Archive for the ‘Matthew’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Getting the relationship right

November 21, 2020

The Reign of Christ

Matthew 25:31-46

Marian Free

May I speak in the name of God who gives us everything that we might give God our all. Amen.

My sister used to work for Family Services. It was a traumatic experience for someone who had just left university. Every Sunday lunch she would regale us awful stories – her way of dealing with the stress. Needless to say a number of her stories have stayed with me.  One relates to a young boy who was placed in a foster home in January. Somehow his foster parents discovered that Santa had never been to his home. His mother has always said that he had been too naughty. His foster parents were so sad to hear his story that, even though Christmas was long gone, they organized the local Rotary to bring Santa to their home just for this child.

Parents use a variety of techniques to discipline or control their children  – corporal punishment, coercion, persuasion, rewards, positive reinforcement, behaviour modification and so on. A certain amount of discipline is necessary. A child who knows what the boundaries are is likely to feel more secure and a child who understand that some things and some situations are dangerous will be better able to keep out of trouble. Whether we like it or not, we are all part of the wider society and we need to understand how to get along with other people and how to respect the law and the rights and needs of others. At its best, discipline encourages a child to be their best self and to get along with others. Few of us make perfect parents, but I am sure that those of us who have had the opportunity to be parents have done our very best to raise happy, confident children.

Unfortunately, there are some for whom discipline too easily slips into control. There are parents who say such things as, “if you don’t do what you are told I won’t love you”, “if you don’t behave I’ll leave you on the street”. A child raised in such circumstances would live in a state of constant anxiety, never knowing what behaviour might lead to the threatened punishment or when their parent’s love might be withheld. Instead of feeling valued and growing into mature and happy people, they would always be insecure, always trying to please their parents in order to earn their love.

Young or old, we all respond much better if we know that we are valued and loved by our parents.

Sometimes the Bible appears to  present God as a demanding and hard to please parent, one who says! “If you don’t behave I won’t love you.”  I have known many people who have not been taught to believe that God loves them unconditionally and live in constant fear that they have done something to displease God. In reality there is no impossibly high standard that we have to reach in order to earn our entrance into heaven. Nor is God watching every detail of our lives in order to catch us out so we can be punished. Instead God is urging us on from the sideline, conscious of our frailty but willing us to be our best selves.

Today’s gospel, indeed the gospels of the last two weeks, could easily be used (indeed have been used) to support the view of a harsh and unforgiving God. If you do not have enough oil the door will be locked, if you haven’t appreciated and used God’s gifts you will be thrown into outer darkness. It seems clear if you don’t reach the bar, God won’t have a bar of you!

I’d like to put the three parables into context. All our gospels were written at least 40-50 years after Jesus’ death. By this time those who knew Jesus would have died and it is possible that the second generation of believers would also have also died. The initial enthusiasm for the faith would have waned and the believing community would no longer be able to rely on the shared excitement of the original believers to shape behaviour and to draw new converts to the faith. At such a time the church would have been looking at new ways to get members and new ways of encouraging members to hold on to the faith.

There is considerable evidence within Matthew’s gospel to suggest that the community, having left behind the first flush of enthusiasm is looking for ways to encourage people to stay and ways to draw others in. What better way to put the ‘fear of God into people than to threaten believers and non-believers alike to an eternity of punishment. Of all the gospel writers none does a better job at this than Matthew. Only Matthew, for example has the parable of the wise and foolish maidens and the sheep and the goats.

Let me make it clear. I do believe that I/we will one day have to answer to God for our lives on earth and let me tell you, that will be close enough to hell for me.

It is easy to think that God is harsh and unforgiving, but the parables of the wise and foolish maidens, the talents and the sheep and the goats may be pointing in another direction. They may be challenging us to ensure that our relationship with God is so strong and secure that we always have something in reserve, have the confidence to use our gifts and the desire to support and encourage others.

If you put your relationship with God first, everything else will fall into place.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Christ the King, Matthew | Comments Off on Getting the relationship right

Open to God’s abundant love

November 14, 2020

Pentecost 24-2020

Matthew 25:14-30 (notes from Stradbroke Island)

Marian Free

In the name of God whose generous love is poured out on all who would receive it. Amen.

Gallery owner, international art dealer and philanthropist Tim Olsen has this week released his memoir – Son of a Brush. Tim is the son of one of Australia’s most well-known and respected artists John Olsen. As he tells it, Tim had a chaotic and emotionally deprived childhood. The family spent Tim’s early years in Europe before moving to an artist’s commune to the north of Melbourne. Dunmoochin was, Tim writes, ‘a bacchanalian free love cult’. Sexual experimentation was encouraged. Tim witnessed scenes that no seven year old should be exposed to and he was very aware of the distress that his father’s sexual adventures caused his mother. But it was not just life at home that was unsettling. Tim was bullied and abused by the local children. On one occasion a group of eight children, including a young girl, knocked him to the ground and urinated on his face. Tim credits this heinous act as the reason why, throughout his life, he has struggled to trust friendships and intimacy.

His turmoil didn’t end when the family left Dumoochin for Sydney two years later. Tim was sent to boarding school. When he graduated at 18 his parent’s marriage had reached breaking point and his father left his mother for the woman with whom he’d been having an affair. (Tim heard about the subsequent marriage through a friend who had been invited to the wedding – though he had not. When John married his fourth wife, Tim and his sister were banned from visiting.) Tim went on to be a hugely successful art dealer, corporate advisor and consultant, but nothing could fill the deep void inside. His first marriage failed and despite a second marriage and the birth of his son, Tim’s private life spiraled into a self-destructive pattern of over-eating and alcohol abuse. At one point he even considered taking his life.

Tim is on the way onto recovery thanks to his wife and to friends who kept him strong, but his story is a reminder that abuse and neglect leave people traumatized and untrusting, unable to form intimate relationships and often trapped in negative and destructive behaviour which reinforces their belief that they are not good enough or that there is nothing about them that is loveable.

That rather long introduction is an attempt to answer the question as to why the third slave in today’s parable hides the money that is entrusted to him. His experience of life has left him fearful untrusting and lacking in any self-confidence. His primary concern on being given the vast amount of money is to keep it safe. He does what He does what most people did to keep valuables safe from thieves and invaders – he buries it. After all, he has been given no instructions, perhaps it’s a trick x yet another ruse to expose his inadequacies. (‘Better be safe’, he might have thought.)

As I have said before, Matthew’s version of this parable often gets conflated with Luke’s version and both no doubt have been changed in the retelling. At the heart of the parable is generosity. The amounts given to each servant are impossibly large – millions of dollars. Instead of focusing on the punishment of the third servant perhaps our focus should be on the generosity of the giver and our willingness (or inability) to be gracious recipients of that generosity.

If we have not known unconditional love and trust, it can be almost impossible to feel loved and trusted, impossible to love and trust others. Some people (presumably illustrated by the third servant) close in on themselves fearing that if they open themselves to ‘love’ they will only be hurt and abused. Unable to accept that they might be loveable, they cannot even see God as a God who loves without condition. They feel that they must constantly be on the alert for abuse and that they must try to please others (including God). They feel that love, if love is to be had at all, has to be earned and that others (including God) are always on the lookout to find reasons not to love them.

The parable is not so much a parable about a harsh and unforgiving God, but about a God who pours out abundant love, and it tries to explain why not everyone is able to receive that love. It is written for those of us who know God’s love, whose lives have not been barren and filled with disappointment and is a reminder to always trust God and to be open to God’s love. Those who through trauma and fear lock themselves out of God’ love will never know the rewards and blessings of same. I believe though, that the gospels as a whole (think the lost sheep, the prodigal son) tell us that God will leave no one behind and that those who have been traumatized and denigrated and unloved, will one day open their wounds to the ministrations of God’s love and will be made whole. Then they too will see that the gifts of God (the talents) will grow in ways that they can not begin to conceive.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on Open to God’s abundant love

Resilience

November 7, 2020

Pentecost 23 – 2020

Matthew 15:1-13

Marian Free

In the name of God who nourishes and sustains us. Amen.

“Love your neighbour as yourself”, “the first shall be last and the last shall be first”, “take up your cross and follow me”, “forgive seventy times seven”. Jesus teaches and models selflessness, compassion, inclusion and understanding. The parable of the prepared and unprepared maidens seems to fly in the face of all of Jesus’ previous teaching and example – the door is shut and the bridegroom deaf to the pleas of the young girls who are locked outside. This is a parable that gratifies those who thirst for fairness and judgment (‘see we were right’ they can proclaim, “the bad and those who are not prepared will face judgement and be excluded from heaven!’). At the same time the parable appalls and confuses those of us who celebrate God’s inclusive, redeeming and all-embracing love. The shut door and the bridegroom’s refusal to acknowledge the young girls do not seem to fit with the Jesus who forgave those who nailed him to the cross.

There are a number of issues that are raised by this parable and unfortunately we do not know enough about first century wedding practices or the culture of the time to make proper sense of it. It appears that children were often betrothed at a very young age (Mary being an example). Often they were engaged to members of their extended family in order to strengthen and enhance family bonds. When the children (if they were children when betrothed) were old enough a wedding date was set. The fathers would meet to discuss the details of the arrangements – primarily the bride price or the dowry. The meeting would take place at the home of the bride and from there the groom would bring her to his home where the wedding feast would take place. (In a patrilineal society, the bride would become a part of her husband’s family.) 

Our parable tells us that a number of young women have been sent to greet a bridegroom but for some reason he is not on his way. Despite the parables’ frequent appellation the girls are not bridesmaids for they have no relationship with or responsibility for the bride. In all probability they were young girls – the groom’s sisters or cousins. Their responsibility is unclear, but again, in the context of the parable it seems that their role was to provide light for the wedding party or at the very least to be a visible welcoming party.

We do not know if it was usual for negotiations to begin so late or to be so fraught that they do not conclude until nearly midnight. Presumably the girls had been sent on the assumption that the timing was right. There is no other reason why  young girls (or unaccompanied girls of any age) would have been out on the streets at night. The expectation that it was the right time for the girls to be sent is reinforced by the fact that they had not all been sent off with extra oil. As time passes the girls drift off to sleep. (One wonders if the guests at the home of the bridegroom has also nodded off and what about the food – could it be kept warm enough, cool enough until the groom arrived?)

At last the groom is announced and five of the girls realise that they no longer have enough oil. The others refuse to share and send them to the dealers.one wonders if the girls have been sent out with money and if so, where would they find dealers who were still awake at midnight? Does the bridegroom bear no responsibility for keeping them out (and up) so late?

As it stands then, the parable includes a number of conundrums – but that is not the issue. This is a parable  not an historic event. As much as we might want to understand the detail, the detail is not relevant to Jesus’ purpose or to our understanding.

Of those who were waiting for the bridegroom, ALL ten fell asleep. Alertness is not the issue, nor is the apparent selfishness of the wise or the irresponsibility of the groom. What does seem to be the point is having sufficient in reserve in order to respond whenever and wherever there is need.

For us, this means attending to our prayer lives and building our spiritual resources, allowing time for rest and recuperation so that we have reserves to fall back on and strengthening our relationship with God such that the difficulties of the present or of any future time will not find us depleted – unable to care for ourselves and certainly unable to sport or care for others.

COVID 19 has put us all to the test, putting strains on relationships, battering egos, changing lifestyles, depriving us of those things that give us a sense of worth and our lives some meaning, up-ending our expectations, limiting our activities and our contacts with friends and family and generally testing our resilience and our spiritual health. Elections in the United States and the changing balance of power on the world stage have added to our sense of disquiet and the feeling that we are not in control.

Today’s parable doesn’t insist that we spend our days in a state of constant alertness for Jesus’ return or that we busy ourselves trying to make sure that we have stores of goodwill built up with the Son to ensure we are not locked out of heaven. Rather it suggests that whatever storms rage around us, no matter how lost we may feel or how long the bridegroom is delayed, we will have built up our spiritual resilience such that we will be ready for anything and nothing will throw us off our stride. When the Son comes we won’t be scurrying off worried about one thing or another, but will be quietly and calmly present.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on Resilience

How many laws?

October 24, 2020

Pentecost 21 – 2020

Matthew 22:34-46

Marian Free

In the name of God who created us and loves us for who we are. Amen.

In the midst of the pre-election debates in the United States, the shocking rise of COVID cases (and deaths) throughout the world, the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia and other equally disturbing and gripping news, it would have been easy to miss a most extraordinary and startling statement made by Pope Francis in a documentary “Francesco” released this week. He said, “Homosexual people have a right to be in a family. They are children of God. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable over it.” This appears to be a radical departure from the current position of the Catholic Church with regard to homosexuality.  For Francis, though his position is not new. When he was still the Archbishop of Buenos Aires Francis, who opposed legislation in support of same sex marriage did argue for legal protection for gay couples. In 2013, on a flight from Brazil to Rome Francis remarked to the journalists who had covered his trip: “If someone is gay and seeks the Lord’s will, who am I to judge?”[1]

The Pope’s statements, especially in with regard to the right for homosexual people to be in a family, recognises God’s love for all humankind and also the need that every human being has to be loved.

In today’s gospel, Jesus’ debate with the leaders in Jerusalem is coming to an end. His opponents have failed to trick him with their questions about authority, resurrection and taxes. In a last-ditch effort to expose him, a lawyer, one of the Pharisees asks a question about the law. The Pharisees were experts with regard to the law. Believing that the Temple – its priests and its sacrifices – were corrupt, Pharisees had built an alternative way of serving God – adherence to the law. A thorough search of the Torah had revealed not 10 commandments but 613! They could comfortably assume that Jesus, who was not one of them, would not be able to answer correctly. 

This you will remember was not a friendly debate, but a battle to influence the hearts and minds of the people. The Jerusalem leaders were fighting for their position and their dignity, yet once again, they have underestimated Jesus’ wisdom and ability. He was not, as they had imagined, a country bumpkin with no knowledge of the scripture or of its interpretation. He has already demonstrated that he is not so easily caught out. While we have no idea how Jesus gained his education it is clear that directly, or indirectly he has absorbed both the arguments and the debating techniques of his opponents. 

In this instance, Jesus’ response is not original. Broadly speaking the Ten Commandments cover two main areas – first, the love of God and the relationship between the Israelites and God and second the ways in which people should relate to their fellow human beings. The first half of Jesus’ answer comes directly from Deuteronomy 6:5 and the injunction to love one’s neighbour is taken from Leviticus 19:19. It was common to sum up the law as love of God and love of neighbour. These, as Jesus claims, are the foundation of all the other commandments – whether it be the Ten given to Moses or the 613 discovered by the Pharisees. A person who loves God with their whole being cannot help but be in the right relationship with God and someone who loves their neighbour as themselves will never cause or wish them harm. All the other commandments are simply an expansion of these two. 

Jesus has dispensed with 611 commandments and replaced them with two that have love at their heart. 

If only it were that easy! We all know that loving all God’s children freely and graciously does not come easily. It is hard to love those who have caused us offense, or those whose lifestyle and culture is vastly different from our own. It is difficult to love those who do not love us back. Further, love is vague and ill-defined. If only it were spelled out – with 613 smaller rules, then we could be sure to get it right. 

The problem is, as Jesus continually points out, rules of any kind limit and place conditions on love. Commandments on their own free us to judge and exclude others. They allow us to mete out and to drip feed love while at the same time giving us a standard against which to measure ourselves. It is easy to keep the commandment: “Do not commit murder;” but it is much harder to avoid the mean-spirited, judgemental behaviour that causes a person (or group of people) to die inside over and over again. It is relatively easy to keep the command not to commit adultery, but less easy to maintain a relationship which is constantly meeting the ideals of love that are enumerated in 1 Corinthians 13. It is easy, as the Pharisees demonstrate, to keep the letter of the law. It is much more difficult to keep the Spirit of the law.

Love is at the heart of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus’ love for God was revealed in his complete trust in God – no matter how unpromising his circumstances and Jesus loved without condition and with no thought for himself. Jesus loved the good and the bad, the in-crowd and the out-crowd, the law-keepers and the lawbreakers. Jesus loved to the point of death – having made no demands on those for whom he died. He loved freely and with wild abandon and gave everything as a consequence of that love. 

There are only two commandments of any consequence – love God and love your neighbour. If only we can rid ourselves of all the other laws (written and unwritten) which bind and constrict us, then we can begin the terrifying work of learning what it really is to love.

[1] Reported on the ABC news site, this week (18-25th October).

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on How many laws?

An argument in the past or wisdom for today?

October 17, 2020

Pentecost 20 – 2020

Matthew 22:15-22

Marian Free

In the name of God in whom we live and move and have our being. Amen.

I don’t need to tell you that religion is not particularly popular in modern Australian life. Too many people are disillusioned by the institutional church. They have been offended by the scandal of child sex abuse, disappointed that the church doesn’t speak directly to their situation or they have found themselves too busy (with more interesting and demanding things) to be engaged with the life of the church. Despite this, many of the basic tenets of the Christian faith remain as core values and beliefs. Underpinning books on self-help, ‘new age’ or spirituality are what you and I would know to be Christian themes. Motivational speakers blithely speak about “new birth” and even “resurrection” apparently completely oblivious to the fact that they are using the narrative that is central to the Christian faith. Magazine articles promote generosity and forgiveness as a basis of healthy living – they too apparently ignorant of the fact that world religions have been promoting such ideals for millennia. 

When I hear and see central elements of the faith being spruiked as if they were completely novel ideas, I try not to become too distressed and defensive. I am very aware that, had the church promoted the gospel more effectively, that it (we) would be more readily seen as a source of wisdom and well-being and that people would look to us and not to these self-proclaimed purveyors of spirituality for meaning, inner peace and yes even success. 

The bible in its entirety and the gospels in particular are full of advice as to how to live a whole and meaningful life. If we pay attention to the central themes that underpin Jesus’ action and his teaching we discover that compassion, forgiveness, detachment, generosity, trust, love, letting go of anxiety, being mindful – are all there, and while it is important to read the story as it is presented, it is also important to ask ourselves what it is saying to us and to our situation. Otherwise the gospels simply become a history lesson or a set of rules to be applied (or to be ignored).

Take for example the gospel readings of the last few weeks (including today’s). Jesus’ debates with the leaders in Jerusalem speak just as forcefully to us as they did to his audience 2000 years ago. In contemporary language Jesus appears to be saying to his opponents: “Be careful that you do not try to take God’s place on the assumption that you can manage things better.” “Don’t be so focused on your position in this society that you fail to hear God’s invitation to be part of God’s future.” “Don’t presume on your membership of the church for salvation, God can include anyone whom God chooses.” “Don’t obsess about things that ultimately don’t matter.” Each of these injunctions are as relevant today as they were 2,000 years ago. They help us to focus on what is important and not to get too distracted by the minutiae of day to day life or too obsessed by things that ultimately make no difference to our lives in the present – let alone the future.

In today’s gospel, the members of the Jerusalem elite are continuing their attempts to expose Jesus and thereby to diminish his influence among the people. This time it is the disciples of the Pharisees with the Herodians who are sent to ask Jesus a question that they hope will cause him some embarrassment: “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” It was a good question. No one liked taxes – not only were they burdensome, they also saw the wealth and produce of the region being pocketed by the Roman occupiers, many of whom lived beyond Palestine and so put nothing back into the community. There was a tax on everything – on the roads, on the catch of fish, on the harvest. As a result, many people were impoverished while others enriched themselves by taking on the role of the despised tax collectors. The Romans and their taxes were deeply resented. 

Jesus’ opponents thought that they had come up with the perfect question. If Jesus advocated not paying taxes, he would be guilty of breaking the law, if on the other hand he encouraged the payment of taxes, he would cause offense to those who hung on his every word. Jesus won’t be so easily caught. He is aware that his opponents are trying once again to trap him. Unlike his opponents, Jesus knows what is important. He knows, as Warren Carter points out that while paying taxes acknowledges Rome’s political power, it does not necessarily affirm Rome’s moral authority to rule. Moral authority belongs to God.[1] That distinction is important. Paying taxes to Rome makes no difference to one’s relationship to God. Jesus’ opponents have allowed themselves to be absorbed by an issue that relates to the Empire and to day-to-day living rather than focusing on the Kingdom of God. They have confused the secular and the profane with the religious and the holy. Being obsessed with detail their minds are closed to the bigger picture. 

The same can be true of us. We can allow ourselves to worry about things that ultimately have no impact on our relationship with God and on our eternal future. Here and elsewhere Jesus is advocating that his followers (and those who would be followers) learn to distinguish the things of God from the things of this world, that they practice detachment from the  distractions and anxieties of the present and that they don’t allow themselves to become preoccupied with issues that do not impact on eternity.

An argument between Jesus and the Pharisees becomes advice for today and urges us to ask ourselves where we place our focus – on the things around us or on God? Where do we look for meaning and inner peace – in the secular or in the divine?

[1] Working Preacher, for Pentecost 20, 2020. http://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=4624

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on An argument in the past or wisdom for today?

Saying “yes” is all it takes

October 10, 2020

Pentecost 18 – 2020

Matthew 22:1-14

Marian Free

In the name of God who invites us all to the heavenly banquet. Amen.

Some of you will know the Jane Austen novel Emma. Emma is the daughter of a gentleman, and a member of a family of property and status in her small society. Emma takes her position seriously and believes she should lead by example and maintain the distinction of rank. There are people in the village with whom she is very happy to mingle, but she has very clear ideas as to who would and would not be suitable acquaintances. Emma takes a shine to Harriet, an orphan whose origins are unknown. She is certain that Harriet is the daughter of a gentleman and is determined that Harriet learn the niceties of mixing in society and that she should marry someone who is equal to the person Emma believes her to be. 

When Harriet receives a proposal of marriage from a tenant farmer, Emma not so subtly suggests that Harriet should decline the offer – such a match would necessarily end their friendship. In a such stratified society to mix socially with someone of another (lower) class, would be to be seen to be lowering one’s standards. While such an action might not directly affect a person’s position or rank, it would cause others to look askance and to question their respect for the values and mores of the time.  While Emma could almost certainly afford to break the rules – she might be considered eccentric – her family’s position and wealth would be secure. 

Such was not the case in the equally stratified society of Jesus’ time. People, especially those of rank, were very aware of their position and very anxious to retain the respect and honour that came with it. The difference between society in the Roman Empire and that of Jane Austen’s England was that position and rank were much more tenuous – based not on a person’s birth or wealth, but on their ability to gain and to maintain honour in the eyes of their peers. Nearly every interaction was determined by notions of honour and shame and there existed strict rules of engagement to ensure that no one unintentionally challenged the honour of another.  There was only so much honour to go around. If someone wished to enhance their own place in society, they would have to do so at the expense of another.

Honour and shame lie behind the exchanges between Jesus and the chief priests and scribes in this section of Matthew’s gospel. Jesus’ opponents felt diminished by Jesus’ actions and wanted to regain their position of influence with, and power over, the people. In order to achieve this, they tried to confound Jesus by asking a difficult question. Jesus answered a question with a question and, when the chief priests and scribes were unable to answer, he pressed his advantage by telling not one, but three parables aimed squarely at them. 

In this, the last of the three parables, honour and shame are a central theme. It was not unusual for two invitations to be issued for a meal. The first invitation allowed the invitees to determine who else had been invited and to decide whether or not their honour would be enhanced or compromised by their attendance. Invitees would only attend if other guests were of equal or higher status than themselves. For unknown reasons, the guests in this parable make light of the invitation and simply go about their business.  The host is furious, he has been seriously humiliated and his honour gravely damaged by the reaction of the “invitees”. Worse, to add insult to injury, the intended guests further slight the host by seizing, beating and killing his slaves.

It is interesting and important to note the differences between the ways in Matthew and Luke record this parable. In Matthew the invitations are issued by a king. The king restores his position by violently destroying the proposed guest list. In their place he invited people of no consequence at all – good and bad alike  – a further injury if the intended guests had been alive to see it. In contrast, Luke’s host is just “someone”, the guests make flimsy excuses for not attending, the slaves are not killed, and the guests are not destroyed. Those invited instead are, first of all, the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame – again an insult to the original guest list but consistent with Luke’s emphasis on God’s preference for the poor.

The differences between the two evangelists are significant. They reveal the agendas of Luke and Matthew. While both suggest that outsiders, not the invited, will be the guests at the banquet, Luke sets the parable in the context of a dinner at which Jesus is encouraging humility. Matthew includes the parable in the debate between Jesus and his opponents in Jerusalem. The violence in Matthew’s account (absent in Luke) fits with the earlier parable of the vineyard and suggests that Matthew is providing a short history lesson about Israel’s rejection of God’s agents and is looking ahead to the destruction of Jerusalem. 

In this, the third parable directed against the chief priests and scribes, Matthew’s Jesus makes it clear that in refusing to accept him the chief priests and scribes are refusing God’s invitation to be a part of the kingdom. That being the case, God will give the vineyard to others and welcome outsiders to the banquet. 

Put together, the three parables in this section are a warning that we should not become complacent or to take for granted our place in the kingdom. Taking the vineyard for ourselves or being too proud to accept the invitation to the banquet demonstrate a failure to understand that our salvation depends – not on what we do bu on what God does for us. They remind us that it is God (not us) who will determine who does and does not belong and tell us that if we rely on ourselves and on what we do and do not do, we demonstrate our independence from God and are in grave danger of being oblivious to or ungracious in regard to God’s invitation. 

Our salvation relies not on anything that we (or anyone else) has done, but rather on what God has done for all humankind. Our primary responsibility is not to come to our own conclusions (about ourselves or others) but to humbly and gratefully accept the invitation to be a part of the kingdom – that the rest will take care of itself.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on Saying “yes” is all it takes

Who’s vineyard is it anyway?

October 3, 2020

Pentecost 18 – 2020

Matthew 21:31-46

Marian Free

May I speak in the name of God, Creator, Death-defier and Empowerer. Amen. 

By all accounts I was wise not to try to watch the Trump/Biden debate during the week. I hear that it was a complete debacle and not a debate at all. At its best the Presidential debate (or indeed any debate between potential leaders) is intended to allow the candidates to lay out their positions and their polices and to attack and criticise their opponent’s policies and positions. Each person hopes to expose the inadequacies and flaws both of their opponents’ policies and of their capacity to lead. A skilful debater will present their position in a way most likely to gain the attention and sympathy of the audience (voters). He or she will frame questions that force the other to state something in a way that plays into their own argument or they will bait the other candidate until that person says something unwise that can (in that debate or at a later time) be used against them.

Today’s parable about the vineyard and the “wicked tenants” has to be seen in the context of this sort of debate. Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem and his subsequent actions in the Temple have given him the ascendancy over the leaders (secular and religious) in Jerusalem. He has gained the attention and the loyalty of the crowds – at least for now.  Threatened and anxious about losing their place in the community the various leaders approach Jesus in turn, each trying to trap him or expose him in argument. 

The question with which this section of Matthew’s gospel began was about authority. The chief priests and elders ask: “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” The leaders, who have authority by virtue of their role and wealth, hope to demonstrate to the crowds that Jesus has no legitimacy in the wider community and certainly no authority to teach and to heal. They hope to expose him as a charlatan, and thereby to re-establish their own positions of leadership among the people.

Jesus is not so easy to ensnare. He responds by turning the table on his opponents. Firstly, he asks them a question that he knows that they will not be able to answer. Then, pressing his advantage, Jesus continues by telling three parables that are intended to support his own claim to authority while at the same time exposing the illegitimacy of the Jerusalem establishment.

The parable of the vineyard uses imagery from Isaiah 5. Though Jesus begins the parable in the same way, he takes it in a very different direction. In both instances we are to assume that it is God who has planted the vines, built a watchtower and dug out a wine vat. The results of the planting are very different. In Isaiah, despite the best efforts of the one who planted the vine, the yield is no good. The vine (Israel) produces wild grapes. As a consequence, the vineyard is abandoned to the elements, which in turn leads to its destruction. In contrast, as Jesus retells the parable, the issue is not the quality of the fruit but the desire of the tenants to have control over the yield. It is a matter of who gets what and how do they get it.

Absentee landlords were a common feature of the Palestinian landscape. Soldiers, senators and others loyal to Caesar were rewarded with tracts of land in the nations that had been conquered by Rome. That did not mean that the recipients wanted to live so far from the centre of power. Their land was leased to tenants who were expected to look after the land and its crop in return for a portion of what was produced. 

On a superficial level Jesus’ parable is a short history of Israel who shunned and even killed those whom God sent to bring them back to God and a prediction of what is about to happen to the son (Jesus), who like the prophets has been sent to disrupt the status quo and to reassert God’s sovereignty over the people of Israel. In the context of Jesus’ debate with the chief priests and elders, the underlying issue must be seen as one of authority. By killing, first of all the slaves, and then the son, the tenants are trying to establish control over the distribution of the crop. They are claiming responsibility for the vineyard and therefore for the fruit. Killing the son will only establish what they already believe to be true – that the crop is the result of their efforts and is therefore theirs. 

We are to believe that the tenants are the chief priests and elders against whom Jesus tells this parable. His point seems to be that they have such a high opinion of themselves and are so confident of their roles as leaders of the church that they believe that any growth, any success (failure) is a result of their efforts. In other words, they have taken upon themselves something that is essentially God’s. Given that Jesus is telling this parable about the chief priests and the elders, it appears that Jesus is accusing them of trying to take over the vineyard or in other words trying to take God’s place in the life of Israel. The authority that they claim for themselves is authority taken and not bestowed. Worse it fails to acknowledge God’s ultimate authority.

It is easy for us to sit back and pass judgement on the egocentric, power-hungry leaders of the first century. But, just as Jesus takes a story from centuries past and applies it to his own generation, so we need to understand what this parable is saying – not to the chief priests and elders – but to us and to the church of ourday. 

Imagining that Jesus is critiquing us and our desire to be in control, we could ask ourselves some questions. As church, do we really understand ourselves to be tenant farmers producing a crop for the landowner (God), or do we, like the leaders of the Jerusalem community feel that we need to be in control of the outcomes? Do we believe that the fruit that is produced (if there is fruit) belongs to God or do we want to claim all the credit (and the fruit) for ourselves? In these times of COVID are we afraid to cede control of the vineyard (the church) and the crop (the results of our efforts to maintain the church) to God or do we need to retain our control? 

So much of our (the church’s) effort over the course of my life (50+years) has been expended on worrying about the future of the church – as if it all depended on us and on our own individual and collective efforts. This parable reminds us whose church it is and who has ultimate authority. When God asks for what is God’s, let us pray that we have the grace to let go and let God have what is God’s.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on Who’s vineyard is it anyway?

Authority that emanates from within

September 26, 2020

Pentecost 17 – 2020

Matthew 21:21-32

Marian Free

May I speak in name of God who is and was and is to come. Amen.

In the distant past when I was studying undergraduate subjects in biblical studies, I had an amazing lecturer. I can no longer remember which subject we were studying but I do remember his innovative way of teaching. At the beginning of Semester, he presented us with a copy of the lectures that were sent to external students. The idea was that we should read the lectures and come to class with our questions. This was so novel that I was particularly diligent and, though I don’t remember what spurred the question, I clearly remember asking what it was that made Jesus different. Why, in other words, did the early church so readily identify Jesus with God? Apparently the answer was simple and clear – it was Jesus’ authority. The lecturer did not point to Jesus’ miracles, his power over nature or his teaching, but to his authority – not authority given or assumed, but authority that was innate, that was an integral part of who and what Jesus was. He did not need to have anyone or anything authorize his actions or his words, he was sufficient I and of himself.

The Greek root ‘auto/autos’ means “self” or “directed from within” and the Greek ‘autos’ can be translated as self or same. We use it in a great many words – automobile, autonomy automatic, autograph. It is also the root of the word authority. Jesus had authority in that he relied on himself and not on his role, his job description or his superiors. He did not defer to others or call on his position to justify himself, nor did he need to. He did not need to claim an external support in order for demons to obey him, for the winds to cease or for people to believe him. His authority – derived from his very being – was evident to the natural world, the supernatural world and to humankind.

Today’s gospel is about authority – who has it and from what does that authority derive?

As is so often the case, the setting of this encounter is important. The lectionary takes us from chapter 20:1-16 to 21:23-32. As a consequence, unless we are studiously reading Matthew’s gospel in its entirety, we see Jesus’ argument with the chief priests and elders as an isolated event rather than in its context. To fill you in – Jesus has come into Jerusalem amid much fanfare and adulation. He has entered the Temple and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and he had further enraged the elders and chief priests by healing the blind and the lame who in turn identified Jesus as the Son of David. On the next day, as Jesus returned to Jerusalem, from Bethany, he cursed a fig tree that had no fruit and the tree withered at once. His authority – over nature, over illness and over the people – is obvious. No wonder then, that the chief priests and the elders were questioning the source of his authority. Jesus’ very presence challenges their authority – in the Temple and as leaders of the people. If they are to regain their position of authority (an authority bestowed by role or by wealth) they will need to reassert themselves. They attempt to do this by taking Jesus on, hoping that their question will stump him and will thereby bring him into disrepute with the people. If they succeed Jesus will be put to shame and the people will turn from him and submit to them.

What happens is just the opposite.

Today’s battle for authority is just the beginning of a series of challenges that the various leaders put to Jesus.  Once the chief priests and elders have been defeated (and been exposed in a series of parables), the Pharisees attempt to entrap Jesus (sending in their place their disciples and the Herodians). Next a group of Sadducees try to expose him. Lastly, a lawyer puts a question to Jesus. When all these attempts to trap Jesus fail, Jesus turns the tables on the church leaders who “from then on do not dare to ask him any questions.” This effectively puts an end to the debate but, but not to their rage as Jesus has inflamed rather than dampened their sensibilities.

Today’s gospel describes the first of the challenges. The chief priests and elders approach  Jesus and ask him to justify himself. They ask two questions which are only slightly different. “By what authority (or what kind of authority) are you doing these things (i.e., casting the money changers out of the Temple and healing the blind and the lame )?” and “Who gave you this authority?” ‘The first question is about the nature of Jesus’ authority, the second about its source. (see also Matthew 9:34, 12:24).[i]‘  Jesus answers a question with a question. What, he wonders, do they mean by authority? Can they tell the people, for example, where John’s baptism came from – ‘from heaven or from man’? Of course they can’t. Jesus has them over a barrel. If they say from heaven, the crowd will ask why they themselves have not been baptized. On the other hand, if they say from man, they will antagonise the very crowds whose loyalty they are trying to regain.

In this first challenge, Jesus has maintained the upper hand. The chief priests and elders are forced to acknowledge that they don’t know from where John’s baptism comes. Jesus presses home his advantage by telling parables directed at them. Their authority is baseless. It is entirely dependent on their ability to influence and control the crowds and very little to do with an authority which should be derived from their service to God. The crowds are already resentful of an elite that depends on Rome for validation. On the other hand, they recognise that Jesus’ authority emanates from himself. He needs no external validation and it is this that draws the crowds to him.

We don’t have to understand the Nicene Creed or the complex theological arguments as to why Jesus might be both God and man. Jesus’ own authority affirms his divinity. The crowds needed nothing more – neither should we.

[i] Direct quote from Stanley Saunders, Working Preacher for today.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on Authority that emanates from within

Being seen with God’s eyes

September 19, 2020

Pentecost 16 – 2020

Matthew 20:1-16

Marian Free

In the name of God who sees us for who we are, not for who we are not. Amen.

There is a video that does the round of FACEBOOK from time to time. In it a group of Christian school leavers are lined up as if for a race. They are told that the winner will receive $100 – but this is no ordinary race. The organiser begins not with a starter’s gun, but with instructions: “I am going to make a couple of statements. If those statements apply to you, take two steps forward.” He begins: “take two steps forward if you grew up in a stable household, take two steps forward if you had access to a private education, take two steps forward if you never had to help mum and dad with the bills, take two steps forward if you never wondered where your next meal was coming from[1].” As the ‘race’ continues those who are taking the lead become increasingly uncomfortable as they leave the others behind. At the end of the instructions, some are near the finish line, but there are still a few who have not even left the starting blocks. When he has finished with the instructions, the organiser reminds the students who are in the lead: “Every statement I’ve made has nothing to do with what you have done or decisions that you have made. The reality is that despite that you have been given a head start and its only because of that head start that you are going to win this race called life.” 

While video is simplistic and just a little preachy the “race” is something of an enacted parable. It dramatises the fact that some of us have advantages that give us a head start with regard to education and therefore to employment and to a career.  The “race” serves as a reminder that there are many in our community who never get to leave the blocks in the race of life – children who can’t concentrate at school because they are always hungry, who can’t complete their homework because they do not have a stable home, or because they cannot afford school books. It helps us to recognize that there are adults who have never been able to overcome the abuse or neglect that they suffered in their childhoods or who have physical or mental disabilities that limit what they can and can’t do: that there are men and women who cannot work because they have been severely injured in an accident or who are suffering from a terminal disease. At present, we are being forcibly reminded that forces not of our own making can leave people without work or with reduced hours at work. The global pandemic has meant that even those who thought that they were secure, that they were easily employable and that they could always pay their bills are now in danger (through no fault of their own) of falling behind.

Today’s parable is problematic for many of us. It offends our sense of justice. We see only the surface of the story and bristle with indignation at the unfairness of it all – what possesses the landowner to pay everyone equally? The latecomers – the lazy, good-for-nothing lay abouts – do not deserve a handout. 

The video of the race, however simplistic, gives us a different way of looking at the parable. Hopefully it helps us to be more sympathetic to the late comers – there might after all be reasons for their still being in the marketplace at the end of the day.

Today’s gospel is a parable, not a story or a piece of history – there is no vineyard and no marketplace. It is intended to challenge or confront our established modes of thinking about God.

A little background is useful. Palestine in the time of Jesus was occupied by Rome. Large parcels of land had been given to Roman soldiers as a reward for their service. The effect of this was to push farmers off the land. People who had previously scraped a living from the soil were now forced to earn a pittance as day-labourers. This entailed going to the square in the morning and hoping that someone would employ them. Employers had their pick. One imagines that they would pick the fittest first. Why pay for someone who would not work as quickly and as productively as another? 

Parables are notoriously short on detail, so we tend to add our own. It is unlikely that a landowner would return again and again to the marketplace – he would have known how many people he required. Maybe rain was imminent, or the original workers were not as efficient as the landowner had hoped. Whatever the case, when the landowner returned to the marketplace, he found those whom others had not employed – those who would contribute little to the harvest, those who clearly had less to offer an employer. Regardless, they have not gone home. They have not given up. The workers who are still there at the end of the day are not lazy. They are still there – waiting, waiting and hoping that they might get at least one hours work and have some small amount of pay to take home to their families.

In the end the detail does not matter. The parable is not about who gets paid what or who works the longest. The point is that God does not distinguish or discriminate. God doesn’t measure us up one against another or dole out God’s love according to merit. God loves us equally – whether we deserve it or not.

It is not, and never will be a competition – you can pray more than me, you can fast more than me, you can come to church more than me, you can do more good works than me, you can be more humble than me – and all that is good. But I am confident that no matter how far short I fall; how imperfect I am or how faltering my spiritual journey – God will not love you more and me less. At the end of the day I know that God loves you and I can be confident that God loves me.

[1] For the video and a commentary see – https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/as-a-video-about-white-privilege-goes-viral-again-experts-caution-it-could-actually-cause-more-damage-170528763.html

I’ve adapted it somewhat as it is a little superficial and very American.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on Being seen with God’s eyes

Something for nothing

September 12, 2020

Pentecost 15 -2020

Matthew 18:21-35

Marian Free

In the name of God who longs to gather us under his/her wings as a mother hen gathers her chicks. Amen.

God can’t make it right.

I don’t often, if ever, begin where I left off the previous week, but it seems particularly appropriate this week. Chapter 18 of Matthew is best considered as a whole. In it the author of Matthew has gathered the sayings of Jesus that have advice as to how to live in community. It includes an exhortation to become as a child and warns the community not to do anything that would hurt the vulnerable among them. Jesus continues with a dramatic and gruesome encouragement to look to their own lives and remove from themselves all that causes harm. Jesus’ concern for the outcast is illustrated by the parable of the lost sheep (which is also a not so subtle reminder that he expects the majority to remain in the fold while he is off looking for the one that is lost). In last week’s reading from the gospel, Jesus gave the community some advice regarding dispute resolution suggesting at the same time that what was bound on earth was bound in heaven.  

Finally, Jesus responds to Peter’s question about forgiveness, specifically forgiveness of a fellow member of the community. 

Peter, who obviously knows Jesus’ attitude to forgiveness, asks a question intending, it seems, to demonstrate his own magnanimity – forgiving seven times seven is surely generous!  Jesus plays Peter at his own game – not seven times seven but seventy times seven! Peter’s question indicates that he has in fact learnt nothing. It also exposes his own small-mindedness. In God’s eyes there is no limit to forgiveness. In fact, God does not even keep count! Peter’s question alone reveals that he believes that forgiveness has its boundaries, that it can be used up if a person goes too far. 

By way of illustrating Peter’s niggardliness, meanness and lack of generosity, Jesus tells a parable about an extraordinary debt – something like $2.5m in today’s terms. No one would have a hope of paying back such an amount, let alone a slave and surely no one, not even a king, could afford to lose (forgive or overlook) that sort of fortune. Yet, in response to the man’s pleas, the king forgives the debt – every cent. There is no suggestion of paying it back with interest and no hint of indebtedness. The slate is wiped clean, the slave owes nothing at all. You would think, wouldn’t you, that the slave would leave the king’s presence overwhelmed with gratitude, wonder and a deep sense of humility, but no, the man has learnt nothing from the experience. (One notices in retrospect that he has not even thanked the king!)

Perhaps then we should not be surprised to learn that his first action on leaving the king is to grab hold of a fellow slave and demand the repayment of a paltry amount. Unlike the king, the first slave is completely deaf to the pleas of his fellow slave and has him thrown into prison. He has learnt nothing. The king’s generosity has not touched his heart. It appears that he simply could not understand that his slate could be wiped clean, nor could he believe that repayment would not be exacted at some future date. His failure (or inability) to truly grasp the generosity and magnanimity of the king has denied him the benefits of forgiveness and has shut him off from the generosity that was so freely offered. (One could argue that he was already in a prison of his own making or, as Kavanaugh suggests, the state of his soul had been so hardened that no amount of compassion and kindness could soften it[1].

Peter’s mistake was to believe that there was some sort of mathematics of reconciliation (Kavanaugh again), that forgiveness was a numbers game that could be measured and doled out. Jesus’ response and the accompanying parable give the lie to this point of view. God simply does not operate in this way. God’s forgiveness knows no limits. There may come a time when we turn our backs on God, but God never turns God’s back on us.

In our “tit for tat” economy, we find it hard to believe in something for nothing. If someone hurts us, we expect some form of recompense and sadly we attribute to God our own smallness of mind and meanness of spirit. Yet surely the message of the cross is this – humankind had done nothing at all to warrant, let alone earn such self-sacrificial love, but God extended that love anyway.

It is our foolish pride, our unnecessary self-consciousness and our stubborn independence that cuts us off from the love of God. It is not God, but our failure to believe that we are loved and forgiven that locks us out of the kingdom. If we shut ourselves off from God’s boundless love, if we fail to believe in God’s limitless forgiveness and if we refuse to allow ourselves to be carried back to the fold, there is nothing that God can do.  

If we shut ourselves off from God’s love, if we refuse to be gathered into the fold, there is ultimately nothing that God can do for us. If having been forgiven a debt of the size of that of the slave, we still don’t understand God’s goodness and boundless generosity, there is little more that God can do to prove that love. If we don’t want to be held in God’s loving embrace, or to be carried on God’s shoulders back to the fold, God is not going to force our hand. We have to swallow our pride and relax into God’s all-embracing, forgiving love and, when we do, we will discover in ourselves the same expansive generosity that will allow us to love and to forgive – not seven times seven, but seventy times seven.

[1] https://liturgy.slu.edu/24OrdA091320/theword_kavanaugh.html

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on Something for nothing

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »