Lectionary, Pentecost 17, Proper 21, Year A

I.Theme –   Ultimately, we make our own choice how to live our life that is not dependent on the choices our ancestors made. We have free will to turn our lives around.

 "Two Sons" – Nelly Bube

The lectionary readings are here  or individually:

Old Testament – Ezekiel 18:1-4,25-32
Psalm – Psalm 25:1-8 Page 614, BCP
Epistle –Philippians 2:1-13
Gospel – Matthew 21:23-32 

This week is about choice and responsibility. Questions of authority swirl around the readings.

Ezekiel emphasizes responsibility and with that freedom to refute this old saying – "The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge" (Ezekiel 18:1). In earlier days Israel had barely recognized a distinction between a person and the community. The overall picture was one of communal solidarity, with emphasis upon the corporate consequences of individual guilt. However, Ezekiel is here to provide correction in emphasis. A person is free at any time to turn from wickedness to righteousness and vice versa. It’s not what your ancestors did. In each case, that person will be judged by the new life to which he or she has turned, not by his or her previous life. They are called to a renewal of covenant with the Lord and a new life. Only God’s purposes define true fairness.

This psalm is an individual lament. We are dependent and humbled before God. The teaching and learning of them are salvation.

Paul in Philippians suggests that incorporation into the body of Christ demands humility and obedience of the type demonstrated by Jesus. Only in this way will his followers have the "mind" of Christ. This humility is not humiliation; nor is the obedience blind. Rather, they are expressions of faith and trust in the gracious and loving character of God.

In Matthew’s Gospel it is probably Monday of Holy Week. Jesus went into the Temple courts, overturned the tables and seats of those who exchanged money and those who sold doves.

The first part of the Gospel is about authority. The chief priests and the elders ask who has given him the power and authority to do all that he has done in his ministry. But he will only answer them if they first answer his question (v. 25), one which will show whether they have the requisite faith to understand his answer. “Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?”

If they answer that John the Baptist was divinely inspired, then they open themselves to the charge of ignoring God’s will and of being unrepentant. They would undermine the Temple system they serve. If they say that John’s authority was from human beings, then they risk offending the crowd that believed John was a prophet. Either way, they are condemned. And so they plead ignorance.

For the church, then and now, everything depends upon the source of Jesus’ authority. If it is ultimately "from humans" then Jesus is really no different than another charismatic leader and the church will be forced to define itself only as a human institution among other human institutions.

The second part of the Gospel, the Parable of the Two Sons, suggests that faith and trust are found more often among the "tax collectors and prostitutes" who hear the good news and believe than among the self-righteous guardians of religious order.

In the Parable of the Two Sons, the father asks the sons to go work in the family vineyard. One says "I won’t" but changed his mind and will. The other says he will and doesn’t. Jesus suggests that faith and trust are found more often among the “tax collectors and prostitutes “ in the first camp who hear the good news and believe than among the self-righteous guardians of religious order in the second group . The chief priests and elders feigned acceptance but refused to accept John as a messenger from God. They gave an honorable word, but that is not enough.

II. Summary

Old Testament –   Ezekiel 18:1-4,25-32

Ezekiel was a leader of Jewish colony in Babylonia and member of the priesthood. He belonged to the first group of exiles in 597BC. He was called to prophesy in 593 and preached until 573BC. His oracles came in trances. Chapter 4 to 24 of the book are oracles of doom against Judah and Jerusalem

He declared that the community, from the beginning of its history down to his day, was so contaminated with evil that it could not endure.

Ezekiel is well known for his insistence upon individual responsibility for sin.

                     “‘The parents eat sour grapes,
                            and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? 

In earlier days Israel had barely recognized a distinction between a person and the community. The overall picture was one of communal solidarity, with emphasis upon the corporate consequences of individual guilt. Thus the sour grape verse focuses on the destiny of the community rather than the individual. The exiles in Babylonia were convinced that it wasn’t their fault: they were paying the price for the crimes of generations past.

The destruction of Israel’s national institutions during the Exile accelerated a new emphasis on the individual. The change must, of course, be understood precisely as one of emphasis—not as a denial of the older idea of solidarity but as a corrective.

God cuts them short. "As I live," says God, "you won’t be reciting this proverb anymore" (18:3). God’s speech grounds their responsibility in the fact that God is a living God, dynamic, engaged in the present life of the people just as much as God had been in their past. "All lives are mine," says God. The parents, yes, and also the children. The life of this present generation is God’s, and what God brings into the present is for them and about them. They can stop looking back, and start looking around. This is their moment with God.

The lectionary text skips now from verse 4 to verse 25. The verses in between further underscore the responsibility of the present generation. Ezekiel undercuts any illusions that they are righteous children suffering for the crimes of unrighteous parents. If they suffer for crimes, the crimes are their own. But for precisely that reason there is always a way out, a way forward. The prophet now begins to point the way forward through repentance, the way out of death to life. The wicked can turn from sin and live. At the same time, the righteous can fall from virtue and die. Crimes and merits of the past will not weigh in the balance.

The charge against God is that God is not dealing honestly. Shouldn’t all crimes and merits be weighed in the balance against one another?

God’s answer is that God’s measures are certainly in order. It is the people of Israel who are using faulty measures. They are willing to throw away their own life, which is worth everything. God turns the charge around to show that it is not about fairness after all. It is about the ultimate value: life. God holds out life to the house of Israel. The one way to life is not by atoning for someone else’s sins: that is no kind of life, and it is not their responsibility. The way to life is simple: "Repent and turn." (18:30).

These verses bring out another aspect of Ezekiel’s doctrine of responsibility. This is that a person is free at any time to turn from wickedness to righteousness and vice versa. In each case, that person will be judged by the new life to which he or she has turned, not by his or her previous life. They are called to a renewal of covenant with the Lord and a new life. Only God’s purposes define true fairness.

Both aspects —individual responsibility and corporate solidarity—have to be held together in tension, and it requires a finesse to know just when one or the other aspect has to be given priority.

Psalm –  Psalm 25:1-8 Page 614, BCP

This psalm is an individual lament. The psalmist is oppressed by his enemies but is equally aware of his own sin. He calls upon God to deliver him from his enemies by remembering not his own sins but God’s own mercies, and to lead him in the right way after deliverance.

The words of this psalm, coming so soon after psalms of trust (Ps. 23) and liturgies of entrance to the Lord’s house (Ps. 24), show that those prayers are not enough in the short term to dispel times of danger and possible shame. Times of waiting for the Lord involve lament as much as trust. 

The refrain, “Remember your mercies, O Lord,” calls attention to the very important biblical conception of remembrance. In the Bible, when God remembers, he does not merely recollect a past event but brings it out of the past and makes it effective in the present. Thus, the mercies that God performed in the past become renewed as present realities.

This concept is very important for our understanding of the Eucharist. “Do this in remembrance of me” means not only that we recall in our minds the messianic sacrifice, the supreme act of God’s mercy, but that in response to the Church’s action, God will make present that sacrifice. The Eucharistic memorial is no mere calling to mind of a past event or of its significance, but the church’s effectual proclamation of God’s mighty acts . . . . In the eucharistic prayer the church continues to make a perpetual memorial of Christ’s death; and his members, united with God and one another, give thanks for all his mercies, entreat the benefits of his passion on behalf of the whole church, participate in these benefits and enter into the movement of his self-offering” (reprinted in Worship, January 1972, 46:3-4).

The psalm is an alphabetic acrostic. Each line begins with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the first with aleph (verse 1) and proceeding to taw (verse 21).

This psalm reads like the complaint of an individual person who calls on God for help and professes faith that God will answer. Psalms of this type dominate the Psalter. They have a recognizable form that is evident in Psalm 25 also: such psalms typically begin with complaint or petition (see verses 1-12); they usually include a description of trouble and suffering (verses 16, 19) as well as assurance that God will hear and answer the plea (verses 12, 13-15).

Psalm 25:1-10 expresses some of the most central and important theological themes in the Psalter (and in the Bible):

1. dependence on God for protection from enemies (verses 1-2);

2. requests for God to direct and teach (verses 4-5);

3 confession of sin and cries for forgiveness (verses 6-10; cf. verses 11-12) and confidence in God’s abiding presence and faithfulness (verses 6, 10).

V 1

Psalm 25 begins with a reference that indicates dependence and humility. To lift the hands toward God was for ancient Israelites a posture of prayer and supplication. The expression "I lift my soul" is a metaphor for what the outstretched hands meant (verse 1). It indicates that the person is open to God’s grace, leadership, direction. The outstretched soul does not depend on self, but on God. To prosper in God is to own and acknowledge one’s utter dependence upon God.

V2

The psalmist’s trust in God implied in verse 1 becomes explicit in verse 2 ("in you I trust"). Then the psalmist asks not to be "put to shame" (verse 2). This petition concerns the view of the psalmist in the community.

The parallel line in v. 2a implies a statement of trust, but similar statements in Pss. 86.4 and 143.8 suggest a context of flight seeking protection. The psalmist seeks that he not be shamed (v. 2b-c).

V3

As verse 3 makes clear, however, it is not a petty or purely personal plea. Rather, the psalmist asks God to set public opinion in order according to faithfulness to God.

In v. 3, however, the singular subject is broadened to all those who wait for the Lord. The psalmist’s situation is related to the whole community of faithful.

V4-5

In the second half of the opening prayer he seeks to know and learn the ways and paths of the Lord, defined in vv. 4-5a as the Lord’s truth. Truth in this psalm is not an abstract quality but a relational one. But not only are the Lord’s ways and paths defined as ‘truth’ or ‘faithfulness’. The teaching and learning of them are salvation. ‘Waiting’ or hoping for such things is modeled by the psalmist.

As verse 3 makes clear, however, it is not a petty or purely personal plea. Rather, the psalmist asks God to set public opinion in order according to faithfulness to God.

V6-7

The latter half of vv. 6-7 forms a small framed unit around the theme of memory.

The verb ‘remember’ is mentioned three times (once in NRSV as ‘be mindful’). The psalmist asks the Lord to remember not his past, which is defined here by ‘sins’ and ‘transgressions’, but the Lord’s own compassion and ‘love’.

Verse 6 asks God to "remember" (NRSV "be mindful") God’s faithfulness in the past which are everlasting. It asks specifically to recall "mercy" and "steadfast love." "Remember me according to your Steadfast love" here translates a form of the Hebrew word hesed, a particularly rich theological term that refers to God’s covenant faithfulness. It affirms God’s gracious instruction. The psalmist says God’s mercy and steadfast love are "from of old." While the meaning of this reference is uncertain (it could simply refer to the dim and distant past; see Genesis 6:4), the psalmist may have in mind God’s goodness to Israel after the exodus from Egypt recorded in Exodus 34. God is asked to remember God’s own goodness and love because they are from everlasting and to forget the psalmist’s youthful sin, which is in the past.

Thus, the psalmist appeals to God’s graciousness to the people of Israel for pardon from individual sin and guilt.

These things are eternal and while he does not want to ignore the weight of his own sin (cf. v. 11), the psalmist puts it in perspective by setting it alongside the things of the Lord – ‘love’ and ‘goodness’. It is little wonder that the psalmist is prepared to ‘wait’ for the Lord all day long (v. 5). Who the Lord is makes such waiting possible.

V8-11

Verses 8-10 return to declarations about God and God’s instruction. But these verses characterize God’s instruction with the terms "steadfast love" and "faithfulness," just as earlier verses called on such divine mercy when asking for forgiveness.

Epistle –  Philippians 2:1-13

There are two parts

I. Encouragement in Christ

His preoccupation was for the spread of the gospel, but principally through the vitality of the communities of believers scattered through the Roman world. That was the lens through which he looked when he reflected on the story of Christ’s death and resurrection: what does that twinned event of crucifixion/resurrection have to say about our life together?

With good reason they are concerned for his safety and survival, since many people did not survive Roman prisons. If Paul died, that might threaten the entire ministry at Philippi.

He writes of the “encouragement of Christ” which indicates having the same mindset, having the same love, being in full accord with Christ. It encourages one to replace their self-interest with concern for others.

Let your relationship with other Christians be marked by unity, love, humility, consideration for the interests of others. In so doing, you must display the same attitude that Christ showed when he humbled himself to become man and to die on the cross

II. Hymn

That hymn sets forth the "Christ-mindedness" Paul commends to them to see them through the difficult time (2:5).

The hymn in verses 6-11 is one of the earliest known professions of faith of the first Christians as a hymn to Christ.

V6 Divine preexistence
V7 Incarnation
V8 Death
V9 Resurrection and exaltation
V10 Heavenly adoration
V11 Jesus new title

It is a narrative of freely chosen obedience that models for us how to live faithfully in the communities where our lives are cast. Paul invites us to make it our story as well.

4 parts

A 2:5-6 -Divine preexistence (v. 5). Christ was “in the form of God” (v. 6): he was already like God; he had a God-like way of being, e.g. he was not subject to death. He shared in God’s very nature. Even so, he did not “regard” being like God “as something to be exploited”, i.e. to be used for his own purposes.

Paul usually goes one step further than holding Christ (or himself) up as an example to be followed. He usually includes the notion that there is an inner dynamic which helps make this possible. This is most evident in the verses which follow this passage, where we read: ‘work out your own salvation, because it is God who is at work in you’ (2:12-13).

Being in the form of God may allude to Adam being in God’s image. It would be a way of speaking about Jesus as a human being. While Adam relished the chance to eat of the fruit to be like God (equal to God?), Jesus did not.

B. 2:7-8 – Incarnation – Death.  Rather, he “emptied himself” (v. 7), made himself powerless and ineffective – as a slave is powerless, without rights. He took on the likeness of a human being, with all which that entails (except sin), including death. The emptying must mean giving something up. It recalls Paul’s version of the story of Jesus in 2 Cor 8:9 where he writes of Jesus: ‘though he was rich, yet for our sake he became poor.’

As a man, he lowered (“humbled”, v. 8) himself, and throughout his life in the world, was fully human and totally obedient to God, even to dying. (Paul now adds: even to the most debasing way of dying, crucifixion – reserved for slaves and the worst criminals.) All for the purpose of salvation.

Jesus chose to obey what God wanted. That entailed his entering into solidarity with human beings and becoming fully one of them. We might speculate about what he gave up. It was certainly not the consciousness of who he was as a deciding person. He knew what he was doing.

He chose to abandon self advancement and ally self with divined will that meant willingness to go the whole way in solidarity with human beings.

C. 2:9-2:11.  Resurrection and exaltation/ Heavenly adoration.

This part stresses God’s response to Jesus obedience. God actively responded to this total denial of self, his complete living and dying for others, by placing him above all other godly people (“highly exalted him”, v. 9), and bestowing on him the name, title and authority of “Lord” (v. 11) over the whole universe (“heaven”, v. 10, “earth”, “under the earth”). This authority, before Christ came to us, the Father reserved for himself.

Paul recalls God’s words spoken through Isaiah: “From every corner of the earth [all are to] turn to me and be saved; for I am God … to me every knee shall bow … to me every tongue shall swear, saying ‘In the Lord alone are victory and might … all Israel’s descendants will be victorious and will glory in the Lord’”); the Philippians shall worship him; confessing that “Jesus Christ is Lord” (v. 11) is proclaiming the victory and might of God.

2:9 speaks of God exalting Jesus. This is a commentary on the resurrection which sees it as an act of God which vindicates and rewards Jesus. He who did not "grasp" at likeness to God is, because of his obedience, given the title "Lord" — the first known proclamation of faith among gentile Christians.

In the exaltation (vv. 9-11), God vindicates the self-denying service to others embodied in Christ’s death.  

2:11 Everyone will acclaim Jesus Christ with his new name: ‘Lord’. It is a way of saying that Jesus really does reveal God and the way God is. Bearing someone’s name was like bearing their responsibility and being recognized as able to represent them. In Judaism angels could sometimes be given Yahweh’s name.

It said something about the heart of Jesus and the heart of God. He is ‘Lord’ now not because he has left all that behind, but because God names him as representing the way of divine being.

D 2:12-13

So (v. 12) may they, using Christ’s example of obedience and lowliness (“fear and trembling”), continue to “work out” their “salvation” with God’s help in what they intend (“will”, v. 13) and what they do (“work”).

Gospel –  Matthew 21:23-32

There are two parts of the scripture, the first based on Mark and the second unique to Matthew

1 The Authority of Jesus Questioned

It was an eventful day, to say the least — Jesus entered Jerusalem surrounded by crowds who proclaimed him as king. Matthew next says that Jesus went into the Temple courts, overturned the tables and seats of those who exchanged money (a necessary service, unless you wanted people carrying the emperor’s image into the temple on coins, which was clearly inappropriate) and sold doves (again, a service necessary to continuing the Temple’s sacrificial system as the priestly writings in scripture command) while quoting from, among other things Jeremiah, who prophesied the destruction of the Temple.

     A.Why questioned

For the church, then and now, everything depends upon the source of Jesus’ authority. If it is ultimately "from humans" then Jesus is really no different than another charismatic leader and the church will be forced to define itself only as a human institution among other human institutions. In other words the church will be forced, like Jesus’ opponents, to compete against perceived rivals, reducing its mission to the quest for power, even if it purports to use that power for doing "good" in the world.

The possibility they are not prepared to entertain is the possibility of Jesus wielding an authority "from heaven."

The question of John’s authority is essentially the same as the question of his own authority. After all, it was John who prepared the world for Jesus (Matthew 3:1-17). Thus those who acknowledge the divine origin of John’s authority will likewise acknowledge the divine origin of Jesus’ authority, while those who fail to identify the authority of John will fail to identify the authority of Jesus.

John had been baptising people for the forgiveness of sins. Rituals for the forgiveness of sins were largely in the hands of the priests and the temple. That was one of its main functions.

John’s ministry centered around baptism, traditionally something that Gentiles did to convert to Judaism. John said that God can raise up children of Abraham from stones — that anyone who’s baptized can be a child of Abraham. And furthermore, saying that God will accept as Abraham’s heir anyone who will be baptized implies, in the eyes of those who reject John, that generations of faithful obedience to God’s commands — circumcision and sacrifice as well as purity — don’t count for anything.

      B. Very closely related is the controversy about Jesus’ declaring God’s forgiveness (see Mark 2:6-10). Could someone like Jesus declare God’s forgiveness, pronounce absolution? The answer was not that it was wrong, but it sailed close to the wind. Such ‘charismatic’ authority was outside the control of the order established by the Law, by Scripture.  It is all about authority.

Jesus turns the tables on his questioners by asking them a difficult question: who do you think gave John the Baptizer the authority to do what he did (which, after all, included promising forgiveness of sins to those who were baptized — in other words, John claimed that his own ministry apart from the Temple could do for people what Temple sacrifices were supposed to do).

If they answer that John the Baptist was divinely inspired, then they open themselves to the charge of ignoring God’s will and of being unrepentant. They would undermine the Temple’s system they serve. If they say that John’s authority was from human beings, then they risk offending the crowd that believed John was a prophet. Either way, they are condemned. And so they plead ignorance.

But like John, Jesus thinks that God’s freedom includes the freedom to forgive people who are not children by blood of the Covenant, who haven’t offered sacrifice, even the poor person’s sacrifice of a dove, in the Temple, who haven’t done anything to deserve forgiveness. In that truth there’s an invitation: to enjoy the freedom that Christ experienced and offers.

2. The Parable of the Two Sons – Follows above with story

Jesus evidently told this parable to vindicate his proclamation of the good news of the kingdom against his critics:“The tax collectors and prostitutes who receive me now will enter into the kingdom of God at the last judgment rather than you who criticize me for consorting with them.” The parable is a proclamation of God’s mercy for sinners.

For Matthew, it justifies his own Church’s abandonment of the mission to Israel and its concentration on preaching to the Gentiles.

This Sunday’s gospel has Jesus following up that argument with a story. It’s a parable of two sons and a father. The father asks the sons to go work in the family vineyard.

One says "I won’t." Remember, this is a village culture, in which there’s not really any such thing as privacy, and the son’s mouthing off to his father will shame the father publicly, making him the object of gossip and derision in the village square.

The other son says, "I go sir," as a good son should. The surprising thing, though, is that the son who mouths off actually goes to work in the vineyard, while the son who at first seems to be the good and dutiful one turns out to be disobedient, as Jesus’ questioners are forced to admit. To say that they were probably not very happy with Jesus at this point would be a major understatement.

Jesus did not ask which son behaved honorably. He asked: “Which of the two did the will of his father?”.

The tax collectors and harlots are like the first son. Initially they said no to God, but hearing John the Baptist’s preaching they converted and are doing what pleases God.

The chief priests and elders are like the second son –disobedient son. They too heard John’s preaching and saw the responses of the tax collectors and harlots. They feigned acceptance but refused to accept John as a messenger from God. They gave an honorable word, but that is not enough. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the reign of God, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.” (Matt 7:21). 

It is small wonder that on Friday of that same week they took counsel against Jesus to put him to death.

And on the night before, in the Garden of Gethsemane, this somewhat reluctant son had to decide whether to be obedient to his Father’s will. Matthew records that three times he had prayed: ‘Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." Yet, like the son in the parable who hesitated at first and in the end did as his father had asked, Jesus affirms three times: "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." It is this response of radical obedience that takes Jesus to the cross.

III. Articles for this week in WorkingPreacher:

Old TestamentEzekiel 18:1-4, 25-32

PsalmPsalm 25:1-9  

Epistle  – Philippians 2:1-13 

Gospel  – Matthew 21:23-32