Category Archives: Scripture

Dressed for the Occasion

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 28th Sunday of Ordinary Time. This parable further clarifies not only the failure of the leaders and its consequence, but also the nature of the new “nation.” The king now extends his invitation: Then he said to his servants, ‘The feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy to come.  9 Go out, therefore, into the main roads and invite to the feast whomever you find.’

The “new nation” is symbolized now by an indiscriminate collection of people from the streets, people of no special standing, just as in Mt 21:31 it is the lowest social group who will get first into the kingdom of God. This feature of the story speaks of the universal proclamation of the good news of the kingdom of heaven.

The concept of a mixed community, within which not all will make it through to ultimate salvation, has been a recurrent feature of this gospel. Consider Matthew 7:13–27, especially the “impostors” of 7:21–23 who apparently thought they were all right, and later in Matthew’s gospel (25:1–13) where both wise and foolish bridesmaids are invited but only the wise get into the feast. Remember also Mt 13:36–43, where weeds and wheat are allowed to grow together and are separated only at the final judgment; also 13:47–50, in which good and worthless fish are gathered in the same net.

Scholars are of mixed opinion about the urgency of the “feast is ready” in v.8 as it applied to those invited when the servants scour the main road. One line of thought offers that these royal wedding feasts were several days in the making and even more in the execution. Not all guests came at the beginning nor stayed until the end. There was a great deal of coming-and-going during it all. There is no reason to suppose that, once invited, these people have no time to go home, to change their clothes, and to borrow clothes from their neighbors, if necessary.

For any such occasion guests would be expected to wear clothes that were both longer than those worn by ordinary people on working days and also newly washed. Those who could afford it would wear white, but it was sufficient for ordinary people to wear as near to white as washing their poorer quality clothes could achieve. Poor people, who might own only one patched tunic and cloak each, would often borrow clothes for occasions such as weddings or religious festivals.

How could those unexpectedly herded into the wedding hall from the main roads wear the expected clothing, which all but one of them seem to do? Again, realism is sacrificed to meaning.  However, the issue has troubled some readers, and is normally addressed by the traditional speculation (deriving from Augustine) that the host was himself responsible for providing a wedding robe, so that this man’s fault was in his refusal to accept what was freely offered. While it is a nice thought, it lacks any convincing evidence in terms of contemporary wedding customs (see the Note on 22:11). The clothing expected at a wedding was not a special garment but simply decent, clean white clothes such as anyone should have had available. In that case the man’s fault is that, even though invited to a royal wedding, he had not gone home to change into his best; to turn up in ordinary, dirty clothes was an insult to the host. The symbolism is of someone who presumes on the free offer of salvation by assuming that therefore there are no obligations attached.

In early Christianity, the new identity of conversion was often pictured as donning a new set of clothes; the language of changing clothes was utilized to express the giving up of the old way of life and putting on the new Christian identity (see Rom 13:12–14; Gal 3:27; Eph 6:11; Col 3:12; cf. Luke 15:22; Rev 3:4; 6:11; 19:8). At the allegorical level, the man was expected to have the faith and deeds of an authentic Christian life, corresponding to the “fruits” in the imagery of the preceding parable. When confronted with his lack, the man has no response, for he is without excuse.

Image Credit: Parable of the Great Banquet by Brunswick Monogrammist (circa 1525) National Museum, Warsaw | Public Domain

The Invitation

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 28th Sunday of Ordinary Time. “The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. He dispatched his servants to summon the invited guests to the feast” (Mt 22:2-3) Rabbinic and Hellenistic sources indicate that a two-stage invitation was quite normal – an ancient “Save the Date” coupled to the actual invitation itself. In the 1st century, the invitation was sent well in advance of the banquet. The invitation was acknowledged and accepted by those invited, who then received a courtesy reminder on the day of the banquet itself.

The problems begin “on the day” – but they refused to come.  A second time he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those invited: “Behold, I have prepared my banquet, my calves and fattened cattle are killed, and everything is ready; come to the feast.”’ (Mt 22:3-4). The invitees who had committed themselves to attend the banquet simply declare their unwillingness/refusal to come (ouk ēthelon elthein). What are we to make of this reaction?  There are two avenues often pursued: one personal, one political (of sorts). One could take the approach that the invitation to come was a threat to the invitees’ own pursuits. They want to do what they want to do when they want to do it. One goes to his field and another to his business. These aren’t excuses (as in Luke 14:18-20), but personal concerns that they think are more important than the king’s invitation to this most important celebration for his son.

On a political scale, refusal of a king’s invitation, especially by so many and so suddenly suggests something is afoot. There are two likely things: a general snubbing and disrespect toward the king, or perhaps more sinisterly, a conspiracy and that would be tantamount to rebellion (2 Sam 10:4). But then the king is a patient and accommodating person (again, cf. the preceding parable).

Either way, the unwillingness/refusal to come share the festive occasion with the King is to send the signal that loyalty and commitment are waning. In religious terms, people are wandering from the Covenant. Yet, the king does not strike out or retaliate, but sends a second group of slaves. This element of the story is peculiar to Matthew. Not only do those invited continue to refuse, but some go so far as to abuse and kill the messengers as well. If “a second time” (v.4) is considered the day of the feast – and there is good reason to do so since “everything is ready” – then it may be that Matthew is not talking about early and later prophets, but the Christian evangelists of Matthew’s own time. Certainly, many of the late-1st century evangelists were ignored; some were martyred.

Image Credit: Parable of the Great Banquet by Brunswick Monogrammist (circa 1525) National Museum, Warsaw | Public Domain

Matthew’s Version

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 28th Sunday of Ordinary Time. Among the various sources of Christian tradition, this parable of the wedding banquet has been preserved in three distinct versions. The simplest rendering of the parable can be found in the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas. In this version, the parable consists of a series of refusals to a dinner. Each of the guests who begged off did so for reasons of business or commerce. Consequently the host sent servants into the streets to bring back whomever they could find. Luke’s version of the parable (Luke 14:16-24), also preserves the reversal motif and bears evidence of the evangelist’s conviction that the poor, outcasts, those otherwise marginalized from society will find a welcome in the kingdom.

However, when Matthew’s rendering of this parable is compared to these other sources, there are several obvious differences. The main portion (vv. 1-10) of the parable is offered as an allegorical presentation of salvation history. The host has become a king (God) who was preparing a wedding banquet (symbol of kingdom) for his son (Jesus). The two groups of servants were probably representative of the Hebrew prophets and the Christian apostles, whereas the invited guests who repeatedly refused the king’s invitation and brutalized the servants were intended to portray Israel. People from the byroads represented the gentiles to whom the gospel was also to be extended.

In verse seven, the parable takes a strange twist; the city of the guests is destroyed. Starting a war while the meal is prepared and on the table strains even the wide range of flexibility allowed to parables. Add to that the mention of the burning of the murderers’ city – especially in the light of the Lucan tradition of the story and we begin to suspect something added from Matthew’s community – or something Luke thought to omit  Most scholars believe that the Matthean community and evangelist were referencing the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in 70 C.E. at the hands of Titus and the Roman army. Matthew projected this event back into this parable of Jesus. By so doing he was simply updating the history of salvation as it had unfolded by the time his gospel reached its final form in the mid-80s C.E.

Matthew makes this story the climax of the progression of this three-parable set: The first of the triad, the parable of the two sons (21:28–32), focuses on the (more than a) prophet John; the second, the parable of the lord’s vineyard given to others (21:33–46), pictures the whole prophetic line climaxing in Jesus, the Son who is killed. This third parable is understood from Matthew’s own post-Easter perspective, facing the parousia and final judgment. This final parable thus follows the perspective in picturing the history of salvation from the original calling of Israel to the last judgment, and places Jesus and the church in the succession of Israel’s prophets, persecuted and rejected by Israel.

The parable has the same audience as the preceding one except that now he specifically includes the Pharisees. Matthew’s insertion of “again” (palin, or “once more”) connects the parable to the preceding one as well, as do all the points we noted above. This means that the Matthean meaning cannot be derived from the parable alone, but only from the narrative structure of which it is now an integral part.

Image Credit: Parable of the Great Banquet by Brunswick Monogrammist (circa 1525) National Museum, Warsaw | Public Domain

The Wedding Banquet of the King

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 28th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Lectionary Cycle A. This Sunday our text is the third of three parables: (the two sons 21:28-32; the tenants in the vineyard 21:33-46; and now the wedding banquet 22:1-14). All three have images of father and son(s). The first two also have the image of a vineyard. The last two have the sending of servants, the murder of servants, and the punishment of the murderers. In each case, there is a distinction between those who do the will of the father/landlord/king and those who don’t. Scott (Hear Then the Parable) talks about all three parables starting with the first one:

The parable is the first of three that challenge the legitimacy of the Jewish leadership. They all expose Matthew’s ideology of the true Israel demonstrating the claims of the Pharisees to be false and those of the church true. The parables of the two sons, the wicked tenants, and the king who gave a marriage feast exhibit a progression from John the Baptist to the rejection of Jesus and punishment of those who rejected him through the final judgment, when those without a wedding garment will be cast out. [p. 81]

Luke’s version of the parable (Luke 14:16-24), also preserves the reversal motif and bears evidence of the evangelist’s conviction that the poor, outcasts, those otherwise marginalized from society will find a welcome in the kingdom. However, when Matthew’s rendering of this parable is compared to these other sources, there are several obvious differences. The main portion (vv. 1-10) of the parable is offered as an allegorical presentation of salvation history. The host has become a king (God) who was preparing a wedding banquet (symbol of kingdom) for his son (Jesus). The two groups of servants were probably representative of the Hebrew prophets and the Christian apostles, whereas the invited guests who repeatedly refused the king’s invitation and brutalized the servants were intended to portray Israel. People from the byroads represented the gentiles to whom the gospel was also to be extended.

The contribution of the Matthean church can also be detected in the incident regarding the guest who was ejected from the feast (vv. 11-13). Aware that God’s invitation to salvation was extended to all of humankind, good and bad alike, the early Christians were also aware that not everyone who received an invitation would remain as a guest. The improperly dressed guest represented those who had not cooperated with or appropriated the invitations that God had offered. As a result of his/her unresponsiveness, the improperly dressed guest forfeited a place at the banquet. It was then a reminder to the Matthean church that the divine invitations to love are a daily invitation. Thus one must possess a willingness to be daily transformed by God’s grace and according to God’s will. To do otherwise is to refuse the invite to the “wedding feast” or to appear improperly attired. Either open the road to an eternity of insatiable hunger and unquenchable thirst.

Image Credit: Parable of the Great Banquet by Brunswick Monogrammist (circa 1525) National Museum, Warsaw | Public Domain

A Final Thought

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time. The old tenants lost their place because they failed to produce the required fruit, and it is the distinguishing mark of the new “nation” that it will produce it. The point is not developed here, but this qualification potentially carries a warning also to the new “nation.” If it in turn fails to produce the fruit, it cannot presume on its privileged position. The next parable will contain a sobering final scene to just that effect (22:11–13).

Reflection (from Eugene Boring, The Gospel of Matthew, 415)

Who is represented by the “you” from whom the kingdom is taken? Who is the “nation” to whom it is given? In the context, the addressees are clearly the chief priests and Pharisees… the Jewish leadership, not the people as a whole. Thus some scholars… have contended that Matthew here and elsewhere claims only that God will replace the present false leadership with faithful leaders. This requires understanding “nation” (ἔθνος ethnos, which is also the word for “Gentile”) in an unusual sense, a new group of leaders for Israel. The more natural way is to understand ethnos as “nation” or “people,” so that (as in 1 Pet 2:9) those to whom the kingdom is given are the renewed people of God, the church of Jews and Gentiles, who are called by God in place of unfaithful Israel. Many Christians throughout history have been too willing to understand the text this way, which has fueled the fires of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. Many Christians today are hesitant to understand the text in any way that encourages a false understanding of supersessionism, that God has rejected Israel and replaced it with the church (Jewish and Gentile) as the people of God. Neither past mistakes nor present Christian sensitivity to Jewish-Christian relations should inhibit our allowing Matthew to mean whatever he meant. If he believed God had now rejected the Jews as the elect people of God and replaced them with the church composed of people called from all nations, including Jews, historical honesty should accept this. Historical exegesis may document this as Matthew’s view, even if his situational-conditioned perspective must not be allowed to dominate our own, which must be informed not only by this text but by other canonical perspectives as well, such as that of Paul, another Jew who had become a Christian and who saw a larger plan of God that embraced both Israel and church (Romans 9–11).

This text does not speak explicitly, however, of Israel’s being rejected, but of the “kingdom of God” being taken from “you”; in Matthew’s view, the saving activity of God continues in that community where taking up the “yoke of the kingdom” means adherence to the Torah as fulfilled in the teaching of Jesus (cf. 5:17–48; 28:20). Matthew, like the modern reader, here struggles with a difficult problem, one that he perhaps had as much difficulty in resolving with systematic clarity and consistency, as does his modern reader. Even if the objective meaning remains not entirely clear, contemporary readers can still legitimately ask whether they have set up other phony sovereignties in place of the one God, and thus might be addressed in the “you” from whom the kingdom is taken

Image credit The Parable of the Wicked Tenants, Maarten Van Valckenborch, c. 1585, Kunsthistorisches Museum | Public Domain PD-US

Give and Take

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time. The climax of the “Lord’s Vineyard” parable comes with the unexpected involvement of the landowner’s son following the servants. If the servants are the OT prophets, it is interesting to note that in Hebrews 1:1–2 “a son” as God’s last word follows prophets. Within the framework of the story the sending of the son is clearly a last resort, short of the owner returning himself (as he will eventually do in v. 40). When the son goes as his father’s messenger he goes with all his father’s authority, and so deserves “respect” and obedience. To reject the son’s demand is therefore the climax of rebellion. But to kill him is to add injury to insult. As a bid for independence and an attempt to gain possession for themselves it was hardly likely to succeed in a society under the rule of law, and it reads more as a spontaneous and ill-conceived impulse than as a calculated policy. But a parable does not have to fit into real life, and the points at which it becomes improbable are usually meant to draw attention.

The leaders of Jerusalem, I would suspect, understand the “son” to be a reference to Jesus and draw a conclusion of treasonous rebellion against the leaders of the Temple, as well as Roman rule. However, the Christian reader cannot fail to understand Jesus as the Son of God and the heir of the vineyard of Israel. For the Christian reader, Jesus’ death becomes Israel’s culminating act of rebellion, and may well reflect on how futile it was to try to escape from under God’s rule. To kill the son is an act of defiance to the father that will bring a cry for justice..

As mentioned above this expression might point to new people of God arising out of Jesus’ ministry and characterized by faith in him. We previously saw such a motif outlined in 8:11–12 and in the rabble of tax-collectors and prostitutes who “go ahead of” the chief priests and elders into the kingdom of God (vv. 31–32). The term ethnos, “nation,” calls for some such understanding, takes us beyond a change of leadership to a reconstitution of the people of God whom the current leaders have represented.

But on the other hand the singular ethnos does not carry the specific connotations of its articular plural, ta ethnē, “the Gentiles.” We may rightly conclude from 8:11–12 that this new “nation” will contain many Gentiles, but we saw also at that point that this is not to the exclusion of Jews as such but only of those whose lack of faith has debarred them from the kingdom of heaven. The vineyard, which is Israel, is not itself destroyed, but rather given a new lease of life, embodied now in a new “nation.” This “nation” is neither Israel nor the Gentiles, but a new entity, drawn from both, which is characterized not by ethnic origin but by faith in Jesus.

Some see an echo of Dan 7:27: “Then the kingship and dominion and majesty of all the kingdoms under the heavens shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High, Whose kingship shall be an everlasting kingship, whom all dominions shall serve and obey.” If so, there is a poignant force in the transfer of this image to a different “people” which is not now simply Israel as Daniel had known it but which fulfills the role of the vineyard that is Israel.

What is lost by the current leadership and gained by the new “nation” is “the kingdom of God” represented by the personal authority of the landowner. The quotation in v. 42 has spoken directly of what “the Lord” has done in vindicating his Son. Israel, they have assumed, is where God rules, but they have rejected his will and so will find themselves outside his domain. At the same time, God will rule over a reconstituted “Israel” which acknowledges his sovereignty.

Image credit The Parable of the Wicked Tenants, Maarten Van Valckenborch, c. 1585, Kunsthistorisches Museum | Public Domain PD-US

Not how, but Who

Posted on by
Reply

The first reading today continues our journey into the Book of Job arriving at chapter 19. Here is a concise summary of what has transpired up to this point in the narrative: In the first two chapters, we meet Job, a wealthy, blameless, and God-fearing man about whom “the Satan” asserts that Job only serves God because he is blessed. Satan argues Job will curse God if he loses everything and so God allows Satan to test Job. Within moments, Job loses all his wealth, his livestock, and his ten children. But he does not curse God. In Chapter 3 Job laments his existence. He wishes he had died at birth or never existed at all, wondering why God allows light and life to continue for people who are in absolute misery. This is the central theme that this Wisdom literature explores throughout the remainder of the text.

From this point forward, Job is visited by friends. Eliphaz relied on personal experience and a spiritual vision, arguing that no human is innocent before God. Bildad appealed to ancient tradition, asserting that ungodly people always face swift ruin. Zophar spoke most bluntly, claiming that Job probably deserved an even harsher punishment than what he received. All are coming from the idea of retributive justice, the idea that God always rewards good behavior and punishes evil in this life.  (Note: other canonical books of Wisdom will take issue with this premise, but that is for another day…)

Job feels it is all helpless because no human can argue or go to court with God. Job laments that there is no arbiter or mediator to lay a hand on both parties and bridge the gap between a holy God and suffering humanity. This brings us to our first reading:

“Oh, would that my words were written down! Would that they were inscribed in a record: That with an iron chisel and with lead they were cut in the rock forever! But as for me, I know that my Vindicator lives, and that he will at last stand forth upon the dust; Whom I myself shall see: my own eyes, not another’s, shall behold him, And from my flesh I shall see God; my inmost being is consumed with longing.” (Job 19:23-27)

Clearly, Job is indicating what he is about to say is of great importance and needs to be recorded for generations to come. And yet, the meaning of this passage is obscure because the original text has been poorly preserved and the ancient versions do not agree among themselves. Job asserts three times that he shall see a future vindicator, but he leaves the time and manner of this vindication undefined. 

What does Job mean by “Vindicator”? The Hebrew is goʾali, “my goʾel.” The word has much richer connotations than simply “redeemer.” A goʾel is a kinsman-redeemer, someone who acts on behalf of a family member whose rights, property, freedom, or justice need defending. The same linguistic root is used to describe God as Israel’s redeemer, especially in Isaiah. Some commentators offer that this points to an early belief in resurrection based on the Vulgate translation, but Job is not necessarily saying, in the original historical sense, “I know that Jesus Christ will someday raise me bodily from the dead.” He is saying something more immediate and, given his circumstances, quite remarkable: someone will ultimately take my side. Someone will vindicate me. Someone will establish that what is being said about me is not the final truth.

Job’s friends have effectively constructed a theological case against him: God is just; you are suffering terribly; therefore you must have done something to deserve this. Job knows that isn’t true. But he cannot prove it. So he appeals beyond his friends and in some respects beyond his own present experience of God to a future Vindicator.

Why carved in stone? Because everything around him presently argues against what he is about to say. His children are dead, his property is gone, his body is afflicted and friends believe he is guilty. His experience is beyond his understanding and there is nothing in sight that things will be put right. And that is precisely the moment when he says: “But as for me, I know that my Vindicator lives.” This is not a case in which it is all resolved and Job then has the assurance that God is faithful. He says it before anything has worked out. It is a lesson for us.

We usually find it fairly easy to recognize God’s faithfulness looking backward. After the illness has passed, the crisis over, prayers answered, and we made it through. Then we are assured and can say, “God was with me.” Job is doing something much harder. He declares his confidence while he is still sitting in the ashes without a clue how his story ends. He has no idea what vindication will look like or when it will arrive. But he knows one thing: my Vindicator lives.

Image credit: WordPress AI generated using the text of the post.

The Coming Change

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time. The traditional interpretation holds that the parable is a symbolic account of the history of Israel, whose leadership (tenants of v.34) has rejected God’s earlier prophetic messengers (cf. Jer 7:25–27 seen in servants of vv.34-35). In v.37 the parable leaves Israel’s past and intuits the events of the Passion and Crucifixion that lay in the days to come. Indeed, the leaders of Jerusalem will seize Jesus and crucify him outside Jerusalem (cf. v.39). Where the traditional interpretation begins to waver starts in v.43 taking on a different direction from its OT parallel in Is 5:1-7:

Now, I will let you know what I mean to do with my vineyard: take away its hedge, give it to grazing, break through its wall, let it be trampled! Yes, I will make it a ruin: it shall not be pruned or hoed, but overgrown with thorns and briers; I will command the clouds not to send rain upon it. (Is 5)

Where the owner seems to abandon the vineyard in the OT telling, here in the Gospel according to Matthew, we are told of a very different outcome:  “Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that will produce its fruit.” (v.43)  In a scene reminiscent of the encounter of the prophet Nathan and King David, Jesus confirms what the Jerusalem leaders have already offered: “lease his vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the proper times” (v.41)

What does this imply? The whole parable might then be interpreted as a prediction of imminent régime change in Jerusalem. But if the tenants are the Jerusalem leadership, the new tenants are a “people.” In the Greek text, the word used is ethnos, “nation.” When a “nation” replaces the chief priests and elders there may well be something more radical implied, just as the withering of the fig tree symbolized the destruction of the temple, not merely its reorganization, and that same destruction (“deserted,” 23:38; “not one stone on another,” 24:2) is the conclusion to which the present confrontation is heading. More on this later.

A further clue to what sort of new régime may be expected is provided by the quotation from Ps 118:22: “‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; by the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes’?” Psalm 118:22–23, quoted exactly according to the LXX version, is part of the climax to the Hallel psalm which has already featured in Jesus’ royal ride to the city (v. 9, alluding to vv. 25 and 26). The speaker is probably the king, speaking on behalf of the nation, and the vindication of the rejected stone represents Israel’s triumph over the enemies who despised her. Thus the text does not in itself require a messianic application, but we have seen in 2:15 and 4:1–11 how naturally it comes to Matthew (and presumably to the wider Christian tradition within which this parable was handed on) to present Jesus as the personal embodiment of Israel, the “son of God.”

After the tenants’ rejection of the son in the parable the builders’ rejection of the stone is not hard to interpret. If the same stone that is rejected will become the cornerstone, then the son who is rejected may also be expected to be vindicated and to replace the present leadership. The addition of this quotation points us beyond the death of Jesus to his resurrection, which is “wonderful in our eyes.” The new “nation” of v. 43 may be understood as the people who follow the risen Jesus, just as the “something greater than the temple” in 12:6 appears to point beyond Jesus himself to a whole new régime focused on him.

Image credit The Parable of the Wicked Tenants, Maarten Van Valckenborch, c. 1585, Kunsthistorisches Museum | Public Domain PD-US

Bearing Fruit

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time. In today’s parable, four times the word karpos (“fruit”) appears in the text, although not always translated that way [v. 34 literally “time of the fruits” = NAB’s “vintage time;” 34 and 41 literally “fruits” = NAB’s “produce;” and in v.43 translated as “fruits”]. By comparison the word karpos occurs once in Mark’s version (12:2) of this parable. Matthew’s use of this theme/image is consistent across his gospel (see also: 3:8, 10; 7:16-20; 12:33; 13:8, 23). It is central to this parable.

There are some significant differences between Mk 12:2 (At the proper time he sent a servant to the tenants to obtain from them some of the produce of the vineyard) and Mt 21:34 (When vintage time drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to obtain his produce). In Mark the servant is sent “at the proper time” (kairos); the implication is that the fruit was ripe and thus the time to harvest the fruit was here. Yet in Matthew vintage time (kairos) of the fruits “drew near.” In other words, the fruit was almost ripe, but not quite. The expression is the way in which Matthew speaks of the in-breaking of the kingdom (3:2; 4:17; 10:7) and of Jesus’ hour (26:45) pointing to the coming (here, but not fully here) sense of God’s kingdom breaking into our time (chronos).

It is perhaps noteworthy that in Mark the landowner seeks to receive “some of the produce,” literally, “a share” of the fruit of the vineyard. Presumably the workers get to keep their share. But in Matthew the landowner seeks to receive “his produce,” possibly implying “all,” since he owned the entire vineyard. This may well be the meaning when one considers v.41:” give him the produce at the proper times.”

In the parable of “The Two Sons,” when the chief priests and elders remain silent in the face of Jesus’ question, in v.41 the leaders of Jerusalem have no problem in answering when Jesus asks: “What will the owner of the vineyard do to those tenants when he comes?”. They do so immediately and with some vehemence: “He will put those wretched men to a wretched death.” The tone and tenor of the response indicated that this parable has hit close to home. The story of an absentee landowner reflects a familiar economic situation at the time; some of the chief priests and elders to whom Jesus is speaking would probably have owned land away from Jerusalem. The landowner must be a wealthy man, because a newly planted vineyard could not be expected to produce fruit for at least four years, during which he would have no return on his capital outlay. Once the vines began to bear fruit there would be an agreed proportion of the crop due to the owner, leaving the tenants to derive their living from the rest. The fault of the tenants in withholding the due produce is compounded by the violence upon the servants. This fault is massively compounded by their decision to murder the owner’s son and so to attempt to take over the property.

Image credit The Parable of the Wicked Tenants, Maarten Van Valckenborch, c. 1585, Kunsthistorisches Museum | Public Domain PD-US