Old and eternally valid truths are being bent, broken and adapted to the new zeitgeist. What this can look like is shown again by a strange interpretation of a parable by Jesus Christ on the part of the Church of Rome.
Inhalt / Content
Leading away from the truth
The Vatican is again doing its “best” to lead people, primarily Catholics, away from God’s actual path of salvation and to lead them directly astray. The language is about a “redemption of the human family” and an absence of God’s judgment. The unspeakable ritual of the Eucharist (Info) every Sunday is the expression of this.
In Vatican News, Dean Pastor Kurt B. Susak from Davos, Switzerland, uses a completely unhinged view of a parable of Jesus Christ. However, that is the program, because as usual, this topic was taken up at the same time on social media by the Jesuits of Central Europe, with the question to the readers as to how this parable of the vineyard should be interpreted for today’s perspective.
The Parable of the Vineyard
The parable of the vineyard in Matthew 21:33-46 has the same meaning today as it did around 2,000 years ago. Probably in order not to endanger their own point of view, neither the dean nor the Jesuit order did not even mention the last two verses of this parable, but simply omitted them. Because the actual meaning of the parable presented by Jesus Christ is easy to recognize in this.
The dean, apparently equipped with a “ghostwriter”, immediately begins with the claim that Jesus Christ summed up: “But what good is faith if it bears no fruit?” A very interpretable statement. Because this representation implies that if there is no fruit, faith is in vain and the Church of Rome always speaks only of “faith”, but regularly fails to define “faith” more precisely. Believe in what? Faith in the gospel as it is written would be the only right way. But this is hardly the intention of the Roman Catholic Church. She places her own catechism and traditions above the Bible. Matthew 21:43 actually says:
“Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.“
The parable briefly described
The parable of Jesus Christ is specifically about the kingdom of God and this is represented as the vineyard. The people assigned to this vineyard are supposed to work for the richest possible yields. The master of the house, the owner of the vineyard, means God. At harvest time, He first sent His servants (prophets, apostles) to receive the fruits. The workers beat and killed the servants. This happened twice. Then the master of the house sent his son (Jesus Christ). The workers recognized him as the heir and killed him too, hoping to take possession of the vineyard.
Jesus Christ asked the Pharisees present what the master of the house would do against these workers. The Pharisees replied that the master of the house would kill the workers and entrust the work of the vineyard to other people. Jesus Christ answered, Matthew 21:42-44:
“ Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.“
Jesus Christ is the cornerstone
The cornerstone is Jesus Christ himself. Just as He is also the cornerstone of the (spiritual) temple. The actual essence of this parable is easily understandable in verse 45, which was omitted by the dean:
“And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.“
History confirms the parable
With verse 45 there is no need for any “interpretations” of this parable, because it is self-explanatory. The Pharisees are the (lead) workers who did not fulfill their original mission to prepare the kingdom of God. They killed the prophets and also apostles of God. Jesus Christ experienced the same fate. The spokesman for the accusation against the Son of God was the Pharisee and high priest Caiaphas. Three and a half years after the crucifixion of Jesus, the Pharisees stoned the apostle Staphanus and with the conversion of the former Pharisee Saul, subsequently called Paul, the gospel also went to the Gentile nations.
Misguided interpretations
While the Jesuit order uses this parable “from today’s perspective” to create a fairness in the distribution of goods, Dean Susak in Vatican News associates it with the worldwide persecution of Christians.
However, Susak also describes the actual background of the parable of the vineyard. It is a description of God’s dealings with the “people of the Old Covenant”. The many attempts to get the people to produce fruit failed. With this parable, Jesus describes the “greed of the temple aristocracy.” This does not serve God, is corrupt and only serves self-preservation.
An explanation that certainly applies when looking at this aspect.
Was God mistaken?
However, the dean then goes into a tailspin. He questions why God the Father sent His Son. Why did the Word of God walk among us as a man? In the parable, the vineyard owner still hoped that the workers would have respect for his son. However, the landlord was mistaken. “Yes, was God the Father, the Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, as we confess in the Creed, wrong?” was the dean’s question. Could Jesus’ death have simply been an accident “because God underestimated man’s self-righteousness and wickedness?”
God will not punish, but redeem
Susak draws a connection to the prophet Isaiah, chapter 5. In it the vineyard is clearly described as the people of Israel and it bears no fruit. It will be torn down. At this point the dean asks himself why God felt the need to give up His own son and let him die when this had already been announced centuries before. “Couldn’t God have carried out his mighty judgment directly on God-forgotten humanity?” said Susak.
God could have done it that way, but He didn’t, the dean concluded. The explanation for this is that God is not primarily concerned with punishment, but with our salvation. Susak finds the reason for this in the statement of the Pharisees in the parable of the vineyard. It was the Pharisees who replied that the master of the house would bring about an evil end for the evil people. This was a suggestion from the Pharisees and not from Jesus Christ.
“However, God’s plan does not provide for punishment, but rather for redemption“, wrote the dean.
This statement is not a misinterpretation, but rather an unvarnished untruth. It would have been correct to say that it is God’s desire to redeem every person, but His judgment will definitely come.
God gave His Son because He went to “the utmost” to fight for every soul. According to the dean, the vineyard owner did not destroy the workers, but rather left them alive. This statement is not contained in the parable at all and could easily be refuted by looking at the Old Testament and the numerous punishments imposed on the “vineyard workers”.
Today, the faithless vineyard workers are left without mercy and without the kingdom of God, said the dean.
The Eucharist is the presence of redemption
At this point, Susak builds a bridge to the Eucharist. This is the “representation of the event of redemption that the people of God of the new and eternal covenant celebrate Sunday after Sunday.” The church recognizes in the death on the cross and the resurrection of Jesus Christ “the sacrifice of the redemption of the human family.” Finally, his remarks are followed by “complaining” about the extensive exodus from the church and possible measures to avert this.
No trace of justice
Just as love cannot be separated from God, neither can God’s justice be separated. But the justice of God is regularly suppressed by the Roman Catholic Church as well as by the (former) Protestant churches (Info). “God is love,” is the entirely correct statement, but no one wants to know anything about His eternal justice (Psalm 119:142). For justice implies judgment that occurs and what cannot be cannot be.
How could one tell people about “guaranteed salvation” if there was still a court?
The dean suppresses the justice of God and straight up says that a judgment was not intended by God at all. By the way, he also suppresses the necessary sacrifice of Jesus Christ based on His bloodshed in order to create the (legal) possibility of being able to exercise mercy despite maintaining justice. No, it was neither a coincidence nor a wickedness of people that God “underestimated”. It was a plan of salvation that was established before the creation of the world and was announced by God in Genesis 3:15.
The judgment is certain
According to the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, the bloodshed of Jesus Christ was not necessary for the salvation of every single person (not the human family).(Info). In doing so, they deny the necessary sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Today, in the spirit of ecumenism, the narrative must be established that people are definitely on the safe side if they simply “believe” and get baptized. This also happens across the board on the part of churches that call themselves Protestant. There would be no court, so the – it is what it is – lie.
A single verse is enough to provide clarity, Hebrews 9:27:
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Bible verses from King James Version
