Zephaniah 3:1-13

The Wickedness of Jerusalem

3:1 Ah, soiled, defiled,

oppressing city!

² It has listened to no voice;

it has accepted no correction.

It has not trusted in the Lord;

it has not drawn near to its God.

³ The officials within it

are roaring lions;

its judges are evening wolves

that leave nothing until the morning.

⁴ Its prophets are reckless,

faithless persons;

its priests have profaned what is sacred,

they have done violence to the law.

⁵ The Lord within it is righteous;

he does no wrong.

Every morning he renders his judgment,

each dawn without fail;

but the unjust knows no shame.

⁶ I have cut off nations;

their battlements are in ruins;

I have laid waste their streets

so that no one walks in them;

their cities have been made desolate,

without people, without inhabitants.

⁷ I said, “Surely the city will fear me,

it will accept correction;

it will not lose sight

of all that I have brought upon it.”

But they were the more eager

to make all their deeds corrupt.

Punishment and Conversion of the Nations

⁸ Therefore wait for me, says the Lord,

for the day when I arise as a witness.

For my decision is to gather nations,

to assemble kingdoms,

to pour out upon them my indignation,

all the heat of my anger;

for in the fire of my passion

all the earth shall be consumed.

⁹ At that time I will change the speech of the peoples

to a pure speech,

that all of them may call on the name of the Lord

and serve him with one accord.

¹⁰ From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia

my suppliants, my scattered ones,

shall bring my offering.

¹¹ On that day you shall not be put to shame

because of all the deeds by which you have rebelled against me;

for then I will remove from your midst

your proudly exultant ones,

and you shall no longer be haughty

in my holy mountain.

¹² For I will leave in the midst of you

a people humble and lowly.

They shall seek refuge in the name of the Lord—

¹³ the remnant of Israel;

they shall do no wrong

and utter no lies,

nor shall a deceitful tongue

be found in their mouths.

Then they will pasture and lie down,

and no one shall make them afraid. (Zephaniah 3:1-13, NRSV)

On November 29, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Twenty-sixth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from November 24, 2005 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One), with some notes adapted from Nov. 27-28, 2003. The revised comments are repeated again here with editing and supplement:

In this, the final week of the Church Year with Daily Office Lectionary readings for Year One, the Old Testament readings are from six different prophetic books, and the two readings from Isaiah, not consecutive, nor on consecutive days, are from chapters 19 and 24 respectively. This might seem like a collection of odds and ends to round out the church year, but there are common themes, judgment on Israel’s enemies and promise of restoration and blessing for Israel, or at least for a remnant of Israel (cf. Zeph. 3:12-13). The readings from Nahum and Obadiah, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, appear to be their only appearances in Daily Office Lectionary. The reading for today, Zephaniah 3:1-13, will be followed in a few weeks by the reading in Zephaniah 3:14-20 for December 21, 2009, Monday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year Two. (The latter reading from Zeph. is also listed for the Festival of St. Mary Magdalene, July 22.)

Zephaniah is identified as “son of Cushi son of Gedaliah son of Amariah son of Hezekiah” (Zeph. 1:1). Gregory Mobley says, “Since the name Hezekiah is uncommon in the Hebrew Bible, this unusually long genealogical note probably refers to the famous Judean king (717/715-698/687).” In any case, Mobley notes that “Zephaniah certainly was a Jerusalemite (1:10-11),” and adds that “his father’s name, Cushi (1:1), could mean ‘the Cushite,’ and has prompted some speculation about African ancestry for the prophet (cf. 2:12; 3:10)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, in the Introduction to Zephaniah). According to Kent Harold Richards, the work of Zephaniah, dated during the reign of King Josiah of Judah (Zeph. 1:1), was early in that reign: Zephaniah’s words “reflect a time early in the reign of the Judahite king Josiah (640-609 BCE) before his reforms were fully developed. As reported in Kings (2 Kings 22:1-23:25), Josiah came to the throne when he was eight years old, and not until he was eighteen is there mention of the beginning of his reforming activities,” Richards adds that Zephaniah, who “condemns the religious and political leadership [left over, he implies, from the wicked reign of Manasseh] . . . says little about Josiah, who proved to be one of the few kings since David and Solomon to provide strong moral leadership” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, in the Introduction to Zephaniah).

In the first two chapters of Zephaniah, Judah and Jerusalem are rebuked for idolatry (Zech. 1:4), and threatened with the woes of “the great day of the LORD” (1:14; cf. Amos 5:18-20). Judah is offered what Mobley calls “a muted call to repentance” (op. cit., on 2:1-3) as the prophet says, “Seek the LORD, all you humble of the land, / who do his commands; / seek righteousness, seek humility; / perhaps you may be hidden / on the day of the LORD’s wrath” (v. 3). In a further echo of Amos, Zephaniah denounces Israel’s neighbors, including the Cherethites and Philistines (vv. 5-7), Moab and Ammon (vv. 8-11), Ethiopians (v. 12), and Assyria (vv. 13-15).

But in today’s reading (from chap. 3), the prophet’s attention turns to Jerusalem. We may compare the way Amos denounces the surrounding nations (Amos 1:1-2:3) before turning his accusations against Judah (2:4-5) and Israel (vv. 6-8 and following). “Ah, soiled, defiled, / oppressing city!” says Zephaniah of Jerusalem (Zeph. 3:1). “It has listened to no voice; it has accepted no correction. / It has not trusted in the LORD; / it has not drawn near to its God” (v. 2). Ehud Ben Zvi says, “The Heb. exudes ambiguity. It is uncertain whether the city is Nineveh or Jerusalem” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Zeph. 3:1-2). But he adds, “The descriptions of wrongdoing in the following vv. show that the city is Jerusalem. This type of ambiguity shows the artistry of the book’s composition and also points to the use of ambiguity as a rhetorical device to capture the readers’ attention, and then lead them to a central issue: the identity and main characteristics of the city. It is the polluted, sinful, late monarchic (Josianic) Jerusalem” (ibid.).

It would appear, as implied above by Richards, that the idolatrous practices of Manasseh especially, including the importation of Assyrian religious practices in what we might see as an attempt to appease the superpower of his day (cf. 1 Kgs. 21), still affected the Jerusalem of Zephaniah’s day. He pronounces judgment on Jerusalem for oppressive officials: “The officials within it / are roaring lions; / its judges are evening wolves / that leave nothing until the morning” (Zeph. 3:3). Zephaniah’s judgment includes the religious leaders. “Its prophets are reckless, / faithless persons; / its priests have profaned what is sacred, / they have done violence to the law” (v. 4). This is in spite of the LORD’s judgment. “The Lord within it is righteous; / he does no wrong. / Every morning he renders his judgment, / each dawn without fail; / but the unjust knows no shame” (v. 5). In what Richards calls, “a shift back to direct quotation of the LORD” (ibid., on vv. 6-13), God points out that he has punished nations. “I have cut off nations; / their battlements are in ruins; / I have laid waste their streets / so that no one walks in them; / their cities have been made desolate, / without people, without inhabitants” (v. 6). “For other descriptions of ghost towns,” says Mobley, “see Isa. 5:9; 6:11; Jer. 9:11; 33:10; 46:19” (op. cit., on v. 6). “Here,” says Richards, “begins a section suggesting that there will exist among the people a remnant (2:7, 9; 3:13) who will listen to the Lord” (loc. cit.). The LORD expected that the people would “accept correction,” but it did not happen that way. “I said, ‘Surely the city will fear me, / it will accept correction; / it will not lose sight / of all that I have brought upon it.’ / But they were the more eager / to make all their deeds corrupt” (v. 7).

At this point, says Richards, there is “a return to the general judgment (see 1:2-3, 17-18)” (ibid. on v. 8). “Therefore wait for me, says the Lord, / for the day when I arise as a witness. / For my decision is to gather nations, / to assemble kingdoms, / to pour out upon them my indignation, / all the heat of my anger; / for in the fire of my passion / all the earth shall be consumed” (v. 8). “Wait,” says Richards, “often suggests that something positive will follow (see Ps. 33:20; Isa. 8:17; Hab. 2:3)” (ibid.). But this is to lead to conversion and, for some at least, worship of Israel’s God. “At that time I will change the speech of the peoples / to a pure speech, / that all of them may call on the name of the LORD / and serve him with one accord. / From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia / my suppliants, my scattered ones, / shall bring my offering” (vv. 9-10). Of the phrase “pure speech,” Mobley says this “removes the curse of Babel (Gen. 11:9)” (op. cit., on vv. 9-10). The recent Jewish translation of verse 10 says, “From beyond the rivers of Cush [i.e., Ethiopia], My suppliants [text note d, ‘Meaning of Heb. uncertain.] / Shall bring offerings to Me in Fair Puzai [text note e, ‘Emendation yields ‘Zion.’ For the thought, cf. Isa. 18:1, 7.]” (Zeph. 3:10 NJPS 1985, 1999). According to Ben Zvi,

There are three main understandings of this difficult v[erse]. They are represented by the following translations: (a) ‘from beyond the rivers of Cush (i.e., from far, far away) my suppliants, Fair scattered (i.e., Israel in exile), shall bring my offering’; (b) ‘from beyond the rivers of Cush (i.e., from far, far away) my suppliants, Fair Puzai (i.e., a faraway nation), shall bring my offering’; and (c) ‘from beyond the rivers of Cush (i.e., from far, far away) my suppliants, Fair scattered (i.e., Israel in exile), they (i.e., the nations) shall bring as my offering’ (cf. Isa. 66:20). The text plays again with ambiguity, and this time one that is not resolved by its context. (op. cit., on v. 10)

“On that day,” says the LORD through the prophet, “you shall not be put to shame / because of all the deeds by which you have rebelled against me; / for then I will remove from your midst / your proudly exultant ones, / and you shall no longer be haughty / in my holy mountain” (v. 11). “On that day,” says Richards, “refers back to v. 9 and connects with 1:9 and 3:16). Proudly exultant ones alludes to the leaders in vv. 2-4” (op. cit., on v. 11). For “you shall not be put to shame,” Mobley refers to Isaiah 45:17; he identifies “my holy mountain [as] Mt. Zion, site of the Temple” (op. cit., on v. 11). God continues, “For I will leave (yT9r4xaw4h9v4, w ^ehiš’artî ) in the midst of you / a people humble and lowly” (v. 12a, b). This people will “seek refuge in the name of the Lord—the remnant (tyr9xew4, š ^e’ērîth) of Israel; / they shall do no wrong / and utter no lies, / nor shall a deceitful tongue / be found in their mouths” (vv. 12c, 13a, b, c, d, e). “I will leave,” says Richards, “plays on the same Hebrew word as remnant (v. 13) and contrasts with the negative remnants left in the land by other religions (see 1:4)” (op. cit., on vv. 12-13). “The remnant,” says Ben Zvi, “is a central prophetic idea (see Isa. 6:13n)” (op. cit., on Zeph. 3:13). The note to which he refers (written by Benjamin D. Sommer) suggests different meanings of “remnant” in different texts. In Isaiah 6:13 (according to Sommer),

The renewal [read ‘against the cantillation,’ that is, against the vowels and accents] involves not exiles who return from afar but survivors who remain in the land. Thus [First] Isaiah’s notion of renewal differs from the vision of renewal in Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Second Isaiah. Alternatively (and in accord with the cantillation), the first half of the v. can be translated much more negatively: ‘And when a tenth are left, they will again be burned.’ In this rendering, the few survivors are subject to additional disaster. The second half is also obscure, but it seems to refer to the fact that renewed life can come out of the stump of terebinth and oak trees. Here the notion of the remnant that is saved from a devastating calamity does appear, however subtly. (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Isa. 8:13).

In any event, today’s reading ends on a very positive note for Israel: “Then they will pasture and lie down, / and no one shall make them afraid” (Zeph. 3:13f, g). This anticipates the “Song of Joy” (NRSV subtitle, some printings) that concludes the book (vv. 14-20), which, as noted above, will be the reading for December 21, 2009 (Monday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year Two), a few weeks from now.

1 Peter 2:11-25

11 Beloved, I urge you as aliens and exiles to abstain from the desires of the flesh that wage war against the soul. 12 Conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles, so that, though they malign you as evildoers, they may see your honorable deeds and glorify God when he comes to judge.

13 For the Lord’s sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, 14 or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. 16 As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. 17 Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (1 Peter 2:11-17, NRSV)

The Example of Christ’s Suffering (Isa 53.7—9)

18 Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. 19 For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. 20 If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.

22 “He committed no sin,

and no deceit was found in his mouth.”

23 When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls. (1 Peter 2:18-25, NRSV)

On April 3, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Second Sunday of Easter, Year Two), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from November 29, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One), when comments on 1 Peter 2:11-15 were repeated with editing and supplement from November 24, 2005 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One), and some comparison with comments of April 27, 2006 (Thursday of the week of the Second Sunday of Easter, Year Two), when comments were repeated from April 22, 2004 (Thursday of the week of the Second Sunday of Easter, Year Two), in an email sent April 22, 2004, for Thursday, Friday and Saturday of that week.. The revised comments are repeated again here with editing and supplement:

Today’s reading from First Peter begins with exhortations about how to live, not merely within the Christian community, but in the world (society) at large. “Beloved, I urge you as aliens (pavroikoi, paroikoi) and exiles (parepivdhmoi, parepidēmoi) to abstain from the desires of the flesh that wage war against the soul” (1 Pet. 2:11). “Aliens and exiles,” says David L. Balch, revised by Paul J. Achtemeier, “is drawn from Greek Gen. 23:4; Ps. 38:13 and describes the status of Christians in their surrounding pagan society” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 1 Pet. 2:11). In the Genesis text, Abraham, mourning the death of Sarah and seeking to purchase a burial place, says to the Hittites, “I am a stranger (rGe, gēr; LXX pavroikoV, paroikos) and an alien (bwAOT, tôšāv; LXX parepivdhmoV, parepidēmos) residing among you” (Gen. 23:4a). As Balch and Achtemeier have noted the Greek terms from Genesis 23:4 in the Septuagint are those used by Peter, but they are certainly equivalent to the Hebrew terms. In the Psalm text they quote, “For I am your passing guest (rGe, gēr; LXX pavroikoV, paroikos), / an alien (bwAOT, tôšāv; LXX parepivdhmoV, parepidēmos), like all my forebears” (NRSV 39:12d, e = Heb. 39:13d, e = LXX 38:13d, e), the same Hebrew and Greek terms are used. It is, of course, quite true that Peter draws from the Hebrew Bible through the Septuagint translation, consistently quoting from the latter (cf. Robert G. Bratcher, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament, Helps for Translators, 3^rd rev. ed., 1987, pp. 74-77).

Peter indicates a reason for the following instructions. “Conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles, so that, though they malign you as evildoers, they may see your honorable deeds and glorify God when he comes to judge” (v. 12). “For the Lord’s sake,” he says, “accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right” (vv. 13-14). “Governors,” say Warren A. Quanbeck and Pheme Perkins, means governors “of Roman provinces” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on 1 Pet. 2:14). The principle advocated here applies to the advice later in this reading given for slaves (vv. 18-25), and for the advice to wives and husbands in what is passed over in the present series (3:1-7). We should remember that Peter’s advice was given in a situation where any deviation from the rigid hierarchical and patriarchal structure of society might very well bring down severe criticism on the Christian community, or worse. In the society of the Roman Empire, according to Paul J. Achtemeier, Joel B. Green, and Marianne Meye Thompson, such

hierarchical relationships were said to be based on ‘reason,’ with men having the highest kind of reason, women having reason but in less developed form, children having undeveloped reason, and slaves being devoid of reason altogether. This understanding of familial hierarchy had additional importance because the Romans used it to justify their dominance over all other peoples: because the Romans were superior in ‘reason,’ they were able to triumph over all others. . . .

This meant that any challenge to the hierarchical structure of the family was a challenge to the right of the Romans to rule the world, since that structure presented the rationale for Roman hegemony. Any group that argued that men and women were equal, for example, that children also had rights over against their parents, or that slaves were the equal of their masters would be open to charges of treason. (Introducing the New Testament; Its Literature and Theology, 2001, p. 288).

These authors draw the further conclusion that “any Roman official who read in Paul’s letter to the Galatians that in Christ differences between men and women, Jews and Greeks, and slave and free have been done away with (3:28) would have reason to charge Christians with treason, since such views undermined the very rationale by which Rome justified its domination of the Mediterranean world” (ibid.). And so, in a situation where Christian believers were subject to suffering and persecution, Peter’s advice, while not recommending immoral or unlawful actions, is given with the intent to spare the Christian community any unnecessary criticism from without, or worse. His instructions on Christian living and conduct in society may be compared with tables of household duties presented by Paul (e.g. Col. 3:18-4:1; Eph. 5:21-6:9), but Peter especially relates such instructions to the context within society at large.

“For it is God’s will,” says Peter, “that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish” (1 Pet. 2:15). “Christian behavior even under stress,” say Balch and Achtemeier, “is the best defense against false charges brought against Christians” (op. cit., on v. 15). “As servants ( dou:loi, douloi; cf. NRSV text note c ‘Gk. slaves) of God,” says Peter, “live as free people ( ejleuvqeroi, eleutheroi), yet do not use your freedom ( ejleuqeriva, eleutheria) as a pretext for evil” (v. 16). The contrast between freedom and slavery is evident. Peter implies that the readers’ former, pre-Christian state was slavery, but their Christian state is freedom–yet, paradoxically, a form of “slavery” to God. Balch and Achtemeier says, “The readers are free from ignorance and darkness, and, paradoxically, they are servants (more accurately slaves; see text note c) exhorted to accept others’ legitimate authority” (ibid., on v. 16). “Honor everyone,” says Peter. “Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor” (v. 17). As noted in a previous lesson, Balch and Achtemeier say, “The author differentiates the fear (reverent awe) due to God (see 1:17) from the honor due everyone, including the emperor. Love is again seen as a primary Christian virtue” (ibid., on v. 17).

Peter H. Davids compares the approaches of Peter and Paul.

Unlike Paul, who puts family relationships first in his list, Peter puts government authorities first. This shows his context of persecution; he will always assume that the person in question is non-Christian and very likely oppressive. The “king” is first, for he is indeed “the supreme authority” and perhaps the one Christians would find it hardest theologically to submit to because of his claims to divinity. The word “king” clearly means the Roman Emperor [but] . . . it is not a particular Emperor, nor the Roman Emperors in general that Peter is concerned with, but proper and circumspect behavior toward the supreme governmental authority, whoever it may be. (Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, NICNT, 1990, pp.99-100, on 1 Pet. 2:13)

Peter gives this advice not in the sort of absolute terms that would imply the correctness of the Roman imperial authority, but rather, in the utilitarian terms of what would be best for the Christian community in a situation where–whether right or wrong–any resistance to the Roman authorities would be utterly futile, and would cast the Christians in a bad light. Slaves, especially, are advised to “accept the authority of your masters with all deference,” and that “not only [from] those who are kind and gentle but also [from] those who are harsh” (v. 18). According to Balch and Achtemeier, “The direct address to slaves is unusual in Greco-Roman ethical literature; it is a Jewish and Christian innovation. As 2:15; 3:16 indicate, the author hopes the slaves’ behavior will affect even harsh, non-Christian masters; see also 1 Tim. 6:1; Titus 2:9-10” (op. cit., on v. 18). But such respect and deference are “credit” to the slaves. “For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly” (v. 19). Peter explains: “If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval” (v. 20). Slaves are to follow Christ’s example. “For to this you have been called,” says Peter, “because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps” (v. 21). By way of illustration, Peter cites the Fourth Servant Song of Isaiah. “He committed no sin, / and no deceit was found in his mouth” (v. 22, citing Isa. 53:9). The Isaiah text is, of course, applied to Christ. “When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly” (1 Pet. 2:23). It was Christ, whose suffering achieved their salvation.

The use of “the example of Christ who suffered unjustly, in words that reflect the suffering servant of Isa. 53:5-12" (M. Eugene Boring, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on 1 Pet. 2:18-25) is noteworthy. Verse 22 quotes Isa. 53:9 directly; his wording, “He committed no sin (aJmartiva, hamartia)” is close to the Septuagint wording, “He committed no lawless deed (ajnomiva, anomia), where the Hebrew text has, “although he had done no violence (smAHA, chāmās).” His suffering is described as vicarious, for us. “He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed” (1 Pet. 2:24). The phrase, “by his wounds you have been healed” echoes Isaiah 53:5, “he was wounded for our transgressions,” and clearly refers to spiritual salvation so that “free from sins, we might live for righteousness” (1 Pet. 2:24). According to Davids, “The salvation in Christ is not just a freedom from future judgment or from guilt, but a freedom from the life of sin and a freedom to live as God intends” (op. cit., p. 113 on 1 Pet. 2:24). And Peter reminds his readers, “For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls” (v. 25).

Matthew 20:1-16

20:1 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with the laborers for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 When he went out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace; 4 and he said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went. 5 When he went out again about noon and about three o’clock, he did the same. 6 And about five o’clock he went out and found others standing around; and he said to them, ‘Why are you standing here idle all day?’ 7 They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard.’ 8 When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, ‘Call the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and then going to the first.’ 9 When those hired about five o’clock came, each of them received the usual daily wage. 10 Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received the usual daily wage. 11 And when they received it, they grumbled against the landowner, 12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ 13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? 14 Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ 16 So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” (Matthew 20:1-16, NRSV)

On November 9, 2008 (the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two), comments were repeated from November 29, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One), when comments were repeated from November 12, 2006 (the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two), when comments were repeated from June 28, 2006 (Wednesday of the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), when they were combined and revised from earlier, from Wednesday, 23 June 2004 in an email sent June 21, 2003, for June 21-27, and from November 24, 2005 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23 Year One). The comments are repeated again here:

The Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (Mt. 20:1-16, found only in Matthew, follows Jesus’ discussion with his disciples, and with a questioner (“Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” Mt. 19:16), about matters related to eternal life (Mt. 19:13-30). That discussion concluded with Jesus’ saying, “But many who are first will be last, and the last first” (v. 30; cf. Mk. 10:31, in a context similar to Matthew’s, and Lk. 13:30). This thought, repeated at the end of the parable (Mt. 20:15), seems to fly in the face of our logic and expectations. Why should those who worked only at twilight receive the same wage (a denarius) as those who worked all day (Mt. 10:8-10)? It would have been possible for the landowner to pay the workers based on their time worked. “Smaller coins existed,” say Elwyn E. Tilden and Bruce M. Metzger; “therefore payment could have been made on an hourly basis” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Mt. 20:9). Elsewhere, Tilden and Metzger say, “Penny, Greek ‘lepton,’ [was] the smallest Greek coin in circulation. There were two lepta to a quadrans (‘penny’ in Mt. 5:26; Mk. 12:42), eight to an assarion (‘penny’ in Lk. 12:6) and one hundred and twenty-eight to a denarius, the daily wage in Mt. 20:2” (ibid., on Lk. 12:59).

The parable compares “the kingdom of heaven” to “a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard” (Mt. 20:1). “Early,” say Tilden and Metzger, would be “approximately six a. m.” (ibid., on Mt. 20:1). We may be reminded of day workers lined up at various locations in Houston. The point of the parable, of course, is the initial agreement with the workers about the wage, and the way the payroll is handled at the end of the day. “After agreeing with the laborers for the usual daily wage (dhnavrion, dēnarion, Latin denarius),” says Jesus, “he sent them into his vineyard” (v. 2). “A denarius,” says Dennis C. Duling, “was about enough to feed a large peasant family for one day” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on v. 2). “When he [i.e., the landowner], when out about nine o’clock (peri; trivthn w{ran, peri tritēn hōran, lit. ‘about the third hour [of the 12 hour daytime]’), he saw others standing idle in the marketplace” (v. 3). “Poor day laborers gathered in the marketplace,” says Duling, “hoping to find work” (ibid., on v. 3). So the landowner “said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went” (v. 4). “Whatever is right,” says Duling, means “whatever is just. No precise wage is stated (cf. v. 2)” (ibid., on v. 4). This act of adding laborers is repeated “about noon and about three o’clock” (peri; e{kthn kai; ejnavthn w{ran, peri hektēn kai enatēn hōran, lit. ‘about the sixth and ninth hour’) (v. 5). And finally, the landowner adds workers at the last hour of the day, so to speak. “And about five o’clock (peri; de; th;n eJndekavthn [w{ran], peri de tēn hendekatēn [hōran], lit. ‘about the ninth [hour]’) he went out and found others standing around; and he said to them, ‘Why are you standing here idle all day?’ ” (v. 6). There answer might seem to be obvious. “They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard’ ” (v. 7). There are those, I suppose, who would accuse these of being lazy. Perhaps there was substantial unemployment (though the landowner had work for them).

But the point comes at the time for payment. “When the evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, ‘Call the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and then going to the first’ ” (v. 8). “Evening,” says J. Andrew Overman, was when, “according to Jewish law (Lev. 19:;13; Deut. 24:14-15) laborers were to be paid on the same day as they had worked, before sundown” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 20:8). The landowner’s procedure is methodical, “beginning with the last and then going to the first,” which may have been efficient, but clearly underscores the point of the parable. “When those hired about five o’clock came, each of them received the usual daily wage (dhnavrion, dēnarion, that is, a denarius)” (v. 9). The parable passes over those who came at 9:00 a.m., noon and 3:00p.m (i.e., the third, sixth, and ninth hours), to report on the “early birds,” who came at the beginning of the day. “Now when the first came,” says Jesus, “they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received the usual daily wage ( [to;] ajna; dhnavrion, [to] ana dēnarion, lit. ‘a denarius each’)” (v. 10). The result of this action on the part of the landowner displeased these workers. “And when they received it [i.e., each his denarius, they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat’ ” (vv. 11-12). According to Overman, the statement, “ [you have] made them equal to us, presumes that justice requires distributing society’s goods in proportion to status and merit (see Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics 5.3-4)” (ibid., on v. 12). But the landowner “replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage (dhnavrion, dēnarion, that is, a denarius)?” (v. 13). “Friend,” says Duling, is “intended sarcastically (see 22:12; 26:50)” (ibid., on v. 13). On the word “agree,” he adds, “See v. 2” (ibid.). Clearly having the upper hand, the landowner says, “Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you” (v. 14). “The point of the parable,” say Tilden and Metzger, “is the willingness of the owner to exceed conventional practices, and his freedom to do so within the limits of agreement” (op. cit., on v. 14). “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?” he asks. “Or are you envious because I am generous?” (v. 15). Although it might appear to be, Overman says that this is “not a general statement of economic rights, but rather an assertion of permission to exceed conventional expectation.” And he adds that “envious implies that the complaint is motivated by greed (Sir. 14:8-10)” (op. cit., on v. 15).

Whether we choose to agree with Overman’s observation may depend on whether we see the landowner as representing God in his sovereignty or rather see the parable as picturing an oppressive society in which the few control what becomes available to those living on mere subsistence. Our first reaction to the parable might be similar to that of the first workers hired, It’s so unfair! “These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat” (v. 12). The parable is commonly interpreted as a picture of God’s dealing with his servants (i.e. us), and the conclusions drawn that though none of us deserve his grace, he freely gives to us more than we deserve beyond all measure (cf. comments by William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, The Daily Study Bible, v. 2, rev. ed. 1975, pp. 225-226, cf. pp. 221-226). Tilden and Metzger say, “The point of the parable is the willingness of the owner to exceed conventional practices, and his freedom to do so within the limits of agreement” (op. cit., on Mt. 20:14). In a sense, whatever God gives us is a gift, and we should not complain that others get more. A part of the Christian hope is that, for all of us, as we look ahead, there will be wonderful surprises. But questions have been raised as to whether the owner of the vineyard should be understood as representing God. Perhaps the disparity between the owner, who is able to act as he wishes, and the workers–all of them–who are at his mercy, highlights the condition of the working poor at that time. All of the workers, those who worked the whole day and those who worked for part of the day, including those who worked only the last hour, received “the usual daily wage” (Mt. 20:2, 9, 10, 13, cf. “whatever is right,” v. 4); but that was only a denarius, which, as noted above, according to J. Andrew Overman, was “enough to provide one day’s food for a family” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 20:2). Perhaps the parable, like the one about the Dishonest Manager (Lk. 16:1-9) describes a hypothetical situation only in order to make a point. Is the point that in the Kingdom of God “many who are first will be last, and the last first” (Mt. 19:30; cf. 20:16)? Or is it a picture of disorder and inequality in the present world system, awaiting the coming of the kingdom to set things right?

Krister Stendahl sees the parable differently. The parable “is less concerned with Jesus and more with the reversal of order.” The parable “has its point” in verse 16, “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” Stendahl refers also to Mt. 19:30, “But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted 1972, sec. 689 g, p. 799 on Mt. 20:1-16).

Nevertheless, Barclay finds important lessons here (based on understanding the owner of the vineyard as representing God):

It is in one sense a warning to the disciples. It is as if Jesus said to them, “You have received the great privilege of coming into the Christian Church and fellowship very early, right at the beginning. In later days others will come in. You must not claim a special honour and a special place because you were Christians before they were. All men, no matter when they come, are equally precious to God.” (op. cit., p 224).

He also sees “an equally definite warning to the Jews”:

There is an equally definite warning to the Jews. They knew that they were the chosen people, nor would they ever willingly forget that choice. As a consequence they looked down on the Gentiles. Usually they hated and despised them, and hoped for nothing but their destruction. This attitude threatened to be carried forward into the Christian Church. If the Gentiles were to be allowed into the fellowship of the Church at all, they must come in as inferiors.

“In God’s economy,” as someone has said, “there is no such thing as a most favoured nation clause.” Christianity knows nothing of the conception of a herrenvolk, a master race. It may well be that we who have been Christian for so long have much to learn from those younger Churches who are late-comers to the fellowship of the faith. (ibid.)

Barclay adds further lessons: “the comfort of God” (p. 224), “the compassion of God.” “the generosity of God” (ibid., p. 225). He sums up with two lessons: “All service ranks the same with God,” and “All God gives is of grace. We cannot earn what God gives us; we cannot deserve it; what God gives us is given out of the goodness of his heart; what God gives us is not pay, but a gift; not a reward, but grace” (ibid., p. 226). “Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is” (1 Jn. 3:2).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net