Traditional Christian Agenda in Matthew 21 & 23
If you’ve seen the musical “Fiddler on the Roof,” you’ll remember the song Teyve the milkman sings at the beginning.
“Here in Anatevka, we have traditions for everything. How to sleep. How to eat. How to work. How to wear clothes…And because of our traditions, every one of us knows who he is and what God expects him to do. Tradition!"
Religious Jews are known for their long-standing traditions. But Christians have traditions too. Traditions are like good habits; they spare us the trouble of reinventing the wheel and rehashing the same issues over and over. Tradition allows us to get on with our lives. The Apostolic Writings commend tradition.
“Therefore, brothers and sisters, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle.”
That was 2Thessalonians 2:15. But how do we get back on the right track when tradition has misled us? What do we do when our tradition has bad consequences?
The answer we often give is the Bible. We say in the case of conflict between tradition and the Bible, the Bible always ought to take precedence. Good answer. But what if the tradition is how to read the Bible? How will reading the Bible ever get us out from misleading traditions of reading the Bible?
For my first example I’ve chosen Jesus’ parable in Matthew 21:33-46.
“Listen to another parable. There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard, surrounded it with a fence, dug a winepress in it, and constructed a tower. He leased it to tenants and set out on a journey. When the fruit season neared, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. The tenants seized his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned one. Again he sent other servants, more than the first time. But they did the same to them. Finally, he sent them his son, thinking, ‘They’ll respect my son.’ But when the tenants saw the son they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come on, let’s kill him and confiscate the inheritance!’ They seized him, threw him outside the vineyard, and killed him. Consequently, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants? They replied, ‘He will miserably destroy those wretches and give the vineyard to other tenants who will return fruit in season.’ Jesus said to them, ‘Have you never read in Scripture, ‘The stone which the builders rejected has become the head keystone. This is from the L-rd and is marvelous in our eyes.’ Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a Gentile producing its fruit. When the chiefpriests and Pharisees heard the parable, they knew he was speaking about them. But when they sought to grab him, they feared the crowds, because they considered him a prophet.”
Traditionally, Jesus’ parable of the vineyard is taken to mean Israel’s maltreatment of God’s messengers results in loss of the franchise: the kingdom of God is taken away from the Jewish people and given to another people. Our tradition understands that the new tenants who pay the owner proper returns on his investment is the church. Israel defaults and the church takes Israel’s place.
Due to the nature of my work I’m often confronted with the traditional interpretation of the parable of the vineyard. Christians tell me that Israel’s group effort is no longer part of the plan of salvation, that there is no endtime remnant of Israel who keeps the commandments of God. Christians tell me God can only welcome Jews as co-workers with him on condition they stop behaving like Jews. Among Seventh-day Adventists this tradition is deeply rooted.
But is this tradition really in harmony with the Bible? In biblical imagery a vineyard usually represents Israel. All the attention the landowner lavishes on his vineyard makes sense if the vineyard represents Israel: God surrounds his vineyard Israel with the fence of the Torah, God digs his vineyard Israel a winepress overflowing with blessing, God builds a tower of prophecy to give his vineyard Israel advance warning of danger. But according to our traditional interpretation, the tenants in the parable represent Israel. How can the tenants and the vineyard both represent Israel? It doesn’t fit. If Israel is the vineyard, by all rights the tenants in the parable ought to be somebody else.
A further difficulty with traditional interpretation is that there’s only one vineyard. If the parable were really about the church replacing Israel there ought to be an old, abandoned vineyard replanted with new stock. But in the parable there’s not two vineyards. Interestingly, even under bad management the vineyard is productive. The problem isn’t the vineyard; the problem is bad tenants. At the end of the parable the owner doesn’t trash the vineyard; he replaces his bad tenants with others who pay the rent.
A further difficulty with traditional interpretation is audience response. Matthew 21:45-46.
“When the chiefpriests and Pharisees heard the parable, they knew he was speaking about them. But when they sought to grab him, they feared the crowds, because they considered him a prophet.”
Traditional Christian interpretation takes the response of the chiefpriests and Pharisees to be a blunder illustrating their spiritual ineptness: they suppose the parable is about replacing bad leadership, when God is about to replace Israel lock, stock, and barrel.
But what if verse 45 isn’t intended to be ironic, but accurately represents the situation on the ground? Matthew informs us that the chiefpriests and Pharisees couldn’t make a move against Jesus because the crowds considered him to be a prophet. So at least at the time he tells the parable, the majority of Jews hadn’t defaulted or spurned the messengers or killed the landowner’s son. If the majority of Jews were on Jesus’ side, why should God reject them? It sounds like the chiefpriests and Pharisees have in fact understood the parable correctly: they are the targets, it is them who God is rejecting.
The historical record indicates that the official Jewish leaders during the 1st century, particularly the high priestly families who controlled the temple, were alienated from the vast majority of Jews. Ordinary Jews regarded the priests as self-serving collaborators with Rome. The Talmud regards them as corrupt. Josephus regards them as oppressive. It fits the historical situation to take the chiefpriests’ response at face value; they knew they were unpopular and they knew Jesus was speaking about them.
Now how to deal with Jesus’ elaboration, this comes in Matthew 21 verse 43, that the kingdom of God will be given to a Gentile producing its fruit?
Some people have taken this to mean that both Israel and her corrupt leaders are about to be dumped. I think here we can legitimately distinguish between the kingdom of God and Israel. The Bible presents the kingdom of God as the culmination of what God intends Israel to be, as the cooperative endtime remnant of Israel. This is why in the gospel accounts, although Jesus proclaims the good news of the kingdom exclusively to Israel, he nonetheless summons Israel to enter into the kingdom. Jews are born children of Israel, but Jews must be summoned to be children of the kingdom. In this sense there’s a distinction between the kingdom of God and Israel.
The passage immediately before the parable of the vineyard helps clarify what Jesus means by the kingdom of God. Again, this is a situation where the crowd is with Jesus and Israel’s leaders don’t represent the majority of Jews. Matthew 21:23-31.
“When he came into the temple the chiefpriests and elders of the people barged in while he was teaching, asking, ‘By what authority are you doing these things? Who gave you this authority?’ Jesus replied, ‘Let me also ask one thing. If you answer me, I’ll answer you by what authority I’m doing these things. From whence is the immersion of Yochanan? From Heaven or from men?’ They discussed among themselves: If we say from Heaven, he’ll ask, ‘So why didn’t you believe him?’ If we say from men, they feared the crowd, for all regarded Yochanan as a prophet. They answered Jesus, ‘We don’t know.’ He said to them, ‘Neither will I say by what authority I’m doing these things. What do you think? A man had two sons. He came to the first and told him, ‘Son, go work today in the vineyard!’ He answered, ‘I don’t want to,’ but later repented and went. The man came to the other and said the same. He answered, ‘I do, master,’ but he didn’t go. Which of the two did the will of their father? They said, ‘The first.’ Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you that tax-collectors and prostitutes enter the kingdom of God before you.”
Jesus doesn’t mean that the only citizens of God’s kingdom are tax-collectors and prostitutes. Rather, even bad Jews can get in God’s kingdom, because it is a matter of repentance. Tax-collectors and prostitutes are like the boy who regretted his disobedience and ended up doing what he was told after all.
In the parable of the vineyard, instead of tax-collectors and prostitutes who enter the kingdom of God, we have a Gentile who receives the kingdom of God.
“Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a Gentile producing its fruit.”
Jesus is not here reassigning Israel’s mission task. He’s addressing Israel’s disobedient leaders. Jesus is teaching that in God’s kingdom their lost places will be given to others. Any forfeited rewards will be picked up by newcomers.
Who then would be the best candidates for the new tenants in the parable?
I would venture to say the new tenants are Jesus’ own disciples. He doesn’t spell this out in the parable, but throughout the Book of Matthew, Jesus is grooming his own disciples for leadership in Israel. In Matthew 18 he transfers the mandate to create Torah to them. He places his disciples on the same level as priests, Levites and judges in Deuteronomy 17. In Matthew 19:28 Jesus promises his disciples leadership positions in Israel,
“Assuredly, I say to you, in the regenesis when the Son of Man sits on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
To summarize before we move on, although the parable of the vineyard is traditionally referenced to prove that the kingdom of God was taken from Israel and given to the church, this isn’t really what Jesus is teaching. The parable is actually about a change in leadership. Leadership positions in Israel will be filled by Jesus’ own disciples and the forfeited places of bad leaders around the banquet table in the kingdom of God will be filled by Gentiles.
I’d like to move to another traditional interpretation. In Matthew 23 after castigating the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus adds prophetic woes against his contemporaries, against Jerusalem, and against the temple. These come in Matthew 23:36-39.
“Amen, I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those sent to her! How I have wanted to gather your children as a bird her chicks under her wings, and you didn’t want to. Behold, your house is left desolate. For I say to you, you will no more see me until you say, ‘Blessed is he who enters in the name of the L-rd.’”
Traditionally, Christians have taken this to mean that Jesus pronounces final doom on Jerusalem, that Jerusalem will no longer be capable of seeing him until the second coming when the admission will be wrenched from her guilty lips, too late to benefit her, that Jesus is the one who has come in the name of the L-rd.
The phrase in question, “Blessed is he who enters in the name of the L-rd” is actually a quotation from the hallel. The hallel is a string of praise psalms [Ps 113-118], which the children of Israel recite during the three major pilgrimage festivals: Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. The hallel are call and response; so the speaker changes rapidly. Let me just quote the relevant portion of the hallel. Psalm 118:19-26.
“’Open for me the gates of righteousness; I will enter them, I will thank Yah.’ ‘This gate is the L-rd’s; the righteous enter it.’ ‘I will thank you, because you have answered me, and you have become my salvation.’ The stone which the builders rejected has become the head keystone. This is from the L-rd, it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the L-rd has made, we will rejoice and be glad on it. Please save now, O L-rd! Please succeed now, O L-rd! Blessed is he who enters in the name of the L-rd. We bless you from the house of the L-rd.”
If we translate extremely literally, barukh haba bshem adonai, means “Blessed is he who enters in the name of the L-rd.” But this is so literal it misses the idiom. barukh haba is simply Hebrew for “welcome.” At a wedding when the groom enters the rabbi says, barukh haba bshem adonai “Welcome in the name of the L-rd.” At a Jewish circumcision, when the baby boy is carried into the room, everyone present says, barukh haba “welcome.” Even in Israel today, when a guy comes to our house we say barukh haba “welcome.”
What is significant in the Gospel according to Matthew at this point is that the Jewish crowds have already welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem, but the Jewish leaders have not. Back in Matthew 21:8-15, which according to Matthew 21:18 takes place the previous day, we have the account of the welcome Jesus had received.
“And a very great crowd spread their own clothes on the path, others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the path. And the crowds, both those going before him and those following, were shouting, saying ‘Save now, for the sake of David’s son! Welcome in the name of the L-rd. Save now, in the heights!’ As he neared Jerusalem, the whole city was shaken, saying, ‘Who is this?’ ‘The crowd said, ‘This is the prophet Jesus from Natzeret in the Galilee.’ Jesus entered the temple and threw out all those buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those selling doves. He said, ‘It is written, “My house shall be called a house of prayer,” but you have made it a cave of robbers.’ Then the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them. When the chiefpriests and scribes saw the marvels he performed and the children shouting in the temple, ‘Save now, for the sake of David’s son!’ they were indignant.”
Notice that the acclamations in the mouth of the crowd are from the familiar hallel. This was the Sunday before Passover, and Jews already had the prayers for Passover in mind. “hoshia na Save now” is from Psalm 118:25. “Welcome in the name of the L-rd” is from Psalm 118:26. The Jewish leaders also ought to have taken their cue from the familiar hallel. Psalm 118:23 suggests “This is from the L-rd, it is marvelous in our eyes.” But instead, “When the chiefpriests and scribes saw the marvels he performed...they were indignant.” The Jewish leaders weren’t in a holiday mood. They didn’t see Passover as an opportunity for God’s salvation now, for God’s success now, for God’s continuing marvels on behalf of his oppressed people. When they heard the children shouting “Blessed is he who enters in the name of the L-rd” they should have responded in the words of the next verse: “berakhnukhem mibet adonai We bless you from the house of the L-rd.” The Jewish leaders had the same script as ordinary Jews, but they didn’t in turn welcome the crowd shouting for Jesus. We must understand Jesus’ prediction that Jerusalem will no longer see him until she welcomes him in light of the welcome he’d received the previous day.
Jesus’ prediction in Matthew 23:39 is not a pronouncement of final doom. If anything, it should come as a source of encouragement. Jesus ends his strident denunciation of the scribes’ and Pharisees’ sins on a note of hope. Repentant Israel, including repentant scribes and repentant Pharisees, once again will have the honor of welcoming Jesus. In the Book of Acts we see this is in fact the case. God grants repentance to Israel [Acts 5:31]. In Acts 21:20 tens of thousands of Jews, all having zeal of the Torah, confess Jesus. In Acts 6:7 a great crowd of priests are obedient to the faith. Contrary to traditional interpretation, Matthew 23:39 is not teaching that from here-on-out Israel, or Jerusalem, or even the scribes and Pharisees, are prevented from welcoming Jesus. The prophecy is actually saying the next time Jerusalem sees Jesus, all her children will welcome him together. Not only ordinary Jews, but repentant leaders will welcome Jesus too.
If tradition were right, that Israel will only acknowledge Jesus when it’s too late, then all I can say is that “welcome in the name of the L-rd” doesn’t sound like a reluctant admission or a forced self-condemnation to me. When I really don’t want to see somebody, I don’t greet him, “Welcome in the name of the L-rd.” The prophecy is about people happy to see Jesus.
Traditional interpretation here is based on ignorance mixed with malice. Tradition breaks the Hebrew idiom barukh haba “welcome” up into discrete words “blessed is the one entering” or “blessed is the one coming.” Tradition then applies the word “coming” to the second coming. Tradition then concludes Israel can only bless Jesus at the second coming. If it weren’t for the egregious harm it’s caused, it’s so far-fetched it would be farcical. But when Christians believe Israel won’t welcome Jesus until it’s too late, Christians don’t welcome Israel. Traditional interpretation has damaged the mission.
So how do you fight a tradition that’s so wrong-headed? In this presentation I’ve attempted to enlist sound principals of Bible interpretation, to appeal to reason and historical fact. But that’s rather naïve on my part. Christians don’t indulge in such abysmally poor reading because they are incapable of doing any better. They read the way they do because they have an agenda. The accepted traditional of interpretation has been shaped by Christian agenda, not by the biblical text within its own context.
Christians cling to tradition for their own deeply held internal reasons. Harmful as they may be to non-Christians, these traditions of interpretation are part of what make Christians Christian. They’re part of the distinction between us and them. Make no mistake, despite Jesus’ example of serving others Christianity is about self-preservation and self-perpetuation. These traditions go clear back to the time Christianity was distinguishing itself as a movement separate from Israel. Today there’s no easy way to wean Christians off this tradition without damaging Christian self-image. If we attempt to detoxify the patient, the patient may die on us.
Those of us serious about emergence of the remnant of Mother Israel’s seed who keep the commandments of God and the faithfulness of Jesus after enduring 1260 years of persecution must address toxic tradition. We won’t be the catalyst for the endtime remnant until we overcome certain traditions which have led us astray. Realistically, I don’t know how this can come about. Seventh-day Adventists are deeply committed to Christian tradition.
I do know we must address it as a spiritual problem. I need you to wrestle with God and agonize and pray with me. We need to encourage one another in the darkness until somebody sees the light. For the sake of the mission we need to be willing to forfeit tradition. In order to welcome Jesus, we may need to relinquish control over who else may or may not be permitted to welcome him.
