Wilfrid J. Harrington Chapter 8.

Towards the Passion (19-25)

Come, you that are blessed by my Father (Mt 25:34)

Narrative: Mounting Opposition 19-23

What Jesus meant by God's reign - the rule of God - has been firmly caught by the author of the letter to Titus: 'When the goodness and loving kindness of God our Saviour appeared, he saves us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy' (Titus 3:4-5). The God of Jesus is a God who has supreme concern for people. His lordship points to an ideal, ¦ God-willed relationship between God and humankind. Jesus lived and died for the establishment of that rule. He ached for men and women to discover the love of God for humankind and give substance to the wonder of the discovery through loving concern for one another. That love would involve sacrifice and suffering. It meant sacrifice and suffering for Jesus. Opposition to him is visible throughout the gospel. Now it becomes more bitter and more threatening. Still, Jesus' message, despite an increased note of warning, continues to be one of hope and promise. One seriously suspects that the negative note issues not from Jesusbut from a Matthew faced with community problems. Happily, there are are still some who do believe that Jesus revealed the Abba, the wondrous Hebrew God of infinite love. The narrative in Mt 19-23 is interspersed by parables. In keeping with the emphasis of this book on Jesus as teacher, we will concentrate on these parables.

Labourers in the Vineyard 20:1-16

A major difficulty in interpreting the parables of Jesus is that we can never be sure when, where and in what circumstances Jesus spoke a parable. The setting provided by an evangelist usually reflects his own concern. It is evident that Matthew intends the parable of the labourers in the vineyard to be understood in close connection with Jesus' promise of reward to his disciples (19:27-30). It is just as clear that the parable does not fit smoothly into that context. For Jesus, the parable surely has to do with God's generosity which transcends human standards.

The saying, 'So the last will be first and the first last' (v 16) is certainly not the conclusion of the original parable - it is an independent and floating logion (see 19:30; Mk 10:31; Lk 13:30). We can even see why it was added in Matthew. Verses 8b, 'Call the labourers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and then going to the first', seemed to represent a reversal of rank that would take place at the judgment and the saying would appear to be perfectly in place. But it is so only at first sight because. the wage is still the same in each case. Besides, v 8b may be rendered quite accurately: 'Pay them their wages, including the last as well as the first. '

The parable, then, originally ended at v 15, and the key to it is the last phrase of the verse: 'because I am generous'. It is this goodness that explains the apparently capricious conduct of the householder. For, indeed, at first sight, it does seem unfair that all the workers were to receive the same wage. But when we understand his motive we judge his conduct very differently. A denarius represented a day's wage, just enough to support a family; anything less, and especially payment for a single hour, would be inadequate. It is because he had pity on them that the owner called them to his vineyard in the first place and it is because he has pity on them that he pays them all a full wage. There is nothing arbitrary in his conduct -it is the action of a man who is full of compassion for the poor. So, too, does God act, for God is all goodness and mercy. This is the message of the parable.

But if we look at it again we shall see that it is two-pronged, that it is made up of two episodes. First we have the hiring of the labourers and instruction about their payment (vv 1-8), and then follows the indignation of the recipients who feel themselves cheated (vv 9-15). It is characteristic of such parables that the emphasis falls on the second part. Because that is so here, we should realise that the parable is aimed at people who resemble the murmurers. The fact is: God is not 'fair!' The parable shows what God is like, full of compassion for the poor. It points out how wrong-headed it is to be scandalised by his great goodness. Matthew is hitting at some 'begrudgers' within his community. God's prodigal goodness is an affront to human level-headedness. God's love of sinners is insult to the pious.

The Two Sons 21:28-32

Throughout the gospel Matthew has been making the point that by rejecting and killing the Son, Israel brought about its own rejection. The Gentiles have received the kingdom Israel has forfeited. Our parable of the two sons (proper to Matthew) is explicitly directed against the leaders of the Jews and Jesus puts their own condemnation in the mouths of his accusers (v 30-31). As so often, the vineyard (following Isaiah 5) stands for Israel, God's chosen people, and the contrast is made between the seemingly obedient sons of the father, the 'righteous' Jews, and those whom Jesus' hearers regarded as contemptible outcasts. On the face of it they refuse what is required of them because they do not observe the law, but they in fact please God more by their openness and love. The point of the parable is that the leaders of the Jews who have promised to work for God, but have failed to do so, will be rejected. I go, sir' (v 30) -'sir' is kyrie or 'Lord'. The son is one who says, 'Lord, Lord' but does not do the willof the Father (7:21). Others who have said 'No' to God at first (the tax collectors and the prostitutes, for example) but have afterwards repented and done his will, are received into God's kingdom. The reaction of the first son is a key factor in the parable: he 'changed his mind' - thought better of his initial refusal. What we profess to believe has no value if it is not translated into active obedience (see 7:21-27). This warning is addressed to 'religious' people in every age.

The Evil Tenants 21:33-43

The motifs of vineyard and son link this parable to the preceding one (21:28-32). Together with 21:1-14 it forms a series of three parables illustrating Israel's leaders refusal of the kingdom and thus Israel's threatened loss of privilege as God's chosen people. The background to this parable is clearly Is 5:1-7. Only, there is a distinction between 'vineyard' and 'tenants.' The 'householder's' contention is not with the vineyard (that is, Israel) but with the tenants (that is, Israel's leaders). In fact this parable, along with the other two, is addressed to 'the chief priests and elders of the people' (21: 23,28,45; 22:1). It is an allegorical parable depicting Israel's doleful history and the failure of the leaders.

The landowner is God. The vineyard is Israel. The wicked tenants are the religious leaders of Israel. The servants are the prophets. The son is Jesus. The son's death is his crucifixion outside Jerusalem (see Heb 13:13-14). The reference (in v 42) to Ps 118:22-23 pinpoints Jesus' triumph in his resurrection, not merely in spite of but precisely because of his rejection by contemporary Jewish leaders. Unwittingly, the tenants were right when they said: "This is the heir, come let us kill him and get his inheritance' (v 38). For, paradoxically, it was only by being rejected by people and being chosen by God that Jesus became the saviour not alone of the nations but also of Israel.

This parable also functions as a theological explanation of the death of Jesus. Jesus was 'delivered up' to death - he was 'handed over according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God' (Acts 2:22). What does this mean? The parable gives the answer. The Son knew the Father and came to do his will. His life was not laid down in answer to divine need. It was laid down in answer to divine love. Father and Son were prepared to go to any length to save us humans from ourselves. 'Surely, they will respect my Son!' The death of Jesus was, ultimately, sacrifice made by the Father. Paul had got it right: 'He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything else?'(Rom 8:32).

Royal Wedding Feast 22:1-14

Drawing their inspiration from Is 25:6-10 (among other passages) Jesus' contemporaries envisaged the arrival of God's reign in terms of a banquet, an eschatological celebration. Jesus addressed his parable of the wedding feast (see Rev 19:9) to those people (in the present context, the chief priests and leaders of the people) who consider that, belonging to Israel, they have no need to reply to the invitation in order to enter the banquet of the kingdom - they have reserved places. Emphasis is on the invitation and its acceptance or rejection. Like the vineyard (Mt 21:28-32, 33-43) the banquet is a metaphor. If the former image brings out the 'fruit-bearing' - aspect of the kingdom, the latter emphasises both its joy and the need to respond to God's call when he invites people to enter. In reaction to rejection of his invitation 'the king sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city' (v 7). The reference is to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Matthew echoes an early Christian interpretation of the event: it happened because some in Israel rejected the invitation to the kingdom and maltreated the messengers - especially Jesus. Yet again that sad human penchant for depicting God as, somehow, vindictive. The 'slaves' of vv 8-10 are Christian apostles whose preaching gathers together all and sundry. The 'wedding hall' of v 10 is the church, the community of those who have hearkened to the good news.

Matthew's final scene (vv 11-13) is really a separate parable added to the first. (This explains the incongruity that people dragged in off the street [v 10] are blamed for not being properly dressed for a wedding [v 12]). It is Matthew's warning to the church. The church is held together neither by family ties nor by an external structure, but by the active, personal and continual response to God's word. The response is the work of a lifetime. The 'wedding robe' of v 11-12 is a symbol of this response, that is, of a life lived in conformity with God's word as it has been revealed in Christ. The condemnation of v 13 is a warning to Christians that they, too, like the religious leaders of Israel, can fail to answer God's invitation. The observation of v 14 (which does not really fit vv 1-10 or 11-13) does suit Matthew's general intention, a reminder of the need to respond to God's call. God's invitation is to all ('many') but only those who truly respond will become the chosen, the elect. Mere membership of th church is not enough. Response is in doing the will of the Father (7:21). Happily, God and the Son are always more gracious than those who speak in their name.

Attempted Entrapment 22:15-40

Matthew 22:15-21 is the first of three attempts (see 22:23-33, 34-40) on the part of Jesus' adversaries 'to entrap him in what he said'. The present ruse is obvious. By and large the Pharisees were anti-Roman while the Herodians (supporters of the dynasty of Herod) were pro-Roman. The question of the legitimacy of paying taxes to Rome was a lively one for Jesus' contemporaries. Jesus is faced with a dilemma: Is it lawful to pay... or not?' If he were to answer 'yes' he would lose the esteem of the people and be discredited as a traitor to the Jewish cause of independence from Rome. If he were to answer 'no' he could be denounced as fomenting rebellion - Rome regarded refusal to pay taxes as tantamount to rebellion.

Jesus cleverly evaded the trap by asking his questioners for a denarius, the Roman coin used to pay the poll- tax (the tax in question here). They promptly produced one. He had scored a point: they, ostensibly so concerned about the implication of the tax, thereby conceded that they carried and used Caesar's money. By using Caesar's money, he implied, they tacitly accepted his imperial system and should be prepared to pay his taxes. Give back to him what is his: 'Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor's' Jesus went on to declare: 'and to God the things that are God's' He can hardly mean that there are some things that belong to Caesar and others which belong to God, as if reality were divisible into 'secular' and 'sacred.' What he means is that an obligation to Caesar stands under and is judged by a paramount obligation to acknowledge the sovereignty of the supreme Sovereign.

This classic pronouncement-story - it manifestly builds up to the pronouncement, the punch-line, of v 21 - offers no neat solution to the question of Church-State relations. The legitimate state has rights and the good citizen will respect them. For the Christian there may come a time when one must hearken to the supreme Sovereign rather than to the state. Jesus has given a principle but, like so much of his teaching, it has to be lived out in situations that are not at all clear. Christians, and the church, must, so often, be content to live with uncertainty.

In 22 23-33 the Sadducees poured ridicule on the 'new-fangled' doctrine of the resurrection of the body. Jesus pointed out that they were mistaken on two counts: in their interpretation of the Pentateuch and in their failure to understand the power of God who is capable of achieving something beyond human imagining and, in particular, make resurrection life something different from and higher than life in this world. Jesus, in fact, presented the current more sophisticated (as opposed to the popular) notion of the resurrection. Paul's teaching in 1 Cor 15:35-50 is a good formulation of the same view.

In Mt 22:34-40 there is a third attempt to 'entrap Jesus in what he said' (22:15). By rabbinical count, the 'law' comprised 613 commandments, thus providing the scribes with the question about the greatest commandment. The aim of the question addressed to Jesus was to have him commit himself on a much-debated topic and thus make it possible for the 'crowds' (21:46) to be divided about him. Evading the trap, Jesus pinpointed as the greatest commandment what is not, strictly speaking, a commandment at all but rather the 'soul' of all the commandments: the love of God.

In reply to his questioner Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:4-5, the heart of the Shenta, a prayer recited, morning and evening, by observant Jews. But Jesus did not stop there. He went on to make this 'abstract' commandment very concrete and practical by quoting also Lev 19-18: 'you shall love your neighbour as yourself.' What is new is not the bringing of these commandments together but the making them of equal weight and importance. What is more, Jesus declared (v 40) that all the laws of the Old Testament and all the preaching of the prophets - the whole of God's revelation - 'hang upon' these two commandments as upon a double peg. Jesus did not spell out the relationship between the two commandments. He left if for a Paul (Rom 13:8-10) and a John (Jn 13:34) to show that, in fact, they are not two commandments but one: the love of God in the love of one's neighbour.

Style of Authority 23:1-12

Conflict between the Jewish authorities and Jesus is well documented in the gospels. But Matthew 23 is something special. As it stands, it is an indictment of Pharisaic Judaism painfully reflecting the bitter estrangement of church and synagogue towards the close of the first century AD. What we have here is the thoroughgoing rejection of Pharisaic Judaism by Matthew and his community. This accounts for the disturbing harshness of the Matthean Jesus' tirade. It should be recalled that the earliest Matthean community saw itself as an exclusive reform movement within Judaism and regarded itself as more observant than the Pharisees. This explains the otherwise surprising statement: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe what they tell you but not what they do' (23:2-3). It is an echo from that first period when the Matthean group saw itself as going beyond Pharisaism in meticulous observance of Torah. At the later stage it could be read as a barb aimed at Christian leaders guilty of hypocrisy. Indeed, the passage 23:1-2 does envisage Christian leaders.

The point Matthew makes in this passage is that the Christian leaders of his community are to avoid the rabbinic style. After nearly two millennia of ecclesiastical practice it makes s^d reading. We are at once faced with the difficulty that in vv 2-3 the Matthean Jesus acknowledges the legitimacy of Pharisaic teaching authority and urges compliance with whatever the Pharisees teach and command. Elsewhere, Matthew has firmly rejected Pharisaic teaching (15:1-20; 16:1-12) and, in our chapter, he rejects their practices in vv 5-10 and their teaching in vv 16-20. As it stands, chapter 23 is an indictment of Pharisaic Judaism painfully reflecting the bitter estrangement of church and synagogue towards the end of the first century AD. Yet, Matthew instances scribes and Pharisees as the negative side of Christian leadership.

The Pharisees are criticised because their interpretation of the law takes little or no account of human frailty and tends to be more severe than humane (v 4). They are people who make custom their dictator, vanity and ostentation their life-style. Showing off, parading piety, enjoying the limelight, insisting upon places of honour -these are forms of play-acting, incredible performances in the name of religion (vv 5-7). How painfully representative of ecclesiastical style, even to our day. Happily, it is taking something of a beating. But is there really any justification for silly titles and bizarre garb. Matthew's word to leaders in his community is: you must remember that you are servants of the community. You must avoid the titles 'rabbi', 'father', 'teacher.' The title Rabbi - literally, 'my great one' - would sit incongruously on one who is 'slave' of the community. Nor is any to be addressed as 'teacher' - practically the same as 'rabbi'. Already, by Matthew's day, religious leaders were seeking to be 'real' leaders! True religion as taught and exemplified by Jesus is a family-of-God affair, characterised by simplicity, affection, brother/sisterhood (vv 8-12). What he was insisting on - and this is what his followers were meant to be aware of - was that the teacher is the minister and servant of God's word to the people. There is only one Father, God, and all people are brothers and sisters. There ought not be an insistence on privilege and on exercise of power that distorts this relationship.

Seven Woes 23:13-36

The seven woes might be paraphrased: Woe to you scribes and Pharisees; you are hypocrites: externally strict observers of the law; inwardly corrupt. Woe to you:

because you shut the door of the kingdom of heaven and prevent people from entering.

because you travel over sea and land to win one convert - and then make him a bigger hypocrite than yourselves.

because you say: to swear by the Temple gold is binding - not an oath by the Temple! To swear by the gift on the altar is binding -not an oath by the altar! Surely, the altar is greater than the gift, the Temple greater than its gold! And one who swears by the Temple is swearing by the One who dwells there.

because you tithe the most insignificant of garden herbs - and ignore the real matters of the Law: justice, mercy, faith. You legalists: straining out gnats and gulping a camel!

because you cleanse the outside of cup and dish, and leave the inside full of robbery and self-indulgence - very images of yourselves!

because you are like whitewashed tombs: outwardly upright; inside full of hypocrisy and crime.

because you venerate the martyred prophets - you sons of their murderers! Finish off what your fathers began - by murdering the Son of Man!

The holy city had rejected the eschatological - the last - prophet (23:37-39). There is no recovery from this rejection - there will be no other prophet. The people of Israel will encounter their rejected Messiah next time on the day of judgment. Then they will recognise him - but too late. Israel had had its chance and had failed. In view of the 'woes' and the awesome declaration of 27:25 (seen as fulfilment of the word of 23:35-36) one must be alert to the whole of the New Testament message and, above all, sensitive to the startlingly new teaching of Jesus. Not only later Christians, but New Testament Christians, too, found it hard, or impossible to live up to his ideal. His challenge still rings out to all who will listen. The God of Jesus is ever the Father of infinite love, of unbounded forgiveness.

Judgment Sermon 24-25

When Matthew wrote his gospel (around 90 AD) the Jerusalem temple had long been destroyed (in 70 AD). If he nevertheless gives a prediction of its end and an outline of the sufferings of the Jewish war (66-70 AD) it is because he hopes that he can thereby help Christians to respond adequately to their present difficulties. The first part of Matthew's eschatological discourse (24:1-36) follows Mark 13 very closely - though with typical modifications. Jesus had spoken a word against the temple in 23:38. Now as he leaves it he speaks plainly of its total destruction (24:1-2). Then, seated on the Mount of Olives, he turns to the group of disciples.

The topic of interest in their question (24:3) is not the end of the temple but the time of the Lord's parousia and the end of the world. Jesus does not answer the question directly; instead he starts to warn of the 'birth pangs' - a traditional term to express the view that the messianic age would come to birth amidst a period of woes. It will be a time of false prophets and pseudo-messianic claimants. War and famine denote the Jewish war but, in apocalyptic style, point beyond to the cosmic events to come.

The next stage figures in vv 9-14 - the tribulation of the church: suffering coming from without and from within. A hostile world will deliver up the disciples to death: Christians will be hated and persecuted because of the name - the person - of Jesus. More dreadful is the prospect of betrayal and apostasy fostered by mischief-making prophets. All is not lost; some will endure faithfully to the end and win salvation. They are those who, in face of troubles from within and from without, will steadfastly proclaim 'the good news of the Kingdom', the good news of the triumphant coming of God's reign. Only with this universal proclamation of the Gospel will the end be at hand.

False messianic claimants and false prophets must have been a bother for Matthew's church because they emerge again to heighten the alarming picture of the last days (24:23-28). These false prophets may make appeal to the Christ of their own desire and imagining but there is the comfort that they will not succeed in leading astray faithful Christians. There will be challenges, too, from messianic and esoteric circles outside the Christian body. But when the Son of man comes it will be as suddenly and as visibly as a bolt of lightning. Thus any who claim secret knowledge of the time of his coming must not be listened to.

The question of 24:3 is answered: the parousia of the Son of man and the close of the age will follow immediately on the great tribulation (24:29-31). The cosmic signs which accompany the parousia are part and parcel of Jewish apocalyptic descriptions of the Day of the Lord. The Son of man will come in glory, riding triumphantly on the clouds of heaven. With supreme authority, but with gra-ciousness, the Son of man will gather his elect - they belong to him. This gathering will be the last task of his angels, those 'ministering spirits, sent out to serve those who are to inherit salvation' (Heb 1:14).

Watchfulness 24:36-25:46

The tone of the second part of the discourse (24:36-25:46) is emphatically that of moral exhortation. It opens with three short parables on vigilance (24:36-44). Some Christians were overeager for the parousia (24:36) while others were indifferent to it or were leading lives of careless unreadiness. They are warned that judgment is imminent. A carefree business-as-usual attitude was typical of the contemporaries of Noah; what they were doing was not wrong in itself but they had no thought of God. The end was sudden and unexpected and their heedlessness left them unprepared. People will be judged as individuals and not in batches (24:40-41). Two men (or two women) will not necessarily share the same judgment simply because they work at the same occupation. One will be taken, the other left (as one was taken aboard the ark, for salvation, another left behind, for destruction). Warning of the return of Jesus like a thief in the night prepares for the moral: 'You must be prepared in the same way.' The theme of the future soft-footing into the present like a burglar is present elsewhere in the New Testament (1 Thess 5:2,4; 2 Pet 3:10). The only preparation possible, the only preparation necessary, is our constant care to live in the light and love of the Lord made man for us. When Matthew wrote his gospel, the old Israel was already destroyed. This did not mean that the church can now forget about judgment. But judgment will not be as dramatic as in the majestic scene of Matthew 25. The second coming is a powerful statement of the completeness of God's saving plan for humankind. Alertness is all the more emphasised because this evangelist has a develope consciousness of the length of time which must elapse before the 'coming'. Hence the warnings to the lukewarm and the demand for watchfulness.

The three short parables of watchfulness are followed by three longer ones. The first (24:45-51) is aimed specifically at church leaders. They are urged to be prudent and faithful in their caring for the community. The temptation is that the leader who lacks a sense of urgency will forget that he is a servant and begin to lord it over others. For Matthew the 'hypocrites' are the Jewish leaders. The unfaithful Christian leader is no better than they and will come under a like condemnation.

The parable of the ten maidens is proper to Matthew (25:1-13). The introductory formula does not, of course, mean that the kingdom be directly compared to ten maidens. It is shorthand for: 'It is the case with the kingdom of heaven as with ten maidens...' The final coming of the kingdom may be likened to the whole situation about to be described.

It would seem that the ten girls wait at the bridegroom's house to greet, formally, the bridegroom when he comes with his bride after a night-time wedding. The cry, 'Lord, Lord' of the foolish ones (v 11) echoes the 'Lord, Lord' of 7:21 - of those who are not doers of the word. And the reply of 'the Lord' in each case is the same: 'I never knew you' (7:23); 'I do not know you' (25:12). The parable stresses constant watchfulness (even though all the girls fall asleep for a time, even those who are admitted to the wedding feast!) In a broader sense, it points to the seriousness of our relationship with God. This is something each person must possess for oneself; nobody else can fashion it for one. It is something each one must work at and live during one's lifetime; one cannot borrow it at the last moment. It is of vital importance because it is really a statement of how one sees oneself and the meaning of one's life.

The Talents 25:14-30

In 25:1-13 Matthew had dealt with the delay of the parousia (a parousia that will happen in its time, 24:48-51). Now he goes on to explain what it means to be watchful or ready during the delay. It is to be faithful to the Lord's instructions and to carry them out, energetically, with all our God-given ability. We are not to sit back, arms folded, quietly waiting for the Lord. The time of waiting is meant to be filled by our deeds of love.

The 'talent' entrusted to the servants is the largest currency unit of the time. (Precisely because of this parable the word 'talent' has taken on its familiar metaphorical meaning). The first two servants by industrious trading doubled the respective amounts received. The third, a man afflicted with 'prudence', carefully hid his money. With his 'after a long time' (v 19) Matthew denotes the delay of the parousia. The Lord ('master' is ho kyrios) returned and held a reckoning. The first two servants are congratulated and rewarded for their enterprise and fidelity. The reward of faithful and profitable service is greater responsibility and an acceptance into a more intimate relationship with the Lord. Though their responsibility had been unequal (five talents and two talents) their reward is the same (vv 21, 23): what matters is wholehearted commitment, not accomplishment.

The third servant receives blame and condemnation - because he had done nothing. He had been too 'prudent' to take a risk. Punishment is for disuse rather than abuse of what had been entrusted. The servant's characterisation of the Master as 'a harsh man' betrays his manner of imaging God (quite like that of the elder son of Luke's parable: 'all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command' - Lk 15:29). One who images God so will strive to live within 'safe' legal parameters, will take no risk. The others had the confidence and the freedom to 'trade' (vv 16-17).

Matthew would seem to be warning Christian leaders who portrayed God as an exacting taskmaster to the detriment of his loving Parenthood. The upshot is that the inactive servant loses everything. Likely, v 29 was originally a cynical proverb to the effect that the rich get richer and the poor poorer. In its present context it refers to human response to God's gift. One whp commits oneself will receive generously; one who is ungenerous and selfish will end up losing what little one has. The warning is clear: a Christian who will not 'do' one's faith must face a bitter reckoning.

The Judgment 25:31-46

This is Matthew's great scene of the Last Judgment. In it the Son of Man is emphatically a King who sits in judgment. Perhaps largely through the influence of this passage the image of Christ as Judge has had a profound impact on Christian tradition - an unhappy impact. This image of Christ is far from being the dominant one in the New Testament. And, even in our passage, when one looks closely, it will be seen that judgment is 'auto-judgment': we judge ourselves by our omissions or our deeds. It is not so surprising that there has been concern with the King and the Judge: that drew attention from a disturbing factor. Properly understood, the passage is subversive of ecclesiastical system; it is a denial of the label 'Christian' to any church not characterised by loving concern for the poor. It underlines the fact that if Christ is King, his kingdom, his manner of kingship, is not of this world (see Jn 18:36).

In the parables of chapters 24-25 Matthew had summoned to watchfulness, to readiness, to faithfulness. Now, in 25:31-46 he spells out what it means to be watchful and ready and faithful. It means being able to recognise the Son of Man in all those in need, to be loving towards the Son of Man in those in need, to translate this love into deeds of concern. There is the yardstick and by it one is measured. On performance of or on neglect of these works of mercy hang salvation.

Rightly to appreciate this passage one must understand that it is retrospective. Matthew has in mind how Jesus comported himself -how he related to people. What Jesus did and said becomes the standard of judgment. He had come, a human being, into our human history, to tell us of the Godness of God. Jesus taught and lived that the reality of God is revealed in the realisation of more humanity between fellow human beings - giving drink to the thirsty, feeding the hungry, welcoming the stranger. Matthew's story of judgment is focused on purely human concerns. But these are God's concern: 'Come, you blessed of my Father.' The emphasis is on the needy person, the one in distress. What is at stake in this last judgment is our attitude towards the little ones, the humble and the needy. The criterion is not the standard of religion or cult. It is,, starkly: has one helped those in need.

The scene is vivid. Mixed flocks of (white) sheep and (black) goats were a common sight in Palestine. Here sheep and goats separate for final blessing or curse. The King of the heavenly kingdom sits in judgment on his people. The good works of w 34-36 are the traditional 'corporal works of mercy' and the elect have performed these works. Their surprise, their amazement, is in being told by the king that they had been done 'to me'. Astounded, they ask: 'When?... when?... when?' The answer is Jesus' solemn attestation of his total identification with the poor and outcast arid oppressed. It might seem, at first sight, that this Matthean scene has nothing specifically Christian about it. But when we realise that nothing less than the comportment of Jesus himself is the yardstick of judgment, we can see how thoroughly Christian it is. And this is so even though it embraces 'all the nations' - all people without distinction (25:32).

The truth is that the King who is Judge of all is the crucified King and he is met in every one who suffers. It is because they had failed to understand Jesus' identification with the suffering that the 'goats' had failed to minister to him and serve him. They had not loved the poor in concrete deeds of mercy. This Jesus, the crucified one, is the Son of man who utters judgment - but what kind of judgment is this? He is the one who identifies himself with the lowly -with all the daughters and sons of men. He is the loving and living expression of God's concern for humankind. A God bent on humankind, and nothing short of that, becomes the standard of our concern for those in need. That is why just this concern is the criterion of judgment. That is why the words of warning sound so harshly: 'Depart from me, you cursed. '

Straightway: a problem. Can one, as a Christian, really believe that the suffering Jesus on the cross who in Luke's passion-story prayed: 'Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they do' (Lk 23:34) could, as risen Lord, declare in awful judgment: 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire'? Matthew, it seems (25:41) would have us think so. That such is really his intent becomes incredible when we understand that the 'they' of Luke's text embraces all who brought Jesus to death. Jesus prays forgiveness for the obdurate chief priests and their allies. Luke is suggesting that even perpetrators of evil never really appreciate God's goodness or the strange wisdom of his purpose. Besides, we should see that seeming irrevocable sentence against what we know of the God of the Old Testament and the New. He is the wondrously inconsistent God who 'grieves to his heart' that he had ever made this complicated, stubborn and treacherous human creature (Gen 6:5-8) - only to decide to put up with them hencefoth (Gen 8:21); she is the God whose mother-heart recoils at the prospect of losing Ephraim (Hos 11:8); he is the God who desires the salvation of all (1 Tim 2:40); he is the God who did not spare his own Son (Jn 3:16). Surely Jesus would have us believe that his God and ours loves us with divine love that is beyond our human imagining.

Still, what are we to make of Matthew's Last Judgment? We are to understand it as myth. Myth is a symbolic form of expression couched in narrative which is not intended to be historical. It deals with realities which transcend experience - in this case the reality of definitive encounter with God.

In effect, the 'last judgment' is warning: it primarily relates to one's conduct in the present. One is challenged to live in such a way that, should it occur, one would not be caught unawares. We are being taught how we should prepare for the 'coming' of the Lord, prepared for our meeting with him. The 'last judgment' is taking place in my life here and now. The 'books' are being written. But, has my name 'been written in the book of life since the foundation of the world' (Rev 17:8)? There is the true judgment.

As a closing comment, I like, and have made my own, a provocative word on the Matthean judgment scene: I believe - and I say this with some hesitation - that at the last judgment perhaps everyone will stand at the right-hand side of the Son of Man: 'Come all you beloved people, blessed of the Father, for despite all your inhumanity, you once gave a glass of water when I was in need. Come!'

Does that seem outrageous? I do not think so. That man of Nazareth, who went about doing good, who died on a cross because he had espoused the cause of human freedom - he will not have us see God as an inflexible judge. He would have us see the tears of a God who weeps in concert with human woe.