Fall 1981 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources for Ministry

8/9/2019 Fall 1981 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources for Ministry

1/110


2/110

Q U A R T E R L Y R E V I E WA Scholarly J o u r n a l for Reflection on Ministry

A publication of The United Methodist Publishing Hous eJ o h n E. P r o c t e r , President and Publisherand the United Methodist B o a r d of Higher Education and Ministry

F . Thomas T r o t t e r , General S e c r e t a r yE di to r i a l Director, Ronald P. PattersonE d i t o r , Charles E. ColeBook Review E d i t o r , C a r e y J. GiffordE d i t o r i a l B o a r dF . Thomas T r o t t e r , C h a i rF r e d B. Craddock

Candler School of TheologyKeith R. Crim

Virginia Commonwealth UniversityL e a n d e r KeckY a l e Divinity SchoolSallie McFague

Vanderbilt Divinity School

Lloyd R. BaileyDuke Divinity School

Cornish RogersSchool of Theology at Claremont

Roy I. SanoPacific School of ReligionJ o h n L. TopolewskiChrist United Methodist ChurchMountaintop, Pennsylvania

Q u a r t e r l y Review (ISSN 0 2 7 0 9 2 8 7 ) provides continuing education resources forprofessional ministers in The United Methodist Church and other churches. A scholarlyjournal for reflection on ministry. Quarterly Review seeks to encourag e discussion anddebate on matters critical to the practice of ministry.

Falling within the purview of the journal are articles and reviews on biblical,theological, ethical, and ecclesiastical questions; homiletics, pastoral counseling, c hurc heducation, sacred music, worship, evangelism, mission, and church management;ecumenical issues; cultural and social issues where their salience to the practice ofministry can be demonstra ted; and the general ministry of Christians , as part of thechurch's unders tanding of its nature and mission.

Articles for consideration are welcome from lay and professional ministers. UnitedMethodists, and others, and should be mailed to the E d i t o r , Q u a r t e r l y Review, B o x 8 7 1 ,Nashville, Tenness ee 3 7 2 0 2 . M a nuscripts should be approximate ly twelve to twenty-fivepages in length and should be in English and typed double-spaced, and the original andone duplicate should be submitted. No sermons , poems, or devotional material areaccepted. Queries are welcome. A style sheet is available on request . Payment is by fee,depending on edited length.Q u a r t e r l y Revie w is published four times a y e a r , in M a r c h , J u n e , September, andDecember, by the United Methodist B o a r d of Higher Education and Ministry and TheUnited Methodist Publishing House. Editorial offices are at Box 871 , Nashville, TN3 7 2 0 2 . Circulation and business offices are at 201 Eighth Avenue South, Nashville, TN3 7 2 0 2 . Second-class postage paid at Nashville, Tennessee. Q u a r t e r l y Review is availableat the following rat e s : $10 a year for members of United Methodist annual conferencessubscribing through the all-conference plan; $ 1 5 a year for member s of United Methodistannual conferences subscribing through the conference leadership plan; institutions andlibraries, $15 a y e a r ; and individual subscriptions , $20 a y e a r . Subscriptions may beobtained by sending a money o r d e r or check to Quarterly Review , Business Manager,2 01 Eighth Avenue South, Nashville, TN 3 7 2 0 2 .Postmaster: Addres s changes should be sent to United Methodist Publishing House,2 0 1 Eighth Avenue South, Nashville, TN 3 7 2 0 2 .

Subscribers wishing to notify publisher of their change of address should notify thes ecr e ta r y of their conference board of ordained ministry, if the subscription has comethrough a conference plan; or to Business Manager, Quarterly Review, 201 EighthAvenue South, Nashville, TN 3 7 2 0 2 .

An index is printed in the winter volume of each year (number 5 for 1 9 8 1 - 8 2 only;number 4 t h e re af t e r ) .

Quarterly Review: A Scholarly Journal for Reflection on MinistryFall, 1981

Copyright


3/110

Q U A R T E R L Y R E V I E W

CONTENTSEditorial 3Homiletical Studies: Exegesis and Exposition of Gospel

Lections for the Season After PentecostFred B. Craddock 5Some Hard Questions in Pastoral C a r eThomas A. Whiting 43Higher Levels and Wider Horizons: Ecumenism Through

the EucharistRoy L Sano 53Our General Mother: The Pattern for MankindSharon C. Seelig 71The Dialectical Relationship Between Mysteryand Ministry]ohn Patton 84Book Reviews

The Ideology of ProfessionalismHenry Clark 92


4/110


5/110

EDITORIAL

Our journ al bea rs a subtitle that implies an effort to encouragethinking throughout the church. What exactly is our purpose?

Communication might see m to be the bes t ter m for des cribingour intentions. Most of the time, tho ugh , commun icat ing mea nssimply writing and reading , talking an d listening, so we migh tas well use those terms. Dialogue has some possibilities (thoughnot "dialoguing," which has no possibilities whatsoever) ,hinting as it do es of Socrat es an d Buber. For that ve ry reas on,however, it's intimidating and makes us hesitate. Can weachieve such lofty levels?

We can dismiss argument, since it conjures up lawyers andhairsplitters and table-pounders. Similarly with criticismtooneg ati ve, to o aca dem ic, too limited. O ur writ ers are bo un d toargue and criticize, but our overall purpose will be broader. Onthe "soft" end of the spectrum, there are conversation anddiscussion, but unlike so me large cor por ati ons we ha ve scruplesagainst advertising ourselves as personal and familial w h e nwe're not. We can also write off opinions, not only becausethey're typically free of thought, but also because Mr. Wesleyimplied w e don't hav e to take th em seriously.

While we'r e refining our termi nolo gy, we invite o ur rea der s tore sp on d to the articles an d revi ews in QR. W e don 't me anexactly "letters to the edi tor, " th ou gh th ose are wel co me , too .What we have in mind, r a t h e r , are res pon ses that ana lyze asubj ect differently from on e of ou r wri ter s, or tha t addconstructive comment to the discussion of major questionsbefore the church. To that end we solicit your rebuttals,demurrers, exte nded notes, an d well-articulated amen s.

CHARLES E, COLE3


6/110


7/110

HOMILETICAL STUDIES:E X E G E S I S AND EXPOSITIONOF GOSPEL LECTIONS FOR THE SEASONA F T E R PENTECOST

F R E D B. CRADDO CK

The writer of these studies assumes he is engaged inconversation with those persons responsible for interpretingthrough sermons and lessons the Scriptures of the church.For this conversation to be fruitful, certain obligations areaccepted by those involved. The writer will bring the resultso f careful investigations in the texts. The reader willrecognize that certain exegetical decisions have been madeand will acknowledge their necessity. Not everything thatcan be said can be said here. The reader will also have to makesome exegetical decisions because not everything that can besaid can be said there. Nor need it be. To underscoreeverything in a text is, in effect, to underscore noth ing. Thewriter will call to the reader's at tention the steps being takenin the process of exegesi s. Being self-conscious about one 'sprocedures is not essential to sound exegesis becauselistening to a text is an art as well as a science. However , adisciplined approach to the task is not only helpful towardclarity and confidence but is a real time-saver in gett ing pastawkward starts and into the material. Rout ine can be dull, butit can also liberate energies that would otherwise bedissipated in trying to get under way. And finally, the readermust provide the particular context in which the text is heardand to which the sermon or lesson speaks. No writer canexpress fully and finally what a text says to a reader.F r e d B. C r a d d o c k is professor of preaching and N ew Testament at Candler School ofTheology, E m o r y University, Atlanta, and is a member of the editorial board of QuarterlyReview.

Lections in these homiletical studies are taken from Seasons of the Gospel: Resources forthe Christian Year (Nashville: Abingdon, 1 9 7 9 ) .

5


8/110

Q U A R T E R L Y R E V I E W , F A L L 1981

SUNDAY, O C T O B E R 4Lections

Isaiah 5:1-7 Philippians 3 : 1 2 -2 1 Matthew 2 1 : 3 3 - 4 3Exegesis and Exposition of Matthew 2 1 : 3 3 - 4 3

The first step in exegesis is to be certain of the text to beexplored. Two matters are involved here. One, be sure thepassage begins and ends at such points as to mark out clearlya text that is a unit, having its own integrity. It cannot beassumed that lectionary readings always do this. One simplychecks for singleness of subject matter and for transitionalphrases that indicate beginnings and endings. On bothcounts Matt. 2 1 : 3 3 - 4 3 is clearly a unit . Substantively, it is aparable with response and comment, Literarily, "Hearanother parable" in verse 33 and "Therefore I tell you" inverse 43 set the boundaries. Verses 4 5 - 4 6 are excludedbecause they serve to conclude the entire section beginningwith 2 1 : 1 0 and not just our text. Two, look for any variants inthe text that might be significant for the exegesis. The RSVand other good translations do not have verse 44 since it hasvery poor support in the Greek manuscripts of Matthew.Logically verse 44 doe s not follow verse 43 and is obviously aborrowing from Luke 2 0 : 1 8 , where it functions as a closingcomment similar to Matt. 2 1 : 4 3 .

With this certainty as to what exactly is being investigated,one begins to read and re-read the text. The absence ofcommentaries and other aids at this early stage does notmean this exerc ise is merely preliminary and unimportant . It

6

This writer does not assume that all readers are using thelectionary. Those who are will also want to explore thelections from the Old Testament and the epistles for thesefour Sundays. But it is hoped that those who are not will findin these texts from Mat thew a clear and appropriate word.


9/110

H O M I L E T I C A L STUDIES

7

is basic and indispensable . Here one opens all faculties ofmind and emotion to receive the text. Here one joins thecongregation that will come without commentary to thesanctuary to hear this text read and interpreted. What doesthe text say? During this reading jot down what is known andwhat is not known as thoughts and questions are prompted.

Here is a parable about a man who invests much time, care,and money in a vineyard, lets it out to tenants, and goes outo f the country. At harvest time he sends servants for his fruit,but the tenants beat, kill, and stone them. Other servants, alarger number, are sent and they receive similar treatment.Finally the owner sends his son, thinking thereby to getrespectful attention and obedience. But the tenants, thinkingthe death of the son would make them heirs, kill him.

At this point, the teller asks the listeners what they thinkthe owner will do when he comes. The listeners are certain:he will kill those tenants and let out the vineyard to others.The teller (Jesus) now responds strangely by quoting Ps.1 1 8 : 2 2 - 2 3 , which is not about a vineyard but a building andabout a stone rejected by the builders becoming the head ofthe corner. Apparently, the builders' rejection was counteredby God in an act of triumph and vindication. But what hasthat to do with the vineyard, the owner, and violent tenants?Jesus now addresses the listeners' earlier judgme nt upon thewicked tenants. However , in verse 43 the subject is not avineyard but the kingdom of God. Obviously this verse is notpart of the parable but is an interpretation. How much moreo f this passage is interpretation? The parable i t s e l f probablyends at verse 39 cr verse 40. The remaining verses are notonly commentary but seem clearly fo reflect postresurrectionevents. The stone being made the head of the corner isapparently a reference to the triumphant exaltation of theSon. And is not the kingdom of God passing from thelisteners to another "nati on" a reference to the church 's movefrom Jews to Genti les? In this same vein, it is not simply thecommentary but the parable i t se l f (verses 3 3 - 3 9 ) that seems to


10/110


11/110


9

enrich the exploration of this passage . If not, t hen it isimportant to back away from the immediate text and reflectupon the perspective and principal accents of this Gospelbefore focusing upon the specific setting of 2 1 : 3 3 - 4 3 .Because it is the nature of a Gospel to contain a series ofstories each of which presents that Gospel in miniature, it isnot surprising that several of the major emphases of Mattheware found in the text before us. As the owner expected fruitfrom his vineyard, so does the whole Gospel express theexpectation that God's people will bear fruit. The theme,"Thus you will know them by their fruits" ( 7 : 2 0 ) , runsthrough the entire book. It is not saying "Lord, Lord" butdoing the will of God that really matters ( 7 : 2 1 ) . It is not simplyhearing Christ's words but doing them that establishes onefirmly on the rock ( 7 : 2 4 - 2 7 ) . Bearing fruit is righteousobedience to the will of God. The moral and ethicalearnestness which is to characterize the people of God isunavoidably plain in Matthew. Whoe ver teaches otherwise isguilty of lawlessness and is a false prophet contribut ing tomoral decay ( 7 : 2 1 - 2 3 ; 2 4 : 1 1 - 1 2 , 24).

A second emphasis throughout Mat thew is the reminder tothe readers that there will be a time of accountability, a day o fjudgment. It is sharply put in our text: "When therefore theowner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to thosetenants?" (verse 40) But no less sharply is the point made inother Matthean parables: tares will be burned, guests withoutwedding garments will be expel led, unprepared maidens willnot attend the wedding party, servants who bury the talentswill be cast into outer darkness, and all who fail to attend tohungry, naked, lonely, and impr isoned will be exiled into theplace reserved for the devil and his angels. The Lord'sinstruction to the church is underscored and reinforced byvivid images of "that day."

A third and final theme found both in our text and in thewhole of Mat thew is that of continui ty and discontinui tybetween the Christian community and Israel. Eve n though


12/110


1 0

Jesus had declared that his purpose was not to destroy thelaw and the prophets but to fulfill them ( 5 : 1 7 , 1 8 ) , this Gospelreflects a condition in which the distance bet ween synagogueand church has reached the point of open antagonism. IfMatthew's Gospel is properly located in Antioch, Syria,about A.D. 9 0 , then the book records the church's situation in acenter of the Gentile mission at the time Judaism is sharplydefining i t sel f in terms of traditions, canon, and institution.After a long and bitter struggle, Jerusalem had fallen to theRomans in A.D. 7 0 . The Christians had not joine d in defense ofthe city, but fled across the Jordan. Apparently Matthewunderstands the destruction of Je rusalem as God 's judgmentupon the wicked tenants ( 2 1 : 5 - 7 ) . There is no question thatf o r Matthew the Jewish leaders are the tenants who broughtno fruit from God 's vineyard (Isa. 5:2; Matt. 2 1 : 3 3 ) , thebuilders who rejected the stone that became the head of thecorner (Ps. 1 1 8 : 2 2 ; Matt. 2 1 : 4 2 ) , the stewards from whom thekingdom was taken in order to be given to others (Matt.2 1 : 4 3 ) .

T h e interpreter will want to be cautious here lest theseverity of tension betwee n the synagogue and the churchwhich prevailed in Mat thew' s time and place be imposedupon the relationship between Jesus and the Judaism of hisday. Tha t much of what Jesus said and did widened the gulfbetwee n him and Jewish leaders to the point of animosity andfinally death is clear. But the student of this text will noticehere and e lsewhere the reflection of conditions thatdeveloped after Jesus' death. For example, neither floggingChristians in synagogues (1 0 : 1 7 ) nor the acceptance ofGentiles into the church (2 1 : 4 3 ) occurred during Jesus'minist ry. It is the nature of a Gospel to retell the story of Jesusso as to address the church of the writer's own time, but theinterpreter must be careful in attempting a historicalreconstruction not to collapse the time o f Jesus and the time ofthe writer as though they were one and the same. This wouldb e unfair to both church and synagogue .


13/110

HOMILETICAL STUDIESWhen one moves from the larger to the more immediate

context of 2 1 : 3 3 - 4 3 , one discovers an intensification of thosethe mes which have been described as characteristic of theGospel as a whole. This interpretation is not surprising sinceJesus has now left Galilee ( 1 9 : 1 ) for Judea, the scene ofconflict, arrest, trial, and death. In fact, the entrance intoJerusalem is preceded by the third and final prediction of thepassion: "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Sono f man will be delivered to the c h i e f priests and scribes, andthey will condemn him to death, and del iver him to theGentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and hewill be raised on the third day" ( 2 0 : 1 8 - 1 9 ) . This statementannounce s the onset of "Jerusalem winte r," which extendsfrom the entry into the city ( 2 1 : 1 ) through the final publicdiscourse ( 2 6 : 1 ) to the death i t se l f ( 2 7 : 5 0 ) .

T h e passage we are exploring is the second of threeparables placed immediately after the cleansing of the temple( 2 1 : 1 2 - 1 7 ) , the cursing of the fig tree ( 2 1 : 1 8 - 2 2 ) , and thequestion of Jesus 7 authority ( 2 1 : 2 3 - 2 7 ) . It is significant thatthese parables are directed at the religious authorities in theirown territory, the temple ( 2 1 : 1 2 , 14, 23 ) . The first parable( 2 1 : 2 8 - 3 2 ) is a true parable in every sense: a simple story aboutanonymous persons engaged in everyday activities. It fits thecontext of Jesus' ministry with no intrusions of symboliclanguage, allegorical interpreta tions, or reference to conditions of the postresurrection church. In fact, commentsfollowing the parable concern responses by sinners andrighteous persons to the preaching of John, not Je sus . Theparable has to do with repentance and the kingdom of God,central themes in the preaching of both John and Jesus .

On the face of it, our lection is very similar to the above:both consist of parables with comme ntary, both are vineyardstories, both are addressed to the condit ion of resistance tothe kingdom, in both the kingdom of God (not " o f heaven" asis usual in Matthew) is the subject (verses 3 1 , 4 3 ) . However,characteristics within the parable as well as in the commen-

n


14/110


12

tary which follows make it quite clear that 2 1 : 3 3 - 4 3 hasdifferent presuppositions and reflects circumstances quitedifferent from those implied in the preceding parable of twosons. Quite obviously it is Mat thew and not Jesus who hasplaced these two parables together.

This observation moves the exegetical process directly tothe text of 2 1 : 3 3 - 4 3 . Matthew's account is enlightened bylooking at it beside the parallels in Mark 12:1-12 and Luke2 0 : 9 - 1 9 . Both Mark and Luke understand this parable to bedistinct from what precedes it, as is indicated by transitions:"And he began to speak to them in parables" (Mark 1 2 : 1 ) ;"And he began to tell the people this parable" (Luke 2 0 : 9 ) .Only Matthew has the parable of the two sons, and he seeksto join this parable to it by modifying the transition to "Hearanother parable" (2 1 : 3 3 ) . Thereafter, Mat the w is very close toMark but with several noticeable variations.

Mark's "servant" sent by the owner is in Matthew"se rvants ." Matthew very likely has the mistreated andmartyred prophets of Israel in mind. Unlike Mark, inMatthew the listeners incriminate themselves in respondingto the parable. Matthew also alters Mark's reference to theson being killed and cast out to the son being cast out andkilled, a change in the story to make it fit the historical facts ofthe crucifixion. And then Matthew adds the summarycomment (verse 43). The fact that Mark opens the parablewith the elaborate description of the owner preparing thevineyard, the description taken directly from Isa. 5:2,indicates that the parable is already on the way to becomingan allegory. A parable is a self-contained story, the meaningo f which is found within its own action and characterizations.An allegory does not have its message in i t se l f but in thatbeyond i t sel f to which it refers. By using Isa. 5:2, whichconcerns God and Israel, Mark and Mat thew alert the readerthat the story to follow is not about a man who owned avineyard but about God and the people of God. And as wehave seen, Matthew extends the allegorizing process by


15/110


13

altering details in the story to fit historical reality. InMatthew's hands, the parable becomes an allegory pointingto a God who invested heavily, to prophets who were abusedby those to whom they were sent, to God's Son who waskilled by God's people , to the destruct ion of those people ,and to God's transferring the kingdom from Israel toGentiles.

To isolate a parable from its context is usually not difficult.As a rule, parables are left fairly intact, told and re-told withlittle alterations to their interiors. Changes appear in thecomments at the beginning and at the close of parables. Here,however, the parable i t se l f has undergone internal modification, making it very difficult for the interpreter who wishes torecover the story "as Je sus told it ." It is the general opinion o fscholars that Luke's record is more parable-like in this case.However, even more free of internal elaboration andinterpretation is the account of this parable in the Gospel ofThomas, Logion 65:

H e said, "There wa s a goo d ma n wh o ow ne d a vine yard . He leased itto tenant farmers so that they might work it and he might collect theproduce from th em . He sen t his ser vant so that the ten ant s mig ht givehim the pro duc e of the vineyard. The y seized his serv ant an d beat him ,all but killing him. T he ser vant we nt ba ck an d told his master. Themaster said 'Pe rhap s the y did not recogn ize him .' He sent ano th erservant. The tena nts beat this one as well. Then the owner sent his sonand said, 'Per haps they will sho w re spect to my son.' Be cause thetenants kn ew t hat it wa s he wh o w as the heir to the viney ard , theyseized him and killed him. Le t him wh o has ears hear." ( T r a n s . T. O.Lambdin.)

The preacher or teacher who feels confident-that the storyas Jesus told it can be recovered may wish to develop themessage in the original parable rather than the message inMat thew' s interpre tation. Such a procedure is certainly notout of order nor in violation of the New Testament as thechurch's Scripture. However, the burden is on the interpreternot only to isolate the story Jesus told but to set that storywithin the intention of Jesus' message and ministry. Such a


16/110


14

pursuit is beyond our present exercise, but the parable (if theGospel of Thomas properly renders it) does stir somethoughts that could be fruitful. For ins tance , the story is inmany ways as old as Eden when tenants first tried to becomeowners, where creatures fist refused to accept their places asgifts of the Creator, where the refusal to be faithful stewardseventuated in murder. Being faithful and fruitful in the lifeand role given to us is certainly not absent el sewhere in Jesus'teaching.

However, it seems the better course to listen to the text aswe now have it, to hear with Matthew what Christ is sayingto the church . After all, biblical texts move forward toward usnot backward away from us. The most striking feature of thistext is the tension between the synagogue and the church,tension which is not only presupposed but increased. What isto be heard in that? Surely more than historical interest isbeing served by a story which indicates that in Matthew'stime and place the mission to the Jews is over. At least thisaccount does nothing to continue any effort to convert theJewish community to Christianity. On the contrary, it would,if heard or read by Jews, more likely alienate than reconcile.Nor does it seem reasonable that this passage is offered soleyfor the purpose of explaining that the fate of Israel was thedirect result of mistreating God's Son. That such aninterpretation of the fall o f Jerusalem was held by Matthew aswell as other Christian writers is clear, but what was the pointo f telling it? Is the writer giving his church a cheap lift bycriticizing the Jewish community and quietly celebrating thetransfer of the kingdom "from them to us"? One would hateto think so, even though the tactics of trumphalism haveoften soiled the mission of the church.

It is more likely that this text is offered as encouragementand confirmation to a church that follows a crucified messiahand whose members even now are being delivered beforecouncils, governors, and kings and who are being flogged insynagogues (Matt. 1 0 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) . How was the church to


17/110


1 5

interpret mistreatment and acts of violence against itself? Isthis God's punishment for those who have turned to theheresy of Christianity? Matthew answers clearly that thethings that have happened are within God 's will. So did theprophets write (Isa. 5:2; Ps. 1 1 8 : 2 2 - 2 3 ) and so did Jesushimself speak (Matt. 2 1 : 3 3 - 4 3 ) . Painful as the story has beenand is, still this is the Lord's doing: the rejected stone is thehead of the corner and the kingdom has been taken from thedisobedient and given to those who will bear fruit,

But in that assurance is a sharp warning. In fact, warningsmay be more evident in Matthew than words of encouragement. And the warning is this: unless the new tenants bearfruit, the kingdom may again be transferred. The Christiansare tenants, not owners of the vineyard. There is no room forchauvinism; it is not a case of Gent ile now being favored overJew. After all, says Matthew, both Jews and Gentiles arepersecuting the church. It is rather a case of the owner stillexpecting the vineyard to produce fruit, which Matthewunderstands as righteous living, human caring, and courageous witnessing.

The final step of exegesis is to return to the biblical text andread it again. This reading, benefitting from the investigations that have been done, will not be as the first. If initiallythe text was viewed from a distance, observing what was saidand done, it is not so now. A first impression might haveconfirmed old feelings: the Jews rejected, punished, andkilled those whom God sent. To teach and preach from thatdistance could feed, however unintentionally, anti-Semitismin the church. A second reading after careful study may effecta more direct appropriation of the text, warning the churchagainst tragic history being repeated, this time by Christians.These experiences of the text ma yb e compared to viewing oldnewsreels of World War II . At first one may sense a revival orperpetuation of animosity toward German s and Japanese . Asecond look, however, could prompt the viewer to ask if thegreed, fear, prejudice, self-interest, and unexamined nation-


18/110


19/110


1 7

with enough regularity to be habitual. With habit comes morefruitful use of time, more freedom for explorat ion, and moredelight in the task.

Matt. 2 2 : 1 -1 4 is definitely a single unit of material whichmay be used for teaching and preaching without fear ofviolat ing the integrity of the text. It is separa ted frompreceding material by a typical Mat thean transition: "Andagain Jesus spoke to them. . . . " Equally typical of Matthewis the concluding line: "For many are called but few arechosen." Proverbial sayings like this are found throughoutMatthew as closing comments and help account for thesimilarity of much of Matthew to the wisdom tradition inIsrael.There are those who would argue that the parableoriginally ended at verse 10, verses 1 1 -1 4 having been addedb y Matthew ei ther as an original elaboration of the parable oras the addition of a portion of what had once been a separateparable. This argument usually proceeds from the assumption that the very similar stories of a banquet and rejectedinvitation found in Luke 1 4 : 1 6 -2 4 and Gospel of Thomas 64more nearly represent the story as Je sus told it, and neitherLuke nor Thomas have a parallel to verses 1 1 -1 4 in Matthew'saccount. We shall have occasion later to look at Matthew inthe light of the other two stories, but at present it is enough tos a y that sermons or lessons on Matthew must includeMatthew's conclusion. Whether these verses are Matthew'screation or are taken from another parable, as they nowappear in the text, they end the story begun in verse 2 about aking, a wedding feast, and the guests of the king. Logical andtheological problems created by this conclusion will beaddressed in due time.T h e reader of Matt. 2 2 : 1 -1 4 is told at the outset that whatfollows is a parable told by Jesus to certain unidentifiedpersons. The parable is partially interpreted or applied by theexpression, "T he kingdom of heaven may be comparedt o . . . . "An d to wha t is the kingdom compared? A grand and


20/110


1 8

festive occasion; the pr ince is marrying and the king is givinga wedding feast. Preparations are completed, servants aresent to tell those invited, but the guests refuse. Oth erservants are sent but the guests not only refuse to come, theymake light of the invitation, some going off to attend to othermatters while some mistreat and kill the servants. The angryking destroys those guests, burns their city, and reissues theinvitation, this time extending it to all wh o could be found inthe streets, good and bad. The wedding hall was filled, butthe king saw one in attendance without a wedding garment.Speechless and without excuse, the man was thrown out atthe king's command.

Even upon the first reading, several matters demand moreattention. Most noticeable, perhaps, is the striking similarityo f the parable to the one preceding it, the story of the wickedtenants. The king parallels the vineyard owner, the guestswh o refuse to attend parallel the wicked tenants, andbringing in other guests parallels giving the vineyard to othertenants. In both, waves of servants are sent; in both theservants are mistreated and killed; in both severe punishment is meted out; in both something is expected of the newlyinvited, in the one case, wearing a wedding garment and inthe other, producing fruit. Do we have here two parables thatmean the same thing? And if a parable is a story cut fromordinary l i fe , has not this one suffered some exaggeration?Hardly lifelike, for example, is making light of a king'sinvitation, or sending so many servants to call the guests, orthe senseless killing of the servants, or bringing troops toexecute the guests and burn the city while a prepared meal iswaiting, or throwing out a guest brough t in off the streetbecause he had no wedding garment. And why speak ofthose brought in off the street as "both bad and good" ? Thatexpression injects into the story a moral quality quiteunrelated to wedding parties and guest lists. And the manthrown out is not simply rejected; the servants are to "Bindhim hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness;


21/110


19

there men will weep and gnash their teeth." Obviously theman is not simply tossed out of the party; he is beingpuni she d. And obviously the man is not simply beingpunished; he lands not in the street but in hel l. A parable sayswhat it says but an allegory says something else. The story,while seeming to be about a wedding feast and guests, isreally about something else, Matthew makes that clear.

The closing line, "For many are called, but few arechosen," could hardly have been the ending of this story.There is no contras t between called and chosen, nor is there anybetween many and few. The many and few cannot refer to theoriginal guests and to the street people who did attendbecause the story closes with a hall full of guests. And theking's tossing out one man certainly did not reduce many tofew. The truth in this closing proverb lies either within i t se l f orin another context because the preceding story does not moveto such a conclusion.

The preacher or teacher who has already worked throughthe preceding story (2 1 : 3 3 -4 3 ) may feel at this point that thispassage is clear, being a duplicate (even with quite differentimagery) of the parable of the wicked tenants. There is sometruth in that judgment. Contextually what has been said ofthe preceding parable can be transferred without alteration tothis passage. The parable of the marriage feast is the last ofthe three parables against Israel, set by Matthew in thecontext of Jesus' final weeks of debate, conflict, arrest anddeath. Appropriately, the clash with the religious establishment occurs in Jerusalem, in the temple. Internally, thisparable does seem to have been interpreted by the onepreceding it. In both, Matthew's tendency to interpretparables by allegorical and moral elaborations is quiteevident . Details of the stories conform, contrary to the usualpattern of parable content, to historical events such as Israel'srejection of prophets and of early Christian missionaries, thedestruction of Je rusalem, and the move ment of the churchtoward a predominantly Gentile constituency. However,


22/110


20

instead of turning from the parable as one which merelyrepeats what has already been said, let the interpreter lookmore carefully at the text itself. There may yet be a word thereto be discovered, heard, and said.For exegesis to be both fair and fruitful, it is essent ial thatone not approach the text negatively. For example, we havespoken of Mat the w's allegorical and moral expansions withinparables. If this fact is taken as an act of violat ing or distortingor obscuring a story Jesus told, if Matthew is viewed as onewho "changed" the message, then the interpreter is alreadyoperating with diminished respect for the text. Suchprocedure assumes that the real Gospel lies behind theGospels, that God' s Word is not the text we have but that"untouched by human hands " pure quotation of Jesus yet tobe recovered, that in the study of Christian documents,earlier is always better than later. A more positive approach isto see Matthew doing what Jesus did: addressing his hearers.He is doing what a Gospel writer does: he interprets Jesus'message for a new time and place. To have quoted exactly,without comment, to a church in Antioch, Syria, what Jesushad said to Jewish leaders in Jerusalem two generationsearlier could have been irresponsible or even misleading. Ofcourse, the church did not and cannot abandon its obligationsto preserve the tradition from Jesus, but to have done so or todo so by abdicating the obligat ion to interpret that tradition asthe word of the Lord for here and now would mean the B i b l eis not the church's Scripture but the church's idol.

Having this in mind, the s tudent of Mat thew is now free toprobe for any source Matthew may have used, not for thepurpose of "getting back to" anything, but in order better tounderstand by his use of that source wha t Mat thew is saying.In this regard, many scholars take Luke 1 4 : 1 6 -2 4 to be anearlier form of the parable of the feast. This may well be thecase. Luke's parable is certainly simpler (a man, not a king;gave a banquet , not a marriage feast; sent a servant, notservants; without acts of violence; no punishment of the


23/110


21

improperly attired, e t c . ) , has more dramatic unity (threeexcuses), and preserves more direct discourse common toparables. Luke's story is also much more realistic. This isevident not only in the absence of murders, retaliation, andtroops burning a city while a meal waits on the table, but alsoin the excuses made by the guests . Their excuses have theweight of reason and are in sharp contrast to Matthew's "theymade light of it." In other words, for Luke the invitationcomes amid worthy alternatives while in Matthew theinvitation comes to arrogant , critical, and belligerent guests.The Gospel of Thomas (Logion 64) shares in Luke 's simplerealism but with variations, the most noticeable being that theoriginal guests were all from the business world. The parableends in Thomas with a very strong anticommerce andbusiness bias: "Businessmen and merchants will not enterthe Places of My Father."

All this is not to imply that Luke has preserved the story asoriginally told. On the contrary, even Luke's chaste accountreflects certain characteristics of that Gospel's theology. Forexample, Luke places the story in a ser ies of parables given byJesus to his host and to guests at a dinner party in the ho me o fa ruler of the Pharisees. Meals are at the center of the theologyo f Luke-Acts. Also in Luke, to the banquet are invited "thepoor and maimed and blind and lame." These are the specialobjects of God 's love and to them belongs the kingdom. Andthe process of allegorization may have already begun in Lukewith the servant being sent into the city streets (Jews) andthen out into the open country (Gentiles). But even if Luke'saccount is not exactly as told originally, looking at Matthewalongside Luke makes more noticeable the special featurespeculiar to Mat thew. The se accents help us to hear whatMatthew says is the message of the Lord to his church. Tothese we now turn.

In Matthew, the banquet is now to be understood as thegreat eschatological feast, the messianic banquet. Thi s maynot have been the focus when Jesus told the story because he


24/110


2 2

often referred to his presence, his ministry, as a festiveoccasion (Matt. 1 1 : 1 9 ) ; in fact, as a wedding feast (Matt. 9 : 1 5 ) .B u t in Matthew's interpretation for his readers, the banquet isfuture not present. This fact is clear in that the story line of theparable follows the history of salvation not simply up to thedeath of Jesus and the time of the church (as in the parable ofthe wicked tenants, 2 1 : 3 3 -4 3 ) , but beyond the destruction ofJerusalem to the sending out of Christian messengers. Inother words, the parable assumes the banquet will take placeafter the Jewish rejection, after the destruction of Jerusalem,and after the Gentile ingathering. That the banquet is at theend time is also clear from the closing scene. Binding, cas tinginto outer darkness , weeping and gnashing of teeth areimages of the final puni shment. This parable , then, joinsothers in Matthew (the weeds, 1 3 : 2 4 -3 0 ; the ten maidens,2 5 : 1 -1 3 ; the talents, 2 5 : 1 4 - 3 0 , plus others) in calling thereader's attention to the final judgment.

This is no minor theme for this evangelist. In fact, thereminders of judgment not only appear frequently in Jesus 'teachings, but in Matthew's arrangement the final publicmessage of Jesus is on the subject of the last judgment."W he n the Son of man comes in his glory . . . " (2 5 : 3 1 -4 6 ) .Nor is Matthew alone in this conviction concerning accountability to God. To be sure, the first Gospel, with its constantattention to ethical seriousness and to righteous conduct asthe behavior of those in the kingdom, draws more frequentand more dramatic scenes of the final day before God than domost writers. But the entire B i b l e conveys the unwaveringconviction that history and human life have direction andpurpose. There was a genesis of all l i fe; there will be an end toal l l i fe. And it is God who finishes history and to whom all areresponsible.

And what , according to this parable, is the basis ofjudgment? Quite likely, as Luke has reserved, the single issueoriginally was how persons responded to the banquetinvitation: some said no and some said yes. But for Matthew


25/110


2 3

it is not enough simply to accept the invitation. Themessengers invited as many as they could find and theybrought into the king's great hall both the bad and the good.That was as it should be; everyone is invited, regardless.However, being invited is not to be interpreted as theoccasion for coming on one's own terms, coming as onewishes. An open invitation is not an announcement of nostandards, no expectation of the guests. Th is is the point ofthe closing episode (verses 1 1 - 1 4 ) . Shocking as it may be tous, the story assumes that all guests , "both bad and good ,"understood the banquet was in the king' s palace , in honor ofthe prince, on the occasion of the prince 's wedding, andcalled for appropriate dress. The wedding garment, inkingdom talk, is new l i fe , righteous conduct.

T h e preacher or teacher will want to be careful not toincrease the difficulty of the closing scene by importingunconsciously a line from Luke. The guests from the streets,in Luke's account, are "the poor and maimed and blind andlame." To bring that group into Mat thew' s story and thenhave the king expect everyone to wear a wedding garmentwould be painfully unjust and make the story unbearable(there is no evidence that it was customary to providewedding garments for guests, even though this is often saidto soften the story). As all familiar with Luke know, for thatwriter the inhabitants of the kingdom are the nobodies: thepoor , the oppressed, the hungry, the indigents of the street,the powerless . But Matthew addresses a church plagued bylawlessness, ethical irresponsibility, and moral laxity. He,therefore, looks at the guests in terms appropriate to thatchurch: the bad and the good.

It would be unfair to Mat thew to say that his purpose wasto clean up Luke 's banquet. Howe ver one may gauge thesuccess of his effort, the evangelist is struggling with thenature of the Gospe l as a word both of grace and of judgment .F o r all his concern for right conduct, Mat thew has not lost theword of grace. "Go therefore to the thoroughfares, and invite


26/110


24

to the marriage feast as many as you find" (verse 9 ) . "And thoseservants . . . gathered all whom they found, both bad andgood" (verse 10). There is at this point in the story noselectivity, moral or otherwise; but Matthew knew how easilythe word of grace could become cheap and melt into softpermissiveness. He knew that without demand, grace is nomore grace; that for those who presume upon grace,forgiveness does not fulfill righteousness but negates it.Matthew apparently is addressing a church that had lost thedistinction between accepting all persons and condoning allbehavior.

When the preacher or teacher returns to the text for a finalreading, it is quite likely that the narrative unity which isexpected of a parable will have receded before the moredominant impression made by Matthew's interpretivehandling of the story. Matthew offers the "parable" in threedistinct movments: first, verse 1-8 relate how it was. HereMatthew allegorizes the parable to document his reading ofhistory: the rejection of prophets and Christian missionaries,resulting in the destruction of Jerusalem and Israel's loss ofplace at the messianic banquet. The preacher will probablynot wish to linger in this first movement since Mat thew hasturned a parable into history. Second, verses 9-10 announcehow it is. Here reader identification is immediate. We are theinvited, the strangers, the nameless ones brought in off thestreet. Here we are, the bad and the good, sitting at the king'stable. Why? How? It certainly is not because we are goodsince the bad are beside us; it certainly is not because we arebad since the good are beside us. The reason lies solely in theking who issued the invitation. This is the good news,incredible and beyond calculation. Third, verses 11- 14 warno f how it will be. It is expected that a guest respond in waysthat properly honor the host and the occasion. Here is theExodus again: deliverance from Egypt followed by thecommands at Sinai. Here are justification and sanctificationagain: called by grace to the obedience of faith.


27/110



Isaiah 45 :1 - 7 I Thessalonians l:l-5a Matthew 2 2 : 1 5 -2 2Exegesis and Exposition of Matthew 2 2 : 1 5 -2 2The preacher or teacher of this lection can be confident of

its unity and can do the exegesis without fearing that thepassage has been fragmented by the lectionary or that theisolation of this text damages what precedes or what follows.The boundaries are clear. "T he n the Pharisees went . . ."(verse 15) is a clear break from the preceding parable, whichhad its own conclusion. And verse 22b, "and they left himand went away" is obviously the end of the episode. In fact,this is exactly the expression used by Mark to conclude theparable of wicked tenants (12 :12c) , which in that Gospelimmediately precedes the question of tribute to Caesar( 1 2 : 1 3 - 1 7 ) . Such concluding sentences serve to "round off" atext, making it more portable for use in a variety of sett ings inthe life of the church. Quite possibly this text had a life of itsown in the teaching and debating of the Christian communities prior to its present location and use in the Gospels. Boththe form and content of the story argue for such a priorhistory. The form is a "pronouncement story," a unit ofmaterial that has as its center a pronouncement of Jesus. Insuch stories, the narrative portion is subordinate to thepronouncement and usually recounts the barest essentials as

Protestants have a tendency to wallow in grace. Some areimmobilized by a fear of doing anything lest they be accusedo f seeking salvation by works; some, by a fear of genuinepiety lest they be accused of seeking salvation by merit. Thosewho bless their indolence with the soft sounds of "AmazingGrace" may be startled by the king's question: "Friend, howdid you get in here without a wedding garment?"

25


28/110


2 6

a cradle for the saying of the Lord. That saying is the primarycontent and the reason for preserving the story: Jesus hasspoken on a matter of major importance for the church.

T h e reader of Matt. 2 2 : 1 5 - 2 2 is told at the outset that whatfollows concerns an attempt at verbal entrapment. Oneknows, therefore, to expect a clash of wits, or a question-and-answer exchange, or a question met with a question, orpossibly a citation of Scripture countered with anothercitation. Jesus is the target and the engineers of the schemeare Pharisees. Even though the general context of Jerusalemand temple remain, not priests (Sadducees) but Pharisees areat work here . That is important . What is their quarrel withJesus? Has Jesus violated their territory or their beliefs? Is aquestion about tax to Rome a Pharisee concern? Maybe thepolitical nature of the question accounts for Herodiansaccompanying disciples of the Pharisees , Precisely who areHerodians? The hostility of the group is thinly veiled bycompliments to Jesus' person (he is true or genuine), histeaching (it is the way of God presently truthfully), and hisrelationships (he does not play favorites nor compromisehimself to gain the favor of the powerful) . Th ese pretending-to-be seekers ask a big question. Is it lawful? What law is evenin question? Certainly not Roman since Rome imposed thet a x . Then we have a possible clash of laws.

Jesus is obviously in a "no win" situation, whether heanswers yes or no, Jesus knows full well their maliciousintent in testing him. Would "tempt" be a good synonym for"t es t" here? If so, then this is a temptation story and the evilone is at work. Jesus asks for a coin. Does this mean he had nomoney, or was he by this means ensnaring them? Theirhaving a Roman coin would be silent testimony to their beingin Caesar's realm. Then again, maybe their bringing the coinimplies they had to go find one. To Caesar, Caesar's; God,God's. Is that an answer or a clever maneuver? If it is ananswer, then is Je sus recognizing two realms, secular andsacred, political and religious? If so, surely the two realms are


29/110


27

not equal in demands for allegiance , nor mutually exclus ive.T h e delegation marvels. At what? His answer? His seeingthrough their trap? His cleverness? They walk away but thereader of this lection remains with a hand in the air and a listo f follow-up questions.

This is the point to back away and see the passage incontext before moving in more closely in order to hear, ifpossible, the message Matthew brings from Jesus Christ tothe church.

W e have already become familiar with the context in whichMat thew places the four lections being considered here , andthere is no nee d to repeat what has be en said. Howe ver , thevisibility of the structure of this section could provide anopportunity for a preacher or teacher to he lp listenersunders tand wha t a Gospel is, thereby correcting a popularnotion that a Gospel is a biograph y with chronologicalcontinuity. Just as Matthew collects in chapter 13 eightparables with no intention of leading a reader to think Jesusgave all of them at one time, so here Mat th ew has gatheredthe accounts of Jesus' most substantive debates with thereligious authorities. When and in what order these eventsoccurred is not the primary concern of the writer. This is notto say none of these encounte rs occurred at the end of Jesus'l i fe . On the contrary, one would expect the, greatest tensionand most serious issues to appear as eve nts build towardJesus' death . But just as one can see the pedagogical value forthe early church in collecting parables in groups, so one cansee the polemical value of gathering into one large unit theissues that were debated between the church and thesynagogue.

T h e lection for today is the first of four question-and-answer encounters between Je sus and Jewish leaders.Following the question of tribute to Caesar there is thequestion from the Sadducees concerning the resurrection( 2 2 : 2 3 - 3 3 ) , the Pharisees' question about the great commandment ( 2 2 : 3 4 - 4 0 ) , and finally, Jesus' question to the


30/110


2 8

Pharisees: "What do you think of the Christ? Whose son ish e? " ( 2 2 : 4 1 - 4 6 ) . These four confrontations are set between thethree parables against Israel ( 2 1 : 2 8 - 2 2 : 1 4 ) and Jesus' scathingapology against the scribes and Pharisees (23 :1 -36) . In order tohear these words of Jesus, the reader is asked to stand in apublic place in Jerusalem, At the time of this story, Jerusalem isliving not only in the light of the temple but in the shadow ofthe judgment hall of Rome's governor, Pontius Pilate.

Matt. 2 2 : 1 5 - 2 2 follows the basic outline in Mark 12 :13-17 :questioners came to Jesus with flattering lips and hostileintent; they pose the question of paying taxes to Rome; Jesusperceives their evil design; Jesus asks for a coin and involveshis opponents wi th a question; Jesus answers their question;they marvel and go away.

T h e questioners are Pharisees, the Jewish party whichdominate s this entire section of Mat thew with the except iono f the one encounter with the Sadducees ( 2 2 : 2 3 - 3 3 ) . This isnot at all surprising since the Pharisees were the major partyo f Judaism to survive the wars with Rome and were therepresentatives of Judaism in Matthew's day. Because theSadducees were the priestly party and ceased with thedestruct ion of the temple , recalling debates between themand Jesus could have little practical value for Matthew'schurch. However, debates between Pharisees and Jesus hadimmediate transfer value to debates between synagogue andchurch. The base for Pharisaic activity was the synagogue,the most durable and powerful institution of Judaism. At theheart of the synagogue was the Torah, the sacred Scriptures,and its interpretation for the life of Israel was a principalbusiness of the Pharisees.

Their plan to entangle Jesus is to be carried out by adelegation of their own disciples (an unusual reference; seealso Mark 2 : 1 8 ) and Herodians. Pharisees and Herodians area strange league, joined by Mark here (12 :13 ) to entrap Jesusand at 3:6 to dest roy him. Herodians were the supporters ofthe Herod dynasty, in the present case Herod Antipas. Since


31/110


29

the Herods held power by Rome' s permission, they weresupporters of Rome 's tax. The Phar isees, however, smartedunder this and all other Roman intrusions into Israel's l i fe .Even though their opposition was not feverish and openlyhostile as was that of the Zealots, still their coming withHerodians to Jesus represented a no and a yes to the taxquestion. Whatever Je sus ' answer, someon e would be verydispleased. But that was the point of sending such adelegation with such a question.

Posing as truth seekers, they address Jesus as "Teacher."Interestingly enough, this is not a term in Matthew's Gospelb y which Jesus ' disciples address him. Rather , enemies andunbelievers use this title. Also interesting is the ques tioner' suse of "what you think" (verse 17) . This may be irony orsarcasm since the expression, "What do you think?" was,according to Matthew, a favorite way Jesus introduced ateaching. The flattery is transparent to Je sus and he knowswhat Matthew has already told the reader in verse 15, thattheir intent is evil. Had Matthew not so informed us, wemight have been deceived by that which Jesus saw as adisguise.

" I s it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar , or no t? " The translation"lawful" may be too strong. The phrase can also be translated" I s it permitted" or "Is it proper." That may have been thequestion: not the legality of Rome assessing a tax but whetherit is permitted or proper for a Jew to pay that tax. The tax inquestion was probably the Roman poll tax, levied in A . D . 6,still in effect and the occasion for bitter clashes between Romansand Zealots.

Verse 17 makes it clear that Jesus perceives the occasion as atime of temptation. The word translated in the R S V as "malice"is the common adjective meaning "evil," which when used as anoun means "the evil one," that is, Satan. For example, theLord's Prayer petitions: "And lead us not into temptation, / Butdeliver us from evil" (the evil one, Matt. 6 :13) . Also "put me tothe test" can be translated "tempt me." The word is most often


32/110


3 0

translated " temp t/ ' as in the Lord's Prayer and in Je sus'experience in the wilderness (Matt. 4 : 1 - 1 1 ) .

T h e difference between "te st " and " tempt " is imme nse inthe way one understands Jesus' perception of the situation. Ifhe is being tested, then we have here a game of wits, ofminds, and, at its ugliest, a trap, so that in the presence ofboth supporters and opponents of the tax, Je sus will be forcedto make enemies by his answer. The cons eque nces, of course,would not be inconsiderable. But if Je sus is being tempted,then the evil one is working through these questioners to lureJesus into a posi tion in his minis try that would be in service tothe prince of this world and not to God. Recall the wildernesstemptations which preceded Je sus ' ministry: food (stones tobread), miracles (leap from the pinnacle), and political power(the devil offers the world). All these had to do with minist ryand the nature o f the kingdom. Or again, whe n Jesus firstbegan to speak of his own suffering and death , Pete r rebukedhim. Jesus recognized in Peter's rebuke more than the voiceo f a friend but the voice of temptation. "Get beh ind me,Satan!" ( 1 6 : 2 1 - 2 3 ) . If Satan worked through a friend, thensurely opponents could be the instruments of temptation, asMatthew often points out ( 1 6 : 1 ; 1 9 : 3 ; 2 2 : 3 5 ; 2 3 : 1 5 ) . Even if onegrants that the translation "tempt" may introduce toodirectly the ultimate conflict, Je sus versus the power of Satan,still the passage conveys more than a battle of minds amongdiffering interpreters of religious and political responsibility.Jesus is confronted with "e vi l, " not jus t "a tough ques tion ."

T h e teacher or preacher will want to be deliberate andintentional in portraying the scene. On one level, one cancheerfully conclude Je sus is of keen mind and again outwit shis opponents. On another level, one can face the painfultruths which we repeatedly encounter in the stories of Je sus 'ministry: evil is very real; it approaches often in beautifuldisguise (flattery): its agents may be persons who understandthemselves to be religious leaders; no response is clear andsimple; doing God 's will in any situation demands discern-


33/110


31

ment and responsible decision. It is difficult to believeMatthew preserves this story to enable his church toappreciate how clever Je sus was. In Antioch, Syria, near theclose of the century (if that was the time and place), Romewas still powerfully present, the tax was still due , andChris tians were still struggling to know if there was any placefo r obedience to Caesar among those living for the fullentrance of the kingdom of God.

When the coin (denarius) was brought , Rome becamevisibly present. Coins from this period ( A . D . 1 4 - 3 7 ) have beenrecovered and, in addition to an image, bear the words:"Tiberius, Caesar, son of the divine Augustus, high priest." Thenarrative portion of the text ends with Jesus holding the coin andlooking at it, Then Matthew gives the pronouncement whichwas the reason for preserving the story: "Render (give back,return) therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and toG o d the things that are God's " (verse 21).

What are we to understand by this word of the Lord? Surely itmeans more than keeping Roman coins and Jewish coinsseparate. And certainly it cannot mean that there are twoseparate realms in which allegiance is owed and these are not tob e confused. There are not two Lords but one. Jesus will make itclear in our next lection: "You shall love the Lord your God withall your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind"(22 :37 ) . Whatever is granted Caesar must come under that firstand greatest commandment.

Then is the saying in verse 21 really an answer to the questiono f paying tax to Caesar? It is not an answer if by answer is meantquoting something Jesus said as though that called for nointerpretation, no struggle for its appropriation in a particulartime and place, no decision on the part of his disciples. Scripturedoes not properly function that way, not even pronouncementso f the Lord. Regarding Scripture as authoritative does notprohibit the church struggling with its meaning; it demands it.Paul demonstrates this when faced with questions aboutmarriage in Corinth. He responds first with the word of the


34/110


32

Lord: the wife should not leave the husband nor thehusband, the wife (I Cor. 7 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) . Then he beginsinterpreting this word of the Lord as it bears upon thecondition of a Christian man or woman having a paganspouse (I Cor . 7:12 ff. ). In similar fashion, the church in thefirst century and every century since has quoted this word ofthe Lord concerning civil duty and then labored to interpretits meaning in a variety of contexts. Paul did in Rom. 13:1 ff.as did the writers of I Pet. 2:13 ff., I Tim. 2 : 2 , and Titus 3:1 . Bythe time Revelation was written, the attitude of Rome towardthe church had changed radically and "render to Caesar" wasinterpreted anew (Rev. 13:1 ff.; 18:1 ff .) . The church may bedisappointed that she has here no "timeless truth" to quote,thereby dissolving all complexities into a simple answer. Butwhy should his disciples be exempt from the testing, thestruggling, the demand for discernment that marked Jesus'entire l i fe?

The question of a Christian's responsibility to Caesar isdifficult enough wh en made the subject of prayerfuldiscussion among the concerned seeking God's will andways to support one another. Whe n the question is posed as away to trap someone, to condemn someone with the label of"liberal" or "fundamentalist" or "activist" or "peacenik, "then seeking the way of God in the world gives way to malice .Under such conditions new questioners replace the old, butthe business is the same: agents of the evil one come not toseek and know but to tempt and destroy.

Now read again the text. If it remains no more than a battleo f wits, then applause for Jesus is response enough. If,however, the Pharisees who come to test him become forJesus the disguised voice of temptation as he faces a clashwith established authority, then complimenting Jesus on hisanswer is hardly adequate.

The preacher or teacher may choose to attend to either ofthe two major impacts of the passage. One impact is in termso f method: what is the nature and purpose of Christian


35/110


33

discourse? How and to what end do believers engage oneanother about the faith? Listening to the text and to much ofthe religious talk so prevalant today, one would get theimpression that it involves right answers and wrong answers;trick questions that cause one to feel trapped; code words toseparate insiders from outsiders; clever maneuvers ; wittyputdowns; Scripture quotations that impale the opponent;simple solutions that close conversation. However, Jesusmoved the discussion to another level, that of a soulstruggling with the will of God amid many loyalties. Thislevel lies beyond wit, games, and traps. T he other impact isthat of the issue: the responsibility of Christians towardsecular authority. That God is sovereign over persons andinstitutions is not an issue, but the place of Caesar under thatsovereignty is. Solutions are simple for those who call Caesar"Lord" just as they are for those who call Caesar "Sa tan." Inother words, if the state is to receive either total obedience ortotal opposition, the lines of action are clear; but if the churchca n at times support and at times must resist the state, then thestruggle is on. And the struggle is not ended by a decision inone case but is renewed with every assault upon conscienceand faith. Nor was Jesus himself exempt. In fact, he wasfinally quite alone, both church and state conspiring againsthim. One can hardly imagine a heavier demand: to be calledupon to obey God, not simply in the face of political wrath butwithout the support of the community of faith. But it stillhappens.


Exodus 2 2 : 2 1 -2 7 I Thessalonians l:5fr-2:8 Matthew 2 2 : 3 4 - 4 6Exegesis and Exposition of Matthew 2 2 : 3 4 - 4 6

Those who have been taking seriously the need todetermine early the boundaries of a text will be quick to see


36/110


34

that Matt. 2 2 : 3 4 - 4 6 does not consist of one unit but two. Thetwo units begin similarly: "But when the Phar isees heard . . .they came together" (verse 3 4 ) and "Now while the Phariseeswere gathered together" (verse 41). Th e first unit ends atverse 40 and the second at verse 4 6 . In fact, verse 46 ends theentire question-and-answer section and not simply theaccount contained in 2 2 : 4 1 - 4 6 ("And no one was able toanswer him a word . . . " ) . Mark had used this ending at theclose of the ques tions put to Jesus ( 1 2 : 3 4 ) and Luke after theSadducees' question about the resurrection ( 2 0 : 4 0 ) , ratherthan after Jesus' question to his questioners, as Matthew hasdone. Two other factors divide this lection into two distinctunits: one deals with Old Testament commandments whilethe other concerns christology, and one presents Jesusanswering a question while the other presents him as thequestioner. Understandably, therefore, some lectionariesend the Gospel lection for this Sunday at 2 2 : 4 0 .

It will be important for the preacher or teacher to decidequite early whether only one or both the stories in this textwill be used for lesson or sermon. Separating them, as wehave noted, would do no violence to either, and certainlyeach is of such substance as to deserve its own treatment. Ifthe whole lection is to be considered, then some methodneeds to be chosen which does not divide the lesson orsermon in half. As a suggestion, why not focus primarilyupon 2 2 : 3 4 - 4 0 , using 2 2 : 4 1 - 4 6 as a christological affirmationconcluding the entire series on debate and conflict? Thecomments that follow will take this course.

According to Matthew, the Pharisees came again to Jesus.They heard ho w he silenced the Sadducees on the question o fthe resurrection. Since Jesus' position on resurrection waslike their own, were the Pharisees encouraged, or did Jesus'"success" against the Sadducees challenge them even moreto tempt him into some unpopular or heretical position? Th ePharisees "came togeth er. " A new and striking expression. Isthe plot thickening, or is the pressure upon Jesus becoming


37/110


3 5

more official? Which is "the great commandment' 7 ? Withhundreds of laws bearing the weight of divine command, thequestion is surely a lure into the heresy of simplification. Andyet it is a good question, especial ly wh en one is ove rwh elmedby the sheer number of regulations. Wha t is the heart of thematter? Everything in the Scripture hinges on total love ofGod and love of neighbor as oneself, says Jesus. The twocommands are alike, he says. Ho w so? Do not the twocompe te with each other? Does not church history reveal thatfull attention to the one means violation by neglect of theother? Is the solution an equal expenditure of time andresources? How does one love God anyway?

Again the Pharisees gather together, but now Jesus turnsquestioner. The subject is chris tology: whose son is theMessiah? This answer is clear and predictable but it is notclear whethe r Je sus agrees or disagrees. In either case, Jesushas something else in mind. He uses Ps . 1 1 0 : 1 , assuming itwas written by David and that the expression of "my Lord"refers to the Messiah. Is Jesus forcing the Pharisees to choosebe tween Mess iah as son of David and Mess iah as Lord atGod's right hand? Or is it the case that both titles are correctand a choice is not possible? Maybe the Pharisees had notpreviously associated Ps. 110:1 with the Mess iah . Is Jesusteaching them something new, or forcing them to see thatthey, too, cannot answer some questions easily, or simplytaking the initiative in order to turn the tables and end thegrilling? The effect is silence, since those who cannot answerfind it difficult to keep asking. And Matthew's church: whatdid they hear and understand in all this?

To begin to deal with these and other questions promptedby the text, it might be helpful to review discussions ofcontext in the exeges is of the preceding lections . The re is noneed to rehearse that here. Suffice it to say that three parablesagainst Israel have been followed in Matthew by threequestions from Israel to Jesus, concluded by one questionfrom Jesus to Israel. Israel cannot answer, and the entire


38/110


3 6

section is closed. Matthew follows with Jesus turning fromIsrael's leaders to the multitudes and to his disciples andpronouncing woes upon the scribes and Pharisees (23 :1 ff.).The shift from chapter 22 to chapter 2 3 is very significant. Th eaudience for Jesus changes; he no longer talks to but talksabout the religious leaders. Our lection represents, then,Mat thew's portrayal of the two final encounters of Jesus andoff ic ia l Judaism before Jesus turns to the crowds, then to hisdisciples, and finally to the cross. Je sus and the Pharisees canmeet because they hold a common heritage and embracecommon sacred texts. The tension arises in the interpretat iono f that heritage and those texts.

Matt. 2 2 : 3 4 - 4 0 has parallels in Mark 12 :28 - 34 and Luke1 0 : 2 5 - 2 8 . Even though Luke agrees with Matthew that theone questioning Jesus was a lawyer seeking to test (tempt)him, Luke has located the story earlier as preface to theparable of the good Samaritan. Mark has the question aboutthe first commandment come from a sincere scribe whomJesus commends. Only Matthew has Jesus again confrontedby Pharisees, which gives the occasion the character of anoff ic ia l meeting "at the top." As was said earlier, this enablesMatthew to transfer the message directly to the encountersbetween church and synagogue. The twice-used expression,"they came together" may echo Ps. 2:2: "and the rulers takecounsel together, / against the Lord and his anointed[Christ]." On the matter of "putting to the test" andaddressing Jesus as teacher, see the discussion of 2 2 : 1 5 - 2 2 .

The quest ion of the great commandment was not anunusual one, especially from one trained to know, classify,and interpret the law of Moses . Rabbis had long engaged inarranging the laws into various categories, including that of"weight" (light and heavy). In such efforts at classification itwas inevitable that someone ask, which is the great (in Mark,first) commandment? Once opinion solidified in a group orparty, the quest ion became a tool for locating the position ofan opponent.


39/110


37

Nor is Jesus' answer a surprise, especially the first part of it.T h e command to love God totally had been elevated to specialimportance in Judaism, as evidenced by the daily recitation ofthe Shema: "Hear, O Israel, . . . you shall love . . ." (Deut.6 : 5 ) . (Matthew uses the Septuagint, but substitutes "mind"fo r "might ." Mark and Luke have both "mind" and "might ,"o r strength.) In fact, in Luke's account, it is the lawyer himselfwho provides this answer as a summary, along with Lev.1 9 : 1 8 , of "what is written in the law" (1 0 : 2 5 -2 8 ) . That Lukesays the lawyer quoted Deut. 6:5 while Matthew and Marksa y it was Jesus who did so should remind us that in manyfundamental matters Jesus and the Pharisees, the church andthe synagogue, agreed. This fact is too seldom celebrated. It ismore often the case that Christianity is evaluated in terms ofits difference from, its contrast with, Judaism, as though itmust continually be described as "over against" the parentfaith. In many ways the church reaffirms Israel's faith. It musthave been a real source of satisfaction to Matthew and to theJewish Christians in his constituency to be reminded that inthe great and first commandment , church and synagogueagreed at this profound level . Jesus came not to abolish but tofulfill.

Strangely enough, this passage and Luke 11:42 provide allthat the Synoptics offer on the topic of our love for God. Infact, the New Testament as a whole speaks relatively littleabout it. Far more attention is given to God's love for us,those ways in which God relates to us, making possible aresponse of love on our part. But how does o j i e love God?How does one turn in single devotion toward God?

Love of God is certainly not achieved by turning away fromother persons. On this the text is clear: "And a second is likeit, You shall love our neighbor as yourself" (verse 3 9 ) . Lev,19:18 is joined to Deut. 6:5, The point here is not to creditJesus with a new summary of life before God; these twocommands had been joined by others before Jesus. Again,Christ ians should look not solely for what is unique about


40/110


3 8

their faith but what is fundamental . And for Mat thew,beyond all doubt, love for others expresses the deepest intento f God' s law. Love and mercy toward all per sons, includingenemies, extended without partiality, is the distinguishingmark of life in the kingdom ( 5 : 4 3 - 3 8 ; 7:12; 9:13; 1 2 : 1 - 8 ;1 8 : 1 2 - 3 5 ; 2 5 : 3 1 - 4 6 ) . On the other hand, the clear signs ofheresy and apostasy are hatred for one another and lovegrowing cold ( 2 4 : 1 0 - 1 2 ) . It may be that Mat the w's church wasplagued by a kind of religion which turned away from humanneed in exercise of pure and total love for God ( 7 : 2 1 - 2 3 ;2 5 : 3 1 - 4 6 ) . If so, then it is likely Matthew recalled this scenefrom Jesus' ministry as a warning to the church. Israel'sproblem was not the lack of clarity as to those fundamentalsupon which all the law and prophe ts depended. Rather herproblem was the neglect of these weightier matters whilegiving full attention to sacrifices, ceremonies, legal details,and all the ways people attend to religious matters (23:1 ff.).And so Je sus addresses the church, but not with a new andbet ter answer to the quest ion of what is the greatcommandment.

It is striking that at the close of this unit (verses 3 4 - 4 0 )Mat thew does not "round it off" with one of his characteristicconclusions. There is no response, no summary, noproverbial saying, no amazement, no action. Why? If wecont inue to think of the text as the word of Je sus Christbrought by Matthew to the church, then perhaps that isreason enough. If in Mat thew' s time and place the church isbeginning to busy i t se l f with those activities which perpetuate religious institutions, to the neglect of the two commandments which are first and great, then the woes uponIsrael (23 :1 ff.) may come soon upon the church. In such case ,the passage needs no formal closure. On the contrary, the oldword is still the new word, awaiting full obedience.

T h e unit concluding this section ( 2 2 : 4 1 - 4 6 ) has parallels inMark 1 2 : 3 5 - 3 7a and Luke 2 0 : 4 1 - 4 4 , but with noticeabledifferences. In Luke the audience is not identified, but Jesus


41/110


39

is obviously speaking to one group about another: "How canthey sa y. . . ?" (verse 4 1 ) In Mark Jesus addresses the peopleabout the scribes: "How can the scribes say. . . ?" (verse 35)Only in Matthew do we have a direct confrontation and it is,characteristically, with the Pharisees. "What do you think ofthe Christ (Messiah)? Whose son is he?" (verse 41). Onerecognizes Matthew's often-used introduction, "What doyou think," which was, as noted earlier, the expression usedb y Pharisees in addressing Jesus at the beginning of thisfourfold question and answer session (verse 1 7 ) . Now Jesus isthe ques tioner but not in order to test or tempt. Againcharacteristic of Matthew, Jesus has those addressed answerhis question rather than give a summary report as do Markand Luke.

T h e answer given, that the Christ is the son of David, hadstrong, Old Tes tament support and was one of the commonlyheld views of the Messiah (Isa. 9 :2 -7 ; 1 1 : 1 -9 ; Jer. 2 3 : 5 -6 ;3 3 : 1 4 - 1 8 ; Ezek. 3 4 : 2 3 - 2 4 , and others). Is Jesus here rejectingthat view? Probably not. Had Jesus rejected that view of theMessiah it is unlikely that the title "son of David" would haveremained so much a part of the christology of the earlychurch, including Matthew (Matt. 1:1-17, 1 8 - 2 5 ; 9:27; 12 :23 ;1 5 : 22 ; 2 0 : 30 - 3 1 ; 2 1 : 9 , 1 5 ; Luke 1:69; II Tim . 2 :8 ; Rom. 1:3). Doesthe interchange here reflect an identity crisis in Jesus?Probably not. Questions about Jesus' inner l ife and self-understanding reflect our psychological orientation aboutwhich the Scriptures show little knowledge or interest. What,then, is taking phce in this encounter?

Rather than replacing one messianic title with another,Jesus is here building upon one image a larger and moreadequate one. Whose son is he? This question is properlyanswered: "David's." The whole of this Gospel says so, but"son of David" does not completely answer the question. Sono f David is not the term used of the Christ in the passionnarrative nor is son of David the title used of the one


42/110


4 0

crucified. Th e express ion is simply not adequate forconveying all that Matthew means when he says Jesus is theMessiah. The Messiah is not solely David's son; he is alsoDavid's Lord.

T h e use of Ps. 110:1 does not, therefore, counter thePharisee's answer but enlarges it. The citation of this passage(Matthew uses the Septuagint) is in quite traditional andpopular form; it is ascribed to David, who spoke in the HolySpirit; that is, he was regarded as a prophet. Actually Ps. 110is probably from the Maccabean period, eight centuries afterDavid, but Psalms were related to David as Proverbs were toSolomon. Whether the rabbis had unders tood Ps. 110messianically is quite unclear, but the early Christianscertainly did. It is the most widely and most frequently cited(about 35 times) Old Tes tament passage in New Testamentchristological statements. Its most common Christian use isto proclaim the Resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Christ toGod's right hand. Luke says it was the major supporting textwith which Peter concluded his sermon at Pentecost (Acts2 : 3 4 - 3 6 ) .

T h e preacher or teacher will want to be aware of thelocation of this text in Matthew's Gospel. Here location is assignificant an exegetical factor as internal analysis. In thepreceding stories Jesus has been grilled and tempted. In thesucceeding stories he will go to suffering and death. Betweenthe two, Matthew draws the curtain and reminds the readerthat the one being tempted and tested, the one soon to bebetrayed and crucified, is exalted Lord at God's right hand.Matthew offered such an assuring word to the reader afterdescribing Jesus ' baptism: "and lo, a voice from heaven,saying, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am wellpleased' " ( 3 : 1 7 ) . Again, after Jesus' first prediction of hispassion comes the transfiguration, "and a voice from thecloud said, 'This is my beloved Son , with whom I am wellpleased; listen to him' " ( 1 7 : 5 ) . So here , the encounters end


43/110


41

with a triumphant note, and thereafter, no one dared to askany more questions.

In fact, it is in this same vein that Matthew will concludethe Gospel: "And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authorityin heaven and on earth has been given to me' " (2 8 : 1 8 ) .

After working through this lection, the preacher or teachermay be more impressed than ever by how distinct andseparate the two units (verses 3 4 -4 0 ; verses 4 1 - 4 6 ) really are. Itmay also be evident at this time that since neither issubordinate to the other and since both are of majorimportance, wisdom dictates treatment in two sermons orlessons. If that is the case, a further word about the secondunit might be helpful. Major attention in the precedingexegesis was given to the first unit dealing with the greatcommandment.

A s was stated earlier, Matthew concludes the debatesection with the exaltation theme, which gives the image ofChrist as Lord at God's right hand (Ps. 1 1 0 : 1 ) . The first ofthese four lections (21 :33-43) also contained an exaltationtheme drawn from the Psalms (1 1 8 : 2 2 ) : "The very stonewhich the builders rejected has become the head of thecorner ." The enthroneme nt of Christ as Lord was frequentlyproclaimed by the post-Easter, post-Pentecost church, andrightly so. Mat thew even speaks several times of Christ beingworshipped. But it is important to notice that the exaltation o fChrist never served to erase or deny his earthly ministry, hishumiliation, suffering, and death. Christ's Lordship isproclaimed in the midst of service, conflict, and suffering. AsPaul expressed it, the one exalted is the one who emptiedhimself and was obedient unto death. It is a distortion of thegospel for the church to try to celebrate Easter without GoodFriday, to try to experience Pentecost without a cross.

" S i t at my right hand until. . ." ( N E B ) . The preacher woulddo well to pause over that word until. Christ is Lord; Christ isbecoming Lord over all forces of evil. The exaltation of Christ isour song, but it is also our ass ignment.


44/110


42

AID S FOR TH E I N T E R P R E T E R O F M A T T H E W

G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, and H. J. Held. Tradition andInterpretation in Matthew, Trans. P. Scott. Philadelphia:Westminster, 1963. Essays on major themes and issues inMatthew.

J . D. Crossan. In Parables. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.Builds upon Jeremias but with greater emphas is uponparables as literary art.

Gospel Parallels. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1967.The Synoptic Gospels in parallel columns, making vividand unavoidable the issues in studying the texts of theGospels.R . G. Hamerton-Kelly. "Matthew, Gospel of, " Interpreter'sDictionary of the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. Vol. V. ,pp. 5 8 0 - 8 3 . B r i e f and clear sketch of the structure andmessage of this Gospel.

J . Jeremias. The Parables of Jesus. New York: Scribner's, 1972,2nd rev. ed. B a s i c to any serious work in the parables.

J . D. Kingsbury. Matthew (Proclamation Commentaries).Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Good overview of the formand theology of Matthew.

Clinton Morrison. An Analytical Concordance to the RevisedStandard Version of the New Testament. Philadelphia:Westminster, 1979. Provides easy and thorough access toappropriate texts.

E . Schweizer. The Good News According to Matthew. Trans. D.E . Green. Atlanta: John Knox, 1 9 7 5 . Comments on the text,unit by unit.


45/110

SOME HARD QUESTIONSIN PASTORAL C A R EA DS Reacts to the Matthew Lections

THOMAS A. WHITING

John Steinbeck described a travel exper ience acrossAmerica with his dog. While in New England he worshippedat a small country church.The minister, a man of iron with tool-steel eyes and a delivery like apneumatic drill, opened up with prayer and reassured us that we werea pretty sorry lot. . . . Then, having softened us up, he went into aglorious sermon, a fire-and-brimstone sermon. . . . I began to feelgood all over. F o r some years now God has been a pal to us, practicingtogetherness, and that causes the same emptiness a father doesplaying softball with his son. But this Vermont God cared enoughabout me to go to a lot of trouble kicking the hell out of me.

And, Ste inbeck concluded, "T he service did my heart and Ihope my soul some good."

1

This note is sounded in the lections found in Matthew 21and 22. The parables mince no words. T he y demandsome thing of us. The big quest ion is ho w their message can fitinto the minister's pastoral concern.

Is judgment to be the theme of sermons? Is it therapeutic?Many preachers say not. They present the claims of Christ asthose of love, leaving off the hard language of Scripture.Strong preaching that lambasts the sinner is still heard in theland, mostly from Fundamentalists, but in most of themainline denominations the gospel message is much softerand more often than not emphasizes the grace and love ofGod.Thomas A. Whiting is superintendent of the Atlanta-Emory District, North GeorgiaAnnual Conference.

43


46/110


44

There is a pragmatic reason for softer preaching also, sincemany preachers fear a dwindling congregation should theypreach on such traditional themes as the judgment of God.After all, the budget has to be raised and the conferenceapport ionments met! The effect is that many preachers avoidhard, evangelistic preaching. Othe rs simply believe thatconverts will never be made and the already converted neversustained by scolding from the pulpit. Only the message ofGod's love can do these things.

The publishing houses have encouraged this tendency,demanding from their writers positive material and titles.Teachers of preachers have also been careful to instructyoung divines to use more "do's" than "don'ts." This meansthat scriptural passages of consola tion which promise thepresence and power of God will be selec ted more often thanparables of judgment.

While this approach has its merits, other pastor-counselorstrained in modern biblical interpreta tion s ense that redemption cannot take place without confrontation: The hard linemust sometimes be taken in the pulpit. This does not meanthat the pastor will forsake training received at a first-rateseminary or will harangue people with moral commands. Itdoes mean the pastor should sense the value of preachingthat the faithful have personal responsibility to God. Thepa

Documents

Fall 1981 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources for Ministry