10. The Parables of Israel’s Rejection

"When Jesus finished this discourse, he moved from Galilee to Judea." Thus begins chapter 19 of the Gospel according to Matthew. We recognize a typical transitional verse, an editorial note with which the evangelist points out that the ecclesial discourse of chapter 18 has ended and the last part begins, the last narration of the events before the passion which precedes the last great discourse, the eschatological one. Quickly, following chapters 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 we notice how the evangelist Matthew roughly followed the pattern of ancient preaching, according to the gospel of Mark and has downplayed the story of the journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, but noting one important change.

The arrival in Jerusalem creates a particular tension. At the beginning of chapter 21, Matthew narrates, according to the traditional model, the messianic entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. The crowds come and they recognize him as messiah, hail him as the heir of David and hope that he is the restorer of the monarchy. They place him in an earthly trust, a hope of political administrative autonomy, of a revenge against the invading and oppressing Romans. Jesus arrives with a symbolic gesture, intentionally sends to look for a donkey and arrives on the back of this simple country animal, a completely different figure compared to the general, a military leader, who arrives triumphantly on a white horse.

Jesus arrives as a peasant, as a simple person arrives imitating a saying of the prophet and Matthew, who is particularly attentive to the biblical traditions of the Old Testament, explicitly clarifies: "This happened,” he writes, “so that what the prophet said would be fulfilled."

He does not say that it is Zacharias, but we know it and quotes the text of Zechariah 9:9: “Exult greatly, O daughter of Zion… Here comes your meek king sitting on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.” “He is your king and he is meek,” the adjective that Matthew particularly likes. He uses it in the beatitudes: “Blessed are the meek because they will inherit the earth.” He uses it to qualify Jesus when he says, "Learn from me that I am meek and humble of heart." Now, through Zechariah's phrase, he proposes the messianic king as a non-combative, non-violent person, he does not arrive as a military general, he is not the king that the people expect, he is not the revolutionary leader, he is not the one who organizes the rebellion against Rome. He is the meek, docile king, sitting on a donkey. The king on the donkey is a program, an image that must strike and communicate a new style.

Jesus, therefore, somehow accepts the messianic recognition of the multitudes because in reality he is the Messiah, but with that provocative gesture of the donkey he challenges the mentality of power, strength, war and violence, after all, his arrival in Jerusalem challenges the situation, and the acclamation of that initial moment soon leaves room for a clash.

In the following days, the evangelist narrates that Jesus is in the temple discussing with the teachers, the religious authorities of Israel and in the portico of Solomon, a long portico that ran along the entire eastern side of the temple esplanade where the various schools met with the teachers and disciples of various groups. Jesus entertains to discuss matters of theology and canon law with these authorities.

Among the various questions that are posed to Jesus, the tradition testified above all by Mark, narrates the parable of the murderous tenants. Matthew follows the same scheme, narrates this parable, but adds two more, and this is an important element. The evangelist Matthew, while following the traditional scheme of the synoptics, integrates his material with other texts. Thus, the parable of the rejection of the murderous tenants triples and becomes three parables of rejection.

He puts one first, those of the two sons, and after that, the guests at the banquet and builds through these three parables a kind of tragic story of salvation, which is, unfortunately, marked by someone’s rejection. Let’s start with the parable of the two sons that we find in chapter 21 starting from verse 28, as every parable is a provocation, an invitation to dialogue, to answer, to take a stand on the part of the listeners.

And, in fact, Jesus begins with a question: “What do you think? Tell me your opinion, make a judgment on what I am to tell you. A man had two sons. He turned to the first and said, ‘Son, today, go to work in the vineyard.’ And he replied, ‘I don’t want to’ but then repents and went there. Maybe, to the second he said the same, and he replied, ‘Yes, sir,’ but he didn’t go.” Two sons respond and act differently. They are not consistent. Their actions do not correspond with their words. One says, “I don’t want to” but then repents and goes to work. The other, in words, says, “Yes, sir” but does not go to work as his father asked him.

This is a small scene of family life, a fairly common experience. It is clear that Jesus has charged it with an important theological value and asks these authorities, “Which of the two did the will of the father?” In the midst of this difference, where is the realization of the project and do they respond to it? The first was the one who, even if in words, had refused to go, in fact, then he worked as his father had asked him. And Jesus said to them, “Truly, I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.”

It is a harsh word that has remained etched in many listeners of the Gospel. "Tax collectors and prostitutes will enter the kingdom of God before you," but to whom does Jesus tell this? He tells it to the Israeli authorities, to the people who have not accepted his preaching; even more, in the following line he specifies that the preaching they did not accept is that of John the Baptist, before Jesus. “When John came to you on the way of justice, you, authorities of Jerusalem, did not believe him, the tax collectors and prostitutes, on the other hand, believed him.” They have changed; they have not remained publicans. Prostitutes have changed. They understood that they were wrong and listening to the prophet John changed their lives. On the contrary, you have seen these things but then you have not even repented. That word was of no use to you. You said yes, but you didn’t change; so in the kingdom of God, those who change, enter.

Tax collectors and prostitutes go ahead, not because they are tax collectors and prostitutes, but because they welcomed the message and have changed. There may be someone who remains indifferent and gives the impression of having received the whole message, but nothing changes in his or her life. They are rejected, they are left out. The first parable is followed by the second, the central one of the tenants. A parable that shows remarkable ability of Jesus as a storyteller because a valid parable must surprise the listener, that is, he does not have to realize where the narrator is headed and is surprised of being ‘lupus in fabula’ = ‘the wolf in the fable.’ He does not realize that they are the protagonist of the story. It depends on the skill of the narrator to ensure that the listener does not immediately identify himself because if he understands too soon, that the parable is for him, he will defend himself, hide and the parable does not work.

Therefore, Jesus tells a story of rebellious peasant workers who rented a vineyard and did not want to pay the rent. As we would say today, they had a sharecropping contract and, at the end of the harvest, they had to pay a certain amount of product to the owner. Jesus tells the parable to the authorities in Jerusalem; to the priestly aristocracy made up of wealthy landowners. They had many villas in Galilee and they had problems with the peasants, sometimes rebellious. Jesus tells of a gentleman who plants a vineyard, he knows of all the necessary equipment, he leases it to the peasants and leaves because he lives elsewhere. When it is time to retract the harvest, he sends his stewards. The peasants rebel. They don’t want to pay. The other administrators sent are badly beaten and even killed. That man sends his own son, taking serious risks; thinking that they will respect his son, NO! These peasants kill his son and throw him out of the vineyard.

The parable ends with a question: Jesus asks those authorities, those wealthy landowners: “When the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those peasants?” They inevitably have identified with the owner of the vineyard and think that Jesus is defending the peasants of Galilee and wants them to say that we must forgive these country people who rebel because they do not want to pay the rents and, therefore, are convinced to have the right answer: “He will put those wretched men to a wretched death and lease his vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the proper times.” They have given the sentence, but it is a sentence of self-condemnation.

They did not realize they were condemning themselves. And Jesus comments: You are right, this is exactly how it must be done, but you did not understand. Those wicked murderers are you. You are not the masters, the Master is the Lord. You are the workers in that vineyard and you have refused the envoys of God and planning to kill the Son.

This is a parable that theologians call “implicit Christology”, that is, through this image Jesus is saying that he is the Son, he is the Son of the Owner and he is the last one sent, the crown of the mission; and he is aware that he will face death; he will be taken and thrown out of the vineyard, convinced that they will take over everything to bring their revolution to completion. In this regard, the verse from a famous psalm used in the processions in Jerusalem applies: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; by the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes.’

Jesus uses this verse to announce the total reversal that will take place at Easter. ‘You have rejected the stone, the Son, Jesus, casting him out, but God chose him and reintegrates him and places him as the cornerstone for the construction of the new temple’. This is what you have said. It is what will happen, the kingdom of God will be taken from them and it will be given to a people who will produce its fruits. The rejection of these authorities, not of all Israel, only a part, is a group of leaders who are closed to the message. They reject Jesus and condemn him to death. And they will lose control, lose leadership, the task of being shepherd of Israel.

The kingdom of God, the vineyard, will be entrusted to other people, to all peoples, Israel included, so that they accept God's project. The third parable of the refusal is that of the guests at the wedding banquet that Matthew has particularly reworked in an allegorical key. It is not simply a dinner, but a wedding banquet that a king prepares for his son. The guests not only rejected the invitation, but beat or kill those who bring the wedding invitation. They beat and kill the mediators who hand over the invitation to the wedding… it's an exaggeration. They bear and kill the postmen who deliver the wedding invitation. It is an exaggeration. They are the messengers of the banquet who are ready, who are rejected and killed. We can recognize in this third parable what will happen to the apostles.

In the three parables, Matthew has somehow schematized the history of salvation in three phases. Before Jesus, John the Baptist and all the other prophets were rejected. Jesus as a Son was expelled from the vineyard. Those who will carry after Jesus the announcement of the banquet saying: 'Everything is ready, come to the wedding banquet', will be rejected and, in turn, also assassinated and eliminated.

It is a situation that is repeated; has been repeated in the past, it had its summit in Jesus and, unfortunately, it will also be repeated in the future. And an important detail is added again in the finale. The first guests do not accept the invitation; everyone else, good and bad, enter. Matthew knows well that in the church there are not only the good ones, unfortunately the church also includes people who are not convinced, who behave badly.

This attitude is represented by the one who did not have the wedding dress that, allegorically, indicates a coherent life. The king goes down to the banquet and sees the one who does not have the wedding dress and says: "Friend (it is not ‘filos’; it’s another Greek term that has a rather harsh tone: ‘uh, you here?,’ It is not a sign of affection, but rather of saying: who do you think you are ... what did you come here for?' “How is it that you come in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence.”

The message is that it is not enough to enter the Church to ensure that you are saved. One can be thrown out of the banquet hall. If there is no coherence of life, if there is no full compliance with works of the gospel, the fact of having entered is not a sufficient guarantee. “Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’ Many are invited (those called are the multitude), but few are chosen” (the chosen ones are those who really accept the invitation). Unfortunately, they are few.

The risk of rejection continues in the Church and it is a serious problem that the community of Matthew was experiencing.