Ezekiel is well known for his insistence upon individual
responsibility for sin. 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 (e.g., “punishing
children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth
generation” in the Decalogue [Ex 20:5]).
The destruction of Israel’s national institutions during the
Exile accelerated a new emphasis on the individual, though it had
begun to appear even earlier: Parents and children shall be put to
death “only for their own crimes” (Dt 24:16; cf. 2 Kgs 14:6:).
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.
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.
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.
This is perhaps an oversimplification, but it fits in with the
parable of the two sons in today’s gospel.
Responsorial Psalm: 25:4-5, 6-7, 8-9
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.
This psalm forms a suitable response to the reading from Ezekiel.
Both passages view a person’s life as bisected into past and
future by the present moment. The past is characterized by sin, the
future is filled with hope for righteousness.
In the present moment a person is thrown utterly upon the mercies of
God—an aspect of the matter that Ezekiel, in his emphasis on
personal responsibility, tends to overlook. The psalm corrects
this.
The refrain, “Remember your mercies, O Lord,” calls
attention to the very important biblical conception of remembrance.
In modern parlance, to remember means simply to recall mentally an
event of the past.
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.
As was well said by the
Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission
in 1971:
The notion of memorial as understood in the passover celebration at the time of Christ—i.e., the making effective in the present of an event in the past—has opened the way to a clearer understanding of the relationship between Christ’s sacrifice and the Eucharist.
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 refrain “Remember your mercies, O Lord” is thus a highly suitable chant for the Eucharist.
Reading II: Philippians 2:1-11 or 2:1-5
The longer form of this reading includes the great christological
hymn which, following ancient tradition, is read on Passion Sunday
(the reader will find comment on the hymn there).
Whether we opt for the longer or the shorter form, it seems clear
that today both comment and homiletical treatment should concentrate
upon the ethical exhortation that it is the purpose of the hymn to
reinforce.
But we cannot ignore the hymn entirely. Apart from the
interpretation of the hymn itself, there is a controversy among
contemporary exegetes over its relation to the exhortation. Does the
hymn merely present Christ as an example?
In that case, the drift of thought is: 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.
That is the way in which the passage has normally been taken. Karl
Barth, however, popularized—at least among the Germans—another
interpretation.
It depends upon a different rendering of the final phrase in the
short form of the reading: instead of “which was in Christ
Jesus,” it reads “which you have in Christ
Jesus.”
Such a variant rendition is possible because there is no verb in the
Greek for “was” or for “you have”; it simply
reads “which in Christ Jesus,” allowing the reader to
understand either “was” or “you have.”
If we understand “you have,” it gives a different
meaning to “in Christ,” namely, the characteristic
Pauline sense of “in Christ,” sometimes called
“mystical,” though Barth himself would have repudiated
the term.
In this interpretation the pattern of Christ’s life, namely,
the pattern of humiliation-glorification, is not a model for
Christians to imitate but a pattern with which Christians are
brought into conformity by their incorporation into Christ and their
life in him.
It is difficult to decide which is the correct interpretation.
Barth’s at least has the advantage of giving to “in
Christ” its normal Pauline sense of treating Christ not merely
as an external example but as the source of redemptive life.
The saying at the end the reading (Mt 21:32) is paralleled in Lk 7:29-30, and therefore it must have become attached at some stage in the
tradition to the saying about the tax collectors and prostitutes (Mt 21:31b).
It is clear that the latter phrase, which occurs in both sayings,
attracted the saying about John the Baptist to the comment on the
parable. Then coalescence of the two sayings must have taken place
prior to Matthew, because Matthew is responsible for placing the
whole pericope in sequence with the question of authority (Mt 21:23-27), connecting the two traditions by means of the catchword
“John the Baptist” (Mt 21:25, 21:32).
We thus have three levels of exegesis: (1) the Jesus level,
consisting of the original parable of the two sons with Jesus’
comment, Mt 21:28-31a; (2) the oral tradition, consisting of the parable with an
extended comment, Mt 21:28-31b and 21:32; (3) the evangelist’s understanding, indicated by his
combination of the parable plus extended comment with the pericope
about the question of authority, 21:23-27 + 21:28-32. The exegete has to try to interpret the parable on all three
levels.
Jesus evidently told this parable (some have thought that this was
the original nucleus of the parable of the Prodigal Son) 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.
The addition of the saying about John the Baptist gives the parable
a surprising and not altogether apt twist. Matthew, however, has
straightened out this awkward state of affairs by sandwiching the
pericope between the question of authority and the wicked
husbandman.
By doing so, he makes it one of a series of three comments upon the
Jewish authorities’ response to God’s purpose throughout
salvation history. This response was one of constant rejection, from
the time of the prophets through John the Baptist to Jesus himself
(and of course also, in Matthew’s own perspective, to the
postresurrection mission of the church).
For Matthew, it justifies his own church’s abandonment of the
mission to Israel and its concentration on preaching to the Gentiles
(Mt 28:16-20, and see especially Mt 21:43, added by Matthew to the third of his three pericopes in Mt 21:23-45).