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

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

This coming Sunday is the 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time. Much like Isaiah 5:1-2 (the reading from the OT accompanying our gospel), Matthew’s parable has a vineyard setting (also the preceding two parables: 20:1-16, the workers in the vineyard; 21:28-32, the two sons). What does the vineyard represent? In Isaiah it represents Israel and many have assumed that that is its meaning in the gospel parable, e.g., the vineyard = Israel; the tenants = religious leaders; landowner’s slaves = prophets whom they rejected. With this interpretation, we note that the vineyard is not destroyed, but turned over to new tenants. To use another biblical metaphor, the unfaithful, greedy shepherds are removed (Mt 9:36; Ezekiel 34) and new shepherds are installed to care for the sheep.

In Matthew’s gospel the vineyard takes on a broader, more universal meaning. Rather than simply, “Israel,” the vineyard is generally taken to mean the Kingdom of God. Remember that entry into the Kingdom was central in the closing warning in the parable of the Two Sons that immediately preceded our text.

Another theme that continues from the preceding parable is the importance of actions that reflect the value of the kingdom. The chief priests and elders of Jerusalem are criticized for a manner of living out their faith that is inconsistent with God’s call; they refuse to change their hearts in the face of the prophetic actions of Jesus. They understand that to acknowledge his authority means to abdicate theirs. They not only say nothing in response to Jesus’ question; they do nothing. As seen in the parable of the Two Sons, bearing fruit is expected of all disciples.

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

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.”

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

This coming Sunday is the 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time. One of the things to appreciate about the gospels and their content within is to remember that Sacred Scripture is the Word of God, committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, using the powers and abilities of people.

“These divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit… they have God as their author…”  (Dei Verbum, 11)

“…In composing the sacred books God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.” (Dei Verbum, 11)

As such, the content of Sacred Scripture will naturally have “levels” of not only author’s intent, but of human reception.

At its initial or basic level, the parable defended Jesus’ missionary methodology of reaching out to extend the blessings of the kingdom to tax collectors and sinners. Whereas his contemporaries believed these to be pariahs with no claim to salvation, Jesus’ words and works indicated that sinners were not only on equal footing with the righteous but were in fact the ones to whom God manifested special love and mercies.

At a second level, the parable, as remembered and preserved by the Matthean community, put forth the message that even gentiles who came “late” to the good news of salvation would enjoy the same benefits and those who were first to hear it viz., the Jews.

At another level, there is meaning based on the sequence of stories/parables/pericopes the evangelist (in this case Matthew) has constructed. This parable is framed by a doublet saying of Jesus concerning the reversal of fortunes (19:30: “But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first;” 20:16: “Thus the last will be first and the first will be last”). As such, the parable offered a lesson in discipleship. Christians are not to concern themselves with recompense for their service in the cause of the kingdom; nor are believers to presume to mete out what others deserve for the services they have rendered. Human standards of fairness have no place in the reign of God. All are abundantly rewarded by God whose only standard is a generous, merciful, forgiving love. If God were fair, in a strictly human sense, I wonder how many of us would enjoy the fullness of the kingdom.

Something else to ponder…

The German theologian, Fr. Karl Rahner has an interesting insight. He suggested  that the daily wage or denarius which the owner of the vineyard gave to each hired worker is actually the gift from God of our very selves.

 “Our own selves, just as we are: with our life, with our temperament, with our destiny, with our surroundings, with our time, with our heredity, with our family… These things cannot be negotiated or calculated. Whenever we complain about others with whom God has dealt differently, we are really refusing to accept our own selves from the hands of God.

This then becomes our life’s work, to accept the denarius whom we are as God’s generous gift, mysteriously and gradually revealed. This gift is made more precious by the knowledge that when we accept it, God gives himself with his gift.  (The Great Church Year, Crossroad Publishing Co. New York: 1994)

Image credit: Laborers in the Vineyard, icon | Public Domain | found on Flickr Fr. Ted

This coming Sunday is the 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time. The workday is over and wages have been distributed. Not surprisingly, the workers in the vineyard who worked the whole day are less than pleased. Brian Stoffregen describes the three complaints of the first hired:

(1) They assumed they would receive more. The desire for more is usually considered greed, which undoubtedly led them to desire more than they had been promised, but I don’t think their real complaint was as much about the money as the other two listed below.

(2) You have made them equal to us. They assumed a hierarchy based on time worked, which should have been indicated by a difference in wages paid. They make a distinction between “us” and “them” and that “we” are better than “they.” “We” deserve more than “they.” Such a distinction is usually unhealthy for communities of faith.

(3) We have borne the burden of the day and the heat. They do not see their invitation to work (and wages earned) as a sign of grace, but as a burden to be borne. When living the Christian life is seen as a burden, the right perspective is elusive.

Robert Smith (Matthew, Augsburg Commentary) has this wonderful summary: “It is simply a fact that people regularly understand and appreciate God’s strange calculus of grace as applied to themselves but fear and resent seeing it applied to others.” [p. 236]  In a similar way, the parable of the unforgiving servant (18:23-35) suggested a great appreciation for God forgiving all of my sins; but a desire that God (and I) should punish all those who had sinned against me.

R.T. France (The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT [748-50]) writes:

“The story is as clear as it is unexpected. Whereas we take it for granted that harder work deserves a greater payment, this employer operates on a less conventional basis. The reader instinctively sympathizes with the aggrieved workers in vv. 11–12: it doesn’t seem fair. The retort of the landowner is of course technically correct: no one has been cheated; the agreement has been scrupulously observed. Why then do we still feel that there is something wrong? Because we cannot detach ourselves from the ruling convention that rewards should be commensurate with the services rendered. When one man is “rewarded” far in excess of what has been earned while another receives only the bare sum agreed, we detect unfair discrimination.”

“But the kingdom of heaven does not operate on the basis of commercial convention. God rules by grace, not by desert. The “rewards” which this gospel has so persistently spoken of (see on 5:3–10, 11–12; 6:1–6, 16–18, 19–21; 10:41–42; 19:27–29) are not earned, nor are they proportionate to human effort. The God who lavishly clothes the flowers and feeds the birds (6:26–29) delights to give his servants far more than they could ever deserve from him. It is that principle, rather than the disappointment of the whole-day laborers, which is the main focus of the parable, but their very natural disappointment and sense of unfairness helps the readers to re-examine how far their reactions are still governed by human ideals of deserving rather than by the uncalculating generosity of the kingdom of heaven. In the kingdom in which the first are last and the last first there is no room for envious comparisons.”

Image credit: Laborers in the Vineyard, icon | Public Domain | found on Flickr Fr. Ted

This coming Sunday is the 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time. The work day is over and now it is time to distribute the wages for all the workers. It is interesting that it is the “manager” or “steward” (epitropos), not the owner, who calls the workers and gives them their pay/reward (misthos). They are the ones who dispense what the owner considers right and just. They are also the ones who take the flak from those who disagree. I think we can all relate to being the one thrust into the middle of something not necessarily of our own making.

The whole problem at the end of the parable is the landowner’s doing. Not because he paid them all the same, but because he paid the last first. This all could have been avoided by paying the first at the beginning so they are not around to see what the last ones are paid. But then this is a parable and Jesus’ intent is likely to let the disciples see what happens when Mt 19:30 is acted out: “But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.”  What happens is the first hired witness the last one’s getting paid, which resulted in the first hires to think that they would get more (v. 10).

The word for “think” (nomizo) does not refer so much to a rational process (as logizomai), but “to assume,” “to presume,” “to suppose,” based on what one expects to happen or what is “customary” or the “rule” (which are meanings for the root nomos). Usually such assumptions are wrong as in its other uses in Mt: 5:17; 10:34.

Image credit: Laborers in the Vineyard, icon | Public Domain | found on Flickr Fr. Ted

This coming Sunday is the 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time. The landowner has “hired” (misthoomai) the workers (ergates), which implies an offer to pay (misthos) them for their work. In contrast, Mt 21:28 has a father telling his son, “Go and work (ergazomai) in the vineyard today,” which may not involve payment for work done. An agreement (symphoneo) is reached between the landowner and the first workers. “I will give you what is just.” (Mt 20:4)

A denarius for one day’s work does not indicate a generous landowner. It was the minimum wage a family in poverty could exist on. This agreement speaks against interpreting this parable primarily as an illustration of God’s generosity. The wages aren’t that great. The workers have barely enough to live on. They remain in poverty, but their needs for this day will be met. Thus it may be better to translate agathos in v. 15 as “good” than as “generous”. It was good for the landowner to give the workers a minimum wage that was enough to live on for the day. It was not a generous wage.

In contrast to the first hired workers where an agreement was made about their wages. The other hired workers are told (v. 4): “I will give you what is just (dikaios which can also be translated, “right” “fair” or “proper”). This parable raises questions like: “What is right?” “What is just?” “What is fair?” God’s answers are not always the same as ours – and we may not always like God’s answers.

Image credit: Laborers in the Vineyard, icon | Public Domain | found on Flickr Fr. Ted

This coming Sunday is the 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time. This is a well-known parable in which a landowner goes out to the village to find day laborers. He goes out several times to engage more workers. The parable never says he needed more production, in fact, the landowner’s initial intention is never stated. Nonetheless, more and more workers are added to the labor force. One might hear an echo of Matthew 9:37 – “The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few.”

1 “The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard.  2 After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard.  3 Going out about nine o‘clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace,  4 and he said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.’  5 So they went off. (And) he went out again around noon, and around three o‘clock, and did likewise.  6 Going out about five o‘clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’  7 They answered, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard.’  8 When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.’  9 When those who had started about five o‘clock came, each received the usual daily wage.  10 So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage.  11 And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner,  12 saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’  13 He said to one of them in reply, ‘My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?  14 Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you?  15 (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’  16 Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last.” 

The parable begins in the familiar world in which day laborers are hired at sunup and are paid at the end of the day, in accordance with Torah regulation and Jewish practice (Lev 19:13; Deut 24:14–15). A denarius was a normal day’s pay for manual laborers hired by the day (cf. Tob 5:15; Ber. Rab. 61), but was barely enough to maintain a family at the subsistence level.

The first-century listener of the parable would begin to immediately notice there are things askew in the telling. Instead of sending his manager, the wealthy landowner himself goes to the market to hire laborers (cf. v. 8). The landowner goes repeatedly, even at “five o’clock” (lit. the “eleventh hour”). We are not told why the landowner is in need of so many workers. No explanation is given as to why those standing idle had not been hired on earlier recruitment visits. We are not told why the last hired workers were idle or why they were not seen standing in the market place earlier in the day. While we may try and fill in the gaps: it was harvest time; they were lazy; they were “hiding,” (note that in v. 6 he “finds” these last workers rather than “sees” them as in v. 3); such embellishments can be fun and fanciful, but they are saying more than the text indicates.

The first group of workers is hired on the basis of an oral contract for the “usual daily wage”; the later groups are promised “what is just,” thus raising, but not answering, the question of what is “just” (dikaios). Although the first group has a “contract” and the second can only trust in the master’s sense of justice, in reality both groups depend on the trustworthiness of the landowner. In the closing scene in which all are paid the same, the middle groups are ignored in order to focus on “first” and “last.”

Image credit: Laborers in the Vineyard, icon | Public Domain | found on Flickr Fr. Ted

This coming Sunday is the 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time. This is the second post of the day. Both posts are about some element of the Kingdom of Heaven. While the earlier post tried to make the point that the “household of God” will not be the same as the households of our own times and cultures. This posts looks at the way we view blessings in our life – or rather what we assume are blessings which can be confused with human success.

Between the two chapters, Jesus begins to address the assumptions about what constitutes God’s blessings. Where “wealth” was seen as an external sign of God’s blessings, Jesus now holds up something different in the telling of the encounter with the rich man (Mt 19:16-26). Long (Matthew, Westminster Bible Companion) writes concerning the rich man story, which also applies to our text: “… we must realize that, when the young man encounters Jesus, two very different worlds collide: this world, with all its prevailing customs and values, and the radical new way of life called for in the kingdom of heaven.” [p. 220]

This radical life comes at a price. Peter understands that and so he asks, “what about us who have already given up everything,” Jesus points to the life within the kingdom and then concludes that the called-for reversal will also be evident in the order of blessing on entering the kingdom: “But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.” (Mt 19:30)

While the context for the kingdom in Mt 19 is seen “when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory,”  But it is not just at the end of days. Matthew also grounds the radical reversal of all cultural understandings in the here-and-now. In a time (then and now) when wealth is seen as a measure of blessing, most commentators note the importance of Mt 19:16-30 – the encounter with the Rich Man. In short, when Jesus tells him “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to (the) poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”  The rich man goes away sad.

As that encounter ends, Mt 20:1 begins with the word “for” (gar) which implies a connection to what goes on before. It denotes a reason. Perhaps we could even say that it introduces an answer to the question: Why will many who are first be last and the last first (see 19:30; 20:16)? It may be as simple as the idea of being “paid,” not by what one does – either by doing good deeds or keeping the commandments or working in the vineyard – but by the graciousness of God/landowner.

Both the story of the young man and the parable of the employer picture the triumph of grace. The young man is a fine specimen who “has it all”: youth, money, morality, a sense that there is still something more, an interest in eternal things. Matthew resists the temptation to make the disciples (and his own church) look better by painting the man in dark colors. He was a good, sincere, wealthy young man, and every church would be glad to “get” him. What did he lack? He anticipated being given one more commandment, one final achievement, and then his quest would be fulfilled. Not just the young man, but also the reader is surprised when he is told that he lacks all, that his salvation is impossible. At one level, the story communicates that salvation is not any kind of achievement, that on human terms entering the kingdom is not merely hard, but impossible. It is only when this “no” to all human claims is heard that the “yes” of God can be heard: But for God all things are possible. Binding this pronouncement to the call to discipleship keeps it from being cheap grace.

The rich young man is a picture of the rejection of grace by one who prefers to justify himself. The parable of the landowner and the laborers is a picture of the resentment of grace toward others by those who have worked long and hard themselves.

Image credit: Laborers in the Vineyard, icon | Public Domain | found on Flickr Fr. Ted