Videos from Fr Claudio Doglio
Original voice in italian, with subtitles in English, Spanish, Portuguese & Cantonese
The Parables of Israel’s Rejection
“When Jesus finished this discourse, he moved from Galilee to Judea.” Thus begins chapter 19 of the Gospel according to Matthew. We recognize a typical transitional verse, an editorial note in which the evangelist signals that the ecclesial discourse of chapter 18 has ended and that the last part of the book begins, namely the narration of the events before the passion that precedes the previous great discourse, the eschatological one. In chapters 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, we notice that the evangelist Matthew roughly followed the pattern of ancient preaching according to the Gospel of Mark and downplayed the story of the journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, but noted one crucial change.
The arrival in Jerusalem creates particular tension. At the beginning of chapter 21, Matthew narrates, following the traditional model, Jesus’s messianic entry into Jerusalem. The crowds come, recognize him as the Messiah, hail him as the heir of David, and hope that he will be the restorer of the monarchy. They place him in an earthly trust, a hope for political-administrative autonomy, and a desire for revenge against the invading and oppressing Romans. Jesus arrives with a symbolic gesture: he intentionally sends someone to look for a donkey and enters Jerusalem on the back of this simple country animal, a figure completely different from a general or military leader who arrives triumphantly on a white horse.
Jesus arrives as a peasant, as a simple person, echoing a saying of the prophet. Matthew, who is particularly attentive to the Old Testament’s biblical traditions, explicitly clarifies: “This happened,” he writes, “so that what the prophet said would be fulfilled.”
He does not say that it is Zacharias, but we know it; the text of Zechariah 9:9 says, “Exult greatly, O daughter of Zion… Here comes your meek king sitting on a donkey and a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.” “He is your king, and he is meek” is an adjective Matthew particularly likes. He uses it in the beatitudes: “Blessed are the meek because they will inherit the earth.” He uses it to qualify Jesus when he says, “Learn from me that I am meek and humble of heart.” Now, through Zechariah’s phrase, he presents the messianic king as a non-combative, non-violent person; he does not arrive as a military general; he is not the king the people expect; he is not the revolutionary leader; he is not the one who organizes the rebellion against Rome. He is the meek, docile king sitting on a donkey. The king on the donkey is a program, an image that must strike and communicate a new style.
Jesus, therefore, somehow accepts the multitudes’ messianic recognition because, in reality, he is the Messiah. However, with that provocative gesture of the donkey, he challenges the mentality of power, strength, war, and violence. After all, his arrival in Jerusalem complicates the situation, and the acclamation of that initial moment soon gives way to a clash.
In the following days, the evangelist recounts that Jesus is in the temple, discussing with the teachers and the religious authorities of Israel at the portico of Solomon. This long portico ran along the entire eastern side of the temple esplanade, where various schools gathered with teachers and disciples from different groups. Jesus discusses matters of theology and canon law with these authorities.
Among the various questions that Jesus is asked, the tradition, above all as attested by Mark, narrates the parable of the murderous tenants. Matthew follows the same scheme and narrates this parable, but adds two more essential elements. While following the synoptic scheme, the evangelist Matthew integrates his material with other texts. Thus, the parable of the murderous tenants’ rejection is tripled and becomes three parables of rejection.
He puts the first among the two sons, then the guests at the banquet. Through these three parables, he builds a kind of tragic story of salvation, unfortunately marked by someone’s rejection. Let’s start with the parable of the two sons in chapter 21, beginning in verse 28. Every parable is a provocation, an invitation to dialogue, to answer, and to take a stand on the part of the listeners.
Jesus begins with a question: “What do you think?” Let me know your opinion and make a judgment about what I should tell you. “A man had two sons. He turned to the first and said, ‘Son, today, go to work in the vineyard.’ And he replied, ‘I don’t want to,’ but then repented and went there. He said the same to the second and replied, ‘Yes, sir,’ but he didn’t go.” Two sons respond and act differently. They are inconsistent. Their actions do not match their words. One says, “I don’t want to,” but then repents and goes to work. The other, in words, says, “Yes, sir,” but does not go to work as his father asked him.
This is a small scene of family life, a fairly common experience. Clearly, Jesus ascribed great theological significance to it and asked these authorities, “Which of the two did the will of the Father?” Amid this difference, where is the realization of the project, and do they respond to it? The first was the one who, even in words, had refused to go to work as his father had asked. And Jesus said to them, “Truly, I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.”
It is a harsh word that has remained etched in the minds of many listeners of the Gospel. “Tax collectors and prostitutes will enter the kingdom of God before you.” To whom does Jesus say this? He says it to the Israeli authorities, to the people who have not accepted his preaching. Even more, in the following line, he specifies that the preaching they did not accept is that of John the Baptist, who came before Jesus. “When John came preaching the way of justice, you, authorities of Jerusalem, did not believe him; the tax collectors and prostitutes, on the other hand, believed him.” They have changed; they are no longer tax collectors. Prostitutes have changed. They understood they were wrong, and listening to the prophet John changed their lives.
On the contrary, you have seen these things but have not repented. That word was of no use to you. You said yes, but you didn’t change. Those who change enter the kingdom of God.
Tax collectors and prostitutes go ahead, not because they are tax collectors and prostitutes, but because they welcomed the message and have changed. Someone may remainindifferent and give the impression of receiving the whole message, but nothing changes in their life. They are rejected; they are left out. The first parable is followed by the second, the central one of the tenants. A parable that shows the remarkable ability of Jesus as a storyteller because a valid parable must surprise the listener; that is, they do not have to realize where the narrator is headed and are amazed by being ‘lupus in fabula’ = ‘the wolf in the fable.’ They do not realize that they are the protagonist of the story. It depends on the narrator’s skillto ensure the listener does not immediately identify himself. If he understands too soon that the parable is for him, he will defend himself and hide, and the parable does not work.
Therefore, Jesus tells the story of rebellious peasant workers who rented a vineyard and refused to pay the rent. As we would say today, they had a sharecropping contract, and at the end of the harvest, they had to pay the owner a certain amount of product. Jesus tells the parable to the authorities in Jerusalem, to the priestly aristocracy made up of wealthy landowners. They had many villas in Galilee and problems with the peasants, who weresometimes rebellious. Jesus tells of a gentleman who plants a vineyard, acquires all the necessary equipment, leases it to the peasants, and leaves because he lives elsewhere. When it is time to retract the harvest, he sends his stewards. The peasants rebel. They don’t want to pay. Other administrators who are sent are badly beaten and even killed. That man sends his son, taking severe risks, thinking they will respect him, NO! These peasants kill his son and throw him out of the vineyard.
The parable ends with a question: Jesus asks those authorities, those wealthy landowners: “When the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those peasants?” They inevitably identify with the owner of the vineyard and think that Jesus is defending the peasants of Galilee and wants them to say that we must forgive these country people who rebel because they do not want to pay the rents. Therefore, they are convinced they have the correct answer: “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.” They have given the sentence, but it is a sentence of self-condemnation.
They did not realize they were condemning themselves. Jesus says: You are right; this is precisely how it must be done, but you did not understand. You are the wicked murderers. You are not the master; the Master is the Lord. You are the workers in that vineyard, and you have refused God’s envoys and are planning to kill the Son.
This is a parable that theologians call “implicit Christology”; that is, through this image,Jesus is saying that he is the Son, the Son of the Owner, and the last one sent, the crown of the mission; and he is aware that he will face death; he will be taken and thrown out of the vineyard, convinced that they will take over everything to bring their revolution to completion. In this regard, the verse from a famous psalm used in the processions in Jerusalem applies: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; by the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes.’
Jesus uses this verse to announce the total reversal that will take place at Easter. ‘You have rejected the stone, the Son, Jesus, casting him out, but God chose him, reintegrated him, and placed him as the cornerstone for constructing the new temple.’ This is what you have said. It is what will happen; the kingdom of God will be taken from them and given to a people who will produce its fruits. The rejection of these authorities is not of all of Israel, but only of a part, a group of leaders who are closed to the message. They reject Jesus and condemn him to death. And they will lose control, leadership, and the task of being shepherds of Israel. The kingdom of God, the vineyard, will be entrusted to other people, including all Israel and those who accept God’s project.
The third parable of refusal is that of the guests at the wedding banquet, which Matthew notably reworks in an allegorical key. It is not simply a dinner but a wedding banquet that a king prepares for his son. The guests not only reject the invitation but also beat or kill those who bring it. They beat and kill the mediators who deliver the invitation to the wedding… They beat and kill the letter carriers who deliver the invitation. This is an exaggeration. They are the messengers; the banquet is ready, but they are rejected and killed. In this third parable, we can recognize what will happen to the apostles.
In the three parables, Matthew somehow schematized the history of salvation in three phases. Before Jesus, John the Baptist and all the other prophets were rejected. Jesus, as a Son, was expelled from the vineyard. Those who followed after Jesus, upon hearing the announcement of the banquet, ‘Everything is ready, come to the wedding banquet,’ would be rejected and, in turn, assassinated and eliminated.
This situation has occurred before, reached its climax in Jesus, and, unfortunately, will occur again in the future. An important detail is repeated in the finale. The first guests refuse the invitation; everyone else, both good and bad, enters. Matthew knows well that the church includes not only the good but also the unworthy who misbehave.
This attitude is represented by the one who did not have the wedding dress, which, allegorically, indicates a coherent life. The king goes down to the banquet, sees the one who does not have the wedding dress, and says: “Friend (it is not ‘filos’; it’s another Greek term that has a rather harsh tone: ‘uh, you here?’). It is not a sign of affection, but rather a way of saying: who do you think you are … what did you come here for?’ “How is it that you come in here without a wedding garment? But he was reduced to silence.”
The message is that entering the Church is insufficient to ensure salvation. One can be cast out of the banquet hall. Without coherence of life or full compliance with the works of the Gospel, merely having entered is not a sufficient guarantee. “Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’ Many are invited (those called are the multitude), but few are chosen” (the chosen ones are those who accept the invitation). Unfortunately, there are few.
The risk of rejection continues within the Church, and it is a severe problem that the community of Matthew was experiencing.