27TH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME - A

There was a landowner who planted a vineyard, put a hedge around it, dug a wine press in it, and built a tower. Then he leased it to tenants and went on a journey

Mt 21:33-43

MATTHEW 21:33-41

The parable is an allegory of God’s dealings with his people. The description of the vineyard at the beginning quotes a passage from Isaiah, in which the prophet spoke of Israel in terms of a vineyard, and her disobedience in terms of wild grapes. The servants stand for the prophets, and the son and heir for Jesus himself. The tenants are the chief priests and other leaders of the Jews, as they themselves recognize (21:45). The son is killed, the tenants will be put to death, and the vineyard will be let out to other tenants, just as Jesus will be crucified, Jerusalem destroyed, and the Gentiles will replace the Jews as God’s people.

Matthew follows Mark again (12:1-9). Matthew, however, makes small changes to Mark’s text in order to bring the allegory into line with the history of God and Israel.

v.33. Hear another parable. There was a landowner, who planted a vineyard, put a hedge around it, dug a wine press in it, and built a tower. Then he leased it to tenants and went on a journey.

Hear another parable: See 13:18 for a similar introduction.

There was a landowner: Mark simply says: “A man”. Matthew uses “land-downer” for God in other parables (20:1).

Who planted a vineyard, put a hedge around it, dug a wine press in it, and built a tower: This is a quotation from Is 5:2.

He leased it to tenants: The lease is the covenant which God made with Israel at the time of the Patriarchs and again after the Exodus.

And went on a journey: Many estates in Galilee in the first century were owned by absentee foreign landlords.

v. 34. When vintage time drew near, he sent his servants* to the tenants to obtain his produce.

When vintage time drew near: Literally: “When the season of fruit drew near.” The words are similar to Mark’s words at the beginning of his Gospel: “The time (or “season”) is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has drawn near (or “is at hand”)” (Mk 1:15).

His servants: Matthew is thinking of the prophets

His produce: Or “his fruit”. Matthew of thinking of all that is due to God from man.

v. 35. But the tenants seized the servants and one they beat, another they killed, and a third they stoned.

Another they killed, and a third they stoned: Matthew added “stoned another” in order to recall the persecution of the prophets in Israel (cf. 23:37). The only prophet whose stoning is recorded in the OT is Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada (2 Chron 24:20f). It is possible that there were apocryphal lives of the prophets (for ex., The Martyrdom of Isaiah) which recorded the killing of the prophets. See also Heb 11:37.

v. 36. Again he sent other servants, more numerous than the first ones, but they treated them in the same way.

Other servants, more numerous than the first ones: Matthew’s second and larger group may correspond to the “latter prophets”. Mark has a third servant being sent but Matthew omits it perhaps in order to fit the Jewish distinction between the “former prophets” and the “latter prophets”. In later Jewish literature, the “former prophets” were from Joshua to 2 Kings (which were thought to be the works of Joshua, Samuel and Jeremiah) and the “latter prophets” were from Isaiah to Malachi, omitting Daniel.

v. 37. Finally, he sent his son to them, thinking, ‘They will respect my son.’

Contrast this to Mark’s “He had one other to send, a beloved son”. It is not clear why he has chosen to omit the word “beloved” which he has used at the baptism and transfiguration (3:17. 17:5) and in the quotation from Isaiah in 12:18.

v. 38. But when the tenants saw the son, they said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and acquire his inheritance.’

If the landlord was a foreigner living abroad, the tenants would have hoped that if he had only one son then at the death of the son and of the owner, they would be able to take possession of the vineyard.

v. 39. They seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him.

Matthew has re-arranged Mark in light of the death of Jesus outside Jerusa-lem. Mark’s order was more natural. See Mk 12:8.

v. 40. What will the owner of the vineyard do to those tenants when he comes?”

As in vv. 25 and 31, Jesus forces the Jewish leaders to answer the question for themselves and thus condemn themselves. In Mark the question is rhetorical and Jesus answers it himself.

v. 41. They answered* him, “He will put those wretched men to a wretched death and lease his vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the proper times.”

He will put those wretched men to a wretched death: Mark simply writes: “He will come, put the tenants to death.” Matthew is more conscious of the wrath of God against the Jews and may have in mind the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

And lease his vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the proper times: Matthew expands Mark’s “and give the vineyard to others”. If the first covenant was suggested by the first lease (v. 33), then this second lease will suggest a new covenant (26:28). Then the other tenants would be the Church, the faithful, from both the Jews and the Gentiles, who give the fruit of their good works to God.

MATTHEW 21:42-43

The parable of the vineyard tells in allegorical form the main events in the dealings of God with his people: covenant, prophecy, the coming of Christ, the crucifixion, the Church. One notable event is absent – the Resurrection. This is now made good by the addition of an OT quotation, which foretells the reversal of men’s judgment by God. And just as men’s rejection of Jesus will be reversed by God, so alsothe plan of the tenants to acquire the vineyard will be forestalled by him, and he will give it to others.

v. 42. Jesus said to them: “Have you never red in the Scriptures….”

This is a quotation from Ps 118:22f. The same verses are quoted in Act 4:11, 1 Pt 2:7. See also Mt 21:9 and 23:19. The stone is Jesus and the builders are the Jewish leaders.

Cornerstone: Or also “keystone”. It is a position of importance. Jesus’ resurrection will be marvelous in the eyes of both the Jews and the Christians.

v. 43. Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that will produce its fruit.

Already in v. 41 Matthew emphasizes that the kingdom of God (vineyard) belongs to God and not to man and therefore, he can give it to whomever he wills.

And given to a people that will produce its fruit: Produce is the word which is also translated “bear” (3:8 and 10). The Christians are thought of as fruitful trees (Ps 1:3).

26th SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME (A)

A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’

Mt 21:28-32

In Mt 21:18-22 the question of Jesus revealed the unbelief of the Jewish leaders in John the Baptist. This unbelief is pressed home in the parable of the two sons: one of them obeys the father and the other does not. This is applied to the tax collectors and prostitutes who obeyed John, and the Jewish leaders who did not.

As in other places in the Gospels, a parable of Jesus seems to have been used here for a different purpose from that which Jesus himself had used it. The origi-nal parable (vv. 28-30) was probably used to illustrate the difference between saying and doing. Compare it to 7:21 and 12:50. This kind of teaching may have been the original setting of the parable.

v. 28. “What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’

“What is your opinion?”: This is a Matthean introduction. See 17:25.

Vineyard: See v. 33 where vineyard stands for Israel. In 20:1 working in the vineyard means serving God in this age, for a reward in the age to come.

v. 29. He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and went.

He changed his mind (metameletheis): He repented. Only Matthew among the four evangelists uses this word. See 27:3.

v. 30. The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go.

Yes, sir. “Sir” here is the word which is also translated “Lord” (kyrie). It is the son who does not go who say “Lord”. See 7:21 where it says that it is not eve-ryone who says “Lord, Lord” who does the will of the Father.

v. 31. Which of the two did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.

Tax collectors and prostitutes. They believed and obeyed John. Therefore, they precede the chief priests and the elders (v. 23) into the kingdom.

Kingdom of God. This is unusual in Matthew who prefers kingdom of hea-ven. See 12:28; 19:24; 21:43.

v. 32. When John came to you in the way of righteousness, you did not believe him; but tax collectors and prostitutes did. Yet even when you saw that, you did not later change your minds and believe him.

This verse explains v. 31.

You did not later change your minds: The same expression was used in v. 29.

25th SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME (A)

Am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?

Mt 20:1-16

Matthew inserts a parable at this point to illustrate the teaching about rewads in the kingdom which is also the subject of the previous paragraph (19:23-30).

The parable is the story of an owner of a vineyard who employed men at different times of the day and at the end of the day paid them all the same wage. Matthew understands the owner as being God and the payments as his reward, which is eternal life.

He also relates the parable to the saying about the last and the first which precedes (19:30) and follows (20:16) it. The men who are employed first are paid last and those who are employed last are paid first.

The parable came to Matthew from a non-Marcan source and so it probably came to him without any context in the teaching and ministry of Jesus. And so it was Matthew who chose this to be the context of the parable.

The order of paying the workmen is of no real significance in the story. It merely permits those who worked first to see how much those who worked after them received. This gives them reason to suppose that they would get more in wages.

Secondly, as all the workmen received the same payment, the parable does not illustrate the meaning of the saying about first and the last which according to Matthew was the different rewards that God would give to different people.

The original emphasis of the parable probably may be found in the saying of the owner: “I chose to give to this last as I give to you” (v. 14). God is not answerable to man for what he does with his rewards. He can do as he pleases with his gifts and his generosity is not something that men can complain about.

If we would interpret the parable in light of the ministry of Jesus, the setting would probably be the controversy of Jesus with the Pharisees over his treatment of tax collectors and sinners. He welcomes them. He eats and drinks with them. He invites them to the kingdom because God who sent him is generous with his forgiveness and mercy. Those who complain are the Pharisees who, like the older brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son, claim more from the Father because of their good works (Lk 15:11ff).

On the other hand, Matthew and the church has taken this parable to teach about the judgment at the end of this age.

v.1. The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard.

The formula does not mean that the kingdom is like a landowner, but that it is like the reckoning which the landowner makes at the end of the day.

For the idea of the judgment as a time of reckoning of accounts, see 18:23 and 25:14ff.

At dawn = early. About 6am.

v. 2. After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard.

Usual daily wage. A denarius a day was ‘a workman’s average daily wage’.

v. 3. Going out about nine o'clock, the landowner saw others standing idle in the marketplace….

Nine o’clock = third hour. That is between 8 and 9 am.

Standing idle. Perhaps “sit about idly gossiping”.

v. 4. And he said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.' So they went off.

It is important to notice that the sum of money to be paid for the work done is only fixed beforehand with the first group of workers (v. 2). The landowner is silent regarding the wage of the other groups. This accounts for the situation at the end of the parable.

v. 5. And he went out again around noon, and around three o'clock, and did likewise.

Noon = sixth hour. Between 11 am and noon.

Three o’clock = ninth hour. Between 2 and 3 pm.

v. 6. Going out about five o'clock, the landowner found others standing around, and said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?'

Five o’clock = eleventh hour. Between 4 and 5 pm. The work was urgent if the owner took on more laborers so late in the day. It was vintage and the work must be done before the rains came.

Why do you stand here idle all day?. Note the commentary on v. 3. Perhaps the landowner intended this to be a reproach. There would be plenty of work at this time of the year.

v. 7. They answered, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard.'

This may be an excuse to cover up their laziness, rather than tell the truth.

v. 8. When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.'

The owner of the vineyard. The word translated “owner” is the Greek word often used for God (kyrios = Lord).

Their pay (ton misthon). Perhaps the usual daily wage (denarius) mentioned in vv. 2 and 9f. The same word is translated as “reward” in 5:12.

Beginning with the last and ending with the first. This may mean no more than “Pay them all, including the last”. In any case the order of payment has no special importance except that it allowed the situation which follows to develop. Matthew has related it to the sayings in 19:30 and 20:16.

vv. 11-12. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, 'These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day's burden and the heat.'

If the parable originally referred to the Pharisees and their grumbling at Jesus’ treatment of the sinners, then this will mean that Jesus is treating sinners with the same mercy as that which he has for those who have “borne the burden” of the Law.

For the idea of the Law as a burden, see Acts 15:28 and 11:28.

v. 13. He said to one of them in reply, 'My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?”

Friend (hetaire). The word as used in Matthew implies reproach. See 22:12 and 26:50.

v. 14. Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you?

There may be a contrast here between “what belongs to you” (that is, what you have earned and is therefore now yours) and the gift of the vineyard owner (to give to this last). The denarius was paid as a wage to the first group, but was given as a gift to the last group.

The same as you. The emphasis is on the choice of the owner: “I wish to give and there is no appeal against my decision because I am the master of my own property.”

v. 15. Or am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?'

God’s mercy revealed in Jesus welcoming sinners is inexplicable to the Phari-sees, but it is undeniable that God is free to do as he wishes. See Rom 9”14ff.

“Are you envious because I am generous?”. Literally, “Is your eye evil because I am good?” An evil eye is “one that looks with envy or jealousy upon other people.” Mark had used it for envy in Mk 7:22.

v. 16. Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last.

The verse repeats in the reverse order of members the saying in 19:30.

24rd SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME (A)

So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart.

Mt 18:21-35

VV. 21-22

Chapter 18 of Matthew contains teachings regarding life in the Church. In last Sunday’s gospel, Matthew gives instruction on what is to be done with an erring member of the Church. Peter now raises the question of sin between brothers, that is, between fellow Christians. Jesus says that there is no limitation in granting forgiveness. The individual Christian is in no position of authority to determine where to draw the line.

v. 22. Jesus answered, “I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times.”

The numbers “seven” and “seventy-seven” are used in Genesis 4:24 regarding vengeance, which is the opposite of forgiveness which is being taught here.

The Greek word used may be rendered as “seventy times seven” and “seventy-seven times”. But the meaning is the same: unlimited forgiveness.

The motivation is explained in the next paragraph. What the disciple has to forgive is minute compared with what God has already forgiven him.

VV. 23-35. THE PARABLE OF THE UNFORGIVING OFFICIAL

This parable is found only in Matthew.

The section regarding the relations between Christians ends with this parable. A court official had been shown great mercy by the king. Yet this same official failed to show mercy to one of his equals over a much, much smaller matter.

Jesus says that this is the situation in which the disciples find themselves. God has forgiven them their sins which are innumerable. But at the last judgment this remission will be revoked, if they have not shown mercy to one another in the Church – not mercy in word, but “from the heart”, that is, in reality.

v. 23. That is why the kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who decided to settle accounts with his servants.

That is why = Therefore: This parable is linked to the answer given by Jesus to Peter regarding forgiveness. But probably the parable of the unforgiving official is not connected to the teaching of unlimited forgiveness because this is not the point of the parable. This parable probably belonged to the series of teachings regarding the last judgment. Cf. Mt 25:31ff.

The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king…. The judgment which comes before the kingdom begins is like the settling of accounts. Note the petitions on the kingdom and the forgiveness of sins in the Our Father (6:10. 12). See also the settling of accounts in the parable of the talents (25:19).

v. 24. When he began the accounting, a debtor was brought before him who owed him a huge amount.

A debtor was brought: The debtor was probably a governor of a province, re-sponsible for the payment of taxes. It is understood that he was brought from prison.

A huge amount: P 205,173,532.00

v. 25. Since he had no way of paying it back, his master ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, his children, and all his property, in payment of the debt.

The sale would not even realize a fraction of the debt owed. Therefore, it is a punishment.

v. 26. At that, the servant fell down, did him homage, and said, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back in full.’

It is clear that the official has no way of fulfilling this pledge. The point here is that the sin of man against God is a debt (16:12) which cannot be wiped out by man.

v. 27. Moved with compassion the master of that servant let him go and forgave him the loan.

The king does not take up the pledge of repayment of the official. He forgives the debt completely.

For pity or compassion on the part of the king, see 9:16; 14:14; 15:32; 20:34.

The works of Jesus have been signs of this diving forgiveness.

v. 28. When that servant had left, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a much smaller amount. He seized him and started to choke him, demanding, ‘Pay back what you owe.’

A small amount: P 136,782.00. Compare this to P 205,173,532.00.

v. 29. Falling to his knees, his fellow servant begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’

The official repeats the request made by his fellow official before the king.

v. 30. But he refused. Instead, he had him put in prison until he paid back the debt.

Because the sum is too small, there is no question of selling the debtor. See 5:24ff.

v. 31. Now when his fellow servants saw what had happened, they were deeply disturbed, and went to their master and reported the whole affair.

Probably “shocked” would be the better word. See 17:23.

v. 33. Should you not have had pity on your fellow servant, as I had pity on you?

The question asked of the official is really the question being asked of the hearers of the parable and which they have to answer for themselves.

v. 34. Then in anger his master handed him over to the torturers until he should pay back the whole debt.

Torturers: The official might have hidden part of the money.

Until he should pay back the whole debt: He will never be able to raise so large a sum. Therefore, his imprisonment will be for life.

v. 35. So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart.”

This is probably a Matthean application of the parable: God will revoke the remission of sins at the last judgment in the case of those who have not forgiven one another.

From his heart: Not merely in words but sincerely, really. See 15:8.