HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR
Part XXVII Matthew
Sukkoth, Jewish Thanksgiving Day
Matthew Shifts the Emphasis from Crops to Converts; From Harvest to Judgment
Our study last week has helped to make it obvious, I hope, that Matthew borrowed many of the symbols of the Jewish harvest celebration, Sukkoth, and transferred them to the story of Jesus’ passion which came to be associated with and located in the Passover season. This means that what were originally harvest stories had to be moved to the spring of the year, the time of planting. One of those transferred symbols was the “Lulab,” the bundles of leafy branches that were carried in the right hand of the worshipers and waved in procession as the people shouted the words of Psalm 118: “Hosanna in the Highest, blessed is the one who comes in the Name of the Lord.” Christians recognize that as the tradition of Palm Sunday, the Sunday before the crucifixion.
The second symbol of Sukkoth was the Ethrog (pronounced E-trog), a small container into which the flower, the leaves of the citron tree, as well as the fruit and perhaps even the zest of the citron itself, were enclosed. Christians see in this symbol a connection between the “sweet-smelling spices” in the ethrog, and those spices the women were supposed to have carried to the tomb of Jesus on Easter morning.
The third Sukkoth symbol was that of a temporary shelter erected outside or near one’s house, designed to symbolize those years when the Hebrew people were homeless wanderers in the wilderness between Egypt and what they believed was their “promised land.” In this temporary shelter, called a “booth” or a “tabernacle,” the people were to conduct one symbolic meal during the eight days of the Sukkoth celebration. Some have suggested that this temporary dwelling place was brought into the crucifixion story as the tomb of Jesus, provided by one known as Joseph of Arimathea, who was, until this episode, unheard of and unmentioned in any Christian writing. Certainly Joseph’s tomb was designed to be “a temporary dwelling place.” There may be another reference to this temporary dwelling place in a resurrection story that Luke alone relates on the road to Emmaus, where Jesus, unrecognized, presides over a ceremonial meal in a place to which Cleopas and his companion have turned off the road to find temporary shelter for the night.
With so many Sukkoth symbols deployed elsewhere in his gospel narrative, what then is Matthew going to do to relate Jesus to the harvest season of the Jewish liturgical year? We turn to the text of Matthew to find out. First, we note Matthew’s dependence on the liturgical calendar of the Jews. The three great fall observances of the month of Tishri in the Jewish calendar follow quickly one upon the other. Rosh Hashanah is celebrated on Tishri 1. Matthew observed that by re-introducing John the Baptist and having Jesus claim for himself the signs of what the prophet Isaiah said were to mark the Kingdom’s arrival. Those signs were that the blind would see, the deaf hear, the lame leap and the mute sing (Isa. 35). Matthew’s Rosh Hashanah story is then quite clear and he covers it in chapter 11 of this gospel.
Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, was observed on the tenth day of Tishri and Matthew related Jesus to Yom Kippur with appropriate Yom Kippur stories in chapter 12. Here Jesus refers to Jonah, the prophet regularly read at Yom Kippur. The sin of Jonah was to assume that God’s love was limited to those that Jonah loved. Here Jesus also defines what he calls “the unforgiveable sin.” It is that sin of confusing good with evil, so that one calls evil what God calls good. Matthew has thus covered Yom Kippur fully and in exactly the right order.
Sukkoth was the next observed festival in the Jewish calendar. It was an eight-day celebration that started on the 15th day of Tishri and concluded on the 22nd. Right on schedule, Matthew arrives at Sukkoth at the beginning of chapter 13. He then fills that chapter with stories of the harvest. That is not a coincidence. Matthew’s organizing principle is the liturgical year of the synagogue. There is a shift, however, of significant note in the way he treats Sukkoth. The harvest Matthew describes in chapter 13 is a harvest not of the fruits of the earth, but of converts to the Christian movement. The harvest itself is even identified with the Day of Judgment at the end of the world. If we are to understand this part of Matthew’s gospel there are two things we must immediately embrace. First, these parables are not the creation of, nor were they ever uttered by, the Jesus of history. They reflect, rather, the themes of the times when Matthew was writing, some 55 years after the crucifixion. Second, in this episode, it becomes abundantly clear that this gospel, like all the others, was not written to be understood or to be read literally. Literalism is a later developing Gentile heresy that greatly distorted the meaning of the gospels, based as they were on the Jewish scriptures, which the Gentiles did not understand.
The first harvest parable of chapter 13 is the familiar, but elaborate parable about “The Sower.” He sows his seed on the soil, but he appears not to have cared where he did his sowing. Some of the seed fell on hardened pathways. It could not take root and lay vulnerable and exposed on top of the ground. The birds came and devoured it. There was no harvest. Other seeds fell on rocky soil. Matthew did not mean by this land with lots of rocks on it, but rather soil thinly covering a vein of solid rock. These seeds rooted instantly in the thin soil, but when the roots encountered the rock, they could not reach water and so they were scorched by the sun and died. Again, there was no harvest. Still other seed fell on land filled with thorns. When these seeds sprouted, they were choked out by the thorns. Once more, there was no harvest. Some seed, however, fell on good land and those seeds brought forth grain in abundance.
This parable was followed by a long discussion on why Jesus taught in parables and what the hidden message of the gospels was and why it was that some could hear, but not understand.
Why, the disciples wondered, had the hearts of some people grown dull and their eyes dim? The church in Matthew’s time was clearly not growing well and he was seeking to explain why.
Then Matthew has Jesus explain the parable in elaborate, allegorical ways. The seed is the word of the Kingdom of God, Jesus says. That which falls on the pathways stands for those who have no roots. They simply lie on the surface of life until the devil comes and snatches them away. Other people are like the seed that falls on the thin soil covering rock. They hear with gladness and spring into life, but unable to reach water they shrivel and die. Still other people are like seeds planted among thorns. They are the ones who allow the cares of the world to choke off their response to God. Finally there are the faithful ones. They are like the seed, which falls on soil ready to receive it. They will bear the fruits of the Kingdom.
This is, obviously, a parable developed well after the life of Jesus was over. It was designed to explain the poor response the followers of Jesus were having with the spread of their message. These are not words that the Jesus of history could ever have uttered. The themes of the harvest have been shifted into themes for the cultivation of converts. Christians must prepare the soil into which they sow the seeds of the kingdom has become Matthew’s Sukkoth message.
Since this is an eight-day festival Matthew immediately has Jesus go into a second and similar harvest parable. This one is about a farmer who plants good seed in his field, but while he is asleep at night, an enemy sows the same fields with weeds. When the plants come up the wheat and the tares grow together. The farmer’s servants ask if they should go into the fields and remove the tares. The famer says no, for to do so would also destroy the wheat. So the farmer lets them grow together until the harvest. When the field is cut the separation of the wheat from the tares will take place. The wheat is stored and the tares are destroyed. Once more, the harvest is the day of judgment. The barns are the abode of the saved; the fires are the destination of the weeds. In the non-dualistic Jewish mind there is also the realization that good and evil can never really be separated. Evil is often the flip side, not the opposite of good. Good things can be used for evil purposes. Life is more complicated than many seem to notice.
In rapid succession Matthew then records a series of other harvest parables. The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, so tiny, so insignificant, yet it grows into the greatest of shrubs and even becomes a tree in which the birds of the air can nest. The birds are a symbol for the Gentiles. The Jewish tree would someday house Gentiles this parable was declaring. The kingdom of heaven is like the leaven in the bread. It is unseen and yet the loaf will not rise without it. It is like a treasure hidden in a field; one sells all that he or she has to buy that field. It is like “the pearl of great price;” everything else fades in value before it. It is like a great net let down from a boat in the sea catching good and evil things alike. Only at the day of judgment will the good and evil be separated.
This string of parables of the final harvest is now complete and so is the eight-day observance of Sukkoth. Matthew wraps up his Sukkoth chapter by having Jesus return to his home synagogue to teach the people. Astonished at his wisdom they begin to speculate and to enquire into the source of his knowledge. It could not have come from his parents, they insist. The father is a simple carpenter and his wife is named Mary. We know them is the implication; there is nothing special there. We know his brothers, they continue, and his sisters. They took offense at Jesus. When any poppy in a field raises its head above the others, it runs the risk of having that head chopped off. Into the harvest stories of Sukkoth, Matthew thus places the shadow of the cross. It is a beautiful story once we learn to read it with Jewish eyes.
John Shelby Spong
Read the essay online here.
Question & Answer
Anna Ross from Perth, Australia, writes:
Question:
Would you please state the "case" for the Jews not murdering Jesus? I am now, by my son's marriage, part of a large Jewish family and have become aware of the simmering prejudice against the Jews. I hear comments ranging from off the cuff comments at a dinner party, "Of course, the Jews did it," to the local Catholic priest reading St. John's gospel on Good Friday, where the claim is made that the Jews crucified Jesus. My experience in attending the Anglican Church leads me to expect the priest would then speak to the claim and explain some well understood theological arguments to the contrary, but no. I have read your book, Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Gospels with Jewish Eyes, but I find it hard to counter all the arguments that are raised when I try to bring some theological and historical common sense into this. I am preparing a letter, as strongly worded and to the point as I can make it, to send the priest which I would like him to receive before the next Good Friday. My very best wishes to you and your endeavors to save us from that pretzel mind.
Answer:
Dear Anna,
Religious prejudice dies hard no matter how ignorant it is. Christian anti-Semitism is one of those prejudices. Recall that the gospels were written 40-70 years after the death of Jesus and at a time when the Jews were being blamed for the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Roman army, which occurred in 70 CE at the climax of the Jewish-Roman war. In order for the Christians, who were also predominantly Jews (the Church did not separate from the Synagogue until about 88 CE or 58 years after the crucifixion), to escape being victims of this anti-Semitic fervor, they joined in and suggested that the same people who brought about the destruction of Jerusalem had also been instrumental in the crucifixion of Jesus.
The facts are that capital punishment was forbidden to the citizens of the conquered Jewish nation, so the Jews could not have crucified Jesus. The Romans were obviously the guilty ones, but if you seek their favor in order to escape their oppression at the end of a war, you accomplish that by finding a common enemy. The Jews were hated by the Romans so the Christians simply piled on. That is why the traitor bore the name of the entire Jewish nation and why the name of Judas was unknown to Paul, who wrote between 51 and 64 CE.
The gospels are funny. They argue that the death of Jesus was pre-ordained by God to bring about salvation and then say that the Jews are the guilty ones. That makes little sense. I go into this in much more detail in my book, Jesus for the Non-Religious.
Thanks for writing.
~John Shelby Spong
Announcements
"An Aging Maverick, Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong Has No Regrets"
By: David Gibson, Religion News Service
Read Here!
.
