Twenty-sixth Sunday In Ordinary Time
MATTHEW 21:28-32 (Ezekiel 18:25-28; Philippians 2:1-11)
The gospel reading of this Sunday is again a parable. A parable or teaching story can be long, as last Sunday’s gospel reading, or as short as the mini-parable the liturgy gives us for our consideration on this Sunday. A parable invites the person or persons to whom the parable is directed to compare herself or himself to a leading actor in the parable. Since today’s parable is so brief, comments on it can be brief enough to permit us to examine an Old Testament parable to understand how a parable can function. The parable is found in 2 Samuel 12:1-4. King David committed adultery with the wife of one of his soldiers, while her husband was engaged in defense of David’s kingdom. The woman was Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite (not even an Israelite). She became pregnant.
To hide his crime, David contrives Plan A and Plan B. He sends a message to his general to send Uriah home to his wife Bathsheba. Uriah leaves the battle, comes to Jerusalem, but will not go home to his wife while his fellow-soldiers risk their life in defense of David’s kingdom. To David’s annoyance, Uriah does a sit-in at the gate of David’s pal-ace. Plan A failed. Plan B: David sends Uriah back to the front with a secret message for the general. The secret message: put Uriah into battle where danger is the greatest. The general complied, and Uriah died in battle. Success? Only briefly.
God sends Nathan, a prophet, to tell David a parable. There was a rich man and a poor man. The rich man had herds and flocks. The poor man had one little ewe lamb which was his pet. A visitor comes to the rich man’s house. Instead of taking a lamb from his flock to feed the visitor, the rich man takes the poor man’s one little ewe lamb and turns it into lamb stew. David was furious. He vowed to punish the rich man. Nathan said, “You are that man!” David understood, bitterly repented and accept God’s punishment. This is how a parable can reveal something about and to the person or persons to whom it is addressed.
The context of this Sunday’s parable: Jesus is in the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem. When he entered the city, he received a hero’s welcome from a people oppressed not only by the Romans but by the chief priests. The crowd’s acclaim of Jesus got the attention of the V.I.P.s of the temple. Worse yet, Jesus had attacked their bottom line when he “drove out those who bought and sold in the temple.” On his second day in the city Jesus return-ed to the temple and was teaching the people. He was confronted by “the chief priests and the elders.” They represented the Sanhedrin – the High Council which governed the Jews in religious matters and some civil matters. They demand to know, “By what authority are you doing these things and who gave you this authority?
It was their duty to oversee the temple and judge the correctness of anyone who dared to teach publicly. Jesus was a free-lancer, not under their control. Their envy and fear of Jesus’ popularity was also at work. Matthew will write later that Pilate was aware that they handed Jesus over to him out of envy. The Greek terminology the gospels use about the arrest of John the Baptizer, indicates that these same people were involved in getting rid of John, another free-lancer. Jesus is aware of their betrayal of John. He responds to their question about his authority, “I’ll ask you a question too. If you answer mine, I’ll answer yours.” His question: “Was John’s baptism sanctioned by God or by men?” If they said sanctioned by God, Jesus would say, “So why didn’t you believe him?” If they answered, “only of human origin,” the people who revered John might riot and tear them to pieces. In fear and embarrassment they answered, “We don’t know.” Jesus said, “Then I won’t answer your question either.”
Then comes today’s little parable like a saber-thrust. A man had two sons. He said to the first, “Son, go work in the vineyard.” The son refused, but then repented (changed his mind), and went to work. The father said the same to the second son. He replied, “O.K.,” but did not go. Jesus wants to know which of the two did the will of his father. They re-plied correctly, “The first son.” To which Jesus responded with an oath, “Amen, I say to you. Tax collectors and prostitutes enter the kingdom of God before you. You did not believe John. They did, and even when you saw it, you did not repent and believe him.” Those despised by society as sinners repented at John’s preaching. The first son, who originally refused, then repented, is their symbol. The second son was a hypocrite who pretended publicly that he did his father’s will, but did not. The second son is therefore a symbol of Jesus’ critics who did not repent at John’s preaching but got rid of him.
Did Matthew, a half century after Jesus, compose this parable as a warning to the leaders of his Christian Community? He warned them earlier, “See that you do not despise these little ones.” The “little ones” in Matthew’s theology are usually those without clout. He also reproaches them for pompous titles and apparel. Can the parable apply to us in our attitudes toward “sinners,” whom difficult circumstances forced into ways of living we usually consider sinful? If we are guilty, the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount are appropriate, “You hypocrite! First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
