heavenly court, suggests that Job is virtuous simply because he gets something out of it. If Job were to lose all these blessings, what would he say then? He would flagrantly curse God. In the context of a shame culture, Yahweh’s honor is now involved and has a stake in the outcome. The Satan is allowed to put Job to the test, something he hastens to do.
What just happened? I’d suggest that the heavenly scene provides an open forum in which God permits the testing of Job. That is, the plan to test Job was not hatched in a secret meeting between God and the Satan. Rather it was decided openly before the heavenly assembly. In this setting Yahweh’s motivation, based on his complete confidence in Job, was fully known and thus it was above question. This is important, for the author has a doubly difficult task throughout his work: continually to characterize Job as innocent and not to characterize Yahweh as demonic or capricious.
Was this a wager? There are scholars who think so, but across Scripture, wagers tend to have a sum or prize to be handed over to the winner. The single issue at stake was the motivation for Job’s upright behavior and his fear of God. The Satan functions as God’s servant, solely an instrument in the testing and God is ultimately responsible for all that happens.
In the end, the Book of Job is a wonderful example of Wisdom Literature whose language and theme are common across the ancient Near East. It explores that enduring question and challenge of why bad things happen to good people. Take a moment to watch this video that offers several different insights about God’s response to Job.
Image credit: WordPress AI generated based on the text of the post
A Call for Change
This coming Sunday is the 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Lectionary Cycle A. In this section of the Gospel according to Matthew we encounter Jesus in Holy Week amidst an on-going dialogue with the chief priests and elders. These folk are not happy with Jesus as just the day before he had upset the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple area. When Jesus returned to the Temple the following day, the leaders of Judaism were there with questions about the authority with which Jesus takes such bold and prophetic actions (and interrupts the commerce of the Temple).
Last week’s gospel (parable of the Two Sons) occurs in the shadow of Jesus’ question to the leaders about the bold and prophetic ministry of John the Baptist. Jesus asks “by what authority” did John baptize? Was it of heavenly or earthly origin? As mentioned in a previous post the leaders’ silence reveals their uncommitted reasoning leading to a lack of answer. They do not answer because they do not want the on-lookers to question their authority. Their silence is not to advance or retard the Kingdom of God, but to preserve the status quo. They will not change their status, their minds, or their hearts.
Embedded in the prophetic actions and calls of John and Jesus is exactly that – a call for change. The call for a change of heart comes from a heavenly authority. In their silence, the leaders abdicate not only their authority from “the chair of Moses,” but also their own entrance into the Kingdom.
Eugene Boring has pointed out that there is a strong structural parallel between the parables of the “Two Sons” and that of “The Lord’s Vineyard.”
| The Two Sons | Common element | The Lord’s Vineyard |
| 21:28a | Jesus’ introductory word | 21:33a |
| 21:28b–30 | The parable | 21:33b–39 |
| 21:31a | Jesus’ question | 21:40 |
| 21:31b | Their self-incriminating response | 21:41 |
| 21:31c | Jesus’ concluding pronouncement of judgment | 21:42–43 [44] |
Image credit The Parable of the Wicked Tenants, Maarten Van Valckenborch, c. 1585, Kunsthistorisches Museum | Public Domain PD-US
True Humility
“For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted;” a familiar verse from Luke. But that doesn’t tell us what true humility is. Merriam Webster defines humility as freedom from pride or arrogance. That’s a start; it tells us what humility is not and by implication tells us what not to do in life. St. Bonaventure offered that humility is the guardian and gateway to all the other virtues. So, humility is important for being in this life and getting to the next.
St. Francis of Assisi says this of humility: for what a person is before God, that he is and no more. (Admonition 19). I like that saying – but it is more reminder than definition. I think we need to put some “meat on the bones,” something that will guide us into what to do or how to be.
Of course we could all take a moment and think of people in our life that we consider humble. We can consider the traits and characteristics of that person that makes us conclude they are a humble person – not just meek, shy, retiring or quiet, but humble. The Christian writer C. S. Lewis offers that: “True humility is not thinking less of yourself; it is thinking of yourself less.” I sat with that a while this week and came up with a list that might reflect Lewis’ thought. The list is not complete, but only a start.
- A humble person has lots to brag about, but he doesn’t boast. He or she might share accomplishments from their life, but for a purpose that has nothing to do with self-aggrandizement. The humble person is just as interested in your accomplishments.
- A humble person can be corrected because they know that life ever operates in the sphere of learning. As my dad would say, “Every man is your better because you can learn something from them.”
- A humble person serves willingly because the motivation is knowing that the one served will be better off.
- A humble person knows the difference between being a leader and being the boss.
- A humble person will choose gentleness before strength, will act the same with the poor and the rich, the young and the old, the friend and the foe – will act with compassion and purpose.
- The humble person pursues greatness. While one might be content in many things, the humble person is not content with their own character. The humble person always seeks greater wisdom, a deeper capacity to love, a balance, and a wholeness…or in our church lexicon – holiness.
- The humble person is in charge of their lives – even when they choose to follow, to be obedient, and take the path less desirable.
- Here’s one I think is very important. The humble person is condescending.
Did he just say, “condescending?” Yes, I did. When most people hear that word, they think of showing a patronizing or superior attitude toward others. But I am talking about the original meaning from the Latin condescendere – to come down so as to be with or to accompany or to serve.
The ultimate condescendere was Jesus being born as one of us. Coming from the Heavenly kingdom to, as St. John literally wrote, “to pitch his tent among us.” Jesus came down to serve us and to do so humbly. I think all of the characteristics of humility above – and more – apply to Jesus. In our second reading, the Letter to the Philippians (2:3-11), St. Paul writes:
Do nothing out of selfishness or out of vainglory; rather, humbly regard others as more important than yourselves, each looking out not for his own interests, but (also) everyone for those of others. Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.
Obedient to death – giving his life for our sins, for our salvation, paying the price – truly thinking not of himself, but of us. Sacrificing everything, never knowing if we would accept and embrace his gift of redemption. His humility to the plan of his heavenly Father brought Jesus to disgrace in the eyes of the power of the world.
Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
There you have it. Some thoughts on humility. Take some time today and make your own list on what it means to be humble and how you plan to walk through this life in humility. You have examples in the people you admire.. You have the testimony of the life of Jesus in Scripture. You have what you need to begin to change the way we think. Then what we think, becomes the words we speak. The words we speak become the actions of our lives. Those actions become our habits. Habits become character. Character becomes who we are as we stand before God. For we are that and nothing more.
Amen
Image credit: Parable of the Two Sons, Andrei Monorov, 2012 | CC BY SA 4.0 |
What Next?
This coming Sunday is the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time: 31 Which of the two did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.
It seems that the tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you – at least the chief priests and elders are entering. But then there is a question how much is implied here by proagō, “go before.” There are a couple of possibilities:
- At a minimum it means a reversal of priorities, with the chief priests and elders admitted but only after the sinners have been welcomed in. In that case they must endure the humiliation of being led, “shown the way” (a possible sense of proagō; cf. 2:9) by those they have regarded as beyond the pale.
- But in 8:11–12 the fate of the “sons of the kingdom” was not merely demotion but exclusion, and while proagō normally implies that the other person will follow (cf. 14:22; 26:32; 28:7), in the wider context of Matthean statements about the future for Israel’s leaders many interpreters conclude that it implies here “get there first” and so “take the place of.” In the parable of 25:1–12 those who go in first enjoy the feast, but the door is shut before the others get there. And in 7:21–23 the fate of those who do not “do the will of my Father” is to be excluded from the kingdom of heaven.
- Exclusion is not explicit here, but it would be hazardous to argue from the choice of the verb proagō that here there is, unusually, hope for the ultimate salvation of those who have rejected God’s call—unless, of course, like the good son, they subsequently change their minds, and respond to the preaching of righteousness as the tax collectors and prostitutes have done.
32 When John came to you in the way of righteousness, you did not believe him; but tax collectors and prostitutes did. Yet even when you saw that, you did not later change your minds and believe him.
One should not forget that this parable is preceded by Jesus’ question about John the Baptist and from where came his (authority) to baptize. It is a remarkable testimony to the high view of John the Baptist in this gospel that whereas previously Jesus had condemned those who refused to believe and respond to his own message (11:20–24; 12:41–42), he now places rejection of John’s ministry on the same level.
Those previous denunciations were of unbelief in Galilee, where Jesus had himself been active. Our narrative is located in Judea, where according to this gospel’s story-line he has not previously been heard, and so he speaks now of John as his southern predecessor and “colleague”, to whose call Jerusalem had responded before he himself took up the mission in the north (3:5).
The repentance and its appropriate “fruit” which John demanded according to 3:7–10 matches closely the Matthean sense of “righteousness.” John came to show people how to live according to God’s will, and those who “believed” him repented and were baptized. They included especially the less respectable members of Jewish society, for whom repentance was an obvious need, and perhaps for that reason the chief priests and elders saw themselves as not in need of such “righteousness” as it was something they assumed they already possessed. The obvious and enthusiastic response of the common people should have caused them to change their mind later.
If they refused John’s call because they are unable to discern that John was “of God,” then it is not likely that they will attribute heavenly authority to Jesus.
Image credit: Parable of the Two Sons, Andrei Monorov, 2012 | CC BY SA 4.0 |
The answer… or at least an answer
This coming Sunday is the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time. This parable is about doing the will of God (v. 31). The question, “What is God’s will for my life?” is one that Christians often ask. However, answering that question with an unreflective “obeying God and working in the fields” too easily leads to an idea that one is able to work/earn one’s salvation. But then again, relying on faith alone can reduce action to a meaningless afterthought to one’s words.
The key to this parable is the word metamelomai. Although the NAB (Catholic Bible) translates it with the sense of changing one’s mind,” (vv. 29, 32) that is not the most literal understanding of this word. Usually the idea of “changing one’s mind” or “repenting” is conveyed by the Greek word metanoeo. One wonders if Matthew’s use of the word metamelomai points to something more subtle.
The prefix meta = “change” begins both words. The verb noeo is related to activities of the mind (nous). The verb melo has the sense “to care for,” so we might translate metamelomai as “changing what one cares about” or “to change what one is most concerned about.” – or desires. It could be that v.29 might be translated as: “He answering said, “I am not willing,” but later having a change of heart, he went.”
We might say of the religious leaders of v. 32, “They would not change their hearts” – or to use an OT phrase: “Their hearts were hard.”
31 Which of the two did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.
The question that Jesus posed is now filled out: the chief priests and elders are required to adjudicate between the two brothers. For “doing the will of” God distinguishes mere profession from active compliance, and so here it suitably distinguishes between the attitudes of the two sons. Jesus’ question thus allows only one reasonable answer, which the Jewish leaders duly provide, but, like David in his response to Nathan’s parable (2 Sam 12:5–7), in so doing they provide Jesus with the ammunition he needs to mount an attack in v. 32 on their own inconsistency. First, however, he spells out its consequences.
The Jewish leaders (like the second son) claimed to be living in obedience to God’s law, and kept themselves strictly apart from those who (like the first son) made no such claim. It was Jesus’ interest in such “tax collectors and sinners” (Luke 15:1–2) which gave rise to another parable about two sons (Luke 15:11–32). In this gospel the “underclass” of Jewish society have also been described as “tax collectors and sinners” (9:10, 11; 11:19), and on two occasions the Jewish tax collectors have been even more dismissively linked with Gentiles (5:46–47; 18:17). The substitution of “prostitutes” here for either “sinners” or “Gentiles” gives an even more offensive comparison, especially in so male-dominated a society as first-century Palestine. These are the people whom the chief priests and elders most despise and most heartily thank God that they were not like (cf. Luke 18:11). They had no place in respectable, religious Jewish society — how much less in the kingdom of God. So when Jesus speaks not only of their entering God’s kingdom but also going in there first, he is making a no less radical pronouncement than when he spoke of Gentiles coming into the kingdom of heaven to sit with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob while the “sons of the kingdom” found themselves outside (8:11–12).
Image credit: Parable of the Two Sons, Andrei Monorov, 2012 | CC BY SA 4.0 |
Which of the two did his father’s will?
This coming Sunday is the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time. On a more technical note, the answer to the question depends on the text you read. There is considerable variation in the manuscripts (MSS) and other older texts for the form of the parable and the subsequent answer to Jesus’ question.
There are three main variants: (a) The first son refuses and then goes; the second promises and then fails; and the leaders approve the first. (b) The first promises and then fails; the second refuses and then goes; and the leaders approve the second. (c) The first refuses and then goes; the second promises and then fails; and the leaders approve the second. [There are cultures in which the very act of saying “no” to one’s father is a far greater offense than not doing what the father asks. But it is perhaps that both sons need to change.] Scott (Hear Then the Parable) suggests that both sons are wrong. Scott frames it in the sense of honor — a son who publicly says “no” to his father is shaming his father.
When the parable hearer is asked to choose between the two sons, a dilemma arises. Both sons have insulted the father, one by saying no, the other by saying yes but doing nothing. But one comes to the family’s aid by going into the vineyard and upholding family solidarity, while the other maintains the family’s good name by appearing on the surface to be a good son. Would the father choose to be publicly honored and privately shamed, or publicly shamed and privately honored? In the first century C.E. that is not much of a choice. The real question is with which one he would be more angry. But in being forced to choose, he must choose between the apparent and the real, between one who appears to be inside the family and one who appears to be outside. [p. 84]
That being said, the third variants [c] has the Jewish leaders approving words rather than deeds. This puts them in a bad light even before Jesus comments on their behavior, and it may have been for that reason that some scribes and translators preferred this reading that makes the Jewish leaders speak in the very way that Jesus will charge them with having acted. But this last option can hardly have been the original intention of the story, since Jesus’ response does not challenge their answer, but rather charges them with not having lived up to it. Their reading of the story, he implies, is right, but their correct thinking is belied by their actual behavior. The reading as translated in our text is agreed by most commentators to represent the original form of the story and response.
Image credit: Parable of the Two Sons, Andrei Monorov, 2012 | CC BY SA 4.0 |
The Parable Of The Two Sons
This coming Sunday is the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time: 28 “What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and went. 30 The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did his father’s will?”
When Jesus asks what the leaders think (21:28) one has to hear the question in the context of their previous refusal to answer a question about the person and ministry of John the Baptist. Jesus does not allow their previous strategic silence to pass into obscurity. Since the new question is about characters in a story, it is indirect, and the leaders cannot avoid answering it. Their own answer will likely expose the weakness of their human authority.
Matthew, more than the other gospels, has an emphasis on deeds (or bearing fruit). Long (Matthew) points out this emphasis:
This parable is, in its own way, a narrative depiction of Jesus’ earlier statement in the Sermon on the Mount “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my father in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). [p. 243]
The short parable of the Two Sons emphasizes that deeds are more important than words. On one level, this short parable addresses the church/synagogue tension present in Matthew’s community. The synagogue were the people who had said “Yes” to God, but who had failed to go and work. They were not doing God’s will. The church, especially with “sinful” Jesus and Gentile converts, were those who originally had said “No” to God, but who had changed their minds/hearts and did what God had asked.
However, related to this is the warning that even the church, who are now people who have said “Yes” to the Messiah, could become those who say the right words, but fail to act on them. It is a parable and warning for the people of faith then as well as today.
Image credit: Parable of the Two Sons, Andrei Monorov, 2012 | CC BY SA 4.0 |
After Hearing the Word
Every Mass is quite remarkable: God speaks to us. We listen to readings from Scripture. At the end, the lector says, “The word of the Lord,” and we respond, “Thanks be to God.” Then the priest will begin a homily. I am often tempted to then simply ask: “Now what? We’ve heard God’s word…. And now what?”
The Gospel is clear: the family of Jesus “are those who hear the word of God and act on it.” (Lk 8:21). Given the context, some think it sounds as Jesus is distancing himself from Mary and his family. But especially in Luke’s Gospel, that can’t be the point. Mary is the exemplar of one who hears God’s word and acts on it. At the Annunciation she completely disrupts whatever plans she had imagined for her life and responds: “May it be done to me according to your word.” (Lk 1:38). Mary lets the Word change her life.
Today’s Gospel comes at the end of a whole series of teachings about hearing. Jesus has just told the Parable of the Sower. The seed is the Word of God. Some seed falls on the path, some among rocks, some among thorns. But the seed that falls on good soil represents those who hear the Word, hold onto it and bear fruit. Then Jesus tells his disciples: “Take care, then, how you hear.” (Lk 8:18) And finally today Jesus is clear that the family of Jesus, that is, disciples “are those who hear the word of God and act on it.” Jesus seems to be saying that hearing is incomplete until something happens afterward.
And Proverbs makes essentially the same point in our first reading: “To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.” (Prv 21:3) Notice the word: “do”. Not merely know what is right or admire it, or talk about it, but “do.”
Think about all the Scriptures we have heard: the Beatitudes, the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, and more. We know Jesus tells us to forgive, care for the poor, love our enemies, not to judge and to take up our cross and follow him. We’ve heard the Word. We understand what Jesus said….and now what? What happened after I heard Him say it? When was the last time something I heard in Scripture actually changed something I did?
When Jesus spoke about forgiveness, did we finally make the telephone call we’d been avoiding? When Jesus spoke about the poor, did I become more generous? When Jesus spoke about loving our enemies did we begin praying for someone we dislike? When Jesus spoke about so many things, did we stop judging, stop gossiping, say “please forgive me?” That’s the difference between simply hearing Scripture and allowing the Word of God to become fruitful within us.
There is an interesting line in in the first reading from Proverbs: “Those who shut their ears to the cry of the poor will themselves call out and not be answered.” (Prv 21:13) Again, notice the ears. Perhaps hearing God’s Word also teaches us who else we need to hear: the lonely, those needing help or compassion. Maybe even the person who is trying to tell us something about ourselves that we would rather not hear.
We can hear the Word of God proclaimed beautifully in church and still walk outside and close our ears to the people the Word asks us to love. Jesus doesn’t simply say: “Blessed are those who hear.” He says: “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and act on it.”
In a few moments, we will come to this altar and receive Christ in the Eucharist. And then, at the end of Mass, we will be sent out. We will have heard the Word of God. We will have received the Body of Christ. Then we will walk through those doors and return to our families, our work, our neighborhoods, our ordinary lives. And perhaps that is when today’s Gospel really begins. Because the question isn’t simply: “Did I hear the Word of God today?” The question is: “What will I do differently because I heard it?”
Image credit: Sermon on the Mount | Carl Block, 1887 | Museum of Natural History at Frederlksborg Castle – Hillerod, Denmark | PD-US
Jesus’ authority challenged
This coming Sunday is the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time. The texts leading up to and out of our gospel are replete with questions of authority. These events all occur in what we know as Holy Week and even though Jesus had triumphantly entered the City of David, Jesus had left Jerusalem for a brief stay in Bethany. He has now returned to the Temple area where, when he left the day before, the chief priests and scribes were angry with him (cleansing of the Temple, vv.12-17.) Given the deeds of the previous day, it seems only natural that the chief priests and the elders would ask about his credentials and question his authority.
Boring (Matthew, New Interpreters Commentary) suggests this outline for this section that challenges Jesus’ authority. Note that it forms a cascade that begins and ends with a question by Jesus.
Jesus’ response to the challenge to his authority indicates two possibilities: authority can come from heaven or from humans (vv.23-25) – this will frame all that follows. Long (Matthew) says the following about the two forms of authority:
First, there is human authority. No matter how sophisticatedly it is packaged, human authority is a matter of raw power. If you have enough people behind you or guns with you, you have it, and what you say goes, period. Divine authority, on the other hand, has to do with truth, the truth of God, the truth about who God made us to be. In the short run, human authority can appear to overwhelm divine authority – even to crucify it – but, ultimately, God’s truth prevails. [p. 241]
Jesus responds to their question by asking a question. The Jerusalem leaders “discussed” or “dialogued” (dialogizomai) how they might answer Jesus. This discussion indicates that their authority came from humans.. They are concerned about what Jesus or the crowds would say or do to them. There is no indication that they prayed, asking for God’s guidance There is little concern with seeking the fullness of truth, but rather, the principle concern is if they would “lose face” (or lose “authority”) before the people.
Daniel Patte (The Gospel According to Matthew) makes this observation:
Even though the chief priests and the elders correctly view authority as something given to someone and not as an intrinsic part of someone’s being, for them once it has been received this authority characterizes that person. For them, Jesus has an authority, and with it he does certain things. By contrast, Jesus does not speak of John’s authority but rather of the authority of his baptism: “The baptism of John, whence was it”? (21:25a). In other words, authority, for Jesus, is attached to an act, to what a person does, rather than to the person. The person does not have authority; what a person does, such as the baptism performed by John, is authoritative. [p. 294]
Carter (Matthew and the Margins) comments on the response in v. 27:
So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” They choose a path of non-commitment, which, ironically, betrays their commitment. To not answer displays not genuine ignorance (their debate in 21:25 shows they know the options) but deliberate resistance. In refusing to say that John’s ministry comes from God, they reject the claim that John and Jesus have God-given authority. To refuse this recognition is to reveal their own illegitimacy. Like the Pharisees and their tradition (15:1-9), they are not God’s planting (15:13-14). They are of human origin. Jesus has now exposed and discredited the whole religious leadership. Judgment on them and their temple is inevitable. [p. 424]
All this leads to the parable that forms our Sunday gospel.
Image credit: Parable of the Two Sons, Andrei Monorov, 2012 | CC BY SA 4.0 |
Conflict in Jerusalem
This coming Sunday is the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Lectionary Cycle A. Jesus has already entered Jerusalem (Matthew 21:1 ff) and been received by the people, proclaimed as Messiah, overturned the moneychanger’s tables (21:12-17), and had his authority questioned by the chief priests and elders. Jesus is performing signs and speaking in a way that the people are interpreting as Messianic – and there is a history there. Jesus is not the first messianic figure to come to Jerusalem and the chief priests and elders want to protect the people – although they have already concluded that Jesus is another false claimant. They have been amassing charges and accusations against Jesus and are simply waiting for the opportunity to bring him to trial and be done with him.
Unique to Matthew’s gospel, this short parable was, at its basic level of development, addressed to the chief priests and elders in defense of Jesus’ penchant for associating with sinners – those deemed unrighteous by the Jerusalem authorities. This is a dynamic that has been present in the gospel according to Matthew since the days on the banks of Jordan River when the same authorities came out to question John the Baptist.
That is perhaps why this round of the many encounters begins with reference to the Baptizer:
When he had come into the temple area, the chief priests and the elders of the people approached him as he was teaching and said, “By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave you this authority?” Jesus said to them in reply, “I shall ask you one question, and if you answer it for me, then I shall tell you by what authority I do these things. Where was John’s baptism from? Was it of heavenly or human origin?” (21:23-25)
It is the Jerusalem authorities that are put on the spot. The leaders are standing (likely) in the midst of people who responded to John’s proclamation and the good news proclaimed in Jesus’ words and works. How will they respond to this challenge to “fish or cut bait?” They are leaders of this ancient faith – how will they live out that faith? This is part and parcel of a theme popular in the Matthean gospel: faith that is spoken, but not lived, is empty. Calling out, “Lord, Lord” is not sufficient; the will of the Father must also be accomplished (see Matthew 7:21-23; 12:50;23:3-4). Promises and profession must be matched by performance.
Image credit: Parable of the Two Sons, Andrei Monorov, 2012 | CC BY SA 4.0 |
