Videos from Fr Claudio Doglio
Original voice in italian, with subtitles in English, Spanish, Portuguese & Cantonese
THE PARABLES OF FIDELITY
The final encounters of Jesus during his stay in Jerusalem, on the temple esplanade, become confrontations. All evangelists present the rupture that marked the end of Jesus’ life. In particular, Matthew gives specific emphasis to this contrast, perhaps because the school of Matthew, which was then working toward the 80s in a context of strong controversy with the new synagogue, reorganized by Johanan ben Zakkay, was in controversy with the reformed Jewish structure that tried to preserve its Jewish identity after the destruction of the temple, and was, therefore, closed and opposed to the Christian group. They expelled those who recognized Jesus as the Messiah and began an authentic confrontation with intense situations of verbal controversy and, perhaps, also opposition with painful consequences for Christians because they found themselves in a minority position without civil rights and protection.
The 23rd chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew maintains this tone of intense controversy. The last great discourse begins; it is the eschatological one, the final one, which analyzes the definitive fulfillment of history and occupies chapters 23, 24, and 25; it corresponds to the first great discourse of the Gospel according to Matthew, the programmatic one that includes chapters 5, 6, and 7, generally known as the ‘mountain discourse.’ The eschatological discourse, properly contained in chapter 24, has a preamble in chapter 23 and a parabolic appendix in chapter 25.
Chapter 23 contains strong and severe reproaches that Jesus addresses to the scribes and Pharisees. We found a collection of “Woes!” which is the reverse of the beatitudes. As the Sermon on the Mount congratulates those who welcome the kingdom of God, the final and definitive discourse shows the ruin of those who reject this word and this reception.
Chapter 24 contains an ancient formulation of the early Christian community in apocalyptic language; that is, the end is announced, but it is not easy to understand in what sense the end is spoken of. The first objective is to announce the end of Jesus, namely his dramatic passion and death. The drama of rejection leads to ruin, to the destruction of his life. The apocalyptic announcement typically occurs on Easter; it is the inversion of destiny. The one who was killed returns victorious on the clouds of heaven. It is the announcement of the death and resurrection of Jesus, a turning point in history, made by God. The stone discarded by the builders has become the cornerstone. God created this wonder.
The final perspective concerns the city of Jerusalem. In the year 70, the Roman armies conquered and destroyed the city. It was a painful end for the Jewish community, which lost the temple and the entire liturgy associated with it, and the year 70 brought about a radical change. A group from the synagogue, from a Pharisee school, organized the reform and tried to survive this disaster. Somehow, the primitive Christian community saw the announcement of the ‘eschaton,’ the end of Jerusalem, of that structure, and the temple, all destined to end in this eschatological discourse.
But deep down, in light of these two events, the death of Jesus and the end of the temple, there is also the universal perspective of the end of the world, the final fulfillment. It is not a text offering indications of when it will happen. Rather, it indicates that history is moving toward its fulfillment, which can be tragic, precisely in light of the two tragedies that have already occurred: the murder of the Messiah and the destruction of the holy city.
To this ancient apocalyptic text, preserved almost the same in Mark and Luke, Matthew added another chapter, the 25th, with three parables of his own. As he did with the three parables of Israel’s rejection, he now proposes three parables about faithful commitment; in this case, Matthew presents a vision of the history of salvation. The three parables do not say the same thing but address different situations in the story. They are the parable of the ten girls who go to meet the husband, the parable of the servants entrusted with the master’s talents, and the so-called universal judgment, when the Lord will gather all the peoples and, like a shepherd, separate the sheep from the goats. Let’s quickly see each of these parables.
The first occurs in a typically Palestinian context, in a town celebrating a wedding feast. Although it refers to local customs and traditions, the narrative coherence is not very strong, and the text is presented instead as an allegory, a metaphorical rereading of the history of salvation through the image of love, a nuptial meeting, the meeting of the bridegroom with the bride, an important Christological image. The husband is expected; this means he is not there yet. The ten virgins who go out to meet the bridegroom are divided into two groups. This is what the narrator says, but it is not immediately clear. Five are wise, and five are foolish (I would say, in more common language, stupid). Do you realize who the wise and who the foolish are?
There, all ten are waiting for the bridegroom, and they have torches; they must feed them with fuel oil so the flames stay alive. The bridegroom delays; it is late at night. They fall asleep. When the right moment arrives, when the bridegroom arrives, only five are prepared; the others are not prepared because they have no more oil, and their torches are extinguished. They are not ready to welcome the bridegroom who comes. They are so foolish that they look for oil sellers at midnight and, naturally, find everything closed. When they come back, the door is closed. They stay outside and knock, saying: ‘Sir, sir, open the door for us,’ but from within, the bridegroom says: ‘I don’t know you.’ “Therefore, be vigilant because you do not know the day or the hour.”
This parable echoes the outline of the parable that closes the discourse on the mountain: “The wise man builds on rock, and the foolish man builds on sand.” A little earlier in the discourse on the mountain, Jesus said: “Not those who say ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does the will of my Father.” In this parable, the foolish girlsknock, saying, ‘Sir, sir,’ but they don’t go in because they didn’t do the will of the Father. This is the key to the parable. What does the oil represent?
Personal commitment, each person’s existential response, is not transferable; it cannot be simply transmitted from one to another. The wise man cannot transmit his oil to others because the commitment has failed and they have not joined. It is understood that they are stupid at the decisive moment, when it is too late; it is necessary to have thought about it beforehand. The objective of eschatological discourse is precisely this: to think first.
The other parable, about talents, instead raises an economic question: administration, including banks. A wealthy gentleman entrusts his assets to his administrators and sets out on a journey. To one, he entrusts five talents; to another, two; to another, one. In ancient languages, talent was a unit of weight used to quantify silver. A talent ranged from 40 to 60 to 100 kg, depending on the place. The word ‘talent’ should sound to us like kilos or tons.
The man entrusts one of his administrators with 5 tons of silver, and to the one who entrusts little, he gives 1 ton. It is not a small thing; it is not a coin to keep in your pocket; it is a ton of coins, a heritage that must be made to bear fruit. A widespread misunderstanding stems from the fact that in our language, the word ‘talent’ has come to mean ability, quality, natural gifts, and the talents that the Lord gives us; we identify them as our gifts and qualities,and everyone must be said to exercise the gifts he received from the Lord. In fact, in the parable, it is said that the Master distributes his patrimony differently, giving to each according to his ability.
Therefore, talents are not skills. Talents are the patrimony left by the Lord. How, then,could we explain what the Lord left to his disciples? What is his heritage? The Gospel, grace, the Church, the sacraments, and the word of God are evident in many ways. This is the wealth that has been given to us; it is the deposit that, in the tradition of the pastoral letters, is called the ‘good deposit,’ the deposit of faith. ‘Deposit’ is a banking term that closely recalls the imagery of this parable.
The first two administrators received a large deposit at the bank and sought to make it earn more. When the owner returns after a long time, they will return the capital with interest. That deposit doubled the initial capital; instead, the third did nothing; he took that heritage and buried it; it was useless to him. When the owner returns, the man gives back to the owner what he received, as it was, saying, “It was useless. I didn’t do anything about it.”
We understand that the drama concerns someone who tells the Lord that knowing the Gospel was useless to him. The fact that the Church has the sacraments, grace, and the word of God “didn’t help me at all.” ‘My neighbor, an atheist or of another religion, lived exactly like me, who had all this inheritance.’ Logically, the Lord responds: “Woe to you, wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I did not scatter; you should have entrusted my money to the bankers so that on my return I would have withdrawn it with interest. Therefore, take away the talent from him and give it to the one with ten talents.” The servant who has done nothing is called wicked and lazy.
The old translation used the term ‘negligent,’ which means ‘lazy.’ ‘Evil’ is synonymous with ‘lazy’; it is a parable addressed to Christians and to those in the Christian community who have received the patrimony of Christ, his deposit of faith, and it is for them to use. Two use it; two-thirds use it well; some more, some less; the one with five talents also had greaterability; they received a lot and doubled it. The one who received a little less had less capacitybut doubled it. This means that his commitment has served him; the evangelical heritage has borne fruit. “Very well, good and faithful servant, you have been faithful in the little, I will give you authority over a lot. Enter your lord’s feast.”
It is an announcement of joy for Christian administrators and others in the Christian community who play an important role in stewarding the evangelical heritage. ‘Faithful’ is the opposite of ‘lazy’. He who is lazy is not faithful. Not using the talents is treason; not making the Gospel known is to betray the task the Lord has given you. We can see a slightdistinction between the first and the second parables. In the girls waiting for the bridegroom,we can recognize the situation that precedes Christ; we can see the image of Israel waiting for the Messiah in those young women. When the Messiah arrives, some are ready and will receive him, while others are satisfied with theory, miss the opportunity, and do not enter the kingdom.
Instead, the parable of the administrators is addressed to the leaders of the Christian community, those who come after Jesus and inherit his patrimony. It is up to them to make it work. This community includes wicked and lazy people, such as the one who entered the wedding banquet without proper attire and was thrown out. Thus, this unworthy and lazy administrator is expelled: “Cast him out into the darkness outside. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
The last scene, the one we call the universal judgment, resembles a universal opening, in which the people questioned are neither part of the Israeli tradition nor the Christian environment, but are people in general. In fact, before the Messiah, everyone is amazed. The king who sits on the throne says, “You have given me something to eat,” – “You have not given me something to eat.” But both respond, “When did we see you hungry?” ‘We never knew whether we fed you or not fed you.’
They don’t know him or know Jesus directly, but the revelation is: ‘What you did or didn’t do with the smallest of my brothers and sisters, you have done it or not done it to me.’ The revelation is that the Messiah considers all people as brothers and sisters. Each person’s attitude toward others is the way to relate to the Messiah. Treating another person well is treating the Messiah well. To despise another person is to despise the Messiah. This is the criterion of judgment applied to those who have not received the patrimony of the Gospel; it is that they do not have the expectation of the spouse and have lived in a good or bad way. The criterion is precisely the works of mercy, the welcoming, and the service of the other.
Chapter 26 begins with the standard concluding formula: “When he finished this discourse, Jesus said to his disciples: You know that in two days Easter will be celebrated.”All these discourses are now complete. With the fifth discourse, the central part of the Gospelends, and the final section follows, narrating the Messiah’s passion, death, and resurrection.