Category: Sunday Commentary

The Thirty-Third Sunday in Ordinary Time (19 November 2017)

Prov 31:10-13,19-20,30-31; Ps 128; 1 Thess 5:1-6; Mt 25:14-30

Theme: Blessed are those who fear the Lord

 

Download

 

The woman whose praises are sung this Sunday is so full of energy.  In the passage as a whole (Prov 31:10-31) we learn she not only makes garments but sells them, she gets up while it is still dark “and provides food for her household and tasks for her servant-girls,” she buys a field, she plants a vineyard, she gives to the poor.  Her strong arms and skillful hands are always at work.  This is someone whose fear of the Lord is expressed by active engagement in the life of her family and her community.

 

Such a life of active service is held up for our imitation by Matthew, not only in the parable of the talents but in the two preceding parables, first of the faithful and unfaithful slave and then of the ten bridesmaids (Mt 24:45-25:13).  These three parables are followed by an account of the judgment of the nations, at which we will be rewarded or punished according to whether we have served others or have not.  In serving others we serve Jesus, who is our master.  As our master he will judge how well, or poorly, we have served him.

 

Michael Crosby writes: “The concept of ‘doing’—in contrast to ‘saying’ –and ‘doing good’ in contrast to ‘doing evil’ or nothing at all in the face of injustice and evil is central to Matthew.” (Crosby, 37)   One image for the contrast of doing good to doing evil/doing nothing is the image of light as opposed to darkness, which appears in all three of this Sunday’s passages. We are told of the woman in Proverbs that “her lamp does not go out at night (31:18). Paul tells us that we are “children of the light” so we should not “sleep as the rest do but…stay alert and sober.”  Paul’s words echo Matthew: “Blessed is the slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives.” (Mt 24:46) The servant who buries his master’s coins in the ground is condemned to be thrown “into the darkness.”

 

The parables of the bridesmaids and the talents can make us uncomfortable.  Couldn’t the wise bridesmaids have given some oil to the foolish ones? (Even though oil sufficient for five lamps would not have provided light for very long when distributed among ten lamps.)   The third servant may not have made his master any money, but he has not lost him any money either; burying coins for safe-keeping was normal practice.  (The fact that it was normal practice may explain why the master entrusts his servants with money rather than other forms of wealth such as olive groves or flocks of sheep. The parable requires property than can safely be hidden in the ground.)

 

But these parables were not written to instruct us in how we should treat our colleagues – who has not at some point either borrowed or lent ‘oil’? – or deal with workers who try to get by with doing as little as possible – yes, the man was timid and lazy but being thrown into outer darkness seems excessive.  We must remember that the message of the parables is how we are to serve Jesus—the bridegroom and the master.  If he wants ten lamps burning or his property to thrive that’s what he should have. After all, how hard would it have been to bring a flask of oil in case the bridegroom was late or to take the coins to the bank?

 

Bibliography:  Crosby, Michael H., “Matthew’s Gospel: The Disciples’ Call to Justice,” in The New Testament-Introducing the Way of Discipleship, ed. Wes Howard-Brook and Sharon H. Ringe (Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 2002), 16-39

 

For Reflection and Discussion: 1. What have I been given—e.g., good health, education, money—that I have hidden in the ground rather than use it to serve? 2.  How could I dig up my ‘talent’ and put it to use?

 

This week’s Sunday Gospel Commentary was prepared by

Anne Morton, BA, MA, MA (Theology); Bat Kol Alumna 2010
Email address: anmorton@mymts.net

[Copyright © 2017]

 

……………………………………………………………

PLEASE NOTE: The weekly Gospel commentaries represent the research and creative thought of their authors, and are meant to stimulate deeper thinking about the meaning of the Sunday Scriptures. While they draw upon the study methods and sources employed by the Bat Kol Institute, the views and conclusions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of their authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of Bat Kol.  Questions, comments and feedback are always welcome

………………………………………………………

 

Bat Kol Institute for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem

1983-2017

“Christians Studying the Bible  within its Jewish milieu, using Jewish Sources.”

gill@batkol.info

 

32nd Sunday of Ordinary Time (12 November 2017)

Lectionary readings:  Wis. 6:12-16; Psalm 63; 1 Thes 5:1-6; Matthew 25:1-13

 Theme: Scarcity and Abundance

 

Download

 

In Hebrew, a parable is called mashal.  Two parables are found in the Old Testament which are the Parable of the Bramble [Judges 9.8-15] and the parable that Nathan spoke to David after the Bathsheba affair  [2Sam 12.1-7].  It is interesting to note that through the parable, David, king of Israel and also its judge, indicted himself.  Such could be the effect of parables.  Unlike other stories, parables do not have a clean finish.  The hearers are left to interpret and make sense of the parable. 

 

Usually, the most common interpretation of the Gospel parables is to treat it as an allegory.  Levine suggests, however, to  recover the “punch” of the parables, to recover its provocation.  To do so would require from a person a deep soul-searching in order to see the truth of the matter inside of herself/himself.           The parable in today’s gospel is usually taken as an allegory for Christians to be ready and diligently wait for the bridegroom who is Jesus.  Matthew already has given an interpretation at the end of the parable.  However, in this commentary, I wish to try the hermeneutics of parables that Levine was proposing in her book, “Short Stories by Jesus.”

 

In the parable, the ten bridesmaids or virgins were already divided into those who were “foolish” or “wise.”  Those who were regarded as wise were those who have taken an extra flask of oil along with their lamps.  I will stop here for a minute and consider this.  Since childhood, we have been trained to always “save for the rainy day.”  I would certainly associate myself with the wise due to this socialization. 

 

 When asked by the “foolish” virgins for some oil, the “sensible” ones responded, “No!  There will not be enough for us…”  How did they know there will be not be enough?  Besides, the arrival of the bridegroom has already been announced.  Instead of sharing the oil, they advised the five to go and buy some oil from the dealers.  Shortly after the “foolish” ones have left, the bridegroom came.  If the “wise” ones shared, there would have been enough, then! For a perceived scarcity, is keeping one’s oil justifiable?  But, in our world today, the mindset of scarcity is what encourages accumulation of wealth and hoarding regardless of the consequences for our earth.  Furthermore, our economic system is based on scarcity.  Goods are more valuable if they are perceived to be scarce. This is one of our unquestioned assumptions. [O’Murchu, 38]

 

I worked with the Dulangan Manobo, an indigenous tribe, for many years.  Many of them do not have the concept of saving for the rainy day.  But their sense of generosity is immense. Their sense of community is very strong.  They would share even the last morsel of rice.  I have not tried to share this parable with them but I would say that if they heard this parable, they would really be mortified that some would be excluded from a celebration rather than be assisted to be able to enjoy and celebrate together.

 

Is this parable, heard in our context today, an indictment of our accumulation and hoarding at the expense of our earth and of the poor?  Is it asking us to reconsider what kind of mindset we need at this time to bring about the reign of God?  Are we being invited by the parable to look at our assumptions?  If we put on the mindset of abundance, what will our world look like? 

 

For Reflection and Discussion: How can we recover the punch of the other parables of Jesus?  In what ways are our thoughts and attitudes influenced by the economics of scarcity?

 

Bibliography: Levine, Short Stories by Jesus:  The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi (New York, 2014); O’Murchu, God in the Midst of Change: Wisdom for Confusing Times (Quezon City, 2012)

 

This week’s Sunday Gospel Commentary was prepared by

Sr. Petite Lao, RNDM, Bat Kol Alumna 2010, 2014

Senator Ninoy Aquino (Kulaman), Mindanao, Philippines
Email address: petitelao@gmail.com

[Copyright © 2017]

 

……….……………………………………………………

PLEASE NOTE: The weekly Gospel commentaries represent the research and creative thought of their authors, and are meant to stimulate deeper thinking about the meaning of the Sunday Scriptures. While they draw upon the study methods and sources employed by the Bat Kol Institute, the views and conclusions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of their authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of Bat Kol.  Questions, comments and feedback are always welcome

………………………………………………………………

 

Bat Kol Institute for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem

1983-2017

“Christians Studying the Bible  within its Jewish milieu, using Jewish Sources.”

gill@batkol.info Website: www.batkol.info

 

The Thirty First Sunday of the Year (5th November 2017)

Malachi 1:14b–2:2b, 8–10; Psalm 131; 1 Thessalonians 2:7b–9, 13; Matthew 23:1-12

Family disputes

Download

 

Some of the worst disputes take place within families or between branches of the same religious family.  The Gospel text for use in today’s liturgy is an example.  It portrays Jesus in conflict with the Pharisees, a religious movement active in the land of Israel between 2nd century BCE and 1st century CE (Harrington, 56).  It is thought that the Pharisees were the precursors of rabbinic Judaism and the group Jesus had most in common with (Levine, 527).  The seemingly hard words coming from the mouth of Jesus may reflect the ways rival groups debated with one another in the first century and competed with one another in the late first century after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.  The second group spoken of in this Gospel passage, the Scribes were people trained in the knowledge and interpretation of the Law.

 

In this chapter of Matthew, the authority of the Scribes and Pharisees is recognized using the image of their occupying the ‘’chair of Moses”, the person through whom God gave the Law to the people of Israel. The chair of Moses was also the name given to the special seat in ancient synagogues reserved for the most distinguished of the elders (Lachs, 366).  Jesus tells his listeners to do and observe what the Scribes and Pharisees tell them but not to follow their example.   His instruction is based on Deuteronomy 17:10, “Carry out exactly the decision announced to you…….diligently observing everything they instruct you”, a verse which became the biblical basis for rabbinic authority replacing that of the priests (Lachs, 366).  It seems, however, that there were some Scribes and Pharisees who instructed people what to do but who failed to carry out the instructions themselves. 

 

 Matthew’s Gospel also indicates that the behavior of some of these two groups of people was not consonant with the protocol of the day.  Phylacteries (the straps which attached the boxes worn by Jewish men to the forearm and to the forehead) were to be of a prescribed length. The tzitzit (fringes on the tephillin worn at prayer) were also required to be of a certain length. (Lachs, 366, 367)  There was protocol regarding seating at banquets and in the synagogue and regarding greetings.  If any of these protocols were ignored or if they were fulfilled with ostentation subsequent criticism was justified.  Lachs points out that there are many statements in the Mishnah decrying self-aggrandizement (366). 

 

 Finally, Matthew has Jesus tell his disciples that they must not be called “Rabbi”.  Lach discusses whether this teaching is anachronistic as the title “Rabbi” was not used until after the destruction of the Temple (367)

 

Reflection questions:  1.How would you counter those who assert that Matthew identified the Scribes and Pharisees as Jesus’ enemies?  2. Can you name any ways followers of Jesus are guilty of self-aggrandizement today?

 

Bibliography: Daniel Harrington, The Synoptic Gospels Set Free, (Paulist Press, 2009), Samuel Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament, (Ktav, 1987), Amy Jill Levine (Ed), The Jewish Annotated New Testament, (Oxford, 2011)

 

This week’s Sunday Gospel Commentary was prepared by

Clare Jardine nds, BD, MA (Jewish Studies), Rome, Italy

clare@notredamedesion.org

 

              [Copyright © 2017]

 

……………………………………………………

PLEASE NOTE: The weekly Gospel commentaries represent the research and creative thought of their authors, and are meant to stimulate deeper thinking about the meaning of the Sunday Scriptures. While they draw upon the study methods and sources employed by the Bat Kol Institute, the views and conclusions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of their authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of Bat Kol.  Questions, comments and feedback are always welcome.

…………………………………………………………

 

Bat Kol Institute for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem

1983-2017

“Christians Studying the Bible within its Jewish milieu, using Jewish Sources.”

gill@batkol.info Website: www.batkol.info

REFLECTIONS ON THE READINGS FOR

THE 30th SUNDAY OF THE YEAR, 29th OCTOBER, 2017, CYCLE A

Exodus 22:20-26; Psalm 18; 1 Thessalonians 1:5-10; Matthew 22:34-40

 

Download

 

Today our readings focus on the most important aspect of what it is to be fully human:  love of God and love of neighbour, making a fitting prelude to the coming celebrations of All Saints and All souls, which remember and honour those who truly loved God and neighbour.  In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus answers the scribe’s question by saying that “the whole law and the prophets” depend on the commands to love God “with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” and “your neighbour as yourself”.  Jesus, Jewish teacher that he is, is quoting here from Deuteronomy 6:4 and Leviticus 19:18.  He’s not unique in summarizing God’s law by these two central commands: his contemporary, the great rabbi Hillel, when challenged by a prospective convert to recite the whole Torah standing on one foot, replied, “What you hate for yourself, do not do to your neighbour.  This is the whole law.  The rest is commentary.” 

 

Our reading from Exodus speaks of how placing themselves in the situation of others should determine the Israelites’ actions:  “You must not molest the stranger or oppress him, for you lived as strangers in the land of Egypt.”  Significantly, the Hebrew word for “stranger”  here is “ger” , which is the term applied to the resident non-Israelite who could no longer count on the protection of his former tribe or community.  The “ger”, mentioned 33 times in the Torah, was to be given every consideration.  Again and again, the Israelites were reminded that they themselves had been strangers in Egypt. 

 

Those whom Paul is addressing in his Letter to the Thessalonians, written less than twenty years after the death of Jesus, were probably all gentiles, coming from the poor, non-elite of their society.  Their new faith in Christ meant that they had to abandon their traditional gods in favour of the one God, but that would have set them at odds against the rest of the society in which they lived, where kinship, politics, economics and religion were inextricably interrelated.  This meant that they would have been ostracized, even stoned in the streets: “…in spite of the great opposition all round you ….you broke with idolatry when you were converted to God and became servants of the real, living God”. Paul encourages them to persevere and discover mutual strength in their new identity, at the same time calling them to treat outsiders well: “May the Lord be generous in increasing your love and make you love one another and the whole human race …” (1 Thess 3:12).

 

In the Bible, love of God is often expressed as gratitude and remembrance for what God has done rather than what we do for God.  That is clearly the essence of Psalm 18, which begins, almost impetuously, with the words, “I love you, Lord, my strength”.  The form of the Hebrew verb used for “love” – “raham”, is an Aramaic usage that appears only here in the Hebrew Bible.  It is, strikingly, better translated as “I am impassioned of you, Lord, my strength!”  The passionate love of God – and neighbour – is key to our readings today and is our privileged calling.

 

This week’s Sunday Gospel Commentary was prepared by

Sr Margaret Shepherd, NDS, London, UK

margaretashepherd@gmail.com

[Copyright © 2017]

 

……………………………………………………………

PLEASE NOTE: The weekly Gospel commentaries represent the research and creative thought of their authors, and are meant to stimulate deeper thinking about the meaning of the Sunday Scriptures. While they draw upon the study methods and sources employed by the Bat Kol Institute, the views and conclusions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of their authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of Bat Kol.  Questions, comments and feedback are always welcome.

………………………………………………………………

 

Bat Kol Institute for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem

1983-2017

“Christians Studying the Bible within its Jewish milieu, using Jewish Sources.”

gill@batkol.info Website: www.batkol.info

The Twenty-Ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time (22 October 2017)

Is 45:1,4-6; Ps 96; 1Thes 1:1-10; Mt 22:15-21

  Theme: Who is the King of Your Heart?

 

Download

 

Repeatedly in Israel’s history, the nation finds itself in exile. And repeatedly, G-d has proven to be Israel’s faithful LORD as he uses different nations and their kings to enact his salvation for his people and judge those nations who have overstepped their power. In our readings today, the authors of Isaiah 45 and Psalm 96, reiterate G-d’s sovereignty over the nations and not just Israel. G-d uses the stage of international politics to show that the kings are but his servants. He has given them limited authority as his instruments of justice and salvation for both his chosen nation and goyim or the nations around them. G-d was the True Suzerain over the nations and their kings were only his vassals, blessed when they extend G-d’s justice and goodness to the people and judged when they abuse their power over their constituents. The trial speeches against the nations in Isaiah showed that Babylonian diviners didn’t expect the rise of Cyrus thus rendering their gods speechless and insignificant compared to the G-d of Israel.

 

 In the turning point of Israel’s history, G-d uses Cyrus king of Persia to bring back his people from their long exile in Babylon to rebuild the walls and the Holy City in Jerusalem. The decree by Cyrus the Great that sent the exiles back to Israel seemed to be the liberation the people had long anticipated. Although we see in the Gospel of Matthew that Israel was again captive to another Superpower, Rome, and it’s cruel Caesar, Herod. The fate and faith of Israel was once again put to the test. Although Caesar’s rule had dawned the age of roads and infrastructure that eased commerce and travel, his reign had also persecuted those who refused to worship him as the divine son, and emissary of the gods. Caesar’s Pax Romana and the cruelty by which he ushered in this ‘peace’ was infamously historical.

 

 Taxes and tributes were the main means by which Caesar imposed his oppression on the foreigners in the land. And this was not a welcome policy for the Israelites, many of whom were at the brink of poverty and living as aliens in their own land. In the Gospel reading, Jesus teaches an implicit lesson when he was questioned for his loyalty. “As a teacher of the Law, was it against the Torah to pay taxes to Caesar?” In true Rabbinic form, Jesus answers through a rhetorical reply, “Who’s image is on that coin?” It does not take a genius to know that the face is indeed Caesar’s. And thus, Jesus says, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to G-d what is G-d’s.” This seemed to be the end of the conversation. But if one seeks further, one might ask, “If the coin is Caesar’s as it has his image on it, what then belongs to G-d?” The right question in reply is, “Who’s image is on you?”

 

Jesus reminds us, as in Israel’s history, G-d is faithful to his promises. And in spite the many difficult circumstances, he remains King of the nations and thus he longs to remain King of our hearts.

 

For Reflection and Discussion: Was there a very difficult time in your life that made you question G-d’s sovereignty in your life? What does the concept of G-d’s kingship tell us about our circumstances?

 

Bibliography: Boyles, Craig. The Major Prophets in the FaithLife Study Bible. (Washington:2016); Frymer-Kensy, Tikva. The Image: Religious Anthropology in Judaism and Christianity in Christianity in Jewish Terms, (Colorado:2000); Lamerson, Samuel. The Graeco-Roman Background of the New Testament in the FaithLife Study Bible. (Washington : 2016).

 

This week’s Sunday Gospel Commentary was prepared by

Jojee Martinez, MDiv Biblical Studies, Philippines

Bat Kol Alumni July 2016
Email address: jojeemartinez@gmail.com

 

[Copyright © 2017 ]

 

……………….………………………………………………

PLEASE NOTE: The weekly Gospel commentaries represent the research and creative thought of their authors, and are meant to stimulate deeper thinking about the meaning of the Sunday Scriptures. While they draw upon the study methods and sources employed by the Bat Kol Institute, the views and conclusions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of their authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of Bat Kol.  Questions, comments and feedback are always welcome

…………………………………………..……………

 

Bat Kol Institute for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem

1983-2017

“Christians Studying the Bible  within its Jewish milieu, using Jewish Sources.”

gill@batkol.info Website: www.batkol.info

 

The Twenty-Eighth Sunday of the Year (15th October 2017)

Lectionary readings: Is. 25 6-1; Ps. 22; Phil. 4 12-14, 19-20; Mt  22 1-14

Download

  

The Eschatological Banquet

Most people love a banquet especially one to celebrate a wedding. In the Gospel for today Matthew draws on the banquet imagery of the Prophet Isaiah and wedding imagery used by prophetic writers to describe God’s relationship with Israel.  The image of the great banquet would have resonated strongly with Jesus’ audience.  The book of Isaiah was highly influential in the Second Temple period and the idea of the eschatological age as an on-going banquet was current in the first century (Long 71, 248). In today’s first reading the 8th century prophet Isaiah announces a banquet inaugurating the restoration of post-exilic Israel.  All people will celebrate with excellent food and wine on Mount Zion.  The meal marks the beginning of the eschatological age.

 

In the third in a series of parables or mashal, a common teaching tool in the first century, Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. When the king’s servants went to call those who had been invited they refused to come, making excuses. Some murdered his slaves.  So angry was the king that he destroyed the murderers and burnt down their town.   Unfortunately, the reaction of the king to those who refused his invitation is subject to an anti-Jewish interpretation, many identifying those who refused the invitation as the Jewish people who are then seen as rejected by God.  This interpretation goes against the teaching of the Church of God’s continuing covenant with the Jewish people (Vatican, The Gifts and Calling of God are irrevocable)  

 

Inviting others in place of those who refused is often understood as a reference to the universal aspect of God’s promises to the Gentiles.  Long ( also Stern 166), however, suggests that the replacement guests are those who have responded to Jesus’ invitation to them and have been eating and drinking with him – the sinners from the fringes of Jewish society.  

 

Through the parable Jesus announces the coming of the kingdom of God in terms of a wedding banquet.  Ultimately, all are invited to the banquet but in the final part of the parable one guest is turned away for not wearing a wedding garment.  Stern (162) suggests that the wedding garment does not refer to clothing but to attitude and behavior.   This guest had not repented.  All are welcomed to the banquet as long as they repent and wear the clothes of righteousness.  

 

The parable ends with a nimshal which is an explanatory paragraph often added to a mashal or parable (Allen 76).  Here the nimshal is, “many are called but few are chosen”.  It is unclear what the nimshal is explaining; who are the “many” and who are the “few”?  Is the nimshal a comment on the parable we are examining today or on the series of three parables?  

 

The Gospel today has many aspects, God’s love for Israel and for all humanity, God’s love for those on the fringes of society, God’s invitation to repent and to wear the garment of righteousness.  God invites us to his banquet to enjoy the food and wine of the kingdom, the same food and wine we will enjoy in the age to come.

 

For Reflection and Discussion: 1 Which aspect of the parable do you feel drawn to today? Spend some time reflecting on it.  2.  One interpretation of “Many are called but few are chosen” is: God calls us all with his love. His chosen are those of us who freely say “yes” to his call of love (Allen, 76).  What do you think about this interpretation?

 

Bibliography:  Donald J. Allen and Clark M. Williamson, Preaching the Gospel Without Blaming the Jews: A Lectionary commentary (John Knox Press, 2004);  Philip Long, The origin of the eschatological Feast as a Wedding Banquet, (PhD Thesis, St Andrew’s University, 2012);  Frank Stern, A Rabbi looks at Jesus’ Parables, (Rowan and Littlefield, 2006)

 

This week’s Sunday Gospel Commentary was prepared by

                            Clare Jardine nds, BD, MA (Jewish Studies), Rome, Italy

clare@notredamedesion.org

 

          [Copyright © 2017]

………………………………………………………

PLEASE NOTE: The weekly Gospel commentaries represent the research and creative thought of their authors, and are meant to stimulate deeper thinking about the meaning of the Sunday Scriptures. While they draw upon the study methods and sources employed by the Bat Kol Institute, the views and conclusions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of their authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of Bat Kol.  Questions, comments and feedback are always welcome.

………………………………………………………

REFLECTIONS ON THE READINGS FOR

THE 27th SUNDAY OF THE YEAR, 08 OCTOBER, 2017, CYCLE A

Isaiah 5:1-7;  Psalm 79:9,12-15,19-20;  Philippians 4:6-9;  Matthew 21:33-43

 

Download

 

The theme of God’s unfailing love for us – a love which we so often spurn – runs through our readings today.  The Bible offers a startling panorama of such spurned love and Isaiah’s Song of the Vineyard is a poignant reminder of it.  At the outset we are not told who the speaker is, nor what the relationship is between the parties of the love song.  Only later do we learn that God is the one who is singing of God’s beloved Israel.  God’s attentiveness for God’s people and land is expressed in the verbs “dug, cleared, planted, built, hewed out”.  Such verbs speak of complete and demanding devotion.  Tragically, the people fail to live up to their high calling, so “the vineyard” is destroyed, abandoned – the people go into exile.  Instead of the “justice” (Hebrew:  mishpat) God had sought, there had been “bloodshed” (Hebrew:  mishpach).  Instead of the “righteousness” God expected (Hebrew:  tzedakah), Israel produced “outcry” (Hebrew:  tze’akah). With such remarkable wordplay in the Hebrew text, the poet has moved from the language of agriculture to that of relationships within society/community, always the most important concern of the prophets. 

 

This text and its imagery are taken up in imaginative ways in the New Testament.  Today’s gospel is a midrash/commentary on Isaiah’s song.  Matthew gives the story a decisive christological turn:  the accent now is not on the vineyard as such, but on the “owner’s son” who is heir, murdered by the tenants.  The relationship of vine and branches is taken up in John’s Gospel:  “I am the vine, you are the branches.  Whoever remains in me, with me in him, bears fruit in plenty; for cut off from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5).  So the branches are expected to “bear fruit” as in Isaiah’s love song.  Here, the fruit is “love”, but such love is not far removed from Israel’s notion of “justice and righteousness”.  In all the gospels, as in Matthew, the parable becomes an allegory of the rejection of Jesus by the Jerusalem establishment.  Tragically, the interpretation of the transfer of the vineyard to other tenants has fostered anti-Semitism throughout the ages.  The parable as spoken by Jesus had a more fundamental meaning:  the utterly illogical action of the owner in sending the son reflects the pattern in which a long-suffering and compassionate God reaches out to humanity in the face of the most blatant forms of apostasy and idolatry (see Hosea 11-12).  This parable expresses what the Jewish writer, Abraham Joshua Heschel, in his book, God in Search of Man, has called “the divine pathos”, which is the great paradox of biblical faith – God’s loving pursuit of humanity.  Today’s gospel is often called “The Parable of the Wicked Tenants”; a better title for it might be “The Parable of the Long-Suffering God”.

 

 Matthew does not revel in the destruction of the wicked tenants, but turns their fate back on his hearers, his emerging Christian community, stressing twice that they must bear fruit.  He wants them to look to their Jewish heritage not only as a warning but as guidance for their life.  And we must do the same.  Isaiah summoned the earlier tenants to justice and righteousness:  “Cease to do evil.  Learn to do good, search for justice, help the oppressed, be just to the orphan, plead for the widow” (Isaiah 1:17).  Those of us who do not bear similar fruit will hear the ominous words of Jesus, “I never knew you.  Depart from me, you evildoers” (Matthew 7:23).  This is also Paul’s call to the Christians at Philippi, which he wants to be a community “bearing fruit” – “Let your tolerance/gentleness be evident to everyone”. The basic sense of the Greek word epeikes in the text here for “tolerance/gentleness” is “seemly/decent/just”, so Paul could be pleading for these Christians to be good citizens or members of this community which clearly was experiencing internal problems.  Echoes of both Isaiah and Matthew.  

 

The psalmist says in Psalm 79, which also speaks of Israel as God’s “vine”, destroyed because of the people’s spurning of God’s love:  “God of hosts, turn again, we implore … and we shall never forsake you again.”  That is the prayer of the Jewish community as it celebrates its New Year (last Saturday was Yom Kippur, the great Day of Atonement) at this precious time of penitence and “returning” to the God who loves us so much  – and it is our prayer, too.

 

This week’s Sunday Gospel Commentary was prepared by

Sr Margaret Shepherd, NDS, London, UK

margaretashepherd@gmail.com

[Copyright © 2017]

 

……………………………………………………………

PLEASE NOTE: The weekly Gospel commentaries represent the research and creative thought of their authors, and are meant to stimulate deeper thinking about the meaning of the Sunday Scriptures. While they draw upon the study methods and sources employed by the Bat Kol Institute, the views and conclusions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of their authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of Bat Kol.  Questions, comments and feedback are always welcome

……………………………………………………………

 

Bat Kol Institute for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem

1983-2017

“Christians Studying the Bible within its Jewish milieu, using Jewish Sources.”

gill@batkol.info Website: www.batkol.info

Sunday Gospel and Reading Commentary

The 26th Sunday of Ordinary Time

1st of October , 2017

Lectionary readings: Ez.18:25-28, Ps.125, Phil.2:1-11, Mt.21:28-32

 

Download

 

The incident and teaching of Jesus in today’s Gospel follows his triumphal entry into Jerusalem and his going into the Temple where he drove out the sellers and stated, “My house shall be called a house of prayer.” (21:13).  The chief priests and scribes were angered by his action and asked Jesus “By what authority are you doing these things?” (21: 23).  At this point Jesus confronted them with a wager, “I will ask you a question. If you tell me the answer, then I will also tell you by what authority I do these things.” (21:24)

 

Confronted with the question, “Did the Baptism of John come from heaven?” (21:25) they were fearful to answer and admitted, “We do not know!” (21:27).  It is at this point that Jesus told them a parable. These short stories were an integral part of his teaching because they concluded with the listener being confronted with a different way of looking at the situation. We can think of the story when Nathan told a parable to David and concluded with the words, “You are the man!” (2 Sam 22:1).  At this point, David clearly saw his actions in a new and truer light.

 

 The parable Jesus tells was of a father asking his two sons to go out and work in the vineyard. They are not identified as ‘elder’ and ‘younger’ but we might infer that the father spoke first to the elder. The first son responded disrespectfully saying, “I will not,” but later changed his mind and went, while the second son answered positively but failed to go. Jesus then posed the question to them, “Which of the two did the will of the father?” The chief priests and scribes answered, “The first.” (21:31)

 

 We know that both had the same father which signifies that God is a common father to all humankind. The command to go out and work in the vineyard is given to all. One son did better than he said, his answer was not good but his actions were. Ultimately it is the one who does the will of the father who is esteemed by Jesus.  

 

It was often the lowly and the outcasts who gathered around John the Baptist and these were seen by many as being unworthy and having little understanding. “Then Jerusalem was going out to him and all of Judea and the district around the Jordan; they were being baptized by him in the Jordan river as they confessed their sins.” (Mt. 3:5) The Jewish leaders had gone out to hear the preaching of John and did not respond positively to his teaching.

 

In the life of a disciple, one enters into a commitment of faith through Baptism. This commitment is of no benefit unless the person is prepared to fulfill that commitment.  “An authentic relationship of faith asks for our complete and consistent response to God’s will both in what we profess and in how we live.” (Mueggenborg 290)

 

John’s message was to repent, to undergo a metanoia. This is essential in the life of a disciple so that Jesus can change our hearts and our thinking. We need to let go of our ego, to perceive the compassionate words and actions of Jesus and to set our priorities in line with his teachings. Since actions speak much louder than words, we need to ask ourselves the question – what faith are we professing by the lives we live? What is the creed of our life that speaks to others of our faith?

 

For Reflection and Discussion: [1] What do we need to better fulfill our commitments of faith? [2] Do the good examples of others help us to learn and to respond better? [3] Am I a good example of the faith I profess?

Bibliography: W.R.Farmer, The International Biblical Commentary, (Collegeville,1998) D.H Mueggenborg, Come Follow Me, ( United Kingdom, 2016)

 

This week’s teaching commentary was prepared by

Rita Kammermayer, nds, BA, B.Ed, Masters of Pastoral Studies, Jerusalem, Israel

Bat Kol alumni 2001

ritakammermayer@netscape.net

[Copyright © 2017]

 

……………………………………………………………

PLEASE NOTE: The weekly Gospel commentaries represent the research and creative thought of their authors, and are meant to stimulate deeper thinking about the meaning of the Sunday Scriptures. While they draw upon the study methods and sources employed by the Bat Kol Institute, the views and conclusions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of their authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of Bat Kol.  Questions, comments and feedback are always welcome

………………………………………………………………

 

~~1983-2017~~

Bat Kol Institute for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem

“Christians Studying the Bible within its Jewish milieu, using Jewish Sources.”

Website: www.batkol.info;  gill@batkol.info

 The Twenty-Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time (24 September 2017)

Is 55:6-9; Ps 145; Phil 1:20-24; Mt 20:1-16

Theme: The lord is good to all

 

Download

 

 

In her sermon on this Sunday’s gospel, called “Beginning at the End,” Barbara Brown Taylor compares the laborers waiting for work to her childhood memories of standing in line on hot Saturday afternoons waiting for the movie theatre to open.  To be at the head of the line was best, as you could witness the drama of the door being opened and feel the wonderful coolness of the air-conditioned air as it surged forth.   If the manager had decided to let the people at the end of the line in first –  people who hadn’t even been waiting long enough to get hot! – the  first in line would have been highly indignant – and the people at the end amazed and overjoyed.  

 

It’s a wonderful sermon, and coming to the gospel text after reading it, it’s a surprise to find that nothing is said there about the reaction of the latecomers to having a full day’s wages pressed into their hands. It would be natural to assume that they would be very pleased to go home to their families with the money, after a long day of wondering if they would earn anything at all – but we are not told that.  What we are told is how the workers hired at the beginning of the day reacted and how the householder responded.  This is what matters to Matthew.

 

How did they react? They grumbled, saying that men hired at the last hour have been paid as much as they who had worked all day, including during the hottest part of the day.  They have been paid the same when they have given more time and effort. The householder could have tried to avoid this reaction by paying the late comers after he had paid the men hired at first.  Instead “he sets up the first hired to believe they will receive more than those hired last.”  (Levine & Brettler, 36) They would have seen the wage promised them for their day’s work, handed out, coin after coin, to the late comers.  The householder seems to be setting a test.    How will those hired first, but paid last, react?   When they react as might be expected, the householder treats it as a teachable moment.  He points out that he has paid them what they had agreed to, which was the standard rate of pay.  He continues: “Take what belongs to you and go: I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you.  Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?  Or are you envious because I am generous?”

 

The householder’s behavior is an example of what Michael Crosby calls “a generosity-beyond-what-is-just with one’s resources,” a generosity that he compares to that of the woman who anoints Jesus with the costly ointment (Mt 26:6-13).    The householder’s generosity, like hers, raises objections.  (Crosby, 36-37) Reasons for not being generous can always be found, especially if the generosity is intended for someone other than ourselves.  But as the householder makes clear, generosity is a choice. We can choose to give to others “what belongs” to us.

      

Bibliography:  Crosby, Michael H., “Matthew’s Gospel: The Disciples’ Call to Justice,” in The New Testament-Introducing the Way of Discipleship, ed. Wes Howard-Brook and Sharon H. Ringe (Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 2002), 16-39; Levine, Amy-Jill, and Marc Zvi Brettler. ed.  The Jewish Annotated New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011;  Taylor, Barbara Brown. The Seeds of Heaven: Sermons on the Gospel of Matthew. Louisville KY; Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

 

For Reflection and Discussion:  What do we do with “what belongs” to us? Do we act generously, whether by giving more than is fair, or by showing a generosity of spirit that does not begrudge others their good fortune? Or do we brood over what we think others owe to us?

 

This week’s Sunday Gospel Commentary was prepared by

Anne Morton, BA, MA, MA (Theology), Winnipeg, Canada,  Bat Kol Alumna 2010
Email address: anmorton@mymts.net

[Copyright © 2017]

 

……………………………………………

PLEASE NOTE: The weekly Gospel commentaries represent the research and creative thought of their authors, and are meant to stimulate deeper thinking about the meaning of the Sunday Scriptures. While they draw upon the study methods and sources employed by the Bat Kol Institute, the views and conclusions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of their authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of Bat Kol.  Questions, comments and feedback are always welcome

………………………………………………

 

Bat Kol Institute for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem

1983-2017

“Christians Studying the Bible  within its Jewish milieu, using Jewish Sources.”

gill@batkol.info Website: www.batkol.info

24th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A (17 September 2017)

Lectionary readings: Sirach 27:30-28:7; Ps 103:1-4, 9-12; Rom 14:7-9; Mt 18:21-35

Theme: Reconciliation and Forgiveness, Be Kind and Merciful

 

Download

 

Living in Australia now for nearly six years, it is a common occurrence to hear of the Australian State of Reconciliation and Forgiveness, the past history, stories and the path for the future. The significance of reconciliation and forgiveness in maintaining and building relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and the wider Australia community. “It’s important not to lose sight of the fact that reconciliation is basically a grassroots process. It’s about people living and working together and solving problems in local communities.” (P.  Dodson)

 

Last Sunday’s Gospel discussed the reconciliation of members guilty of public crimes destructive of the community “If your brother or sister has sinned against you, go and point… “(Mt 18:15). Today’s Gospel reading concerns the forgiveness called for within the community at a personal level. Then Peter asked him, “Lord how many times must I forgive the offences of my brother or sister?” (Mt 18:21). The response of the Lord, “not seven times; I say seventy times seven times”. In many ancient cultures, Hebrew included, the number seven often signifies completeness and/or perfection. Reconciliation and Forgiveness will be the process to attain the end goal of wholeness, completeness and perfection. I mentioned last week, in the language of Human Rights “caring for one another, is everyone’s responsibility”.

 

In our time of the Common Era, we have had two world wars and perhaps we know that some of the main causes of these wars or any global violence and conflict. According to Karen Armstrong in her book “Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life”, Armstrong noted, it is important to point out that “In fact, the cause of war is usually ambition, hatred, greed and envy”. This is the message of the first reading from the book of Sirach, the need for forgiveness and reconciliation. Reconciliation has elements of truth, forgiveness, healing, reparation, justice and love. “Wrath and anger are hateful things … think of the commandments, hate not your neighbour”.  Resentment and the vengeful spirit have been part of the human story since the beginning. The Jews knew the directives of Sirach, as well as the challenge of Scripture to be holy as God is holy. “We must realize that listening to this Scripture on Sunday and yet practicing any kind of vendetta is inconsistent and un-Christian” (Sunday Missal pg. 577).

 

In the parable of the unforgiving manager, Jesus teaches us, there is no limit to granting forgiveness and pardon, the meaning of forgiving “seventy times seven”. The man who owned an enormous amount was forgiven, and he failed to show compassion to his friend who pleaded for mercy, how sad. From the “Charter for Compassion”, Karen Armstrong noted “The principle of compassion lies in the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish them to be treated ourselves”. The final line of the Charter is “It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensible to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community”.

 

Psalm 103, The Lord is kind and merciful, slow to anger and rich in compassion. Oh God, so great is your love for us, most forgiving and reconciling. Together with psalm 104, God of all grace shines far and wide. “In the galaxy of the Psalter these are twin stars of the first magnitude” (D. Kidner pg. 364)

 

For Reflection and Discussion: (1) The ability to forgive is a gift present in everyone, what is your opinion. (2) The Golden Rule, “In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets”(Mt 7:12), share with a friend, have a havrutah session.

 

Bibliography: W.G. Plaut, (ed.) The Torah (NY 1981); K. Armstrong, Charter of Compassion (2009); K. Armstrong, Twelve Steps to a Companionate Life (2010); Reconciliation Australia, Reconciliation Action Plan (2015-2017). D. Kidner, Psalms 73-150 (1975).

 

This week’s Sunday Commentary was prepared by

Fr. Aliki A. Langi, Gladstone, Australia,  Bat Kol Alum 2005

Email: 1alikilangi@tpg.com.au

[Copyright © 2017]

 

……………………………………………….

PLEASE NOTE: The weekly Gospel commentaries represent the research and creative thought of their authors, and are meant to stimulate deeper thinking about the meaning of the Sunday Scriptures. While they draw upon the study methods and sources employed by the Bat Kol Institute, the views and conclusions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of their authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of Bat Kol.  Questions, comments and feedback are always welcome.

    ……………………………………………………………

 

~~1983-2017~~

Bat Kol Institute for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem

“Christians Studying the Bible within its Jewish milieu, using Jewish Sources.”

Website: www.batkol.info;   gill@batkol.info