July 3 , 2005 Fourteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time Proper 9 Commentary by Russell Pregeant

See also: [2008] [2002]

Ps. 45:10-17 or S. of Sol. 2:8-13 or Ps. 145:8-14
Gen. 24:34-38, 42-49, 58-67 or Zech. 9:9-12
Rom. 7:151-25a
Matt. 11:16-19, 25-30

Matt. 11:16-19, 225-30

In the Gospel of Matthew, there are two clusters of passages in which the author draws upon the wisdom genre and the motif of personified Wisdom in relation to Jesus’ mission and identity. The first of these is 11:16 -30, and the second is 23:34 -39. The placing of these clusters in the over-all plot of Matthew is significant. In chapter 11, the conflict between Jesus and those who oppose him begins to take shape, and we have the first major indication of his coming rejection: in verses 20-24, Jesus pronounces woes upon the cities of Galilee that have failed to repent in response to his deeds and teachings. Chapter 24, on the other hand, signals Jesus’ pronouncement of God’s condemnation of the leadership group that has rejected him. It follows upon the allegorized parables that express this theme in chapters 21 and 22 (The Two Sons, the Wicked Tenants, and The Wedding Banquet) and Jesus’ bitter denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees in the earlier part of chapter 23. It would appear, then, that the author’s interest in the figure of personified Wisdom had to do largely with the theme of rejection, a motif associated with Wisdom speculation in pre-Christian thought.  (See, for example, Prov. 1:20-29.) In Matthew, Jesus’ tragic worldly fate is parallel to that of Wisdom, who withdraws “Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord.” (Prov. 1:28-29)

A number of scholars argue that Matthew uses these wisdom passages to present Jesus as the actual incarnation of Wisdom herself, citing evidence such as the Matthean redaction in 11:16 -19 of a Q passage represented also by Luke 5:31-35. Whereas in the Lukan (and presumably Q) version, Jesus says that “wisdom is vindicated by all her children,” Matthew 11:19 has “all her deeds.” By thus equating Jesus’ deeds with Wisdom’s own, it is argued, the author identifies Jesus precisely as Wisdom incarnate. As appealing as such a notion is from both feminist and process perspectives, however, I do not find it borne out in the larger scope of the Matthean narrative. And there are at least two motifs in Matthew that seem quite incompatible with it the presentation of Jesus as the incarnation of the female Wisdom: the Father-Son language in verses 25-27 and the virgin birth motif in Matthew 1.

It is nevertheless clear that Matthew 11:19 does in fact identify Jesus’ deeds with those of Wisdom herself, and his career in the world does in fact parallel hers. So if we can assume on the original readers’ part a knowledge of the pre-Christian Wisdom speculation, we can also acknowledge a universalistic implication in the use of the Wisdom imagery. Although the specific deeds to which 11:29 refers are undoubtedly the powerful works Jesus has performed in chapters 8-9, the readers will also be aware of the notion that Wisdom—just like the Logos of John 1—was not only present with God at the creation (Prov. 8:27) but is also immanent in all things (Sirach 1:9-10; 24:3), even as she had a special dwelling place in Israel (Sirach 24:8-12). It would thus appear that Jesus’ deeds, by virtue of their connection with Wisdom, stand in fundamental continuity with what God/Wisdom does in all times and places.

The  emphasis in Matthew 11:16-19, however, is upon the rejection of both Jesus and John, whose own deeds may in fact be counted as reflecting those of Wisdom. The question in vs. 16 (“To what shall I compare this generation?”) not only sets the stage for the characterization of the opponents of Jesus and John as petulant, perpetually dissatisfied children but is also preparation for the harsh words about the unrepentant dies in vss. 20-24. The point of the reference to John is to show that the rejection of Jesus is of a piece with the treatment John received, and the point of the reference to Wisdom is to link both instances to Israel ’s continual rejection of the Wisdom of God. Implicitly, however, the latter is also an instance of the even broader phenomenon of the human rejection of God’s witness in all creation.

Verses 25-30 change the mood from negative to positive by focusing upon the way, the “yoke,” that Jesus now offers, but the theme of rejection remains in the background.  Jesus not only contrasts those to whom God’s revelation is given with those from whom it is hidden in vss. 25-27, but in offering his “easy yoke” in vss. 28-30 he also draws an implicit contrast with the Pharisees, who emerge as his critics in chapter 12. It is, nevertheless, the positive note that dominates the latter part of chapter 11. Verses 28-30 are words of comfort, and together with 25-27 they contribute much to Matthew’s over-all characterization of Jesus. He now claims for himself precisely the humble attitude recommended to his followers in the Sermon on the Mount; and this motif will play itself out ultimately in his paradoxical entry into Jerusalem on a donkey—combining symbols of triumph with those of humility—and his nonviolence in the face of his violent arrest, trial, and execution.

The depiction of Jesus as humble, however, is not merely for the sake of lauding his personal characteristics. The issue behind the question of Jesus’ identity is the question of the character of God. Jesus’ humility is connected to his compassion and mercy. His deeds in chapters 8 and 9 are specifically deeds of mercy, and insofar as Jesus represents God, and in fact stands in God’s stead, the characterization of Jesus as merciful implies a similar characterization of God. Thus the ultimate issue at stake in the acceptance/rejection of Jesus is the question of God’s own character. Both those who encounter Jesus within the narrative and those who read the narrative are called to choose between God as represented by the Pharisees (stereotypically presented as hard-hearted and fixed on externals rather than matters of the heart; see Matt. 12) and God as represented by Jesus. In promising “rest” and relief from “heavy burdens,” Jesus offers access to a God whose concern is precisely human welfare.

The subtle links to God’s universal presence in the world and concern for human welfare resonate well with a process understanding of God as luring all components of creation toward the better possibilities, toward a satisfying self-realization in the context of the common good. Verses 25-27, however, with language suggestive of both exclusivism and determinism, are problematic from this perspective. But we should not approach these verses as if the problematic statements were systematically formulated propositions upon which one could build hard and fast doctrine. Their function within the narrative is to contrast Jesus with his opponents and to help set the stage for his eventual rejection in Jerusalem . And in any case, biblical thought is shot through with the dual paradoxes that appear when these verses are brought into contact with other aspects of Matthew and the broader horizons of the New Testament. God seemingly determines all, yet human beings are free and responsible. Salvation is given only in Christ, yet it is in some sense available in all times and places. One task of the process interpreter might therefore be to bring verses 25-28 into conversation with competing strains of thought, both within and beyond the text of Matthew. Thus, for example, there are hints of extra-christological salvation in Matt. 25:31-46 and 13:36-43 (see notes on July 17) and strong indications of human free will throughout both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.

Ps. 145:8-14

If the preacher is inclined to pursue the implications of the Matthean text regarding the character of God, as mentioned above, the reading from Ps. 145 provides a point of contact in vss. 8-9, which stress God’s love, mercy, compassion, and goodness.

If you found this lectionary helpful, please consider contributing to Process & Faith by making a donation or becoming a member.

---

Process & Faith is a program of the Center for Process Studies, an affiliated program of the Claremont School of Theology.
This site and all content ©2006 Process & Faith, unless otherwise noted.