CHAPTERS 21 AND 22
Chapter 21.
Time to take sides
The Passion narrative, from the entry into Jerusalem to the crucifixion, focuses on
the challenge to choose, to take sides, to opt for the radical disassociation which
Jesus demands and expects. Up to that point radical disassociation has been
promoted and encouraged, with warnings about the possible consequences if it is
chosen. In the Passion narrative the mood changes. The consequences become
clear and the disciples fade away in the face of the brutal power of Rome and in the
light of the fact that Jesus’ method seems to exclude violent revolt. Radical
disassociation from the system means separation from its violent methods. The call
to radical disassociation, a central theme of Mathew’s Gospel, becomes precisely
focused in the week of the entry into Jerusalem.
In these chapters Jesus, who resisted the temptation in the wilderness to join the
economic system, to condone the myths produced from the temple system, and to
become a landowner, demonstrates with perfect clarity how the rulers – from the
temple elite, to the rich, to the king – have fallen into those temptations. That which
Jesus rejected is that which the rulers embrace.
There is also a theme in this section of how the ruling classes seek to usurp God
through their self-serving practices.
Jesus makes his challenge and stakes his claim – liberation is coming
Jesus arrives on the outskirts of Jerusalem and prepares to enter. The scene is set
using words from Zechariah 9. This is a triumphal entry, a king staking a claim on his
territory and claiming his right to exercise rule over it. (Witnessed by the immediate
cleansing of the temple courtyard.) For Jesus to enter the city as he does is a direct
challenge to those who think they rule the city.
Zechariah’s situation was similar to the one experienced in first century Palestine.
The country and people were part of a great empire, stretching from the Euphrates to
1 the Nile, and the purpose of that and all empires was to accumulate wealth and yet
more power. As a result the people suffered. Their leaders had to choose between
supporting the imperial power which enabled them to preserve their own places in
the social and economic order, or work for the liberation of the people. The choice
they generally made was the choice most democratic representatives find
themselves making today. Economic imperialism is too strong and too removed from
political power to allow today’s democratic representatives to make a difference for
the people.
In Zechariah’s time the national leaders were the appointed governors, elite and
efficient bureaucrats able to control the land effectively for the real rulers. In those
days the desire for a national Messiah to liberate people and land was part of the
political hopes among the people of the land.1 Other leadership rested in the hands
of the cultic elite, the high priests and the Zadokite priesthood. Coded ways of
speaking about the imagined and hoped for liberation were developed. It is these
hopes that are revived by Matthew as he uses Zechariah and alludes to his words.
The Messianic vision of Zechariah appeals, with its elements of the restoration of the
humble Davidic king, the removal of the divinely appointed shepherds who have
failed the people, the restoration of the renewed remnant into the covenant
relationship, and the worship of Yahweh by all nations.
The book(s) of Zechariah are about liberation and the restoration of the people in the
land under God. They criticise the failed and self-interested shepherds (see Zech.
10:2). They express the desire for a proper peace, shalom, unlike the controlled
absence of war and denial of freedom imposed by the empire. Zechariah looks for
freedom for the prisoners, wine and grain to support the lives of the people and the
restoration to life for those who are oppressed. The arrival of Jesus at the centre of
power with echoes of such a prophet is no accident.
1
Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8; Janet E. Tollington; Continuum International
2 Jesus as Lord, Messiah and son of David as declared by Matthew in 1:1 is echoed
by the marginalised in 9:27, 15:22 and 20:30-31. Here it is shouted out by the crowd
around Jesus as he enters the capital city. This is a direct threat to the powerful and
the elite. The quotation from Zechariah is part of that confrontation – the king comes
as declared. The symbolism is powerful and would have been highly charged,
triggering expectations or fears in those who saw it.
Although the crowds gathered for the festival would have been authorised there was
always fear in the face of large crowds. Festivals, especially those in memory of
liberation, were dangerous.2
The public acclaim by the crowd indicates that Jesus is their Messiah working on
their agenda. They do this in the “city”, which is shorthand for the rulers – those who
run the country from the city. That is why Jerusalem is in turmoil, just as it was in
Chapter 2. The crowd proclaim a king and a prophet at the heart of power.
The attack on the system
Jesus starts by throwing out the traders, the Greek word – exebalev (from ekballō) being the same as that used for the casting out of demons.
Jesus then turns more elite myths on their heads. Those operating in the courtyard
are given the label applied by the wealthy to those outside the system: “robbers”
(lēstōn). The excluded and poor are not the wicked ones but those at the heart of the
system. The Kingdom of God reverses the ways of the world. The myths generated
by those in power are exploded. This would be the equivalent of the assertion that
the poor are not responsible for their poverty; the rich are. The poor are not poor
because they are inadequate; the inadequacy of the moneyed classes is the key.
The quotation from Isaiah 56 about the house of prayer and the inclusion of the
excluded is part of a much bigger section which contains references to the failures of
2
Unauthorised gatherings were always places where the hopes of revolution could be kept alive.
Funeral services played a huge part in the motivations and hopes of black South Africans during the
apartheid years.
3 the “sentinels” and the “shepherds” – that is the religious and political rulers. The
same is true of the quotation from Jeremiah 7:1 about the “den of robbers”.
Jesus offers free and unconditional healing and welcome into the temple in contrast
to the payment demanded by the priests. There is also a contrast with David in 2
Samuel 5:8 where David is recorded as saying "The blind and the lame shall not
come into the house." Jesus includes those David specifically excluded as well as
those the system cannot accept.
The work of unconditional healing and acceptance is highly charged.
•
It condemns the past and present practice of the temple.
•
It takes away from the temple the power to decide on who is in and who is
out.
•
It threatens the economic base of the temple system – the sacrifice
economy.3
Jesus takes over the stronghold which the elite thought they controlled absolutely.
The link with economy and ideology is revealed and both are taken from the hands
of the elite. The challenge is unmistakeable. And it goes further when the chief
priests and scribes are angered as children see clearly and declare the arrival of
God’s blessing for the Son of David.
With one further swipe at the ideological base of the temple authorities Jesus speaks
to them, quoting Psalm 8, and suggests that they neither know nor understand the
scriptural foundation upon which their flimsy superstructure is built.
Matthew is careful. The title “Son of David” is held in tension with the description of
Jesus as a prophet. To the poor he is a king who will liberate them and care for
them. To the rich he is a prophet, attacking the wicked shepherds for all he is worth.4
See the notes on the text, below, which looks at the questions raised by the
juxtaposition of the titles of Son of David and Prophet.
3
Carter; 2000; p 418
There is a saying from Liberation Theology. The Gospel message is the same for the poor and the
rich. The poor hear it as a promise; the rich hear it as a threat.
4
4 The failure of the system symbolised
After a night in Bethany Jesus returns to the centre of hostility and confrontation. On
his journey and in his hunger Jesus is failed by the fig tree which has produced
leaves but no fruit. Fig trees are frequently mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures,
their fruit symbolising sustenance and life for God’s people.
The fig tree represents the system of kings and temple, the hierarchical system of
power and authority, which should be providing life for the people but fails and is
cursed by God. It is dried up, lifeless, not whole. A withered fig tree is a symbol of
Israel that does not live by the law of God and does not deliver life. It is a judgement
on the temple state
The disciples raise the question of how Jesus did what he did – and the question is
ambiguous in that the surface question is about the destruction of a tree, but the
underlying question is about the challenge to, and overthrow of, the dominant
powers.
The issue, says Jesus to the ones of little faith, is to have faith. Then the overthrow
of the dominant system can happen and the mountainous power of Rome can be
overcome. The ones with faith are the outcasts and the crowds; the poor of the land.
The people can see what is possible; they see what can be done because they do
not accept the blinkered vision of those who rule and control and those allied to their
cause, or those trapped by the dominant belief system.
The little people know about faith – the disciples can discover faith only through their
solidarity with the people. As Sobrino notes, only the poor people can see the life
that could be and will be under God, and that to receive the vision of the hopeful
future from the poor is an act of Grace.5 The life of the people is a seedbed of hope
for the world, giving life where the rulers have brought death.
5
Sobrino, Jon; The Eye of the Needle – no salvation outside the poor; DLT; London; 2008;
particularly pages 45-49.
5 The question is raised about authority – John the Baptist’s and Jesus’ own. The fear
of the Pharisees is around the issue of John’s prophetic status and by implication a
similar status afforded to Jesus.
A challenge to the ideologues with a warning about the consequences of such
challenges
Jesus re-enters the ideological centre of the collusive temple state. The chief priests
and elders – the Judean ruling elite – come to Jesus seeking confrontation and
conflict.
“What are you doing here?” This implies that Jesus is a jumped-up nobody.
Jesus is teaching – as in Galilee now in Jerusalem – he speaks to the people about
who God is. This is escalation because the most important members of society are
now involved
The discussion of authority means that he does not speak on behalf of the ruling
authorities. He cannot. He is not part of the temple structure so if he claims to speak
on God’s authority they have him.
Jesus dismisses the challenge easily with his reference to John’s baptism. The
cynical nature of the Judean elite is exposed. They do not care where John was
from; he was a threat so they removed him.
The crucial and pivotal question raised by this passage is, “Whose side are you on?”
The stories of the two sons, the obedient and the disobedient, and the reference to
tax collectors and prostitutes illustrate obedience to the covenant by the faithful poor
in contrast to the Pharisees and the elders. This is a prophetic statement against the
elite.
The parable of the vineyard owner whose tenants rebel describes the way the kings
and rulers behave in relation to the peasant poor. It is a description of how
latifundialization works under the rulers. The term used for the man is not
anthrōpos but oikodespotēs - not just “a man” but a landowner, a rich man. He
makes a vineyard - that is, he takes land by foreclosure for his own benefit, which
6 would mean he prevents the poor from using it for their subsistence farming. The
former peasants in such contexts are often forced to produce a luxury product for the
landlord.
The story is an account of the greed of the elite and is possibly a prophetic allusion
to the way the Lord’s vineyard has become a place of domination, accumulation,
conflict and death.
The landowner fortifies the vineyard. It is land taken from its proper use and has to
be protected against those it was taken from. Then he sends his slaves to collect
“his” produce. The tenants resist, violently. So the landowner sends his own son in
the belief the tenants will show him due respect. Members of the elite are arrogant
and believe the myth of their own superiority. To no effect. The tenants kill the son.
The landowner reacts with brutal violence, the one area where he really does have
superiority.
This is a story from life. Jesus describes the reality of dispossessed peasants. He
makes the truth plain and in revealing that the claims of the elite are underpinned
solely by violence he releases the listeners to think clearly about how resistance is
needed but what the results might be.
The failed system in compared to the faithful poor
There is hope, and the cause of the people is affirmed by Jesus as he states that
they are the cornerstone which has been rejected but on which the elite are crushed.
The Kingdom of the poor cannot be defeated even by the power of Rome.
It is clear that it is the people, the poor, the weak and the marginalised which is the
cornerstone, rejected by the powerful as insignificant in the kingdom (or the temple).
Only a misreading of the previous parable would make Jesus the cornerstone. Again
this is a prophetic statement about the downfall of the elite. The Pharisees, who see
the implications, are afraid of arresting Jesus because in him the crowds “regarded
7 him as a prophet”. In fact the people know Jesus is a prophet because he speaks
openly about their oppression at the hands of the rulers.
To sum up this section the violence of the elites against their own people creates a
society where violence is seen as the only way for dealing with others. This begets
the violence of the poor (tenants) who are fighting for their very survival. However,
this violent response only brings down the wrath of the mighty.
God will not allow this land grab and in the kingdom the land is returned to its proper
use to sustain all. The result is that there is no place for violence when there is just
distribution of resources and none are facing starvation.
Jesus is not advocating violence but is describing the process. However, neither is
he telling this story to suggest to the poor that they must simply accept their lot and
wait for reward in another life. This is not a story about pacifism but about justice.
Jesus’ concern is that people should see the contours of the kingdom of justice and
mercy and see, like those who have faith, that this is God’s irresistible will. He
demands that men and women should actively seek this kingdom and he warns that
those who resist God will break themselves.
A bourgeois moralising on this passage would conclude, wrongly, that if only the
tenants had fulfilled their part of the “bargain” then all would have been well and the
violence would not have been necessary. Peace would reign. However, peace could
not reign when violence was endemic in the system.
The first violence is in the unjust social and economic structures, devised and
maintained by the rich elite.
The second violence is the accumulation of land in the face of peasant poverty which
is the denial of life and livelihood.
The third violence is to enslave people to the production of wealth for the rich.
The violence of the tenants is an eruption born out of the violence of enforced
poverty, exploitation, oppression and desperation. This does not justify an armed
rebellion by the tenants as that would only mirror the violence already perpetrated,
8 but it is neither the first nor the worst violence in the story. Needless to say, in social
conflicts, protests and unrest the propaganda concocted in response, and purveyed
by the media, highlights the raw violence of the protesters and makes no reference
to the systemic violence against which they are protesting.6
The final violence is at the hands of the person with the most might. The owner is
able to destroy the tenants utterly because of their attempt at resistance.
Chapter 22.
Exposing the pretences of the rulers
The story moves on with the parable of the King who invites people to his banquet.
(22:1-14) This story is about the behaviour of the dominant rulers and their demand
for obedience and obeisance. The role and rule of God is usurped and abused by
the earthly rulers. Here is a clear (and prophetic) description of what a king should
not be like. From chapter 21 on Jesus spends a lot of time undermining the notions
of kingship inherent in ‘son of David’.
In this parable the king is probably the Roman vassal king, Herod the Tetrarch.
(Hence the appearance of the “Herodians”.) The people are expected to be loyal to
Herod and through him to Rome. God is not in that picture.
When the “invitation’ is issued to the leaders of the city the message is in fact a
summons; nobody ignores a request from a king. To refuse or ignore it is a challenge
to the king’s honour. He needs the economic and political leaders on his side in his
attempt to establish or to solidify his power. In the natural order of royal weddings
they would be expected to be the only kind of guest suitable for the royal event.
Once again the response to their refusal is disproportionate violence against the
leaders and their city revealing the naked brutality exercised by kings.
6
The historical parallels abound: the response to the violence of slavery in the US; the response to
the violence of apartheid in South Africa; the response to the economic and police violence initiated
and sustained by Thatcher, Ridley, Tebbit and their ilk in 1980s Britain; G8 protests, etc. Many more
could be enumerated.
9 So the poor are “invited” to make up the numbers and show the importance of the
king. It is simple power play. The poor have even less scope for turning down the
command.
But one of those dragged in is wrongly attired - another affront to the king's honour.
Whether the wrong attire is an accident, a result of not possessing the right
garments, or an act of disobedience and resistance is not obvious. The result is the
same and he is cast out. He undermines the king’s presentation of reality. The king’s
honour is at stake and failure to behave according to the order as defined by the king
is a punishable offence.
The phrase, “cast into outer darkness...” appears elsewhere in Matthew, in 25:29
(parable of the talents) where it is definitely the act of an unjust tyrant. This should be
a clue to us that it is a description of tyrannical activities and not a way in which God
operates. Many are called by God to resist – only one does, and the consequences
are clear.
Matthew 22:1-14 has nothing to do with people being called to heaven and then
making excuses, unless we assume that God is represented by this king who invites
one lot then turns his attention to a second (less worthy?) group, systematically kills
the first list of invitees, burns their cities, and then casts out another who was illattired.
The idea of God’s heavenly banquet might have been a way of justifying this
interpretation, but it would be an interpretation which depended on an understanding
that the way kings behaved then, and the way the economic system works now, is a
model which can be used to describe the God of justice and life.
If this king represents God then God is definitely a tyrant, an idea which does no
justice to the dominant theme of the Gospels. It simply does not fit. Also the ones
invited first would have been people of high and significant status which makes a
nonsense of a just God.
10 Who owns the nation and its resources?
After this confrontation and the unmasking of the myths of the Pharisees, in 22:16
the Herodians appear, hand in glove with disciples of the Pharisees.7 The barely
veiled attack on Herod in the previous parable would have
antagonised a party
which seemed to be in favour of the continued order with Herod as the ruler of Israel
under Rome. If it is argued that the parable of the tenants was a critique of Herod the
Great’s latifundialization project, and the parable of the wedding was a critique of
Herod Antipas and his bids for power, it is little wonder the Herodians turned up.
The scene is a highly charged competitive one, the outcome of which was crucial.
Jesus was being pushed into a corner and would have to acquit himself well to
maintain his authority.
A key issue in this exchange is the extent to which Jesus can be compromised into
colluding with the empire.
The peasants suffer a large tax burden. Horsley notes that following the conquest by
Rome the tax burden on the Galilean peasantry would have been crippling. (e.g. at
least one quarter of all produce every other year).8 Much was subject to the whim of
the client ruler and depended on which self-aggrandising, or Rome glorifying,
building projects they were undertaking.9
The tax referred to (kēnsos) is a tribute paid direct to Rome; it is extracted directly
from the peasants and levied on every male over 14 and every female over 12. It is
based on the census Luke mentions and the word census has the same basis as this
word for this tax. On the rich it is a tax on their moveable property, but on the poor it
is a tax on their own bodies as they “belong” to the empire. As a tax on persons it
reflects that they are no longer God’s people but Rome’s possessions.10 The tax is
demanded without concern for the problems of the peasants but with the twin aims of
7
The identification of the Herodians as a group is speculative. The only reference outside the
Gospels of Mark and Matthew is an oblique one from the literature of the Essene community, which
has led to some speculation that the Herodians stemmed from that group. However, nothing can be
stated for certain. In this context it would seem from the name that the Herodians were a pro-Rome
and pro-Herod group working to maintain the status quo. Backgrounds of Early Christianity;
Everett Ferguson; William B Eerdmans Publishing Co; Edition: 3rd Revised edition; 2004; page 533. 8
Horsley; 1995; p 53
9
Horsley; 1995; pp 118-119
10
Herzog; 2000; p226
11 maximising gain and reducing the economic strength of the people. They were
thereby forced into the kind of enfeebled poverty where resistance was not a
conceivable option. It is profitable but it is designed to inflict maximum pain and
damage to a subject people and keep them in their places.
The coin in question – the denarius – is a symbol of oppression. As a visual symbol it
carries the head of the emperor. As a practical symbol it monetises the economy
which subjugates its traditional exchange mechanisms and rates to the imperial
standard. It also makes the transfer of wealth back to Rome easier. The Empire uses
the engine of monetisation to facilitate the extraction of the surplus labour of the
peasants.
Coins are part of the cultural apparatus alongside arches, columns, parades,
festivities, etc. all designed to maintain the myth of Rome’s right to rule at the
forefront of the minds of the conquered peoples.11
The fact that Jesus has no coin while the Pharisees have access to one is the first
victory. The Pharisees hand over to Jesus the coin with the idolatrous image on it.
They break their own heavily enforced purity code.
The address of “teacher” is a backhanded acknowledgement of Jesus’ status used in
an ironic way suggesting that such a status is about to be undermined. The
statement about Jesus not showing deference to anyone is a clumsy way of leading
him to acknowledge his lack of deference for Caesar, while the comment about
Jesus not showing partiality must have been tongue in cheek at least, as Jesus had
revealed systematically his partiality for the people over and against the elite.
The clear implication of the exchange is that the tax is unlawful and should be
resisted where possible. This is a statement of truth. Jesus does not insist that those
who follow him and the peasants of the land should not pay. Jesus would know that
such a stance would be suicidal for the people. (The consequences of resistance
have already been outlined in the two parables that precede this narrative section.)
However, it is right to state that the tax is wrong under God because it is a denial of
God’s sovereignty and a denial of God’s blessing for the poor.
11
Riches & Sim (Eds); 2005; p 16
12 The tax is condemned and has no legitimacy under God. Payment of the tax is seen
as inevitable but also as an illegitimate imposition.
The Pharisees and Herodians want the tax paid and do not want trouble. Their
positions in the hierarchy depend on it. They are unmasked.
The war of myths is evident here, and the false myths are revealed for what they are
while the truth is made clear. The story shows the hypocrisy (verse 18) of the
questioners in that they were perverters and concealers of the truth.
The amazement of verse 22 (ethaumasan) is a strong expression – struck with
wonder, dumbfounded.
The next attack on Jesus
Matthew records that “the same day” the Sadducees continue the relentless attack
on Jesus. (By the end of that day all the possible antagonists will have had a go at
Jesus, apart from the Romans themselves.)
The Sadducees make a statement that there is no such thing as resurrection and
then proceed to ask Jesus about a post resurrection situation. The narrative reveals
that their agenda is nothing to do with the question they pose.12
They quote a provision from Deuteronomy 25:5-10 (reflected in practice in Genesis
38) whereby a widow is protected. Widows were particularly vulnerable because a
woman only has life if she is connected to a man. At first the man is her father, then
she marries and she is embedded in the life and family of her husband. Generally
speaking a woman is unable to live independently if her husband dies. The duty of
providing a widow with a child meant that the family name could be continued and
there would be someone to work for and care for the widow in advanced years. The
attitude of the Sadducees shows that they understand women to be possessions of
12
The inspiration for the illustration may well be the apocryphal book of Tobit. In this story Sarah,
daughter of Raguel, was married to seven husbands, all of whom died on their wedding night having
not at that point given Raguel a child (Tobit 3:8, 15; 6:13; 7:11). The Mosaic teaching in question is
that of Deuteronomy 25:5-10, concerning levirate marriage (see Craigie, Deuteronomy, 313-15). The
term "levirate" comes from the Latin levir, "a husband's brother." "The law concerned brothers who
lived together and its purpose was to keep property in the family by raising up an heir to inherit it"
(Marshall, Luke, 739). The custom antedates Moses; cf. Judah's words to Onan in Gen 38:8, "Lie with
your brother's wife and fulfil your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother."
For levirate marriage, see also Ruth 3:9-4:12; Tobit 6:9-12; 7:12-13.
http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/kno_chamblin/NT.Chamblin.Matt.22.23-33.pdf
13 men. For them the provision was about taking possession of an inheritance and was
not about the protection of the woman. The question for them is that if there is such a
thing as a resurrection to whom would the woman belong. They missed the point of
the law that Deuteronomy 25 gives the power to the widow, especially if a brother
refuses his duty.
The question is also trivial. Questions about the resurrection life cannot be answered
in earthly categories. The things of the kingdom were beyond the grasp of people
like the Sadducees.
This time the crowd is astounded at Jesus’ teaching and the way he confronts and
confounds those in power who, according to their own myths, are always right.
The Pharisees send in the lawyer (scribe) as a final warrior in the battle against
Jesus. After this exchange they dare not question him any further. They have been
put in their place. The lawyer is their last chance and he tries a trick question about
the most important Law of Moses.
The answer is simple, has already been reflected in the practice of Jesus and will be
seen in his subsequent teaching. The answer is not unique to Jesus;13 it is a basic
tenet of the people of Israel. (See Deuteronomy 6:5, and Leviticus 18:18 ff.) Jesus
puts together these two verses. He uses scripture to condemn this lawyer who is
supposed to be a scripture expert.
The question and answer summarise the failings of the elite groups. There is, for
them, a separation between duty to God and duty to neighbour. This has already
been highlighted earlier in, for example, the accusation concerning the misuse of
Korban – Matthew 15:3-6. The separation was deliberate because it created the kind
of loopholes which enabled them to benefit at the expense of others. Love for God is
discovered in and expressed through love of neighbour. Love for neighbour is the
outworking of love for God.
13
Carter; 2000; p 445
14 Conclusion
Jesus then finalises and summarises the discussion about kingship that has been
the focus of chapters 21 and 22. His statement is meant to clarify that the Messiah is
not a part of the Davidic kingship; the model of kingship is not based on that
provided by David and his descendants.
This argument concludes with the Pharisees and their allies silenced for good.
Jesus’ honour is established and the political, religious and legal elites have nothing
to say for themselves.
As noted above there are clear connections between the temptations and the tests
applied to Jesus by the various dominant groups. The temptations were to fit in, to
comply, and to become a beneficiary of the dominant system. The tests in Jerusalem
leading up to the arrest and trials attempted to examine whether Jesus had been or
was at that point allied to the dominant power.
15 The text
Chapter 21.
Verses 1-9
Carter indicates that the procession bears all the hallmarks of an “entrance
procession”.14
Three times in his Gospel Matthew cites Zechariah (21:5; 26:31; 27:9–10), and on at
least eight occasions he alludes to the prophet (23:35; 24:30, 31, 36; 25:31; 26:15,
28, 56).
Zechariah cries out for liberation and the restoration of the people in the land under
God.
See the footnote below on “cornerstone” (chapter 21:42) and the quotation from
Zechariah 10:2b-5. This passage comes soon after the “king on a colt” text in
Zechariah 9. The new king on the colt comes to challenge the old leaders with whom
God is angry because they have failed to look after the flock.
There is a line missed from the quotation from Zechariah. “Triumphant and victorious
is he." Why is that left out by Matthew? Its absence would have indicated a king
unlike the one expressed by the dominant model.
The model of Messiahship is not elucidated. Zechariah 9:10 seems to expect an end
to violence and the destruction of weapons of war. There is an important statement
about Jesus being the prophet from Galilee. In other words, the understanding of
Messiah is linked to the work of the prophet. Moreover, the prophet concerned is
from Galilee – i.e. he is ours.
Verse10
Here is a contrast. From promise to threat. The whole city is described as being in
“turmoil”. (ʼεσεισθη - which has connotations of a seismic disturbance.) As in chapter
2 when Matthew is talking about the city he is using a symbolic term indicating those
14
Carter; 2000; pp 413-414
16 who ran and controlled the city as the seat of power. (As in the “City of London”,
meaning the concentration of economic power in Westminster and the “Square
Mile”.) The turmoil referred to is one caused among the elite by the arrival of the
peasant crowd from Galilee and its environs in a symbolic procession of challenge
with their prophet whom they declare to be the Son of David. The powerful see and
hear and are deeply threatened. The status quo and those who maintain it are under
threat.
Verse 12
Jesus goes straight to the centre where ideology is generated – the temple. This
place was built to generate theological myths about power and to promote the
profitable cult, and effectively worked against the people of the land.
Verse 13
As noted above in the exegetical section, the quotation from Jeremiah 7:1 about the
“den of robbers” comes in a longer section which contrasts commitment to the
“temple of the Lord” with the failure to live by the law of God and to offer mercy and
justice to the people. Those who put their trust in the temple rely on “deceptive
words” and not the law of God. The “deceptive words” undermined the covenant
promises and the practice of robbing referred to the cultic demands laid unmercifully
on the people.
Verses 15-16
The presence of children has echoes of the destruction of the children when the
infant king posed a threat to Herod in Matthew 1.
Overview of “king” and “prophet”.
The juxtaposition of the titles of Son of David and Prophet causes questions.
The crowd refer to him as Son of David in 21:9 and then the same crowd
(apparently) answer the question, “Who is this?” by saying, "This is the prophet
Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee."
The issue is around the conflict between the two titles.
17 In the Hebrew Scriptures the two roles are held in tension; the prophet’s role is
always to call back wayward kings to their task under God of caring for the sheep
with justice and mercy. The prophets were generally understood to be a reminder of
the Mosaic and tribal tradition of life which had been submerged when the people of
Israel wanted kings like the other nations around them. The prophets, in contrast to
the kings, were champions of the poor and oppressed in the land who were victims
of a corrupt monarchy. However, the two titles briefly run in parallel in this episode.
Throughout Matthew Elijah, an opponent of kings, is held up as a key figure.
Matthew’s Jesus constantly attacks the failed “shepherds” of Israel who looked to
their own ends instead of caring for God’s sheep. The main thrust, therefore of the
Gospel is pro-prophet and anti-monarch. The use of the obviously kingly title, “Son of
David”, requires some thought.
In terms of the theme of “radical disassociation” the prophets were fully
disassociated from the dominant system and stood with the poor (who never were
associated with it in the sense that they did not benefit from it). From this position the
prophets critiqued the king and the elite who, as the system’s beneficiaries, were the
ones chiefly associated with the economic system.
How is it possible here, therefore, for Jesus to move across into a position of
“association” and to be identified with the kingship strand with its almost total history
of compromise and corruption which worked the lives of the poor?
It is important to examine the whole section to see that there are a number of
references which indicate that the meaning of the title – Son of David – is being
worked out by Jesus in Matthew.
•
“Son of David” appears in Chapter 1, attributed to Jesus (1:1) and to Joseph
(1:20).
•
The title appears again in 12:23 when, after a healing, the crowd raise the
question as to whether this title can be a clue to the identity of Jesus.
•
There are 3 significant texts. Two blind men in 9:27, the Canaanite woman in
15:22, and the two more blind men in 20:30, 31. In each of these it is
18 outsiders who give this title to Jesus. In the last episode the crowd try to shut
up the blind men.
•
The same crowd, it would seem, take up the title during the entry into
Jerusalem, although as has been noted, they change back to depicting Jesus
as a prophet when asked by the people in Jerusalem.
•
The children in the temple take up the title “Son of David” with their
acclamation in 21:15, which causes consternation among the elite.
•
Jesus puts right the flawed thinking of the Sadducees and lawyer regarding
the nature of the Law of Moses. (22:23-40).
•
In 22:41-46 Jesus asks the Pharisees a question about the identity of the
“Messiah”, the anointed one expected to come and save the people, and
whose son the Messiah is. The answer given is straightforward: "The son of
David." Jesus then seems to go on to refute the possibility that the Messiah
can be David’s son because of scriptural references.
Therefore in this whole section although there appears a sudden concentration of
acclamations that describe Jesus as the Son of David and which risk ascribing to
him a form of messianic kingship, Matthew spends some time on Jesus’ rebuttal of
that title in a standard form by adopting a more prophetic style of speech and action.
In sequence after the reclaiming of the temple by Jesus, there follows:
•
The overturning of the Davidic practice in 2 Samuel 5:8 of excluding
the blind and the lame.
•
The condemning of the fruitless fig tree, which, if seen as a
condemnation of the political power of Jerusalem, is a prophetic act.
(21:18-22)
•
The question of authority – John the Baptist’s and Jesus’ own. The fear
of the Pharisees is around the issue of John’s prophetic status and by
implication a similar status afforded to Jesus. (21:23-27)
•
The story of the two sons (21:28-32). The obedient and the
disobedient; tax collectors and prostitutes represent obedience to the
19 covenant in contrast to the Pharisees and the elders. This can be seen
as a prophetic statement against the elite.
•
The parable of the vineyard owner whose tenants rebel. (21:33-41. See
below for a more systematic interpretation.) This parable describes the
way the kings and rulers behave in relation to the peasant poor. A
description of the reality of latifundialization under the rulers –
especially under Herod the Great. Land is expropriated and the former
peasants are forced to produce a luxury product for the landlord.
Violent resistance is proved to be futile. The story is a clear account of
the failings of the elite and is possibly a prophetic allusion to the way
the Lord’s vineyard has become a place of domination, accumulation,
conflict and death. There was also a common practice of forcing former
freeholders and tenants to work abandoned land for productivity
reasons. Often peasants fled their lands because of debt and the fear
of reprisals for not paying taxes and tributes. There was also a range of
resistance groups which demanded support for their campaigns
against Rome. Life in some places could be so hard that they were
simply abandoned. The Romans and Herodians would force others to
work the land to produce goods for the lifestyles of the elite.
•
The issue of the cornerstone on which the elite are crushed. (21:42-46)
It is clear that it is the people, the poor, the weak and the marginalised
– the ʼοχλος – which is the cornerstone, rejected by the powerful as
insignificant in the kingdom (or the temple). Only a misreading of the
previous parable would make Jesus the cornerstone. Again this is a
prophetic statement about the downfall of the elite, and the fear of the
Pharisees prevents them from arresting Jesus whom the crowds “see
as a prophet”.
•
Then there is the parable of the King who invites people to his banquet.
(22:1-14) This story is about the reality of the dominant rulers. The
demand for obedience and obeisance. The arbitrariness of empire. The
role and rule of God is usurped and abused by earthly rulers. The cooption of the elite into Rome’s activities is seen in the elite against
20 whom this parable is told. If the Son of David is a king of the kingly line
then here is a clear (and prophetic) description of what a king should
not be like.
•
The last episode to consider is the argument about paying taxes to
Caesar. (22:16-22) The realm of empire is distinct from the rule of God,
who in Jewish theology is the ruler of all and to whom everything
belongs. The practice of paying the poll tax is supported by the
Herodians and disciples of the Pharisees who raise the issue, and who
are in support of kingship in Israel.
•
Finally, it is always worth remembering that David was anointed by
Samuel when there was already a king in power who had been
previously anointed to serve as king of the Israelites under God. In 1
Samuel 9:15-17 Saul is revealed to Samuel by God as the one to lead
His people. David was brought in as the opposition; anointed as an act
of subversion; part of a long, slow, but effective coup. In the accounts
in 1 Samuel Saul has not done much wrong, but for reasons not written
down it would appear that David is more worthy. He takes over and
history is written by his followers. This is very much a central factor of
the history of David. Would it apply to his “sons” also? Is the view of
Davidic son-ship one which includes the overthrow of the established
order by a brigand chief jostling for power? In the popular mind the
importance of David could well be found in the way he offered a
challenge to the status quo, rather than his compromise with power
and his later corrupt practices following his successful campaigns.
Chapter 21 onwards, therefore, is pivotal. An over-riding question is, “What is a
messiah?” Is the Messiah Davidic, inheriting the royal status from the family line and
entering the world of palaces and entourages and privilege, having first established
military supremacy? Is the Messiah to uphold the status quo as a member of the
ruling elite?
Or is the Messiah someone from the people and the prophetic tradition, standing
against, undermining, and contradicting the embedded positions of the elite?
21 There is something in this pivotal text about the tension between the great and little
traditions. The story of the people still stands in opposition to and in danger from the
story of monarchy and power.
Verses 18 onwards.
Fig trees were frequently mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures, their fruit a symbol of
sustenance and life offered to the people of God.
In Judges 9, following Gideon’s death, there is a jockeying for position and
Abimelech comes out on top by devious and violent means. He killed 69 of Gideon’s
sons and only Jotham, the youngest, escaped. Jotham told the parable of the trees,
whereby the trees try to elect the olive as king, then the fig, and finally the vine as
king. All three decline because they have more significant work to do. The bramble
agrees to be king but only if the other trees acted in good faith. Otherwise violence
should befall them all.
The parable is about the tension between Judges and kings. There was no need for
monarchy but some aspired to power and grasped it when they could. They are
shown in the stories of the Judges to be wrong.
Another key echo is found in Jeremiah 8:11 ff.
They have treated the wound of my people carelessly, saying, "Peace,
peace," when there is no peace.
They acted shamefully, they committed abomination; yet they were not
at all ashamed, they did not know how to blush. Therefore they shall
fall among those who fall; at the time when I punish them, they shall be
overthrown, says the LORD.
When I wanted to gather them, says the LORD, there are no grapes on
the vine, nor figs on the fig tree; even the leaves are withered, and
what I gave them has passed away from them.
and
Hark, the cry of my poor people from far and wide in the land: "Is the
LORD not in Zion? Is her King not in her?" ("Why have they provoked
me to anger with their images, with their foreign idols?")
22 "The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved.”
For the hurt of my poor people I am hurt, I mourn, and dismay has
taken hold of me.
The passage from Jeremiah is part of a prophecy against the kings of Judah and the
scribes who stand accused of using “false pens” in their work on the law.
Verses 23-27
Jesus returns to the centre of ideology where the opposite understanding of life and
hope is generated by the falseness of the scribes and their associates.
He is immediately involved in a standoff with those associates of the scribes, movers
and shakers of their day. These are the ones expected to kill Jesus as noted already
in 16:21. Thus the confrontation has been escalated to a new level in its final stages.
The powerful come to Jesus on their home ground to challenge his honour. They
need to bring him down and part of the process is to shake the honour standing he
thinks (or they are afraid that) he has. They question his authority “to do these
things”. Presumably they mean his prophetic and compassionate actions, and almost
certainly mean his actions of the previous day in expelling the profiteers.
They raise the question of Jesus’ authority because whatever answer he offers he
will be in the wrong. If he claimed divine authority, right there in the temple, he risked
the accusation of blasphemy. If he claimed human authority then he would lose the
crowd.
In his response Jesus reveals the emptiness of their question. His opponents were
not interested in truth or the provenance of his authority. The question behind the
question was to do with the effrontery of challenging them, the rightful leaders of the
people and the nation.
The question about John, taking the theme right back to the beginning of Jesus’
public ministry, is exactly the point. Whether John’s authority had human or divine
origins was of no consequence. The problem with John was at the simple pragmatic
level; he was an irritant prophet standing against the powerful rulers.
23 The focus of Jesus’ question on Baptism is crucial. Baptism under John was a sign
of separation; it was an expression of the way people had disavowed the dominant
rule of the elite and chosen radical dissociation.
The question is significant also because it is an enquiry about whose side the rulers
are on. Who do they belong to?
Even at this late stage the rulers are fearful of the crowd who saw John as a prophet.
At the crucial point in the debate the Elders recognised the possibility that John’s
Baptism (and therefore also Jesus’ authority) was of God but they could not accept it
because to do so would shame them. However, by being bettered in the exchange
they were shamed already.
Verses 28-43
In the following parables it is worth observing the difference between the openings
and the characters involved. One is a man and the other is a landowner – ʼανθροπος and οʼικοσδεσποτης. It does not state whether the first – the ʼανθροπος -­‐ is the owner
of the vineyard, or whether he sends his son to work in another’s vineyard. It might
not matter, except that there are two similarities within the two parables – a son and
a vineyard.
Parable 1 - verses 28-32
The message would seem to be that Israel has been neglected by those who
assumed authority to look after her, and claimed that they were going to do God’s
will and care for his people.
On the other hand, the work of God is done by the poor; the land and its people are
nurtured by the peasants, the faithful, the people who continue to keep alive the way
of community and solidarity wanted by God. They are the ones who were ostensibly
disobedient but at the same time they recognised the righteousness in John’s
message. Even after they saw it the elders rejected it.
Parable 2 - The parable of the tenants – verses 33-41
(What follows is a more systematic and complete version of the interpretation given
above.)
24 This is a description of how the rich and the powerful usurp God by making their own
vineyards out of the land which God has supplied for all. In this story the vineyard
and the land on which it is cultivated are transformed from a symbol of mutually
shared, life sustaining fruitfulness to one of accumulation and exploitation. The land
is taken out of food production for the peasantry and given over to the production of
a luxury cash crop for the well off. The tenants are likely to have been displaced
peasants (who could equally have been his slaves) and it is likely the land owner
would expect, under the terms of the lease, some rental to be paid regularly, as well
as a significant portion of the crop. (Although the parable seems to suggest he wants
it all.) The whole arrangement is to make money – the Greek (ʼεκδιδωµι) indicates
that he let it out to his advantage.
The landowner assumes control of land given by God to all; in essence he steals it
from the people who need it to find the means to life. He excludes others from it and
encloses it with a fence, guarding his ill-gotten gains with a watchtower. He fortifies
his possession to prevent it being taken back by revolt.
Then in the true style of the elite of his day (and these days) he goes away,
presumably to somewhere more pleasant and comfortable, and sends word back via
his servants when he wants to take the fruit of his investment. The other country
could well have been Rome.
The landowner would need to be very wealthy. First he would need to obtain the land
and then he would need substantial capitalisation to buy the vines, build the
necessary infrastructure (for storage, irrigation, fortification, etc.). Then he would
need the financial backing to be able to wait for at least five years for the first crop to
become ready. His ownership of slaves is also an indication of his wealth and
closeness to the Roman system. Finally, his ability to spend time and money on long
journeys indicates that his worldly status was high.
Herod the Great furthered this kind of latifundialisation during his reign in the first
century B.C.E. by expropriating large tracts of farmland and selling them to wealthy
landowners. According to Leviticus 25, to have tenants was to usurp God’s
25 position.15 Nonetheless, Herod enabled the best agricultural lands of Galilee to fall
into the hands of a few land barons who preferred to live in another part of Palestine
or even abroad while their estates were managed by slave retainers and worked by
tenant farmers.16 This practice and its effects would have been all too clear to Jesus’
hearers, especially those living on the margins of society.
The question is about owning and creating tenancies in God’s land. It seemed to be
common practice from at least the middle of the third century BCE,17 but it was
debateable whether it could be construed as acceptable practice under God’s
covenantal law. The land belonged to God and the people received their blessing of
life through the land given to all by God. To take over land, to claim possession of it,
and to lease it to tenants was to usurp God’s position as the holder and disposer of
land.
This understanding of the rich man as a usurper of God is strengthened by the
apparent textual connections with Isaiah 5 where the owner of the vineyard, which
symbolises the whole of Israel, is God.
It seems that in response to the Son of David and kingship metaphors encountered
in chapter 21 this is a further expression of the intention by Matthew’s Jesus to show
how the rich and the powerful (and the kings) are simply usurpers of God’s place.
However they do not act as God does but use the advantage they gain to
accumulate through exploitation.
The whole story is initially focused on the wants and desires of the absentee
landlord. Therefore the rebellion by the tenants at the time of harvest is not
altogether surprising. (It was probably a not unheard of occurrence in the social and
economic context.) After five years attempting to live as tenants, and only seeing his
retainers if money is required, a pressure of resentment would have built up.
The slave retainers are sent to demand the produce. In the social hierarchy such
retainers would have been a couple of notches above the tenants, although may well
15
Socio-Rhetorical Criticism and the Parable of the Tenants; James D. Hester; Journal for the Study
of the New Testament 1992; 14; 27
16
Intimations of the Year of Jubilee in the Parables of the Wicked Tenants and Workers in the
Vineyard by Herman C. Waetjen. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=28
17
Kloppenborg, John S; The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in
Jewish Palestine; Mohr Siebeck; 2006; p 292 26 have come from the same origins.18 However, in theory they carry the status of their
owner, representing him at this point.
When the retainers are dealt with badly more are sent, and receive the same
treatment.
Therefore the son is despatched on the assumption that as the son would seriously
outrank the tenants there would be proper respect shown and an appropriate
response given. (The Greek means “to give reverence to”.) The parable exposes the
arrogance of those with status, wealth and power – the unquestioning belief that
those below him in the social order would and should automatically bow to the will
and demands of their social superior.
The son fares no better than the slaves. He is killed. In the absence of an heir and
an owner the hope might be that the land will revert to its proper use by the
tenants/peasants.
There is an issue raised by the violence and murder meted out by the tenants. Jesus
does not offer a moral judgement about it, possibly because in the context of the
country at the time it was a common and realistic act of desperation on the part of
those oppressed. The problems of bourgeois moralising on this passage are noted
above.
Verses 42-44
The statement of Jesus, “Have you never read in the scriptures: 'The stone that the
builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord's doing, and it is
amazing in our eyes'?”19 is an acknowledgment of the truth that despite the fact that
18
See Duling’s description of the hierarchy in Riches, J and Sim, David C (Eds); The Gospel of
Matthew in its Roman Imperial Context; T & T Clark; London; 2005; p 63.
19
Psalm 118:22 is seen as the origins of this statement, however, Isaiah 28:14-17 makes a clear
point in favour of the people and against the kings: “Therefore hear the word of the LORD, you
scoffers who rule this people in Jerusalem. Because you have said, "We have made a covenant with
death, and with Sheol we have an agreement; when the overwhelming scourge passes through it will
not come to us; for we have made lies our refuge, and in falsehood we have taken shelter"; therefore
thus says the Lord GOD, See, I am laying in Zion a foundation stone, a tested stone, a precious
cornerstone, a sure foundation: "One who trusts will not panic." And I will make justice the line, and
righteousness the plummet; hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, and waters will overwhelm the
shelter.”
Also Zechariah 10:2b-5 reveals God’s antagonism to the so-called leaders: “Therefore the people
wander like sheep; they suffer for lack of a shepherd. My anger is hot against the shepherds, and I
will punish the leaders; for the LORD of hosts cares for his flock, the house of Judah, and will make
them like his proud war horse. Out of them shall come the cornerstone, out of them the tent peg, out
27 those in power can reject and marginalise and kill the people of the land, the people
of the land are the ones on whom the kingdom will be built. The people are the
cornerstone. (A conclusion which is supported by the other two quotations in the
footnote.) This whole parable does not therefore refer to the prophets and Jesus
being rejected by God. It is the peasant people who are being rejected and it is the
peasant people that Jesus affirms as living the life of the covenant and the kingdom.
They are the cornerstone.
The further statement: “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away
from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom.” further
emphasises the fact that the peasants, the people of the land, are the ones capable
of producing the fruit of the kingdom which is for the life of all. The people are the
true fig tree. The little tradition is held up as the example for living the life of the
covenant. The nation will be evangelised by the poor.
The “little tradition” of the peasants, which upholds the covenantal practice of the
land as God’s plan for the sustenance of all the people, is seen to triumph.
Finally, the Kingdom will not be usurped. (Verse 44 is missed out by some
translations.) Those who try will suffer the violence which they initiate against it. The
Kingdom of God is even more irresistible than the empire which tries to usurp it.
The Pharisees, as allies of the elite, knew that Jesus was speaking against them.
The elite built a system of violence, force and domination. The critique was against
the culture they had engendered. The Pharisees will fall according to their own ways
if they try to assault the kingdom of God and the people who serve it.
Jesus’ identity as a prophet (as opposed to a king) is once more asserted through
the people.
Chapter 22:1-14.
Again the theme of usurping is evident. The king usurps the place of God by taking
upon himself the banquet symbol of God’s kingdom.
of them the battle bow, out of them every commander. Together they shall be like warriors in battle,
trampling the foe in the mud of the streets; they shall fight, for the LORD is with them, and they shall
put to shame the riders on horses.”
28 To whom is Jesus speaking? See verse 15 – it seems that the religious elite are
there.
The context is that of the constant push and pull between aspiring rulers in Galilee
and Israel/Judah. Those with some claim to kingship continually jockeyed for position
and sought to keep the wealthy on their side.
It is worth noting that Herod Antipas had gained favour with Julius Caesar and was
given governorship of the region around Galilee. He was renowned for oppressive
practices, not least the brutality he exercised to suppress opposition and uprising.20
If there is a reference to Herod then it could be understood that colluding with the
king is usual, however, it could be that at that point Herod is still looking for power
and not yet in control. There was a certainly antagonism towards Herod and the way
he tried to gain power under Rome and the elite generally would not have been
favourably disposed to him.
Horsley observes that there would have been constant struggles to rule and tax the
peasants.21 There would be perpetual battles among the aspiring rulers to control
hearts, minds and purses.
As observed before, when Matthew’s Jesus speaks of kings (or rich, or powerful) in
Matthew he is NOT making them analogous to God; quite the opposite.
As in earlier parables, there is a question of whether the Greek suggests a
comparison with (i.e. a contrast with) or a likeness to (an analogy). The Geek
construction at the head of this parable is in the former category – a comparison
with.
Herzog’s thesis is that when Jesus tells parables he is pre-empting Freire. Jesus
uses the stories as a means of conscientisation, unpacking the codes with which the
people were familiar at a level which had been blocked by the dominant culture.22
The stories reveal what is happening in the world at large. So through
parables Jesus describes the reality which the poor understand and which the rich
do not want revealed; the elite prefer it when the practices of domination, oppression
and the extraction of surplus wealth are mystified and hidden by elaborate
20
Horsley; 1995; p 54
Horsley; 1995; p 63
22
See Herzog’s thesis; 1994
21
29 ideologies. As noted above, the rulers like it best when the myth describes the
failings of the poor peasant class distracting the view from the fundamental truth.
The mystification here is seen in the extent to which the king seeks to promote
himself and usurp God by claiming the model of banquet for his own ends. It can be
seen also in the use of the term “invite”. In fact the king’s wedding banquet can be
seen to be the diametrically opposite model from that of the wedding banquet of
God, who is open and inclusive in his invitations, preferring his people to respond in
love.
It has been noted above that the use of “slaves” – δουλος – is immediately
suggestive of a bad man in the context of Matthew. The use of slaves is a Roman
practice at the time of Matthew; such a reference would have triggered ideas of the
Roman rulers and not of God.23
As observed already, this parable has a context in Matthew. The end of chapter 20
raised the issue of the title, “Son of David” – a kingly title. There is, however, a
conflict between monarchy and prophecy which runs through the Old Testament and
is picked up in the synoptics and can be seen throughout Matthew’s gospel. This
parable comes late in the development of the tension between the two. Although the
title “Son of David” is applied to Jesus before and during the entrance into
Jerusalem, as well as in Matthew 1:1, from 21 onwards Jesus seems to spend a lot
of time undermining the notions of kingship inherent in this title. It is unlikely then
that Jesus would use the notion of Kingship positively in this parable.
It is worth noting that when Jesus tells parables in Matthew the primary target
audience is made up of the poor, the peasants, almost certainly from the north of the
country - around Galilee where Jesus originated. According to Matthew 21 Jesus is
in or around the temple at this point, but the audience (i.e. the ones intended to hear
and understand) was the people, the ʼοχλος, the crowd - the poor. The other
audience was the elite, given the location, observing and monitoring sedition. For
Matthew’s
Jesus
they
were
secondary,
hangers
on
and
listeners
in.
Their understanding was from a completely different perspective. It is important then
23
Slaves and Slavery in the Matthean Parables; Jennifer A. Glancy; Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol.
119, No. 1. (Spring, 2000), pp. 67-90.
30 to hear this parable through the ears of the crowd, with the triggers contained in the
story.
There are some parallels with Proverbs 9 in this passage, but not enough to be
certain that Jesus was using that text.
The king in the parable invited the economic and political leaders first; he needed
them on his side in his attempt to establish or to solidify his power. In the natural
order of royal weddings they would be expected to be the only kind of guest suitable
for the royal event. More importantly the king was seeking to show the extent of his
authority. The king invited people to his reality on his terms; he made a conspicuous
show of his importance and power and insisted that it was witnessed.
The elite turns him down. It seems that the honour/status process is at work. There
is a challenge/riposte exchange. The king "asks" - but when you are that powerful it
is not a request, it is a summons and it is not possible to say “no”. The invitees
decline - an unheard of practice which challenges the honour of the king. It is difficult
to over-emphasise just how big a challenge this is and it explains the response.
The king cannot allow that challenge and destroys the invitees. He cannot allow, and
more importantly cannot be seen to allow, such rank insubordination because his
honour status is at stake. The invitees and their city are therefore dealt with by
violence. It is important to note that those killed are those who live in the city – the
elite. Military muscle won in the end; the authority issue had to be resolved through
armed oppression and violence.
There is a parallel between the violence of the initial invitees in verse 6 and the
violence of the tenants in the previous parable. The violence of this elite group is an
act of open defiance, whereas the tenants in the previous parable acted out of
desperation in the face of insurmountable odds.
In the face of open defiance the king has to reveal and assert his status and have
others recognise it, so having dealt mercilessly with the opponents24 he has his
servants drag in those who are handy. The hall has to be full to show his importance.
Elaborate banquets and excessive consumption represent a display of importance
24
Carter – JBL 2003 – notes that it was a common Roman practice to burn resisting cities. Page 477.
31 but the consumption has to be conspicuous for the display to fulfil its proper function.
The slaves are sent to the routes out of the city and on the edge of the city. Symbolic
geography is seen in this description; the elite has been dealt with and the remainder
of the people, the peasantry, is forced to dance to the king’s tune as a sign of his
dominance and power.
Rome set the example to follow. Rome ruled and used clients and client states to
extract wealth from the people. The Emperor “invited” participation in the system and
destroyed those who would not belong. Anyone not fulfilling their role in Rome's
purpose was implicitly or explicitly challenging the emperor. They would have to be
dealt with or anyone would try it. The parable then may also reference the way that
local client rulers used retainers (local functionaries) to extract the wealth that the
rulers and their Roman patrons required. If you did not give your due then you would
be punished severely (see the previous parable).
Honour and status (and the flow of wealth from poor to rich) depended on the system
working and it would only work while the disposability of everybody was made clear.
"Behave and deliver or you will be killed."
Rome and its clients were happy to destroy a city if it harboured those who resisted.
That applied to all who stepped out of line - even those who could not help it but
were victims merely of the demands of the king. If the ones appointed failed to do
their duty then there were always others waiting to take their places. Nobody was
secure. Resistance was futile.
This story revealed how things worked and showed the poor that Jesus understood
and was on their side. It also revealed to the rich that not only did Jesus see and
analyse things clearly, but could help the masses to formulate their position and
understand the need to resist.
The many are called by God to resist – only one does, and the consequences are
clear.
Verses15-22.
The pattern is again of a challenge/riposte kind, intended by the Pharisees and
Herodians to take away the honour of Jesus in the eyes of the crowd. (The crowd
would have been present not only because they had followed him all the way up to
32 this point, but also because a public arena was required for the rules of the honour
challenge game to apply and tor the outcome to have any meaning.)
Given the description above concerning the narrative struggling with the
monarch/prophet tension, it would seem to make sense here that Jesus is putting
himself outside the model of kingship which is based on the accrual of wealth
through the use of punitive taxes and forced labour. Here there is a prophetic
concern with truth.
Herzog (Jesus, Justice and the Reign of God) suggests that the payment of the tax
could be interpreted as a statement of resistance. (cf. Carter 2000). He uses
anthropological models recently developed and quotes Weapons of the Weak:
Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (James C. Scott Yale University Press
1985). Scott argues in that book that conformity is calculated, not unthinking, and
beneath the surface of symbolic and ritual compliance there is an undercurrent of
ideological resistance, just as beneath the surface peace there is continuous
material resistance. His study is based on fourteen months anthropological fieldwork
carried out in the late 1970s in the small (seventy household) village of Sedaka
(Kedah state, Malaysia).
Using Scott Herzog argues that there are two “transcripts” at work in 22:15-22 – the
public and the hidden. The public transcript is set up and run by the elite. It is about
deference, order and in this case, paying the taxes/tribute as required. In the hidden
transcript there is resistance and a refusal to allow the colonisation of the collective
mind of the oppressed by the rules of the elite. This hidden transcript has to be
sought underneath the public one. The peasants cannot utilise the hidden transcript
openly. Only apparent compliance within the public transcript allows for survival.
In the struggle the only weapons of resistance available are things like “footdragging, dissimulation, false compliance, pilfering, feigned ignorance, slander,
arson, sabotage, and so forth.”25
The list of “weapons of resistance” can also be seen to have some foundation in
class-based responses to life in urban Britain in the 21st century. Resistance to the
bureaucracy of domination – through housing, employment, the benefit system,
25
Herzog; 2000; p225 (Quoting Scott)
33 access to education, etc. – often comes through the methods that Scott describes.
Parallels do exist within completely different social orders, just as domination is
universal in time and geography, so Herzog’s thinking may not be far-fetched. Using
the urban key to unlock this text could follow a similar route to Herzog.
One other piece of background may be important. In 67 BCE the struggle between
the Pharisees and the Sadducees over control of taxation led to civil war and an
intervention by Pompey in 63 BCE when he imposed the 10,000 talent tribute. There
is some history, therefore, of the Pharisees causing the tax burden to be increased
under Rome.26 Their involvement in the debate with Jesus would reflect their own
history of struggling to lay claim to the wealth of the people.
The census referred to by Luke was the means of assessing how much could be
demanded practically by Rome through this “poll-tax”. (κηνσος − kēnsos - is
connected to the word census.)
Concerning tax, Horsley notes that in 6CE there was resistance to Roman taxes
after Galilee came directly under a Roman governor. Josephus called this the
“Fourth Philosophy” (the other 3 being the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the
Essenes). The “Fourth Philosophy” group refused to acknowledge Caesar and
claimed everything belonged to God.27
The question is raised whether the tension between purity and debt codes and the
interpretations of them are implicit here. The debt owed to God was about the
extension of His blessing as opposed to the channelling of God’s goodness into the
pockets of the elite and the emperor.
Herzog seems to conclude with the understanding that the injunction is to return the
idolatrous coin to Caesar. The coin is Caesar’s but the coin is all that is Caesar’s.
Give this oppressive coin back to Rome and this would clear the land of this symbol
of subjugation.
Herzog also acknowledges that this does not solve the problem of the poll tax for the
peasants; they would still have to pay it and they would, presumably, have to
exchange what they had produced for the appropriate coinage which could be
26
A World History of Tax Rebellions: An Encyclopaedia of Tax Rebels, Revolts, and Riots from
Antiquity to the Present; David F. Burg; Taylor & Francis, 2004; pp 18-19
27
Horsley; 1995; p 64
34 collected and transported back to Rome. And they would have to do it the following
year, and the years after that. So for the peasants it was necessary to pay the tax,
but they had to do it in the knowledge that it was wrong. Herzog implies that it is in
order to pay the tax, but the right attitude was important if the collective mind was not
to be colonised.
Herzog also states that in this way the “hidden transcript” was revealed and the elite
had enough evidence to use against Jesus in the trial.
The Pharisees and Herodians would be seeking to maintain at all costs the fictional
myth of the Emperor’s right to rule and to extract wealth from the people, especially
as they were beneficiaries. In this narrative their complicity is unmasked and the
peasants can know that the tax they must pay is not a tax supported by God, even if
those with ideological and political power say the opposite.
The defiance lies not so much in the attitude of the tax payers but in the justification
of their resentment by the declaration of truth and the unmasking of truth’s
perverters. The war of myths is evident here, and the false myths are revealed for
what they are while the truth is made clear. The story reveals the hypocrisy (verse
18) of the questioners in that they were perverters and concealers of the truth.
Verse 22
ʼεθαυµασαν is a strong expression – struck with wonder, dumbfounded.
Verses 23ff
The debate highlights a difference between the great and the little traditions. It is
clear that there were practices promoted by the temple elite in Jerusalem, and seen
in the rabbinical texts, which would not have been taken up in local contexts. There
was an acceptance that local circumstances might dictate local practice where it was
different from the rulings of those from Jerusalem. Horsley even suggests that the
place of women in Galilee was freer that that prescribed by Jerusalem, even to the
point of their participation in the debates of the assemblies (synagogues).28
28
Horsley; 1995; p 251 ff
35