Jesus was in the temple precincts when he posed a question to his audience by using a parable. A group of chief priests and elders had just interrupted his teaching. They challenged his authority to teach. “By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave you this authority? ” He shot them down by posing a clever question to them. He told them that he would give them an answer if they would tell him, and the crowd, if John’s baptism was of human origin or heavenly origin. This question stumped them because they had not supported John. If they said the baptism was of heavenly origin, Jesus and the people would question why the religious leaders didn’t believe in him. If they said his baptism was of human origin, they would anger the people because John was very popular among them. They declined to answer. So Jesus also declined to answer their questions. But then, looking straight at them, he asked their opinion on the parable he was about to relate about a man who had two sons.

It was a simple story. One day a man asked both of his sons to go out to work in his vineyard. The first son said, “No way!” But he had a change of heart and later went into the vineyard. The second son said, “Sure.” But he never went. Jesus ended the parable with this question to them. “Which of the two sons did the father’s will? ” The answer was a no-brainer. “The first.”

The religious leaders had no idea what Jesus was about to hit them with. “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you! When John came to you in the way of righteousness, you did not believe in him, but tax collectors and prostitutes did. Yet even when you saw that, you did not later change your minds.” That punch wasn’t enough, though. Jesus followed his response with two more parables – the Parable of the Tenant Farmers and the Parable of the Wedding Feast. Let’s stay focused on this Parable of the Two Sons.

We have to acknowledge that neither of these sons was perfect. One gave lip service to his father’s request, but ended up disappointing him. The other son, at first, aggravated his father with a negative response, even though he eventually responded to his father’s request.

Jesus was pointing primarily at the religious leaders. They gave his Father lip service. They scrupulously followed all the religious laws but never had a conversion of heart. Jesus told the religious leaders that while sinners heeded John’s call to repent, they smugly rejected his message. In Jesus’ eyes, they were worse than the prostitutes and the tax collectors who were condemned by the “righteous” religious leaders. The “sinners” were lost but searching, and Jesus loved them for it.

As Christians trying to follow Jesus by taking on his values, it would be good for us to listen to his teachings. They’re perfectly clear when he’s fighting with the Pharisees. Matthew’s Gospel records many of these encounters, but they’re in the other Gospels as well. I’ll conclude this reflection with a few of Jesus’ statements from Matthew’s Gospel. Jesus’ attitude toward those who are self-righteous and condemn others is clear and uncompromising.

“Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter. (Matthew 23:13)”

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside you are full of plunder and self-indulgence. (Matthew 23:25)”

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of filth. (Matthew 23:27)”

“Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. Go learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ I did not come to call the righteous but sinners. (Matthew 9:12-13).” Jesus calls everyone to a change of heart–a change of attitude. He calls us to his loving heart.

“Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart, and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy and my burden light. (Matthew 11:28-30)”

Matthew begins chapter twenty with a parable. “The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard.” It’s always a good idea when reflecting on a parable to check the previous passage. It often gives an insight into what Jesus is teaching. Chapter nineteen ends with a scene in which a rich young man asks Jesus what he must do to attain eternal life. He said that he kept the commandments scrupulously but wanted to know what more he could do. Jesus shocked him by presenting him with a challenge. “If you wish to be perfect, go sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come follow me.” We’re told that the young man went away sad because he had many possessions.

Then Jesus turned to his apostles and delivered what was to be, perhaps, his most remembered comment, “Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the

eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Peter, shaken by Jesus’ comment, immediately asked a serious question. “We have given up everything and followed you. What will there be for us?” Jesus gave this answer to Peter. “Everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life.” He ends with an odd saying. “But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.”

To reinforce his teaching Jesus then delivered the parable that began. This chapter twenty of Matthew’s Gospel. “The kingdom of God is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard.”

The parable presents a landowner going to the marketplace at 6 am to hire day laborers to work in his vineyard. At the time there were many men who were unemployed. People were continually losing their businesses or farms because they were not able to pay the extravagant taxes the Romans levied on the population. The local marketplaces were continually filled with men looking for work. They weren’t lazy. They were desperate. They needed to work to support their families. The normal day’s wage was a denarius, which would be just about enough to buy food for one meal for a family of four.

Grape picking time was towards the end of September. The harvest was always a rushed experience. The grapes had to mature, but they also had to be picked before the annual rains came in October. The landowner started hiring at 6 am but returned again at 9 am because more men were needed. This group and the other groups he hired at noon, 3 pm and 5 pm were to be paid “whatever was right.”

6 pm came and the workday was over. The landowner called the men together to pay them. He began with the last ones who were hired. They only worked an hour but were paid a denarius! The men who worked twelve hours expected to be paid more since they worked the entire twelve-hour day, but he gave them what they had negotiated when he hired them, a denarius.

The first group of laborers protested to the landowner saying that it wasn’t fair for everyone to be paid the same. Here comes the challenge of the parable. “My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same usual wage? Or am I not free to do as I want with my money? Or are you envious because I am generous?”

If we link this parable to the story of the rich young man, we can understand better what mes-

2 sage Jesus was imparting to his apostles. Jesus’ invitation to follow him was demanding. One’s heart had to be free. The reminder that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God was a call for detachment. If worldly possessions were unimportant for the disciples, then the whole world would be theirs. This detachment included, however, the desire for power. Jesus knew that the apostles would have the temptation to see themselves as superior because they were the first to be invited to the kingdom of God. Call to mind the times the apostles argued among themselves about who would be first in this kingdom. When he heard them arguing Jesus was harsh with them. He reminded them that they were to be servants and not masters.

After his conversation with the rich young man, Jesus gave a pointed directive to his apostles. “Many who are first will be last and the last will be first.” Everyone is equal in the kingdom. Everyone is a servant. Jesus ended the parable of the workers in the vineyard in the same way. “Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last.” No one is better than anyone else. Everyone is equal in God’s eyes. No one has a right to exercise power over another.

Saint Paul spelled out this teaching in a powerful statement. “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)” God is the master of the vineyard, and his generosity extends equally to everyone. This parable reminds us that we’ve been called to labor in the vineyard of the Lord, to be joyful servants without any prejudice.

It’s a challenge to follow Jesus because we can no longer think as the world thinks. We have to be free to clothe ourselves with Christ.

I’m not going to reflect on the gospel we’ll hear at mass this Sunday. I’ve chosen to think about September 11, 2001 instead. It was nine o’clock in the morning.
I was walking across One Police Plaza to buy a bagel from a vendor. I looked up and saw thick black smoke billowing from one of the towers. A policeman was standing there so I asked him what happened. He told me that a plane had just hit the tower. He masked his feelings, but I knew he was shaken. My first thought was that everyone above the fire line would never make it to safety. I didn’t buy a bagel; I hurried back to the rectory. As soon as I entered another plane struck the second tower. It was clear what was happening.

The months after the attack, while our government forces began a campaign of retaliation and destruction that continues, sadly, to this day, New Yorkers touched the divine light. There was shock and deep sorrow, but throughout the city people spontaneously reached out to each other. The daily subway ride became an opportunity to be kind to someone. People gave up their seats to first responders. The elderly and the infirm were helped into their seats. People called out “thank you” to firemen and policemen. There was a wonderful sense of kindness and community. We were working with and for each other. We didn’t take each other for granted. And it felt so good! Really good! The financial capital of the world became, for many months following 911, the city of compassion and caring. The city of light.

It has been 25 years since that terrible day. Let’s wake up again. Let’s look at the people around us and see our brothers and sisters. Let’s heal our world with God’s forgiving and healing light. Let’s reach out with love and compassion not only to our fellow New Yorkers but to all our brothers and sisters throughout the world. We don’t have to wait for a catastrophe to let our light shine. We did it during the months after 911. Why can’t we shine every day? After all, we’ve been called to be light for the world.

A LITTLE PRAYER FOR THE DAY

Lord make me an instrument of your peace. Where there’s despair in life let me bring hope; and where there is darkness only light. (The Prayer of St. Francis)

We’re going to reflect on a fascinating passage from Matthew’s Gospel, chapter 18, verses 15-20. It’s fascinating because it’s filled with problems.

Its opening statement is direct and simple. “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone.” If someone does something to you that’s offensive or hurtful, the best thing to do is to bring it up to him. Try to talk it out. “If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.” This is a wise, practical approach to a not uncommon situation. Friendships can actually grow when difficult situations that may arise between friends are confronted and talked out. It’s not good to let hurts fester because they tend to be fed by silence and grow. If tensions are not spoken about, the offended party often slips into deeper anger and resentment. The opening statement of the passage is good, simple advice.

Now, suppose my brother won’t talk out the problem, what can I do? Here’s where the problem in the passage begins to surface. “If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you so that every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.” This can be interpreted as a kind of intervention, similar to the interventions used when a friend or family member has an alcohol or drug problem. We gather close friends and family members to confront the person with the problem he has. We gather to confront him because we love him, and we are concerned for his well-being. In the case of the alcoholic or drug addict this is a caring and often successful approach to the problem. Yes, the drugs and alcohol are physically harmful for the person using them, but because the drugs or alcohol rule his life they become more important than his family and friends. His actions have most probably caused deep hurts and resentments. But love can conquer all. The intervention is meant to look beyond the hurts and to focus on the person we care for, not the person who has hurt us.

But take a look at the statement again. “If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you so that every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.” It seems to me that this isn’t really a loving intervention. The terminology is legal. Facts have to be established. There are “witnesses.” The statement implies that there will be a winner and a loser in the case. When that type of situation develops there’s never a reconciliation. There’s one brother who has been proven right, and one brother who has been proven wrong. There’s no kiss and make up here. Would Jesus have taught this? I wonder.

The situation goes further. “If he refuses to listen to them tell the church.” Now we’re moving into a court-like setting. It’s no secret that court cases never bring parties together. The court decides who’s right and who’s wrong, and awards a settlement to one and a penalty to the other. There’s definitely no reconciliation here. Would Jesus have taught this? Again, I wonder.

But there’s another big problem with this statement. There is no “church.” It didn’t exist when Jesus was teaching. It was the post resurrection communities that began to call themselves “the church.” We read Saint Paul’s letters to the church in Corinth or the church in Rome. The word Paul chose to describe the various communities of Christians was “ecclesia,” a Greek word meaning convocation or political assembly. No such Christian structure existed at the time of Jesus. In fact Christians didn’t exist yet. The disciples of Jesus were Jews who followed the teachings of the rabbi/healer/miracle worker, Jesus. They didn’t join his “church.” My conclusion is that Jesus would not have said this.

The passage moves into even more problematic territory. “If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.” I can’t imagine this statement coming out of the mouth of Jesus. He healed the daughter of the Canaanite woman, and the slave of the Roman centurion. He invited himself to the house of Zacchaeus, the chief tax collector in Jericho. The Scribes and Pharisees attacked Jesus for eating in the homes of tax collectors. Jesus even invited the tax collector Matthew into his inner circle of disciples. I don’t wonder about this statement. Jesus didn’t say it.

The passage immediately following this one reports that Peter asked Jesus, “Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus’ answer is quick and very clear. “I say to you not seven times but seventyseven times.” There’s no treating someone like a Gentile or tax collector. No one is ostracized here! Jesus is teaching that on our side, the Christian side, no one can ever stop trying to reconcile. Forgiveness has to be my middle name. One of the last things Jesus ever said was, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing. (Luke 23:34).”

The passage continues with what seems to reflect an authentic image of Jesus and what he might teach. “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This is so true of relationships. A broken and unsettled relationship will follow us to the grave as will a reconciled and healed relationship. One will continue to torment us. The other will be part of our joy.

2 Finally, Jesus reinforces his teaching on reconciliation. “Amen, I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” When we struggle to reconcile with a brother and bring it to prayer, God will heal the relationship because Jesus has entered the process acting as a mediator.

Now where do we go with all this information? We have portions of a passage in Matthew’s Gospel that doesn’t correctly reflect the person of Jesus and his teachings. There are elements of the passage that I feel comfortable ascribing to Jesus. But I’m sure that Jesus wouldn’t have taught everything that this passage contains. They are either later additions to the Gospel, or the church at the time of the Gospel’s writing already had a process in place to deal with dissonance within the community. Either way, the ecclesia, the church, was already, so shortly after Jesus life, straying from his teachings by introducing a legal approach to deal with problems within the community. This approach is exactly what Jesus fought against during his life.

Where can we go with this information? We need to turn to Jesus for a resolution. He gave Peter an answer to the problem of reconciliation. “He turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.’ (Matthew 16:23)” We can’t think as the world thinks. We have to think in a new way if we’re going to be able to reconcile with our brother.

The passage we’re reading shows us the path to the new way. It contains Jesus’ spirituality of forgiveness. “If two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted them by my heavenly Father. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in their midst. (Matthew 18:19-20)” If all parties pray for reconciliation Jesus is promising that he’ll be there to heal the dissonance, and bring harmony back into our relationship.

This is the Christian way. The legal way is the way of the world. Is there any wonder why there are so many antagonistic relationships in the world? Brother struggling with brother. Country struggling with country. Forgiveness is the divine energy that heals relationships. Take a good look at our world. Look at the pain and suffering caused by disharmony. Look at the pain that exists between friends and within families. And The communal pain caused when one nation can’t reconcile with another. We can’t live without forgiveness. Authentic forgiveness comes only when we invite God into the hurt we are experiencing. Only then can Jesus can bring healing and resolution to me and you, and our world.