Archive
RSS Feed
DonateJuly 17 , 2005
Commentary by Russell Pregeant |
See also: [2008] [2002] |
Ps. 139:1-12, 23-24 or Ps. 86:11-17
Gen. 28:10-19a or
Wis.
12:13
, 16-19 or Isaiah 44:6-8
Rom. 8:12-25
Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43
Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43
Here again, as in the
gospel reading for July 3, we have an allegorized parable combined with
its interpretation, both set within Matthew’s third great discourse.
This particular parable-interpretation complex is the focal point in the
discourse for the articulation of a theme that pervades the whole: the
conflict between God’s Rule (the Rule of Heaven), and Satan’s Rule. In
the Parable of the Sower and its interpretation, Jesus warns his hearers
of the dangers that can beset those who hear his word, but in The Weeds
Among the Wheat “an enemy” appears, sowing weeds in the midst of the
good seed. Then, in the interpretation, the original sower is identified
as the Son of Man, the “enemy” as the devil, and the two types of seed
alternatively as “sons of the kingdom” and “sons of the evil one.”
The harvest is, of course, the eschatological judgment that will bring a
final separation of the good from the bad.
The over-all thrust of this parable-interpretation complex is to promote the notion that the church itself will stand under God’s judgment. The weeds among the wheat are obviously errant church members, and the question-answer sequence in the parable itself (vss. 27-30) has a double-edged message with respect to them. On the one hand, it is not up to the church itself to “weed out” these “evildoers” (vs. 1); on the other, they will be subject to God’s eschatological condemnation, a point reiterated in The Net at the end of the discourse (13:47-50). This line of thinking, it should be noted, stands in some tension with Matt. 18:15-20, which does in fact grant the church the power to exclude those who refuse to accept the collective judgment regarding their behavior within the community. From a process perspective, this tension can provide a good opportunity for exploring the ambiguities any community faces in dealing with disruptions. Rather than taking either solution as an absolute, we should bring them into conversation with one another as we deal with complex problems to which there can be no eternally valid solution.
Another point of interest for the process interpreter is the way in which vss. 36-43 deal with the image of the kingdom. For these verses reveal a subtle but very important undercurrent of meaning that stands in marked tension with the christological exclusivism that we find in much of the New Testament as well as in the gospel of Matthew itself.
This undercurrent becomes evident as we reflect on 13:38a: “the field is the world.” This statement is somewhat surprising in light of the identification of the good seed as that which is sown by the Son of Man and also designated as “the sons of the kingdom.” For in vs. 41 the returning Son of Man will gather the evildoers “out of his kingdom.” The coming kingdom, in other words, will be superimposed upon the world at large, rather than upon the church. Apparently, then, the judgment of the church is one aspect of a more general judgment upon the world itself. But “if the world itself is the scene of a judgment that separates the good from the evil, and if the church stands as a subset within the world, which itself contains both good and evil, the implication is that the distinction between good and evil cuts across the church and the world.”[1] And if this implication is accepted, it would mean that not only evildoers but good seed also are found within the world as such, apart from the church.
There is admittedly some tension between this implication and the fact that the good seed are sown specifically by the Son of Man. But if we follow this latter aspect to its logical conclusion, it would mean that we would have to see all evil in the world as the result of opposition to the Christian mission, since the enemy has sown the weeds specifically among the wheat. What we seem to have, then, is a case of competing lines of logic, “one focused specifically on the Christian mission and its opposition and another pointing more broadly to the universal conflict between good and evil….”[2] From some theological perspectives, of course, the tension between these perspectives is irrelevant in light of the strong strain of christological exclusivism in the New Testament. But this passage is not alone in revealing a competing undercurrent. Within the gospel of Matthew, we can point also to 25:31-46, where it is deeds of mercy and not confession of Christ that is the basis of final judgment; and in Paul we can cite the faith of Abraham in Romans 4—a generic faith in God—as a parallel example.[3]
The above argument is of course far too complicated to make in detail from the pulpit, but it would not be impossible for a creative preacher to find ways of making use of the general point. If good and evil exist both within and without the church, this must certainly have an effect upon the way we look upon persons of other faiths or even of no explicit faith. From a process perspective, God is at work in all times and places luring all creatures toward the good. This should give all Christians an important warning about a judgmental attitude toward those “outside the fold,” just as the parable itself should make us wary of judgmentalism within the community itself. The image of judgment, on the other hand, is equally important as a reminder that not all behavior—whether that of individuals or groups or governments—is acceptable in God’s eyes. But the fundamental issue at stake is not whether others conform to our doctrinal standards. It is, rather, whether they stand for the common good on the one hand or for values and policies that wreak havoc with human beings or God’s creation on the other. And, as we all know—and have been reminded so dramatically in recent years!—adherence to some version of Christian orthodoxy is no guarantee that one’s deeds will in fact promote the good.
Rom. 8:12-15
As with the readings for July 3, the selection from Romans can provide a link to the passage from Matthew. If the preacher is, as suggested above, stressing the importance of a stance in favor of the common good over supposedly orthodox belief, Paul’s distinction between flesh and Spirit can be helpful. From a process perspective, it is not only Christians in whom the Spirit is active, and life in the Spirit consists of far more than consent to doctrines. Without disparaging the role of doctrine, one can note that its value lies precisely in promoting life in the Spirit, not in the inherent value of getting one’s belief in proper intellectual order. For Paul, after all, faith is something much deeper than mere belief—it is trust in God.
[1] Russell Pregeant, Matthew (Chalice Commentaries for Today), p. 95.
[2] Ibid., p. 96.
[3] See Pregeant, Christology Beyond Dogma: Matthew’s Christ and Process Hermeneutic, for an elaboration of this argument.
Russell
Pregeant is Professor of
Religion and Philosophy, Emeritus, at Curry College, Milton Massachusetts
and has served for over a decade as Visiting Professor in New Testament
at Andover Newton Theological School. Among his publications are the volume on Matthew: in the Chalice Commentaries for Today series, and Engaging
the New Testament: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. A native of Louisiana, he enjoys cooking spicy
Cajun and Creole dishes.
If you found this lectionary helpful, please consider contributing to Process & Faith by making a donation or becoming a member.