You
can read Part 1 here.
Part
2, here.
The
fourth discourse in Matthew comprises chapter eighteen. This is the discourse on the nature of
community, and so we see each section a theme in some way that comments on the
way elements of the community are supposed to relate to each other. The discourse seems to divide into five
parts. Here’s how I divide it.
1.
The relationship between man and heaven.
2.
The relationship between man and sin.
3.
The Parable of the Lost Sheep
4.
How to deal with an unrepentant sinner.
5.
The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant.
Let
me put out some thoughts on each of these.
The image of a child returns in that first part of the discourse when
Jesus is asked who in heaven is the greatest.
I love the rhythmic motifs that Matthew as writer forms in his
Gospel. The image of a child appears
rhythmically through Matthew: Jesus as infant, the slaughter of the innocents,
the simile of the apostles as little ones, and now here. Here Christ physically takes a child and
places him as the center of attention. As
I mentioned before, the child doesn’t so much symbolize innocence, as I’ve
always thought, but stands for the lowest and least powerful.
On
the second part of the discourse, I’ve always focused on either the beginning
(causing a child to sin) or the end (cutting off a limb or plucking out an eye)
but for some reason this time I focused on the middle: “Woe to the world
because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one
through whom they come!” (7). I must have glossed over that line every single
time before. Has anyone really ever
thought about that verse before? Woe
means grief or distress or affliction.
The first sentence is clear: grief to the world because of things that
cause sin. Interesting that the woe
comes not from the sin itself but from what causes sin. The second sentence is startling and perhaps
unexpected for me: “Such things must come,” meaning those that cause sin must
come. It sounds like it’s part of
nature, the condition of earthly life.
Of course we know this. God lets
sin happen, so it is part of nature. But
to come from Christ’s mouth seems surprising to me. When Christ says, woe to the one who causes
sin my mind jumps to the serpent in the Garden and Judas at the Passion events.
I
am never sure when Jesus is using exaggeration, but clearly in saying to cut
ones hand off and pluck one’s eye out to prevent sin, that is over the top
exaggeration. Even I can see that
one. But can everyone? The church father Origen took those words very
literally and castrated himself to prevent sins of impurity.
I
love the Parable of the Lost Sheep. What
is the relationship in question here?
Between Christ and man or between a leader and his underlings? I guess when one considers the entire sermon
to be on community, then one has to extend the meaning to beyond just
Christ. But I don’t find that leadership
element satisfactory, mainly because the unrealistic element in this parable is
that no shepherd worth his salt would abandon the ninety-nine sheep to go find
one stray. Would a leader, say a leader
of soldiers, risk the bulk of his troops for one stray soldier? I don’t think so. This parable only makes sense to me when it’s
God searching for a lost soul.
The
process of rebuking a sinner is rather straightforward. I’ve never seen it in practice. Has anyone?
There’s
a verse in there I never really noticed before, “Amen, I say to you, whatever
you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven” (18). Those
are the same words He says to Peter in chapter 16. Here He is addressing all the apostles, and
so they too have the authority to bind (i.e. forbid) and loose (i.e.
allow). The difference is that Peter is
the rock on which the church is built and Peter is given the keys; that is
primacy.
And
then finally the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant is really quite
powerful. It’s one of my favorite of the
parables. The preface to the parable
starts with Peter asking Christ how many times a person should forgive
another. Seven times, Peter generously
assumes. Christ says seventy times
seven, which is an overwhelming number.
In the parable we have one servant who is forgiven a debt of ten
thousand talents, while the other owes the previous servant a hundred
denarii. From what I gathered, a hundred
denarii was about three or four month’s wages while one talent was about 20
years wages. So the one with ten
thousand talents is like a billionaire and the one with hundred denarii is like
a manual laborer living day to day. One
can see the disparity there but just like seventy times seven overwhelms Peter’s
seven, the ten thousand overwhelms the hundred denarii. There is a sort of symmetry in the numbers.
Now
here’s the strange element that ends the Unforgiving Servant Parable. That unforgiving servant at the end is sent
off to be tortured. Christ then ends
with, so will God do to you if you don’t have mercy. So is God sending souls off to be tortured or
is that another exaggeration to make a point? As I said, I can’t always tell
when to consider Christ exaggerating and when not.
###
The
fifth and final discourse—the discourse on the end of times—is delineated in
chapters 24 and 25. Here’s how I see the
structure of this discourse.
1.
Prediction of the destruction of the temple & collapse of civil order.
2.
The prediction of false prophets.
3.
The coming of the Son of Man.
4.
The eternal endurance of Christ’s words.
5.
The mystery of the end of time.
6.
The Parable of the Faithful Servant.
7.
The Parable of the Ten Virgins.
8.
The Parable of the Talents.
9.
The Parable of the Sheep and Goats.
The
first six parts comprise chapter 24, and chapter 25 is made up of the three
great parables which are so memorable.
Just
like the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is sitting (24:3) as he delivers this sermon. Again I don’t have that image of Him sitting
as He delivers these sermons. Could it
also be that I associate this with a priest’s homily?
Here
Jesus forewarns the apostles about their persecutions as He did in the Sermon
on the Mount: “Then they will hand you over to persecution, and they will kill
you. You will be hated by all nations because of my name” (24:9).
The
description of the end of times sounds like it’s pretty horrendous. Does anyone know why? I know that’s common for apocalyptic literature,
but coming from Christ’s mouth makes it a true forecasting of the future. If we’re working toward creating the kingdom
of God, why does it all collapse into degeneration?
And
then with the coming of the Son of Man (return of Christ) He comes to gather “the
elect.” The note at the bottom of the
NAB says that Matthew is describing the destruction of the temple in 66
AD. This is where I have a problem with
modern scholars. If that is the case,
then Christ is not predicting anything.
It already happened. Now how
could that be if “the Son of Man” did not come?
Even more important perhaps, is the prediction about the end of times or
the destruction of the temple? Is the
destruction of the temple a metaphor for the end of times? Why does Jesus speak about “this generation”
living through all this when He appears to be speaking about the distant
future? I don’t have answers to any of
this, but you can see it’s rather complicated.
Events are intertwined and conflated.
If you believe Matthew through Mark wrote the Gospels post temple
destruction, then the meaning of this would be different than if Matthew or
Mark wrote it prior.
I
love the line, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass
away.” Christ as the Word is eternal, so
eternal that it will outlast heaven itself.
That’s obviously an exaggeration given that heaven cannot pass away.
I
never noticed it before, but Christ compares the end of times with the flood of
Noah (24:37-39). I also never noticed
these lines either until now.
Two men will be out in
the field; one will be taken, and one will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one
will be taken, and one will be left. Therefore,
stay awake! For you do not know on which day your Lord will come. (40-42)
People
will be at work, men in the field and women at the mill, and some will be saved
and some not. The caution to stay awake foreshadows
how the apostles fall asleep while Jesus is praying in the Garden of Gethsemane.
The
Parable of the Faithful and Unfaithful Servants is allegorical. While the master is away, you better be a
faithful servant or there will be consequences if you are not. That unfaithful servant will be punished so
that he will be gnashing his teeth.
Matthew seems to like that image of grinding or gnashing of teeth. It comes up frequently and I don’t think the
other evangelists use it.
The
Gospel of Matthew is for me an endearing gospel because of the Sermon on the
Mount and the three great parables of chapter 25. Is it possible to not love those three great
parables? I have a theory on the three
parables. It seems to me they follow the
virtues of hope, faith, and charity.
The
wise virgins of the first parable keep oil in their lamps while the foolish
virgins don’t. The wise virgins are
prepared, and so they have had hope immediate in their minds. The foolish virgins aren’t necessarily
hopeless, but they don’t keep prepared, so their hope is distant, not presently
conscious. Does that make sense? Notice though all ten fall asleep, and so all
ten actually fail Christ’s command to “stay awake.” But the wise account for the impossibility of
always staying awake. They hope the
bridegroom will come and so prepare for it.
The
servants of the second parable provide examples of putting faith into
action. Notice all three have faith, but
only the first two put their faith into action.
Point this out to the Protestants who claim it’s “faith alone.” The first two go out and use the talents to
multiply talents. The kingdom is
broadened by putting talents into action.
I may have said this earlier, a talent was roughly twenty years income,
so even the third servant who only received one talent received a richly
amount. The first two are lauded: “‘Well done, my good and faithful servant.
Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great
responsibilities. Come, share your master’s joy.’” The third servant is called “wicked and
slothful” and thrown into “the outer darkness” where he too will be “gnashing”
his teeth. Seems kind of harsh but remember
a parable is not a reflection of reality but a glimpse into a truth.
The
third parable clearly I think explicates charity. This is the parable which convicts me every
time, so much so that I actually feel anxiety when I read it.
Then he will say to those
on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for
the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty
and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you
gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when
did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and
not minister to your needs?’ He will
answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least
ones, you did not do for me.’ (25:41-43)
Am
I one of the sheep or am I one of the goats?
Or perhaps in between, and where does that leave me? Certainly I give money to charity. But is that what Christ really wants of
us? Or does He want a hands on
application to the needy? I think this
parable is the most powerful of all the parables.
Notice
too that the goats, who go off into eternal punishment, didn’t do anything
overtly evil. Their sins were sins of
omission, what they failed to do, as we pray in the Confiteor at Mass. Whenever I get into a debate with a
Protestant over faith alone, this is what I cite, though one could cite a
number of Jesus’ teachings. It’s so
clear here. The goats failed to do a
work of mercy. It is not faith
alone. You have to put faith into
action. As St. Paul writes of the
virtues in 1 Cor 13:13, “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But
the greatest of these is love.”
No comments:
Post a Comment