标签： 主日证道

喜樂與希望的聖言
甲年常年期第廿八主日
瑪竇福音 22:1–14
Fernando Armellin神父的 講道

祝各位主日喜樂！

聖經時代的以色列社會，是由過著相當艱苦生活的牧羊人和農夫所組成的，他們只是普通人，不得不在山上大片佈滿石子的地裡勞作，因為地中海沿岸的沙龍（Sharon）大平原和厄斯德隆（Esdraelon）平原，都掌握在大地主手中。這些貧苦的農民本該得享自由，他們先要在石地裡開荒耕種；若要掙得一頓粗茶淡飯，養活自己與家人，就得頂著烈日，用最粗陋的工具長時間幹活。

這些“世上的窮人”也偶爾擺些筵席，但他們夢寐以求的盛筵，只有那些剝削窮苦工人的富人才辦得起。對“地上的窮人”而言，以色列歷史上曾有過一個充滿希望的時刻，正如聖經裡所稱呼他們的那樣。流亡以後，有幾批被擄到巴比倫的人，回到了猶大，回到以色列。當然，他們不是拿步高（Nebuchadnezzar）所流放的那一代，而是他們的子孫，子又生孫。因為拿步高沒有放逐老人，也沒有放逐患病者或跛足者；他只擄去了有一技之長的人——工匠，正是他們把巴比倫建造起來。那麼，回到祖先之地的人，究竟是些什麼人呢？是在美索不達米亞沒能積攢下錢財的人。當他們回到先祖的土地時，發現早已有人占住了。為了活命，他們只得去服事這些新主人，而這些新主人開始剝削他們，對他們百般虐待。
就在這樣的背景下，西元前五世紀，以色列興起了一位先知，受上主派遣，給這片土地上的窮人傳報希望的聖言。這位先知許下了什麼？眾人期盼的又是什麼？他們期盼社會有所改變，盼一個與他們嚮往相符的不同世界。先知用圖像來呈現上主將要引入的新實況。他該選什麼圖像來描繪這新世界？最能讓他們明白的，莫過於一場盛大的筵席。他們從未辦過盛筵，只能在夢裡見過。這正是本主日讀經一提到的先知許諾。先知宣告：萬軍的上主，要在耶路撒冷所在的那座山上，為萬民預備一場盛筵。他是這樣描述的：“在那裡要有美味的食物、醇酒、豐盛的佳餚……”聽的人揉揉眼睛，直搖頭，因為他們從來沒見過這樣的筵席。可是再說一遍：這筵席不是只留給以色列人的，而是一張為所有人擺開、向全體開放的桌子，因為這新世界要容納全人類。
自那預言之後，四個世紀過去了，什麼都沒變。世界仍和從前一樣：對世上的窮人而言，同樣的不義、同樣的苦、同樣的淚。他們忍不住問：“上主真要履行祂的話嗎？祂借先知之口許下的，難道不算數嗎？”然而以色列仍信靠上主的忠信，常說：“我們的天主言出必行；既已許諾，必會成就。”有一天，在窮人的土地上，納匝肋人耶穌出現了，使這預言應驗。筵席開始了，且聽：

“耶穌又用比喻回答他們說：‘天國好比一個君王，為自己的兒子擺設婚宴。’”

在以色列，人人都背得出我們方才說的那句預言，拉比們也常引用這許諾，存記在心。他們用這兩個世界來指稱它：一個是現今的世界，充滿苦楚與悲傷、眼淚與不義的世界——沒人喜歡的世界；另一個是未來的世界，或“來世”，那是要充滿喜樂、永恆筵席的世界。他們稱它為“大伊甸”，希伯來語意為“喜樂”，就是說“喜樂的樂園”。這原是屬於未來世界、“那另一個”世界才要實現的事。
但耶穌來了，說：這新世界決不是將來的事，天主的國就在此刻、在這現世實現了。因為天主決意要在這世界上擺設筵席。祂願意自己所有的兒女，在現世就得到喜樂；“那另一個世界”自會由天主照顧。天主的國要在這裡建成。耶穌呈上的這筵席圖像，是取自先知的，並非新造。我們知道，耶穌還用過別的圖像講天主的國。他說：天主的國好比一粒芥菜種子，從舊世界裡就開始，雖是微小的種子，卻大有力量。裡頭蘊著屬天的生命，發展開來，生出人意料、超乎尋常的事。耶穌也說：它像一塊田地，裡頭長著好莊稼，好麥子長得旺，但莠子也在，而且會一直都在。今天，耶穌給我們看的，是祂從先知書取來的那個圖像：天主的國是一場筵席，是一場婚宴。現在，我們要展開這圖像，好明白從先知書借來的這幅畫裡，究竟包著什麼含義。

首先，這是筵席，是盛筵。我們常悲戚地反問自己：我們跟隨基督、守祂福音，怎麼竟蒙上了一層“悲苦主義”的紗——仿佛人受的苦越多，在來世預備得越好。聖父派聖子來，單單是要為祂所有的兒女，築一個喜樂的世界。記得天使在耶穌誕生時說的那句話：他們向牧羊人宣告極大的喜樂。耶穌來到這世界，正是為了開啟這新世界。在舊世界裡，不可能有真正的喜樂。那裡有人吃飽擺宴，可四圍全是餓殍、病者、無家可歸的人，處在那樣的世界，人怎麼可能盡情歡笑、盡情喜樂？他們或許能嘗到放縱、昏醉、享樂、醉酒，但在舊世界裡，決不可能有真正的喜樂。耶穌對眾人說：“你若想嘗到喜樂，就必須答應那邀請，進天國之宴。”

我們要留意的第二件事：這筵席圖像裡的新世界，是個喜樂的世界，那麼，誰是這宴會的籌辦者？不是賓客。比喻說，是“一個君王”，明顯指天主。是祂在備宴。但還有一層：這是給所有人預備的免費筵席。宴會廳就是我們的世界，我們都是作為賓客來到這裡，發現宴廳早已為我們擺好。我們都是赴宴的人，沒有誰擁有這廳。古世界裡一切敗壞，都出自有人忘了自己只是客，竟扮起主人來。

天主為祂的兒女預備的，是一個美好的世界，不是“涕泣之穀”。凡維持生命所需的食糧，祂都已擺在他們手邊。有人忘了自己是客，以為拿到什麼就能隨意處置，像主人一樣，於是把市場的法則帶進來：價高者得，從交易裡牟利，讓自己富起來，越來越堆積貨財。這“我是主人”的謊言，一旦進到宴廳——也就是我們的世界——就生出傾軋、競爭、怨恨、戰爭。君王所備的婚宴，恰恰提醒我們一個真相：一切屬於天主，沒有一樣真是我們的。我們只是受託看管不屬於自己的財物；所有“我的、你的”這類佔有詞，都是謊話。一旦接納了“白白相贈”的邏輯，一切都變了。

於是，你把那糊口的餅，遞給急需的弟兄——這原是天主交給我們各人該得的食糧。我們受造本就這樣：為那份愛的關係，為與弟兄姐妹互換所需而被造，因為進到宴廳——進到我們這個世界——的人，同是有一位聖父的兒女。在天國邏輯裡，我不是“大方”才分一點給你的，而是把別人真正需要的都分出去，因為連我手裡的，也是要送給你們的恩賜。它本不屬於我；你手裡握著的一切，原是給急難者的。這來自“顧念他人所需”的邏輯，來自愛的邏輯，來自那孕育新世界的邏輯。

第三點：人在婚宴上，不會把自己關起來獨食。動物只要填飽自己的肚子，就心滿意足了。人不是被造成獨個兒吃飯的，而是為共融——為看著四圍的人都歡樂，自己才真歡樂。所以天主的國宴，不是亞毛斯先知所斥的那些貪饞之徒的吃喝，不是那些躺在象牙床上、歪在軟榻上，吃著羊群裡的羔羊，彈琴高唱，大杯灌酒，對窮人漠不關心，還靠榨取窮人發財之人的宴席。塞滿肚腹，不等於幸福。唯有接納新世界邏輯的人，才嘗得到這喜樂——那邏輯就是共融、手足般的分享、顧及他人，關心他們的悲愁、喜樂、失望與盼望。

從這宴席圖像裡，我們抓出的第四點，是彼此接納。進到宴廳——也就是我們這個世界——的有各樣的人：不同文化、不同民族、不同國家、不同語言。在宴席上，人因他的“不一樣”而被接納；一切不合天主國的，才被摒除。差異是豐富，不是裂痕。這“接納”的圖像，正是取自婚宴比喻。在新世界裡，每個人都帶著自己的長處和局限，被接進來。
此刻你可以問問自己：你接不接這邏輯？你還要照舊宴的脾氣繼續築這世界，還是答應那邀請，進到新世界裡？許多人想留在舊世界，獨自做那富宴中的食客。可是這樣的人，決不會真幸福。

比喻接著推出三組僕人，由他們去領人入宴。宴主是天主，祂要人人都來赴宴，也就是說，接納那新世界的邏輯。且聽：

“他打發自己的僕人，去召被請的人來赴婚宴，他們卻不肯來。他又派別的僕人去，說：‘你們對被請的人說：看，我的宴會已備好，我的牛犢和肥畜都宰了，一切齊備，來赴宴罷。’有人不理會，轉身就走，一個回自己的莊田，一個去做自己的生意。剩下的，揪住他的僕人，虐待一番，殺了。”

這比喻講的是一個“派遣”。備宴的君王，先後派出兩批僕人，先一批，後一批。這兩批人代表誰？他們去找的是些什麼賓客？他們代表上主先前派到亞巴郎子孫、到以色列人那裡的先知，向他們宣告默西亞要來，請他們接納那新世界——也就是耶穌所講天國宴席——的提議。但回應是否定的。拒絕這邀請的是誰？他們又代表誰？是以色列的精神領袖：經師、長老、大司祭，他們不聽先知的話，還自創了一套與先知所教不符的、和天主的關係。先知說過：上主不在乎祭獻、全燔祭、馨香，祂只要愛德的實行。這原是天主默西亞耶穌後來要擺的宴之前的鋪墊。他們卻拒絕這邀請，拒絕洗者若翰要他們悔改的話。為何拒絕？因為他們中意那為他們擺好的“自辦宴”：滿是人為的宗教行為、規矩和條文——正如耶穌說的，這些是壓在百姓肩頭扛不動的重擔。顯然，他們所教所講的那種與天主的關係，傳不出共融的喜樂；像迦納婚宴上沒酒的時刻。那裡只有取潔的石罐，裝的是他們那套宗教、條文、罪、潔淨禮。它沒給任何人帶來喜樂，是場老宴。可偏偏這種“熱心”讓那些精神領袖得意，他們喜歡那位“立法者兼判官”式的天主，只愛義人、只降福好人，絕不把恩澤給那些敢破戒、得罪祂的罪人。他們決不肯接受耶穌所呈現的那位天主——那位坐下來和稅吏、罪人一同吃飯的天主。

終於，那些精神領袖拒絕了邀請，對這新宴毫無興趣。要當心：耶穌時代的法利賽人死了，但“法利賽主義”還活著。今天，拒絕耶穌這宴的，可能就是我們——因為我們更愛那套由守禮、賞報、懲罰、功勞拼成的舊宗教。這種虔誠讓人安心，叫我們在天主前“感覺良好”，或者更准地說：覺得自己“有功績”，因為行了許多善工，理當受賞。這不是天國的宴，這還是法利賽人的宴。天國的宴，特徵是天主白白給我們的愛，以及我們流向眾弟兄姐妹的白白之愛。

現在，看看第二批使者出去找賓客時，發生了什麼。這批賓客不再是百姓的精神領袖，而是沉溺於物質事務的人。比喻裡提到了莊田和生意。就是說：指向那些投資置產的大地主，有農莊要照管、要走訪。讓他們滿意的宴，是那場“生意宴”、“積錢積貨宴”——他們不想被別種生活提議打擾。越縮進這物質宴裡，就越不肯接受那“不積財、只分享”的宴。他們想方設法延續這場宴：各人顧各人，能撈到就撈到，沒撈著？那你自己想辦法去！第二批人也拒了邀請，因為他們太清楚天國宴要人怎樣活：要人彼此無私地顧惜、分享。可他們自欺，以為用財富和享樂，就能填滿人心深處對無限喜樂的渴求——就像每個人心裡都有的那個空缺。有人對邀請不屑一顧，只繼續自己的宗教宴或物質宴。有人卻被這訊息刺得不舒服——正是那些執迷於物質宴的人，他們一眼就看出，耶穌這宴的邏輯，揭了他們那場宴的不義。使者若再叨叨兩句，他們就動手，用暴力叫人閉嘴、把人攆走。今日敢指斥這世上經濟宴、政治宴裡不義的先知，命運也是如此。

面對第二批的拒絕，君王怎麼辦？且聽：

“君王大怒，派自己的軍隊去，滅了那些殺人兇手，燒了他們的城。”

在介紹第三組僕人之前，我們讀到這段“燒城”的奇特插筆。且試著看懂它要說什麼。先注意：這節經文不屬於耶穌講的那則比喻本身，它打斷了敘述；你若把這句抽掉，立刻會發現——故事反而流得通順。再說，很難想像宴剛開始，中間插一場戰爭。仗打完了，菜還擺在桌上，客人等著打完再吃……這是瑪竇插進的一節，為點亮一段意義——關於大約十五年前那樁慘事：耶路撒冷城的毀滅。

初期教會的基督徒想知道：聖城怎會落得如此下場？他們用舊約的語言作答，說是“懲罰”。但舊約說“天主的懲罰”，到底是什麼意思？我們知道：人偏行己誤入歧途時，天主並不外加懲罰，也不給人添更多惡，舊約裡說“天主的懲罰”，指的是罪帶來的後果——是罪在罰人，有時還延到第三代、第四代，因為罪的後果向來是慘烈的。這語言今天不能直接搬用，因為它太古舊；我們必須轉譯、重整這圖像，讓現代人聽得懂。今天還講“天主的懲罰”，近乎褻瀆，因為我們這話的意思，早已不是聖經裡那層意思了——聖經那裡，只講“罪的後果”。今天的訊息可以翻成下面這句：誰若拒絕天國宴的邀請，誰就要對這世上持續的虐待、暴力、戰爭、毀壞負責。這不是天主的懲罰，而是要繼續走舊世界“競爭邏輯”的自食其果。而這後果，向來是慘烈的。以色列的罪，是拒了耶穌提出的“和平與仁愛世界”的提議，反倒揀了暴力。這罪的後果，就是那城被毀。這節經文用“天主懲罰”的古語，把罪的後果包裹起來講了。

這段插曲之後，耶穌的比喻隨著第三組僕人的派出，接下去。且聽：

“於是，他對自己的僕人說：‘宴已備好，但那些被請的人，配不來；婚宴已齊備，但賓客配不上。所以，你們到大路口去，凡遇著的，都請來赴宴。’僕人上街去，把碰到的都聚來，好壞不分，一併招進，大廳裡坐滿了客人。”

君王派第三批僕人，去請的是誰？不是顯貴，不是富人，不是熱心的司祭，也不是那些已經說過“不”的人。按希臘文，第三批被派到“街口交匯處”。街口交匯處是哪兒？就是市集廣場，他們就得往那兒去——常人聚集的地方：窮人在那兒，各色人等都在：老實商人、騙子、小偷、毒販。他們得去那兒，把進宴廳的邀請，送給所有這些被我們視為“外面的人”。所以他們走向窮人、被邊緣的、被人看不起的，走向稅吏、走向娼妓，走向所有的人——好壞都算，沒人不在這邀請之外。

那麼第三組僕人是誰？不再是向以色列人說話的先知。第三組，是那些被耶穌親自差出去的人——就是說，宗徒。而我們眾人，就是那些把生命交托給天主世界計畫的天使（使者）。要讓我們的使命有效、成功，先決條件是：我們自己得先嘗過進這宴的喜樂；得真接了天國的邏輯，並意識到它給我們喜樂、使我們幸福，給生活滿全的意義。有了這經驗，我們自然覺得非出去邀人不可——我們愛他們，願意他們也在宴廳裡嘗到這滋味。若沒有，若沒這迫切需要，就說明我們沒嘗過宴的喜樂，要麼就是不愛那些還在外面的人，覺得沒必要邀他們。宣報福音的迫切需要，是從愛裡生出來的。

在市集上，我們要碰的是什麼人？什麼都有：壞人，好人。有時我聽這些被派到市集傳邀請的天使——那些善良、慷慨、滿腔熱火的人——講他們的困惑：說他們不敢去，因為百姓對福音沒興趣。對宴筵沒興趣：“他們自己開過派對了，幹嘛去打擾？他們不聽我們的，還是些疏遠的人，有時還取笑我們……”對不敢出門的人，我總說：“這些在市集上的人，若早已在宴廳裡，納匝肋人耶穌就不會打發你們去邀了；正打發你們去，就因為那些人還在外面。”所以碰到沒受邀請的人，別大驚小怪，也別讀不懂耶穌這般美好的提議。

現在，試著想：我們在那廣場會遇見誰，會得什麼回答。先說一類：猶豫的人，不想立刻答應，不想換掉自己的宴，因為他們有自己的宴，還想再多享受一陣。這類人多半遲些會進來。好，我們耐著性子；提議已經遞出去了。也許還會碰見有人說：“我知道那宴是給來世的，所以眼下嘛，我繼續吃我的宴，等生命末了再進天國。”我們會對他說：“看哪，那就晚了；你連這輩子的喜樂機會都丟了，因為天主的國不是為‘以後’備的，而是耶穌要在‘這裡’築的世界。”他們或許不懂，但邀請已經發了，願他們答應，進這宴廳。當然，宴上也會有那種立刻進來、卻不是因為愛，只怕不下地獄的人——“不進就完了……”所以裡面會有不是因愛、是因怕才進的人。市集上也會有這種反應。但必定有人一聽就明白：天主的國是一場宴會，於是果斷進來，毫不遲延，因為不想錯過任何一刻擺上的喜樂。

要記住：進來的人不會立刻成全；他們沒完全接住宴的所有邏輯，仍帶著些可憐處和道德軟弱。常常，他們還被買賣交換的邏輯拴著，想偷偷再積一點；不會把一切交到弟兄手裡……耐住性子。天主的國裡有好麥，但也永遠有莠子。

比喻的結尾很動人。屋裡坐滿了人！全家都聚齊了，到處是斜倚而坐的人——這姿態象徵：不黏財物、不沾敗壞、不懷怨恨、不戀惡習。屋裡滿是人。沒少一個。所有兒女終有一日，要在這屋裡被接納。但他們先得接到那邀請。而能不能接得好，很大程度上看我們怎麼遞出這提議。我們若做得好，人不能被這新世界的提議吸引都難。

比喻本可在此落幕。但它沒這麼結束，接著來了一段像要掀翻一切的小插曲。且聽：

“君王進來會見客人時，看見一個人沒穿婚宴禮服。他對那人說：‘朋友，你到這裡來，怎麼不穿婚宴禮服？’那人啞口無言。於是君王對侍從說：‘把他的手腳綁起來，丟到外面黑暗裡去，那裡要有哀號和切齒。’被召的人多，被選上的人少。”

實話先講：這位君王的反應，讓我們一時說不出話。好像面對雙重人格：先前那麼慷慨、體恤困苦人的那位，現在為一樁小失禮，神經崩斷，冷硬到殘忍；我們幾乎認不出他了。顯然，這段和前面不連，對不上前面講過的調子。比喻本在“滿廳客人、主人與大家同宴”處收尾了。那怎麼還會有人沒穿禮服？人剛從市集來；若真穿著禮服，才奇怪哩。清清楚楚：這是又一則比喻，另一個小故事，要答一個已經浮出來的問題。浮出的問題是：光對邀請說“是”、人進到宴廳就算數了嗎——就是說，領了洗就算了？還是日後具體生活裡，得把所作的選擇活出來？瑪竇用一則新比喻，回答了這個問題。

聖史瑪竇為什麼要引入第二個比喻呢？因為當時他是對第一世紀末的團體講話，五十年過去了，自從逾越節事件以後，這些教會起初非常熱心，對福音說了“是”，進入了宴會廳，但過去幾十年後失去了熱情。許多基督徒又回到了與福音格格不入的外邦習慣，比如依附於這個世界的貨物。瑪竇作為靈魂的牧者，關心他們，因為他們正冒著喪失性命的風險。雖然他們已經領受了洗禮，卻又變得像先前那些拒絕邀請的人一樣。這就是瑪竇導入耶穌教導我們的、關於基督徒新禮服的比喻。

人一進到宴會廳，就是接納了天主的國，他必須穿上禮服。在聖經中，禮服代表人的道德生活，代表周圍人看待他的方式；比方說，他們可能穿著驕傲的禮服，或者穿著關懷他人的禮服，或是穿著慷慨的禮服。保祿在新約中一再重申：人進入宴會廳，就是進到天主的國，因此他必須穿上基督。凡遇見他的人，必須把他看作主的門徒，並在他身上認出救主，因為他們穿著相同的禮服。我們想知道：納匝肋人耶穌所穿的禮服是怎樣的。如同若望記述的那樣，讓我們回到最後晚餐時所發生的事。在最後晚餐時，耶穌脫去自己的外袍，只留下纏腰布。這是當時猶太人的穿著方式，他們用纏腰布、內衣、外袍層層遮蓋自己。耶穌脫去外袍，只留纏腰布在身，這正是奴僕所穿的服裝，因為祂開始以奴僕的身份服事，去給門徒洗腳。

那件纏腰布，就是耶穌作為僕人所穿的服裝。耶穌的真門徒，就是蒙召去服事、成為自己弟兄的僕人，時常準備好答應那些向他尋求幫助的人提出的請求。那些有需要的人就是主人，門徒必須時常穿著這件禮服。在天國的婚宴上，新郎是基督，新娘是基督徒團體，必須穿上禮服，穿上與新郎相同的禮服，就是奴僕的禮服。在那些不接受這奴僕禮服的人身上，會發生什麼呢？這裡有救主所說的幾句嚴厲的話：“把他的手腳綁起來，把他扔到外面的黑暗裡去，在那裡要有哀號和切齒。”讓我們留心這話，這話與拉比們所說的話相契合。正如瑪竇對絕大多數基督徒所說的那樣，他們都是猶太人，因此他們很理解他，這就是拉比想要激發他們良心的方式。在這裡，瑪竇想要動搖他們的良心，因為這些基督徒處於回到外邦服裝的風險中。這就是為什麼他要用拉比的語言。也有“哀號和切齒”以及“黑暗”的表達，這些表達只有在瑪竇福音中才能找到。

讓我們試圖翻譯這些拉比們的圖像。耶穌想要對那些答應祂的人說什麼呢：“你們要小心，要接受這僕人的行為，如果你不接受宴會的邏輯——就是要分擔、服事你的兄弟姐妹——你就離了這個宴會。”在那些離開的人身上發生了什麼？他們留在舊世界、充滿競爭的社會中，因此，他們就處於一個不是伊甸園式的社會，而是地獄般的社會中，那個社會是不人道的。沒必要為此提供證明。我們的社會產出什麼呢？舊時社會的邏輯，競爭和與人爭鬥的邏輯。有哀號和切齒的地方，就是地獄的地方。因此，如果我們不接受天國的邏輯，我們就留在外面。我們可能會贏一次兩次，但是，我們最終會被某個強大的人壓垮，這就是耶穌用嚴厲的方式所表達的話的含義。

這段福音用這些話作結尾：“許多人受到邀請，被揀選的人卻很少。”耶穌講這話的含義，不是說許多人蒙召，而是很少有人進到天國。所有的人都受到邀請，但是，並非所有的人都認真對待，就是，並非所有的人都容許自己參與到這個新世界的邏輯中。我想，這就是耶穌對我們所說的話，我們就是這第三組僕人。讓我們不要灰心，讓我們不要期望所有的人都參與到這個新的邏輯中，有些人願意，但是，還有一些人，即使他們堅守一點福音的邏輯，在他們的生活中，仍然會保留一些外邦人的習慣。你們，第三組特使的天使，你們謹記。
我祝你們主日喜樂，週末愉快！

© 全屬於祢 & 樂仁出版社（中國香港）
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2026

喜乐与希望的圣言
甲年常年期第廿八主日
玛窦福音 22:1–14
Fernando Armellin神父的 讲道

祝各位主日喜乐！

圣经时代的以色列社会，是由过着相当艰苦生活的牧羊人和农夫所组成的，他们只是普通人，不得不在山上大片布满石子的地里劳作，因为地中海沿岸的沙龙（Sharon）大平原和厄斯德隆（Esdraelon）平原，都掌握在大地主手中。这些贫苦的农民本该得享自由，他们先要在石地里开荒耕种；若要挣得一顿粗茶淡饭，养活自己与家人，就得顶着烈日，用最粗陋的工具长时间干活。

这些“世上的穷人”也偶尔摆些筵席，但他们梦寐以求的盛筵，只有那些剥削穷苦工人的富人才办得起。对“地上的穷人”而言，以色列历史上曾有过一个充满希望的时刻，正如圣经里所称呼他们的那样。流亡以后，有几批被掳到巴比伦的人，回到了犹大，回到以色列。当然，他们不是拿步高（Nebuchadnezzar）所流放的那一代，而是他们的子孙，子又生孙。因为拿步高没有放逐老人，也没有放逐患病者或跛足者；他只掳去了有一技之长的人——工匠，正是他们把巴比伦建造起来。那么，回到祖先之地的人，究竟是些什么人呢？是在美索不达米亚没能积攒下钱财的人。当他们回到先祖的土地时，发现早已有人占住了。为了活命，他们只得去服事这些新主人，而这些新主人开始剥削他们，对他们百般虐待。
就在这样的背景下，公元前五世纪，以色列兴起了一位先知，受上主派遣，给这片土地上的穷人传报希望的圣言。这位先知许下了什么？众人期盼的又是什么？他们期盼社会有所改变，盼一个与他们向往相符的不同世界。先知用图像来呈现上主将要引入的新实况。他该选什么图像来描绘这新世界？最能让他们明白的，莫过于一场盛大的筵席。他们从未办过盛筵，只能在梦里见过。这正是本主日读经一提到的先知许诺。先知宣告：万军的上主，要在耶路撒冷所在的那座山上，为万民预备一场盛筵。他是这样描述的：“在那里要有美味的食物、醇酒、丰盛的佳肴……”听的人揉揉眼睛，直摇头，因为他们从来没见过这样的筵席。可是再说一遍：这筵席不是只留给以色列人的，而是一张为所有人摆开、向全体开放的桌子，因为这新世界要容纳全人类。
自那预言之后，四个世纪过去了，什么都没变。世界仍和从前一样：对世上的穷人而言，同样的不义、同样的苦、同样的泪。他们忍不住问：“上主真要履行祂的话吗？祂借先知之口许下的，难道不算数吗？”然而以色列仍信靠上主的忠信，常说：“我们的天主言出必行；既已许诺，必会成就。”有一天，在穷人的土地上，纳匝肋人耶稣出现了，使这预言应验。筵席开始了，且听：

“耶稣又用比喻回答他们说：‘天国好比一个君王，为自己的儿子摆设婚宴。’”

在以色列，人人都背得出我们方才说的那句预言，拉比们也常引用这许诺，存记在心。他们用这两个世界来指称它：一个是现今的世界，充满苦楚与悲伤、眼泪与不义的世界——没人喜欢的世界；另一个是未来的世界，或“来世”，那是要充满喜乐、永恒筵席的世界。他们称它为“大伊甸”，希伯来语意为“喜乐”，就是说“喜乐的乐园”。这原是属于未来世界、“那另一个”世界才要实现的事。
但耶稣来了，说：这新世界决不是将来的事，天主的国就在此刻、在这现世实现了。因为天主决意要在这世界上摆设筵席。祂愿意自己所有的儿女，在现世就得到喜乐；“那另一个世界”自会由天主照顾。天主的国要在这里建成。耶稣呈上的这筵席图像，是取自先知的，并非新造。我们知道，耶稣还用过别的图像讲天主的国。他说：天主的国好比一粒芥菜种子，从旧世界里就开始，虽是微小的种子，却大有力量。里头蕴着属天的生命，发展开来，生出人意料、超乎寻常的事。耶稣也说：它像一块田地，里头长着好庄稼，好麦子长得旺，但莠子也在，而且会一直都在。今天，耶稣给我们看的，是祂从先知书取来的那个图像：天主的国是一场筵席，是一场婚宴。现在，我们要展开这图像，好明白从先知书借来的这幅画里，究竟包着什么含义。

首先，这是筵席，是盛筵。我们常悲戚地反问自己：我们跟随基督、守祂福音，怎么竟蒙上了一层“悲苦主义”的纱——仿佛人受的苦越多，在来世预备得越好。圣父派圣子来，单单是要为祂所有的儿女，筑一个喜乐的世界。记得天使在耶稣诞生时说的那句话：他们向牧羊人宣告极大的喜乐。耶稣来到这世界，正是为了开启这新世界。在旧世界里，不可能有真正的喜乐。那里有人吃饱摆宴，可四围全是饿殍、病者、无家可归的人，处在那样的世界，人怎么可能尽情欢笑、尽情喜乐？他们或许能尝到放纵、昏醉、享乐、醉酒，但在旧世界里，决不可能有真正的喜乐。耶稣对众人说：“你若想尝到喜乐，就必须答应那邀请，进天国之宴。”

我们要留意的第二件事：这筵席图像里的新世界，是个喜乐的世界，那么，谁是这宴会的筹办者？不是宾客。比喻说，是“一个君王”，明显指天主。是祂在备宴。但还有一层：这是给所有人预备的免费筵席。宴会厅就是我们的世界，我们都是作为宾客来到这里，发现宴厅早已为我们摆好。我们都是赴宴的人，没有谁拥有这厅。古世界里一切败坏，都出自有人忘了自己只是客，竟扮起主人来。

天主为祂的儿女预备的，是一个美好的世界，不是“涕泣之谷”。凡维持生命所需的食粮，祂都已摆在他们手边。有人忘了自己是客，以为拿到什么就能随意处置，像主人一样，于是把市场的法则带进来：价高者得，从交易里牟利，让自己富起来，越来越堆积货财。这“我是主人”的谎言，一旦进到宴厅——也就是我们的世界——就生出倾轧、竞争、怨恨、战争。君王所备的婚宴，恰恰提醒我们一个真相：一切属于天主，没有一样真是我们的。我们只是受托看管不属于自己的财物；所有“我的、你的”这类占有词，都是谎话。一旦接纳了“白白相赠”的逻辑，一切都变了。

于是，你把那糊口的饼，递给急需的弟兄——这原是天主交给我们各人该得的食粮。我们受造本就这样：为那份爱的关系，为与弟兄姐妹互换所需而被造，因为进到宴厅——进到我们这个世界——的人，同是有一位圣父的儿女。在天国逻辑里，我不是“大方”才分一点给你的，而是把别人真正需要的都分出去，因为连我手里的，也是要送给你们的恩赐。它本不属于我；你手里握着的一切，原是给急难者的。这来自“顾念他人所需”的逻辑，来自爱的逻辑，来自那孕育新世界的逻辑。

第三点：人在婚宴上，不会把自己关起来独食。动物只要填饱自己的肚子，就心满意足了。人不是被造成独个儿吃饭的，而是为共融——为看着四围的人都欢乐，自己才真欢乐。所以天主的国宴，不是亚毛斯先知所斥的那些贪馋之徒的吃喝，不是那些躺在象牙床上、歪在软榻上，吃着羊群里的羔羊，弹琴高唱，大杯灌酒，对穷人漠不关心，还靠榨取穷人发财之人的宴席。塞满肚腹，不等于幸福。唯有接纳新世界逻辑的人，才尝得到这喜乐——那逻辑就是共融、手足般的分享、顾及他人，关心他们的悲愁、喜乐、失望与盼望。

从这宴席图像里，我们抓出的第四点，是彼此接纳。进到宴厅——也就是我们这个世界——的有各样的人：不同文化、不同民族、不同国家、不同语言。在宴席上，人因他的“不一样”而被接纳；一切不合天主国的，才被摒除。差异是丰富，不是裂痕。这“接纳”的图像，正是取自婚宴比喻。在新世界里，每个人都带着自己的长处和局限，被接进来。
此刻你可以问问自己：你接不接这逻辑？你还要照旧宴的脾气继续筑这世界，还是答应那邀请，进到新世界里？许多人想留在旧世界，独自做那富宴中的食客。可是这样的人，决不会真幸福。

比喻接着推出三组仆人，由他们去领人入宴。宴主是天主，祂要人人都来赴宴，也就是说，接纳那新世界的逻辑。且听：

“他打发自己的仆人，去召被请的人来赴婚宴，他们却不肯来。他又派别的仆人去，说：‘你们对被请的人说：看，我的宴会已备好，我的牛犊和肥畜都宰了，一切齐备，来赴宴罢。’有人不理会，转身就走，一个回自己的庄田，一个去做自己的生意。剩下的，揪住他的仆人，虐待一番，杀了。”

这比喻讲的是一个“派遣”。备宴的君王，先后派出两批仆人，先一批，后一批。这两批人代表谁？他们去找的是些什么宾客？他们代表上主先前派到亚巴郎子孙、到以色列人那里的先知，向他们宣告默西亚要来，请他们接纳那新世界——也就是耶稣所讲天国宴席——的提议。但回应是否定的。拒绝这邀请的是谁？他们又代表谁？是以色列的精神领袖：经师、长老、大司祭，他们不听先知的话，还自创了一套与先知所教不符的、和天主的关系。先知说过：上主不在乎祭献、全燔祭、馨香，祂只要爱德的实行。这原是天主默西亚耶稣后来要摆的宴之前的铺垫。他们却拒绝这邀请，拒绝洗者若翰要他们悔改的话。为何拒绝？因为他们中意那为他们摆好的“自办宴”：满是人为的宗教行为、规矩和条文——正如耶稣说的，这些是压在百姓肩头扛不动的重担。显然，他们所教所讲的那种与天主的关系，传不出共融的喜乐；像加纳婚宴上没酒的时刻。那里只有取洁的石罐，装的是他们那套宗教、条文、罪、洁净礼。它没给任何人带来喜乐，是场老宴。可偏偏这种“热心”让那些精神领袖得意，他们喜欢那位“立法者兼判官”式的天主，只爱义人、只降福好人，绝不把恩泽给那些敢破戒、得罪祂的罪人。他们决不肯接受耶稣所呈现的那位天主——那位坐下来和税吏、罪人一同吃饭的天主。

终于，那些精神领袖拒绝了邀请，对这新宴毫无兴趣。要当心：耶稣时代的法利赛人死了，但“法利赛主义”还活着。今天，拒绝耶稣这宴的，可能就是我们——因为我们更爱那套由守礼、赏报、惩罚、功劳拼成的旧宗教。这种虔诚让人安心，叫我们在天主前“感觉良好”，或者更准地说：觉得自己“有功绩”，因为行了许多善工，理当受赏。这不是天国的宴，这还是法利赛人的宴。天国的宴，特征是天主白白给我们的爱，以及我们流向众弟兄姐妹的白白之爱。

现在，看看第二批使者出去找宾客时，发生了什么。这批宾客不再是百姓的精神领袖，而是沉溺于物质事务的人。比喻里提到了庄田和生意。就是说：指向那些投资置产的大地主，有农庄要照管、要走访。让他们满意的宴，是那场“生意宴”、“积钱积货宴”——他们不想被别种生活提议打扰。越缩进这物质宴里，就越不肯接受那“不积财、只分享”的宴。他们想方设法延续这场宴：各人顾各人，能捞到就捞到，没捞着？那你自己想办法去！第二批人也拒了邀请，因为他们太清楚天国宴要人怎样活：要人彼此无私地顾惜、分享。可他们自欺，以为用财富和享乐，就能填满人心深处对无限喜乐的渴求——就像每个人心里都有的那个空缺。有人对邀请不屑一顾，只继续自己的宗教宴或物质宴。有人却被这讯息刺得不舒服——正是那些执迷于物质宴的人，他们一眼就看出，耶稣这宴的逻辑，揭了他们那场宴的不义。使者若再叨叨两句，他们就动手，用暴力叫人闭嘴、把人撵走。今日敢指斥这世上经济宴、政治宴里不义的先知，命运也是如此。

面对第二批的拒绝，君王怎么办？且听：

“君王大怒，派自己的军队去，灭了那些杀人凶手，烧了他们的城。”

在介绍第三组仆人之前，我们读到这段“烧城”的奇特插笔。且试着看懂它要说什么。先注意：这节经文不属于耶稣讲的那则比喻本身，它打断了叙述；你若把这句抽掉，立刻会发现——故事反而流得通顺。再说，很难想象宴刚开始，中间插一场战争。仗打完了，菜还摆在桌上，客人等着打完再吃……这是玛窦插进的一节，为点亮一段意义——关于大约十五年前那桩惨事：耶路撒冷城的毁灭。

初期教会的基督徒想知道：圣城怎会落得如此下场？他们用旧约的语言作答，说是“惩罚”。但旧约说“天主的惩罚”，到底是什么意思？我们知道：人偏行己误入歧途时，天主并不外加惩罚，也不给人添更多恶，旧约里说“天主的惩罚”，指的是罪带来的后果——是罪在罚人，有时还延到第三代、第四代，因为罪的后果向来是惨烈的。这语言今天不能直接搬用，因为它太古旧；我们必须转译、重整这图像，让现代人听得懂。今天还讲“天主的惩罚”，近乎亵渎，因为我们这话的意思，早已不是圣经里那层意思了——圣经那里，只讲“罪的后果”。今天的讯息可以翻成下面这句：谁若拒绝天国宴的邀请，谁就要对这世上持续的虐待、暴力、战争、毁坏负责。这不是天主的惩罚，而是要继续走旧世界“竞争逻辑”的自食其果。而这后果，向来是惨烈的。以色列的罪，是拒了耶稣提出的“和平与仁爱世界”的提议，反倒拣了暴力。这罪的后果，就是那城被毁。这节经文用“天主惩罚”的古语，把罪的后果包裹起来讲了。

这段插曲之后，耶稣的比喻随着第三组仆人的派出，接下去。且听：

“于是，他对自己的仆人说：‘宴已备好，但那些被请的人，配不来；婚宴已齐备，但宾客配不上。所以，你们到大路口去，凡遇着的，都请来赴宴。’仆人上街去，把碰到的都聚来，好坏不分，一并招进，大厅里坐满了客人。”

君王派第三批仆人，去请的是谁？不是显贵，不是富人，不是热心的司祭，也不是那些已经说过“不”的人。按希腊文，第三批被派到“街口交汇处”。街口交汇处是哪儿？就是市集广场，他们就得往那儿去——常人聚集的地方：穷人在那儿，各色人等都在：老实商人、骗子、小偷、毒贩。他们得去那儿，把进宴厅的邀请，送给所有这些被我们视为“外面的人”。所以他们走向穷人、被边缘的、被人看不起的，走向税吏、走向娼妓，走向所有的人——好坏都算，没人不在这邀请之外。

那么第三组仆人是谁？不再是向以色列人说话的先知。第三组，是那些被耶稣亲自差出去的人——就是说，宗徒。而我们众人，就是那些把生命交托给天主世界计划的天使（使者）。要让我们的使命有效、成功，先决条件是：我们自己得先尝过进这宴的喜乐；得真接了天国的逻辑，并意识到它给我们喜乐、使我们幸福，给生活满全的意义。有了这经验，我们自然觉得非出去邀人不可——我们爱他们，愿意他们也在宴厅里尝到这滋味。若没有，若没这迫切需要，就说明我们没尝过宴的喜乐，要么就是不爱那些还在外面的人，觉得没必要邀他们。宣报福音的迫切需要，是从爱里生出来的。

在市集上，我们要碰的是什么人？什么都有：坏人，好人。有时我听这些被派到市集传邀请的天使——那些善良、慷慨、满腔热火的人——讲他们的困惑：说他们不敢去，因为百姓对福音没兴趣。对宴筵没兴趣：“他们自己开过派对了，干嘛去打扰？他们不听我们的，还是些疏远的人，有时还取笑我们……”对不敢出门的人，我总说：“这些在市集上的人，若早已在宴厅里，纳匝肋人耶稣就不会打发你们去邀了；正打发你们去，就因为那些人还在外面。”所以碰到没受邀请的人，别大惊小怪，也别读不懂耶稣这般美好的提议。

现在，试着想：我们在那广场会遇见谁，会得什么回答。先说一类：犹豫的人，不想立刻答应，不想换掉自己的宴，因为他们有自己的宴，还想再多享受一阵。这类人多半迟些会进来。好，我们耐着性子；提议已经递出去了。也许还会碰见有人说：“我知道那宴是给来世的，所以眼下嘛，我继续吃我的宴，等生命末了再进天国。”我们会对他说：“看哪，那就晚了；你连这辈子的喜乐机会都丢了，因为天主的国不是为‘以后’备的，而是耶稣要在‘这里’筑的世界。”他们或许不懂，但邀请已经发了，愿他们答应，进这宴厅。当然，宴上也会有那种立刻进来、却不是因为爱，只怕不下地狱的人——“不进就完了……”所以里面会有不是因爱、是因怕才进的人。市集上也会有这种反应。但必定有人一听就明白：天主的国是一场宴会，于是果断进来，毫不迟延，因为不想错过任何一刻摆上的喜乐。

要记住：进来的人不会立刻成全；他们没完全接住宴的所有逻辑，仍带着些可怜处和道德软弱。常常，他们还被买卖交换的逻辑拴着，想偷偷再积一点；不会把一切交到弟兄手里……耐住性子。天主的国里有好麦，但也永远有莠子。

比喻的结尾很动人。屋里坐满了人！全家都聚齐了，到处是斜倚而坐的人——这姿态象征：不黏财物、不沾败坏、不怀怨恨、不恋恶习。屋里满是人。没少一个。所有儿女终有一日，要在这屋里被接纳。但他们先得接到那邀请。而能不能接得好，很大程度上看我们怎么递出这提议。我们若做得好，人不能被这新世界的提议吸引都难。

比喻本可在此落幕。但它没这么结束，接着来了一段像要掀翻一切的小插曲。且听：

“君王进来会见客人时，看见一个人没穿婚宴礼服。他对那人说：‘朋友，你到这里来，怎么不穿婚宴礼服？’那人哑口无言。于是君王对侍从说：‘把他的手脚绑起来，丢到外面黑暗里去，那里要有哀号和切齿。’被召的人多，被选上的人少。”

实话先讲：这位君王的反应，让我们一时说不出话。好像面对双重人格：先前那么慷慨、体恤困苦人的那位，现在为一桩小失礼，神经崩断，冷硬到残忍；我们几乎认不出他了。显然，这段和前面不连，对不上前面讲过的调子。比喻本在“满厅客人、主人与大家同宴”处收尾了。那怎么还会有人没穿礼服？人刚从市集来；若真穿着礼服，才奇怪哩。清清楚楚：这是又一则比喻，另一个小故事，要答一个已经浮出来的问题。浮出的问题是：光对邀请说“是”、人进到宴厅就算数了吗——就是说，领了洗就算了？还是日后具体生活里，得把所作的选择活出来？玛窦用一则新比喻，回答了这个问题。

圣史玛窦为什么要引入第二个比喻呢？因为当时他是对第一世纪末的团体讲话，五十年过去了，自从逾越节事件以后，这些教会起初非常热心，对福音说了“是”，进入了宴会厅，但过去几十年后失去了热情。许多基督徒又回到了与福音格格不入的外邦习惯，比如依附于这个世界的货物。玛窦作为灵魂的牧者，关心他们，因为他们正冒着丧失性命的风险。虽然他们已经领受了洗礼，却又变得像先前那些拒绝邀请的人一样。这就是玛窦导入耶稣教导我们的、关于基督徒新礼服的比喻。

人一进到宴会厅，就是接纳了天主的国，他必须穿上礼服。在圣经中，礼服代表人的道德生活，代表周围人看待他的方式；比方说，他们可能穿着骄傲的礼服，或者穿着关怀他人的礼服，或是穿着慷慨的礼服。保禄在新约中一再重申：人进入宴会厅，就是进到天主的国，因此他必须穿上基督。凡遇见他的人，必须把他看作主的门徒，并在他身上认出救主，因为他们穿着相同的礼服。我们想知道：纳匝肋人耶稣所穿的礼服是怎样的。如同若望记述的那样，让我们回到最后晚餐时所发生的事。在最后晚餐时，耶稣脱去自己的外袍，只留下缠腰布。这是当时犹太人的穿着方式，他们用缠腰布、内衣、外袍层层遮盖自己。耶稣脱去外袍，只留缠腰布在身，这正是奴仆所穿的服装，因为祂开始以奴仆的身份服事，去给门徒洗脚。

那件缠腰布，就是耶稣作为仆人所穿的服装。耶稣的真门徒，就是蒙召去服事、成为自己弟兄的仆人，时常准备好答应那些向他寻求帮助的人提出的请求。那些有需要的人就是主人，门徒必须时常穿着这件礼服。在天国的婚宴上，新郎是基督，新娘是基督徒团体，必须穿上礼服，穿上与新郎相同的礼服，就是奴仆的礼服。在那些不接受这奴仆礼服的人身上，会发生什么呢？这里有救主所说的几句严厉的话：“把他的手脚绑起来，把他扔到外面的黑暗里去，在那里要有哀号和切齿。”让我们留心这话，这话与拉比们所说的话相契合。正如玛窦对绝大多数基督徒所说的那样，他们都是犹太人，因此他们很理解他，这就是拉比想要激发他们良心的方式。在这里，玛窦想要动摇他们的良心，因为这些基督徒处于回到外邦服装的风险中。这就是为什么他要用拉比的语言。也有“哀号和切齿”以及“黑暗”的表达，这些表达只有在玛窦福音中才能找到。

让我们试图翻译这些拉比们的图像。耶稣想要对那些答应祂的人说什么呢：“你们要小心，要接受这仆人的行为，如果你不接受宴会的逻辑——就是要分担、服事你的兄弟姐妹——你就离了这个宴会。”在那些离开的人身上发生了什么？他们留在旧世界、充满竞争的社会中，因此，他们就处于一个不是伊甸园式的社会，而是地狱般的社会中，那个社会是不人道的。没必要为此提供证明。我们的社会产出什么呢？旧时社会的逻辑，竞争和与人争斗的逻辑。有哀号和切齿的地方，就是地狱的地方。因此，如果我们不接受天国的逻辑，我们就留在外面。我们可能会赢一次两次，但是，我们最终会被某个强大的人压垮，这就是耶稣用严厉的方式所表达的话的含义。

这段福音用这些话作结尾：“许多人受到邀请，被拣选的人却很少。”耶稣讲这话的含义，不是说许多人蒙召，而是很少有人进到天国。所有的人都受到邀请，但是，并非所有的人都认真对待，就是，并非所有的人都容许自己参与到这个新世界的逻辑中。我想，这就是耶稣对我们所说的话，我们就是这第三组仆人。让我们不要灰心，让我们不要期望所有的人都参与到这个新的逻辑中，有些人愿意，但是，还有一些人，即使他们坚守一点福音的逻辑，在他们的生活中，仍然会保留一些外邦人的习惯。你们，第三组特使的天使，你们谨记。
我祝你们主日喜乐，周末愉快！

© 全属于祢 & 乐仁出版社（中国香港）
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2026

TWENTY-EIGHTH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME – YEAR A

Matthew 22:1-14

Commentary of Fr. Fernando Armellini

A good Sunday to all.

The society of Israel in biblical times was composed of shepherds and farmers who carried a rather hard life; they were simple people who had to work in a land full of stones in the mountains because the great plains of Sharon along the shores of the Mediterranean and that of Esdraelon, were in the hands of the big landowners.

These poor peasants were to free first the field of stones to be able to till it. And they were forced to work long hours under the scorching sun and with very rudimentary tools if they wanted to earn a frugal meal to feed themselves and their families.

These “poor of the earth” also organized some feasts from time to time, but the sumptuous banquets they dreamed of could only be afforded by the rich, who exploited the poor workers.

In the history of Israel, there was a hopeful moment for these “poor of the land,” as they are called in the Bible. After the exile, several groups deported to Babylon returned to Judea, to Israel. Of course, they were not those whom Nebuchadnezzar had exiled but their children and their children’s children. Most of them had made their fortune because Nebuchadnezzar had not deported the elders neither the sick nor the lame. He had only taken the skilled people—the artisans—and these, after a few years, were well established in Babylon.

Who were those who had returned to the land of their fathers? Those who failed to amass wealth in Mesopotamia. And when they returned to the land of their forefathers, they found that others had already occupied it. So, to survive, they had to put themselves in the service of these new owners who began to exploit them and committed all kinds of abuses against them.

It is in this context that, in the 5th century B.C., a prophet appears in Israel, sent by the Lord to announce a word of hope to these poor of the land. And what did this prophet promise? What everyone expected: That something would change in society. That the world they desired and aspired to would be different. The prophet used an image to present the new reality that the Lord would introduce. What image could he choose to present this new world? The one they could best understand: a great banquet. They had never had grand banquets; they could only dream of them.

This is the promise of the prophet to which this Sunday’s First Reading refers. The prophet proclaims that the Lord of the Universe will prepare a banquet for all peoples on this mountain on which the city of Jerusalem stands. And then he describes it: “There will be tasty food, fine wines, succulent food….” Those who heard it were rubbing their eyes and shook their heads because they had never seen such a banquet. But then again, it would not be reserved for the Israelites, but it would be a table set and open to everyone because the new world would involve all humanity.

Four centuries had passed since this prophecy, and nothing different had happened. The world remained the same as before: The same injustices, the same pains, the same tears for the poor of the earth. They wondered: “But will the Lord be true to his words? He promised by the mouth of the prophet.” Nevertheless, the Israelites continued to believe in the faithfulness of the Lord. Israel always said, “Our God is of his word; if he has promised, he will perform.” And one day, among the poor of the land, Jesus of Nazareth appeared and fulfilled the prophecy. And the banquet began. Let us hear:

“Jesus again in reply spoke to them in parables, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son.”

In Israel, everyone knew by heart the prophecy we had spoken of, and the rabbis kept the memory of this promise alive by quoting it often. They represented it with the image of two worlds: the present world, full of misery and sorrow, of tears and injustice—a world that no one likes—and the future world or the world to come, which will be full of joy, of eternal feast. They called it “the Great Eden,” which, in Hebrew, means “delight.” That is, “the Garden of Delights.” This would be in the future world, in ‘the other’ world that would be realized.

But Jesus comes and says that this new world is not the future, that the kingdom of God is realized here, in the present, because God has decided to prepare the banquet in this world. It’s here that God wants his sons and daughters to be all happy; in the other world God will take care. The kingdom of God will be built here, and Jesus presents it with this image of the banquet, which he took from the prophet, which is not new.

We know other images of the kingdom of God used by Jesus. He said that the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed which begins in the old world, is a small seed, but it is powerful. This seed harbors within it a divine life which develops and produces something unexpected and extraordinary. Jesus also said that it is like a field in which there is a good grain that develops, in which good wheat grows, but also tares are present and will continue to be present.

Today, Jesus presents us with the image he took from the prophet. The kingdom of God is a banquet, a wedding feast. Now, we want to develop this image to understand what is contained in this image that he took from the prophet.

First of all, it’s a banquet, a feast. We sadly wonder for what reason the adhesion to Christ, to his Gospel, was shrouded in a veil of sadness in ‘dolorism’ (the more one suffered, the more one prepared oneself for the other world). The Father sent his Son into the world only because he wants a world of joy to be built for all his sons and daughters. Let us remember what the angels said at the moment of the birth of Jesus; they announced to the shepherds a great joy, and Jesus came into the world precisely to begin this new world. In the old world, there can be no joy. Those who are satiated feast. But how can these people feast and smile while all around them are the hungry, the miserable, the sick, and the homeless? They will be able to experience the pleasures, the madness, the daze, the hedonism, the drunkenness, but joy is not possible in the old world.

This is what Jesus says to all: “If you want to experience joy, you must accept the invitation to enter the banquet of the kingdom of God.”

The second matter we must consider in this image of the banquet is the new world, a world of joy, and who is the organizer of the feast. Who is the organizer? It is certainly not the guests. The parable says that it is a man, a king, clearly alluding to God. He is the one who organizes the feast. But there is something else: the banquet is free, and it is for all. The banquet hall is our world in which we all come as guests, and we find the hall prepared for us. We are all diners; no one owns it. All the evils we find in the ancient world come from someone acting as a master.

God has prepared a beautiful world for his sons and daughters, not a valley of tears. He has made available to them everything they need: the food necessary to have a full life. Someone has forgotten that he is a guest and has thought that he could dispose of whatever he could get as if he was the master, and so he introduced the law of the market: to hoard by selling to the highest bidder and to profit from the exchange, and then to enrich himself accumulating more and more goods. This lie of considering oneself the master of something gives place in the banquet hall, which is our world, to rivalries, competition, grudges, wars.

The banquet organized by the king reminds us of this truth: All is God’s; nothing is ours. We are stewards of goods that are not ours; all possessive adjectives are lies. If one accepts the logic of gratuitousness, everything changes; thus, one surrenders to the needy brother the bread he needs for his life, and from God, we receive the food that each one needs. We are well made; we are programmed for this relationship of love and exchange of goods with our brothers and sisters because all who come to the banquet hall, our world, are sons and daughters of the same Father.

In the logic of the kingdom of God, I don’t give something of mine because I am generous, but I share everything the others need because I have these gifts to give them. They do not belong to me; that which you have in your hand is to be given to people in need; it is from the logic of attention to the needs of others, from the logic of love, where the new world is born.

The third characteristic: At a wedding banquet, one does not isolate oneself to eat alone. The animals are fully satisfied when they can satisfy their cravings alone. Man is not programmed to eat alone but for conviviality, to experience the joy of watching around him that everyone is happy. Therefore, the banquet of the kingdom of God is not the orgy of the greedy of whom the prophet Amos speaks, of those who, lying on beds of ivory, are cast upon their couches, eat the lambs of the flock to their fill, sing to the sound of the harp, drink wine out of great cups and are disinterested in the poor, whom they exploit to enrich themselves. It is not by gorging oneself with goods that one is happy. Joy can only be experienced by those who accept the logic of the new world, which is conviviality, fraternal sharing, attention to others, to their sorrows, their joys, their disappointments, and their hopes.

The fourth characteristic we capture of the Kingdom of God in this banquet image is the reciprocal welcome. Into the banquet hall, which is our world, come all kinds of people from different cultures, from different peoples, nations and languages. At the banquet, people are welcomed for their diversity. From the banquet of the kingdom of God all discord is excluded. Diversity is a richness, not a reason for discord. The welcome is taken in this image from the parable of the banquet. The new world is where each one is received with their qualities and limitations.

Now, you may ask yourself: Do you accept or not this logic? Do you want to continue to build the world according to the sense of the old banquets, or do you accept the invitation to enter the new world? Many would like to continue in the old world where they can feast alone as rich epulone. But those will not be happy. The parable continues now presenting three groups of servants, who are the ones in charge of bringing the guests because the master, who is God, wants everyone to enter into this banquet, that is to say, they accept the new world’s logic. Let us listen:

“He dispatched his servants to summon the invited guests to the feast, but they refused to come. A second time he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those invited: Behold, I have prepared my banquet, my calves and fattened cattle are killed, and everything is ready; come to the feast.’ Some ignored the invitation and went away, one to his farm, another to his business. The rest laid hold of his servants, mistreated them, and killed them.”

The parable tells us of a sending. The king, who organized the feast, sent two groups of servants, first some and then others. Whom do these two groups represent, and what guests did they go for? They represent the prophets whom the Lord sent first of all to the children of Abraham, to the Israelites, to announce to them the coming of the Messiah, to welcome his proposal of a new world, of the banquet of the kingdom of God made by Jesus. But their answer was negative. Who rejected the invitation? Who do they represent? They are the spiritual leaders of Israel, the scribes, the elders, and the high priests, who did not listen the words of the prophets and invented a relationship with God that was not what the prophets had taught.

The prophets had said that the Lord is not interested in sacrifices, burnt offerings, or incense and wants works of love. This was the preparation for the banquet that Jesus, the Messiah of God, later proposed. They refused the invitation to conversion that John the Baptist had addressed to them. Why did they reject it? Because they liked the banquet that had been organized for them: the religious practice replete with provisions and precepts invented by men which, as Jesus says, were an unbearable burden on the back of the people.

It is clear that this relationship with God that they taught and preached did not communicate joy; it was like a wedding feast without wine, as in the wedding at Cana, where there were only pitchers for purification. This was their religion, made up of prescriptions, sins, and purifications. It gave joy to no one; it was an old banquet. But this religiosity delighted the spiritual leaders. They liked the lawgiver and justifier god who loves and blesses the good, and only the good, and does not grant his favors to sinners who dare to defy him by transgressing his precepts. They would not accept the God presented by Jesus, who feasts and sits with tax collectors and sinners. Finally, the spiritual leaders refused the invitation and were uninterested in the new banquet.

Be careful because the Pharisees of Jesus’ time are dead, but Pharisaism continues to exist. We could be the ones today who refuse the banquet offered by Jesus because we prefer the old religiosity made of observances, rewards, punishments, and merits. This religiosity reassures our consciences: it makes us feel good with God or, rather, in credit with God because we are deserving of rewards for the many good works that we do. This is not the banquet of the kingdom of God; it is still that of the Pharisees. God’s free love for us characterizes the banquet of the kingdom of God and from us to all our brothers and sisters.

Let us now observe what happens to the second group of envoys when they go in search of their guests. These guests are no longer the spiritual leaders of the people but those who are withdrawn into material realities. The parable speaks of fields and businesses. That is to say, reference is made to people who invest in farms of large landowners who own farms that must be valued and visited. Their banquet is the one that satisfies them; they already have a banquet—that of the business, that of the accumulation of money and goods—and they do not want to be disturbed by other life proposals. And the more they withdraw into this material banquet, the less willing they are to accept the invitation to the feast where goods are not accumulated but shared. They want to continue with the banquet in which each one has to manage, where everyone has to get what he needs, and if he doesn’t find it… let him manage!

This second group does not accept the invitation either because they understand very well what life at the banquet of the kingdom of God entails: it demands attention to the other by sharing gratuitous love. And yet they deceive themselves, thinking that they can fulfill with riches and pleasures the need for infinite joy present in their hearts, as in the heart of every person.

Some are not interested in the invitation and simply continue with their religious or material banquets. But some are bothered by the messengers… Those are precisely the ones who reject the second group of messengers, i.e., the ones bent on material realities who easily notice that the logic of the banquet proposed by Jesus denounces the injustice in their banquets. And if the messengers insist a little, they resort to violence to silence and remove them. This is the fate even of the prophets of today when they dare to denounce the present injustice in the economic and political banquets of this world.

And in the face of the refusal of this second group, what does the king do? Let us listen:

“The king was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.”

Before introducing the third group of servants, we read the strange parenthesis of this burning city. Let’s see what it is trying to tell us. Let us notice, in the first place, that this verse does not belong to the parable told by Jesus; it interrupts the narration, and if we try to remove this verse, we realize immediately that the story flows logically. Then, it is difficult to imagine a banquet beginning and, in the middle, there is a war. At the war’s end, the food is still on the tables, and the guests are waiting for the fight to end so that the banquet can continue….

This is a verse introduced by Matthew whose purpose was to shed a light that would help to understand the meaning of a dramatic event that occurred some fifteen years earlier: the ruin of the city of Jerusalem. The early Christians wondered why the holy city had ended like that. They gave their answer in the language of the Old Testament. They spoke of a punishment. But what was meant in the Old Testament when they spoke of ‘punishments’ from God? We know that God does not punish and does not add more evil to what people do to themselves when they go astray with their sins. When in the Old Testament it speaks of God’s punishments, it refers to the consequences of sin; it is a sin that punishes man and sometimes punishes him to the third and the fourth generation because the consequences of sin are always dramatic.

We cannot use this language today because it is archaic; we must necessarily make a transposition and reformulate this image to make it understandable to the man of today. Today, it is blasphemous to speak of God’s punishments because, in our language, that expression no longer has the meaning it had in the Scriptures: there it was talking about the consequences of sin.

The message today could be translated as follows: Whoever rejects the invitation to the banquet of the kingdom of God is responsible for the abuse, violence, wars, and destruction that continues in the world. These are not God’s punishments but the consequences of wanting to continue with the logic of the old world, which is that of competition. And the consequences are always dramatic.

Israel’s sin was to reject the proposal of the world of peace and love made by Jesus and to choose violence instead. And the consequence of this sin was the ruin of the city. The result of sin is presented in this verse with the archaic language of God’s punishment. And after this intermezzo, Jesus’ parable continues with the sending of the third group of servants. Let us listen:

“Then he said to his servants: ‘The feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy to come. wedding feast is prepared, but the guests did not deserve it. Go out, therefore, into the main roads and invite to the feast whomever you find.’ The servants went out into the streets and gathered all they found, bad and good alike, and the hall was filled with guests.”

Whom did the king send for the third group of servants? Not the notable nor the rich, not the pious, not to the devout priests or those who have already said no. The third group is sent, according to the Greek text, “there where the streets converge.” And where do the streets converge? In the squares with markets, they have to go right there where the common people gather, where the poor are, where everything gathers, honest merchants, swindlers, thieves, drug dealers. They must go there and offer all this invitation to enter the banquet hall. That’s why they go to the poor, to the marginalized, to the despised, to the tax collectors, to prostitutes, to all, good and bad; no one is excluded from this invitation.

And who are the members of this third group of servants? They are no longer the prophets; they spoke to the people of Israel. The third group is composed of those who were sent directly by Jesus, that is, the apostles. And all of us are those angels who have placed their lives at the disposal of God’s plan for the world. For our mission to be effective and successful it is necessary, first of all, that we have the experience of the joy of this banquet we have entered; that we have truly accepted the logic of the kingdom of God and we have realized that it gives us joy, makes us happy, and gives full meaning to our lives. If we had had this experience, we would certainly feel the need to go out and invite all the people that we love so they, too, can have this experience in the banquet hall. If we don’t, if we don’t feel this need, it means that we have not had the experience of the joy of the banquet, or that we don’t love the people who are still outside, and we don’t feel this need to invite them.

The need to proclaim to evangelize arises from love. With whom will we have to deal with in the marketplace? We will find everything: bad people and good people. Sometimes, I hear these angels sent to the marketplace to spread the invitation, good people, generous, animated by much zeal, and I hear them present their perplexities and say: “But will it be worth it?” They hesitate to go out because they say the people are not interested in the Gospel, they’re not interested in the feast: “They’ve had their parties. Why should we bother them? They don’t listen to us. And they are also distant people; they even sometimes make fun of us….”

To those who hesitate to go out, I always say: “If these people who are in the marketplace were already in the banquet hall, Jesus of Nazareth would not have sent them out to invite them; if he sends them, it is because those people are outside. So don’t be surprised that the people you find there have not yet accepted the invitation and, therefore, do not understand the beauty of this proposal that Jesus of Nazareth makes”.

And now, let us try to think about whom we will meet there, in that square, to consider the answer we will get. I would say, first of all, we will find hesitant people, people who don’t feel like accepting immediately, changing their banquet, because they already have their feasts, and they want to continue to enjoy their life a little bit more; those people are likely to come in later. All right, let’s be patient; we have made our proposal. Maybe we will also find some people who say, “I understand that that banquet is for the next world, so, in the meantime, I will continue to enjoy the banquet here, and at the end of my life, I will enter the kingdom of God.” We will tell him: “Look, then it will be late; you have lost the opportunity to be happy in this world because the kingdom of God is not for the hereafter; this is where Jesus wants to build it. They may not understand, but we have offered this invitation that we would like them to accept to enter the banquet hall.

Surely, at the banquet, we will also find those who enter immediately but not for the right reason but because they fear ending up in hell if they do not enter… So, there will be people inside who are not because of love but fear. There will also be this kind of response in the marketplace. But there will undoubtedly be those who understand that the kingdom of God is a feast and will enter decisively, without delay, because they do not want to miss a single moment of the joy offered.

Let us keep in mind that those who enter do not immediately become perfect; they do not accept completely all the logic of the banquet; they will also bring some misery and moral weaknesses, frailties. And often, they will still be tied to the logic of trade and exchange so they will try to accumulate a little bit; they will not put everything at the brother’s disposal… Patience. There is the good wheat in the kingdom of God, but there will always be weeds.

The conclusion of the parable is moving. The room is full! The whole family is gathered, full of people lying down, a position symbolizing people free from attachment to possessions, free from moral corruption, of grudges, of vices… The room is full; no one is missing; all sons and daughters will one day be received in this room. They will first accept the invitation addressed to them. Our task, however, is to do it well because, whether it is accepted or not, will also depend a lot on the way we make this proposal. And if we do our task well, people cannot but be attracted to the new world proposal that we make to them.

The curtain of the parable could be closed here. However, it does not end this way. It continues with an episode that seems to come to ruin everything. Let’s listen:

“But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment. He said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence. Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’ Many are invited, but few are chosen.’”

Let’s tell the truth right away: the behavior of this king leaves us speechless. Here, it seems that we are before a double personality; this ruler who before was generous, good to the unfortunate, now, for a minor fault, his nerves break, and he becomes hard, even cruel; we no longer recognize him. Evidently, this part of the story is unrelated to the previous one; it does not fit with what has been told before.

The parable ended with the banquet hall full of diners and the master feasting with everyone. Why be surprised then that some have no wedding garments? People were in the marketplace; it be surprising if someone wore a wedding dress.

We are clearly before a new parable. A new legend that wants to answer a question that has arisen. What is the question that arises: Will it suffice to have said yes to the invitation and to have entered materially in the banquet hall, i.e., to have received the baptism? Or will it be necessary afterwards to translate in the concrete life the choice we made? This is the question to which Matthew answers with a new parable.

And why does the evangelist Matthew need to introduce a second parable? Because he is addressing communities that are in the last decades of the first century A.D. More than 50 years have passed since the Passover and these communities, which were very fervent at the beginning, which had said yes to the Gospel and had entered the banquet hall, had lost their enthusiasm over the decades. Many Christians had returned to their pagan habits incompatible with the gospel, such as attachment to this world’s goods. And Matthew, a pastor of souls, is concerned because they risk the failure of their lives. Even though they have been baptized, they become again like those who refused the invitation. That’s why Matthew introduces this parable of Jesus which tells us about the new garment of the Christian. When one enters the banquet hall, he welcomes the kingdom of God and must change his ‘garment.’

In the Bible, the ‘garment’ represents the moral life of the people, the way those around them see these people; they may be clothed in pride, for example, or of care for others, of generosity. Paul, in the New Testament, repeats over and over again that the one who enters into the banquet hall, enters the Kingdom of God, and therefore, he must put on Christ. And those who meet him, they must recognize in him a disciple of the Lord and the Master himself because they are clothed with the same robe.

We wonder then what is the wedding garment in which Jesus of Nazareth is clothed. As John relates, let us return to what happened at the Last Supper. Sometime during the Last Supper, Jesus took off his garments and kept his loincloth. This was the manner of dress at that time in the Jewish world. They covered themselves with the loincloth, the tunic, and robe. The robe had already been taken off. Jesus remained in the loincloth, the enslaved person’s garment because he began to do the enslaved person’s service, to wash the disciples’ feet.

That loincloth, the garment of the enslaved person is the garment that characterizes Christ as a Servant. And the true disciple of Jesus, called to serve, to be the slave of his brothers must always be ready to say yes to those who ask him for help. The masters are all the needy poor, and the disciple must always be clothed in this wedding garment. At the marriage feast of the Kingdom, the bridegroom is Christ, and the bride, who is the Christian community, must be clothed with the same uniform as the Bridegroom: the uniform of the enslaved person.

And what happens to those who do not accept this wedding garment, that of the servant? Here are some very harsh expressions of the master: “Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.” Let us pay attention to this language, which was proper to the rabbis. As Matthew is speaking to a majority of the Christian community that was Jewish and therefore understood him very well; that was the way the rabbis wanted to shake the consciences. And here, Matthew wants to shake these Christian communities that are in danger of returning to pagan dress. That is why he employs the language of the rabbis. Also, the expressions “wailing and grinding of teeth” and “darkness,” are only found in the gospel of Matthew.

Let us try to translate these rabbinical images. What does Jesus want to say to all those who said yes to him: “Beware, for if you do not accept this habit of being a servant, if you do not accept the logic of the banquet—which is that of sharing, of service to your brother and sister—you are left out of the banquet.” And what happens to those who are left out? They stay in the old-world society, the competitive one, the one of rivalries and, therefore, in a society that is not an Eden but a hell because it is inhuman.

There is no need to prove it. What does our society produce? The Logic of the old world, the logic of competition and rivalry. It is hell where there is wailing and grinding of teeth. So, if we do not accept the logic of the Kingdom, we stay outside. We may win, we may win once or twice, but in the end, we will be crushed by someone stronger. This is what is meant by this very severe expression used by Jesus.

The conclusion is in the last verse of this Gospel passage: “Many invited, but few are chosen.” What Jesus means by this expression is not that many are called but few go to heaven, no. All are invited, but unfortunately, not many take it seriously, that is, they allow themselves to be involved in the logic of the new world.

I think Jesus is speaking to us, the servants of the third group. Let us not be discouraged; let us not expect everyone to be involved in this new logic; some will, but others, even if they adhere a little to the logic of the Gospel, will retain some pagan aspects in their life. Keep this in mind also, you angels of the third group of envoys.

I wish you all a good Sunday and a good weekend.

Copyright © 2026 Bible Claret

誤認所有權的暴行
福音：瑪竇21:33-43

Fr. Jijo Kandamkulathy CMF
Claretian Missionaries

我們從小就被訓練去保護我們認為屬於自己的東西。我們的玩具。我們的空間。我們的名聲。我們的時間。我們學會用一種覺得必要、甚至高尚的警覺來守護我們生命的邊界。慢慢地，不知不覺中，守護變成了一種存在方式。我們把一切都當作財產——我們的人際關係。我們的角色。我們的信仰。甚至天主。我們成了本不屬於我們所有的東西的管理者。在這種悄然的轉變中，某種危險的東西紮下了根。佔有的需要變成了控制的需要。控制的需要變成了願意摧毀任何威脅到我們掌控之物的東西。

耶穌在受難前幾天，在聖殿裡給司祭長和長老們講了這則比喻。在原本的語境中，葡萄園是以色列，園主是天主，佃戶是宗教領袖，僕人是先知，兒子就是耶穌自己。他們完全明白祂的意思。這比喻是一面明鏡，他們在裡面看到了自己的臉。天主把祂的子民託付給他們，可是他們把管理變成了佔有，又把佔有變成了暴力。

但這面鏡子不只是給他們的，也是給我們的。在這裡，比喻變得切身。葡萄園就是你自己的生命。不是別人的生命，不是教會的生命，不是你家庭的生命。你的生命。就是你每天早晨醒來的那個生命。你用身體承載的那個生命。你日復一日用工作、憂慮和夢想填滿的那個生命。那生命就是葡萄園。你沒有栽種它。你沒有在周圍築起籬笆。你沒有挖掘榨酒池。你沒有建造望樓。你領受了它。天主把它賜給了你。你不是園主。你是佃戶。你是管家。

想想這意味著什麼。你沒有選擇你的父母。你沒有選擇你的身體。你沒有選擇你的智力或健康。你沒有選擇你出生的世紀。你沒有選擇你呼吸的空氣。你沒有選擇溫暖你的太陽。一切使你的生命成為可能的事物，在你開口祈求之前就已經被賜予你了。你來到一個已經預備好的世界。你不是源頭。你是領受者。你不是創造者。你是管家。

但是，在人生的某個階段，我們忘記了。我們開始相信：我們的生命屬於我們。我們說「我的生命」，意思是「我的財產」。我們說「我的身體」，意思是「我的所有物」。我們說「我的時間」，意思是「我的權利」。慢慢地，管家變成了主人。佃戶變成了園主。然後主人的使者開始到來。

使者是誰？他們是提醒我們並非主宰的記號。他們以多種形式到來。他們以限制的形式到來。他們以疾病的形式到來。他們以衰老的形式到來。他們以失敗的形式到來。他們以那些告訴我們不願聽到的真相的人到來。他們以低聲說「有什麼不對勁，有什麼缺失，有什麼不是我們所有的」的內在聲音到來。他們以任何成就都無法平息的不安到來。他們以任何財產都無法填補的空虛到來。他們以我們無法回答的問題到來。他們以我們無法避免的悲傷到來。

我們是如何對待這些使者的呢？我們以暴力回應。我們使他們沉默。我們用石頭砸他們。我們不聽從我們的限制。我們不接受我們的衰老。我們不面對我們的失敗。我們不聽那些說真話的人。我們對內在的聲音感到麻木。我們用分心來逃避不安。我們用噪音填滿空虛。我們回避悲傷。我們把問題推開。我們謀殺那些來提醒我們生命不屬於我們的使者。

我們不僅用雙手這樣做，也用言語這樣做。我們扼殺那些告訴我們真相之人的名聲。我們用石頭砸那些挑戰我們的人的品格。我們用流言和誹謗把說真話的人置於死地。言語可以像石頭一樣暴力。我們這樣做不僅是為了保護我們所擁有的，也是為了保護一種我們從未擁有過的權威。我們聲稱一個從未賜給我們的寶座。我們戴上一頂不屬於我們的冠冕。我們構建了一個不需要天主的自我。當有人挑戰那種權威時，我們就用我們的舌頭、我們的沉默、我們的排斥來摧毀他們。

然後園主派了他的兒子來。這兒子不是另一個使者。他帶著園主自己的權威而來。在比喻中，兒子就是耶穌。在你自己生命的故事裡，耶穌是你無法忽視的、要求歸還的最後提醒。兒子是終極的宣告。從這一刻起，天主停止派遣與提醒，而是親自來臨。與兒子的相遇要求一個決定。這不是一條可以辯論的資訊。這不是一條可以思考的真理。這是一個必須面對的人。兒子是那位以愛注視我們並說「這生命不是你的。它是被賜予你的。而我來了，要把它收回。」的那一位。

當我們與兒子相遇時，我們的假我就死了。有些人停止聆聽天主這最後的嘗試，因為祂要求交出。他們甚至用死亡使祂沉默，完全回避任何歸化。然後他們告訴自己葡萄園是他們的。但真理會縈繞他們。

園主會來。清算會到來。那些試圖佔有本不屬於他們的葡萄園的佃戶，將失去他們甚至以為自己所擁有的一切。這不是懲罰。這是後果。拒絕做管家，就意味著失去葡萄園。

還有那塊石頭。匠人棄而不用的石頭，反而成了屋角的基石。自我所拒絕的，恰恰是成為真實生命基礎的。被棄絕和殺害的兒子，成了我們救恩的泉源。我們釘在十字架上的真理，成了使我們復活的真理。

你的生命不屬於你。它是一份禮物。你的身體不是你的財產。它是一個託付。你的時間不是你的權利。它是一種責任。你的恩賜不是你的所有物。它們是你的奉獻。你越試圖佔有，就越失去。你越緊握，它們就越滑走。你越捍衛你的控制，就越摧毀你所領受的。

園主是耐心的。祂派遣僕人。祂派遣更多僕人。祂派遣兒子。祂給你一切機會回頭。祂給你一切機會放下佔有的幻覺，回到管家的真理。但清算的時刻會來。問題不在於你是否要交帳。問題在於你將有什麼可以呈上。

我在問自己：我在哪裡把管家和所有權混淆了？我在哪裡把自己的生命當作私有財產？我在哪裡攻擊了那些來提醒我真理的使者？我用言語謀殺了誰？我在假裝擁有什麼權威？我在哪裡建造自己的小王國，而不是照管我被賜予的葡萄園？

答案令人不安。但答案就是道路。一條走出所有權之暴力的道路。一條進入管家之自由的道路。

© 全屬於祢& 樂仁出版社（中國澳門）
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2026

Fr. Jijo Kandamkulathy CMF
Claretian Missionaries

我们从小就被训练去保护我们认为属于自己的东西。我们的玩具。我们的空间。我们的名声。我们的时间。我们学会用一种觉得必要、甚至高尚的警觉来守护我们生命的边界。慢慢地，不知不觉中，守护变成了一种存在方式。我们把一切都当作财产——我们的人际关系。我们的角色。我们的信仰。甚至天主。我们成了本不属于我们所有的东西的管理者。在这种悄然的转变中，某种危险的东西扎下了根。占有的需要变成了控制的需要。控制的需要变成了愿意摧毁任何威胁到我们掌控之物的东西。

耶稣在受难前几天，在圣殿里给司祭长和长老们讲了这则比喻。在原本的语境中，葡萄园是以色列，园主是天主，佃户是宗教领袖，仆人是先知，儿子就是耶稣自己。他们完全明白祂的意思。这比喻是一面明镜，他们在里面看到了自己的脸。天主把祂的子民托付给他们，可是他们把管理变成了占有，又把占有变成了暴力。

但这面镜子不只是给他们的，也是给我们的。在这里，比喻变得切身。葡萄园就是你自己的生命。不是别人的生命，不是教会的生命，不是你家庭的生命。你的生命。就是你每天早晨醒来的那个生命。你用身体承载的那个生命。你日复一日用工作、忧虑和梦想填满的那个生命。那生命就是葡萄园。你没有栽种它。你没有在周围筑起篱笆。你没有挖掘榨酒池。你没有建造望楼。你领受了它。天主把它赐给了你。你不是园主。你是佃户。你是管家。

想想这意味着什么。你没有选择你的父母。你没有选择你的身体。你没有选择你的智力或健康。你没有选择你出生的世纪。你没有选择你呼吸的空气。你没有选择温暖你的太阳。一切使你的生命成为可能的事物，在你开口祈求之前就已经被赐予你了。你来到一个已经预备好的世界。你不是源头。你是领受者。你不是创造者。你是管家。

但是，在人生的某个阶段，我们忘记了。我们开始相信：我们的生命属于我们。我们说「我的生命」，意思是「我的财产」。我们说「我的身体」，意思是「我的所有物」。我们说「我的时间」，意思是「我的权利」。慢慢地，管家变成了主人。佃户变成了园主。然后主人的使者开始到来。

使者是谁？他们是提醒我们并非主宰的记号。他们以多种形式到来。他们以限制的形式到来。他们以疾病的形式到来。他们以衰老的形式到来。他们以失败的形式到来。他们以那些告诉我们不愿听到的真相的人到来。他们以低声说「有什么不对劲，有什么缺失，有什么不是我们所有的」的内在声音到来。他们以任何成就都无法平息的不安到来。他们以任何财产都无法填补的空虚到来。他们以我们无法回答的问题到来。他们以我们无法避免的悲伤到来。

我们是如何对待这些使者的呢？我们以暴力回应。我们使他们沉默。我们用石头砸他们。我们不听从我们的限制。我们不接受我们的衰老。我们不面对我们的失败。我们不听那些说真话的人。我们对内在的声音感到麻木。我们用分心来逃避不安。我们用噪音填满空虚。我们回避悲伤。我们把问题推开。我们谋杀那些来提醒我们生命不属于我们的使者。

我们不仅用双手这样做，也用言语这样做。我们扼杀那些告诉我们真相之人的名声。我们用石头砸那些挑战我们的人的品格。我们用流言和诽谤把说真话的人置于死地。言语可以像石头一样暴力。我们这样做不仅是为了保护我们所拥有的，也是为了保护一种我们从未拥有过的权威。我们声称一个从未赐给我们的宝座。我们戴上一顶不属于我们的冠冕。我们构建了一个不需要天主的自我。当有人挑战那种权威时，我们就用我们的舌头、我们的沉默、我们的排斥来摧毁他们。

然后园主派了他的儿子来。这儿子不是另一个使者。他带着园主自己的权威而来。在比喻中，儿子就是耶稣。在你自己生命的故事里，耶稣是你无法忽视的、要求归还的最后提醒。儿子是终极的宣告。从这一刻起，天主停止派遣与提醒，而是亲自来临。与儿子的相遇要求一个决定。这不是一条可以辩论的信息。这不是一条可以思考的真理。这是一个必须面对的人。儿子是那位以爱注视我们并说「这生命不是你的。它是被赐予你的。而我来了，要把它收回。」的那一位。

当我们与儿子相遇时，我们的假我就死了。有些人停止聆听天主这最后的尝试，因为祂要求交出。他们甚至用死亡使祂沉默，完全回避任何归化。然后他们告诉自己葡萄园是他们的。但真理会萦绕他们。

园主会来。清算会到来。那些试图占有本不属于他们的葡萄园的佃户，将失去他们甚至以为自己所拥有的一切。这不是惩罚。这是后果。拒绝做管家，就意味着失去葡萄园。

还有那块石头。匠人弃而不用的石头，反而成了屋角的基石。自我所拒绝的，恰恰是成为真实生命基础的。被弃绝和杀害的儿子，成了我们救恩的泉源。我们钉在十字架上的真理，成了使我们复活的真理。

你的生命不属于你。它是一份礼物。你的身体不是你的财产。它是一个托付。你的时间不是你的权利。它是一种责任。你的恩赐不是你的所有物。它们是你的奉献。你越试图占有，就越失去。你越紧握，它们就越滑走。你越捍卫你的控制，就越摧毁你所领受的。

园主是耐心的。祂派遣仆人。祂派遣更多仆人。祂派遣儿子。祂给你一切机会回头。祂给你一切机会放下占有的幻觉，回到管家的真理。但清算的时刻会来。问题不在于你是否要交账。问题在于你将有什么可以呈上。

我在问自己：我在哪里把管家和所有权混淆了？我在哪里把自己的生命当作私有财产？我在哪里攻击了那些来提醒我真理的使者？我用言语谋杀了谁？我在假装拥有什么权威？我在哪里建造自己的小王国，而不是照管我被赐予的葡萄园？

答案令人不安。但答案就是道路。一条走出所有权之暴力的道路。一条进入管家之自由的道路。

© 全属于祢& 乐仁出版社（中国澳门）
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2026

The Violence of Mistaken Ownership
Matthew 21:33-43

Fr. Jijo Kandamkulathy CMF
Claretian Missionaries

We are trained from childhood to protect what we believe is ours. Our toys. Our space. Our reputation. Our time. We learn to guard the boundaries of our lives with a vigilance that feels necessary, even virtuous. And slowly, without noticing, the guarding becomes a way of being. We begin to treat everything as property. Our relationships. Our roles. Our faith. Even God. We become managers of what was never ours to own. And in that quiet shift, something dangerous takes root. The need to possess becomes the need to control. The need to control becomes the willingness to destroy anything that threatens our grip.

Jesus told this parable in the Temple, days before his death, to the chief priests and elders. In the original context, the vineyard was Israel, the landowner was God, the tenants were the religious leaders, the servants were the prophets, and the son was Jesus himself. They understood exactly what he meant. The parable was a mirror, and they saw their own faces in it. They had been entrusted with God’s people, but they had turned stewardship into ownership and ownership into violence.

But the mirror is not only for them. It is for us. And here the parable becomes personal. The vineyard is your own life. Not someone else’s. Not the church’s. Not your family’s. Your life. The one you wake up to every morning. The one you carry in your body. The one you spend your days filling with work and worry and dreams. That life is the vineyard. And you did not plant it. You did not build the fence around it. You did not dig the winepress. You did not build the tower. You received it. You were given it. You are not the owner. You are the tenant. You are the steward.

Think about what this means. You did not choose your parents. You did not choose your body. You did not choose your intelligence or your health or the century you were born into. You did not choose the air you breathe or the sun that warms you. Everything that makes your life possible was given to you before you could ask for it. You arrived into a world already prepared. You are not the source. You are the recipient. You are not the creator. You are the steward.

But somewhere along the way, we forget. We begin to believe that our life is ours. We say “my life” and we mean “my property.” We say “my body” and we mean “my possession.” We say “my time” and we mean “my right.” And slowly, the steward becomes the owner. The tenant becomes the landlord. And the owner’s messengers start to arrive.

Who are the messengers? They are the reminders that we are not in charge. They come in many forms. They come as limits. They come as illness. They come as aging. They come as failure. They come as the people who tell us the truth we do not want to hear. They come as the inner voice that whispers something is wrong, something is missing, something is not ours. They come as the restlessness that no achievement can quiet. They come as the emptiness that no possession can fill. They come as the questions we cannot answer. They come as the grief we cannot avoid.

And what do we do with these messengers? We react with violence. We silence them. We beat them. We kill them. We stone them. We do not listen to our limits. We do not accept our aging. We do not sit with our failures. We do not hear the truth-tellers. We numb the inner voice. We distract ourselves from the restlessness. We fill the emptiness with noise. We avoid the grief. We push the questions away. We murder the messengers that come to remind us that our life is not ours.

And we do this not only with our hands but with our words. We kill the reputation of the one who tells us the truth. We stone the character of the one who challenges us. We crucify the truth-teller with gossip and slander. Words can be as violent as stones. And we do this not only to protect what we own, but to protect an authority we never had. We claim a throne that was never given to us. We wear a crown that does not belong to us. We construct a self that does not need God. And when anyone challenges that authority, we destroy them—with our tongues, our silences, our exclusions.

And then the landowner sends his son. The son is not another messenger. The son comes with the authority of the landowner himself. In the parable, the son is Jesus. In the story of your own life, Jesus is the final reminder for conversion that you cannot ignore. The son is the ultimate claim. From this moment, God stops sending reminders and comes in person. The encounter with the Son demands a decision. Not a message to be debated. Not a truth to be considered. A person to be faced. The son is the one who looks at us with love and says, “This life is not yours. It was given to you. And I have come to claim it back.”

When we encounter the son, there is the death of our false self. Some people stop listening to this final attempt of God because He demands surrender. They silence him with death, totally avoiding any conversion. And then, they tell themselves that the vineyard is theirs. But the Truth will haunt them.

The landowner will come. The accounting will happen. And the tenants who tried to possess what was never theirs will lose even what they had. This is not a punishment. It is a consequence. The refusal to be a steward means the loss of the vineyard.

And then, there is the stone. The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. What the ego rejects is precisely what becomes the foundation of true life. The son rejected and killed becomes the source of our salvation. The truth we crucify becomes the truth that raises us.

Your life is not your own. It is a gift. Your body is not your property. It is a trust. Your time is not your right. It is a responsibility. Your gifts are not your possessions. They are your offerings. The more you try to own, the more you lose. The more you hold on, the more they slip away. The more you defend your control, the more you destroy what you were given.

The landowner is patient. He sends servants. He sends more servants. He sends the son. He gives you every chance to return. He gives you every chance to release the illusion of ownership and return to the truth of stewardship. But the time of accounting will come. And the question is not whether you will give an account. The question is what you will have to show.

I am asking myself: Where have I confused stewardship with ownership? Where have I treated my life as my property? Where have I attacked the messengers who came to remind me of the truth? Who have I murdered with my words? What authority am I pretending to have? Where am I building my own little kingdom instead of tending the vineyard I was given?

The answer is uncomfortable. But the answer is the path. The path out of the violence of ownership. The path into the freedom of stewardship.

© Claretian Publications, Macau 2026
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica

喜樂與希望的聖言
甲年常年期第廿七主日
瑪 21:33-46
Fernando Armellini神父講道

大家好。

前幾個主日，我們聽了兩個以葡萄園為比喻的故事。今天，耶穌沿用這個主題，講了第三個比喻。要聽懂這個比喻，我們必須記住那首著名的讀經一——依撒意亞先知書第5章中的“葡萄園之歌”。這首歌很可能是依撒意亞本人在耶路撒冷城的小廣場上創作並演唱的。那時候就已經有遊吟詩人了。誰覺得自己有點詩才、想講個故事，就會在耶路撒冷城中的小廣場上表演。

依撒意亞就是這樣。我們可以想像他被一群青年朋友圍著——因為他寫這首歌的時候，才二十出頭。他先講了一個農夫對自己葡萄園的愛情故事。他年輕的聽眾立刻就明白了：在這幅農夫與葡萄園的畫面背後，藏著村裡某個青年對一位美麗姑娘熾熱的愛。所以大家對這個故事非常好奇。依撒意亞講述了這份愛是如何開始的，又是如何在千百次的呵護與照料中培養起來的。這棵葡萄樹不是隨便選的：農夫去到外邦，精心挑選。然後他清理土地，拔除荊棘、雜草和石頭，把葡萄樹種在向陽的地方，因為它要結出葡萄、釀出好酒。他還在四周築了圍牆，好保護它。總之，他對它傾注了無微不至的照料。聽到這裡，我們也跟著投入了，想知道這個愛情故事的結局。葡萄園有沒有回應這份呵護呢？出人意料的是：園丁期待著一串串上好的葡萄，但在收穫的季節，他找到的卻是四串又酸又澀、根本不能吃的葡萄。這真是令人痛心的失望。

我們都知道，偉大的愛一旦被背叛，就會化作極大的恨。於是，這個農夫被無法遏制的憤怒和怨恨所吞噬。他推倒分隔的圍牆，任由路人踐踏葡萄園；他要讓野豬——那些野蠻的野獸——闖進去，把它毀壞；讓荊棘覆蓋它、窒息它；讓雲彩一滴雨也不降在這葡萄園上。

依撒意亞到底在說什麼？農夫和葡萄園這些畫面背後藏著什麼？我剛才提到，聽他講故事的年輕人一定以為說的是城裡某對青年男女，也一定有自己的猜測。在這首歌的結尾，先知揭開了謎底：那愛人就是上主，葡萄園就是以色列，就是祂從埃及贖回、移植到客納罕地、卻辜負了祂大愛的那個民族。這首歌最後說：天主期望的是正義，卻看到了流血；祂期待的是公平，卻只聽到受壓迫者的呼喊。對於這背叛了祂期望的葡萄園，上主會怎麼做呢？我們剛才聽到了那要毀滅它的狂怒。但要注意：天主當然不會做這些事。這些畫面是詩人用來告訴我們，上主對人類的愛是何等投入，何等熾熱。

現在，讓我們來聽耶穌的比喻：在這個比喻中，我們能立刻聽出對依撒意亞葡萄園之歌的呼應。請聽：

“你們再聽一個比喻。有一個家主，栽了一個葡萄園，周圍圈上籬笆，裡面挖了一個榨酒池，蓋了一座瞭望台。然後把園子租給佃戶，就遠行去了。”

在耶穌的時代，有些葡萄園規模不大，帶有家庭性質。每家挨著自己的房子，都有幾株葡萄藤。葡萄樹壽命很長，甚至可以活幾個世紀，所以幾乎被當作家庭成員一樣愛護，因為它陪伴了一個家族好幾代人。詠128也用了這個畫面：“你的妻子將如你家中一株果實累累的葡萄樹。”一個人栽種葡萄樹，意味著他相信自己和子孫後代會在這地方長久居住，這樣，生命就成了和平與繁榮的標記。

也有一些大地主擁有廣闊的葡萄園。他們自己不勞作，而是把園子交給佃戶，自己住在羅馬帝國的大城裡——羅馬、安提約基雅、亞歷山大或厄弗所。只在收穫的季節回來收取果子。耶穌正是受到當時這種社會經濟現實的啟發，編了這個比喻，並引入了一位這樣的大地主。

分析這個比喻時，我們會從兩個層面入手：首先，看比喻的直接含義。因為耶穌是對站在他面前的宗教權威講的，他要讓他們反省自己即將犯下的前所未有的罪行。但我們也會注意到，這個比喻對我們今天也非常貼切。它向受洗者的團體、向教會——上主的葡萄園——發言。雖然教會並沒有取代以色列：上主的葡萄園仍是同一個，只是不再局限於以色列，如今已包含了全人類。

家主代表天主。我們剛才聽到了對祂所有關心與照料的描述，這和耶穌引用的依撒意亞之歌非常相似。讓我們回顧一下上主的這些照料。第一個：祂用籬笆把葡萄園圍起來，要清楚地界定自己的產業，不讓外人踏入祂的田地，祂要保護它。這就是天主對祂的葡萄園——以色列——所做的。在出谷紀第19章，天主說：“在普世萬民中，你們為我是最珍愛的產業。”（出 19:5）舊約很多地方都重複了這句話。當時的以色列人相信，每個民族都有自己的神，每位神也保護自己的子民，並從他們那裡接受祭品、全燔祭、祈禱和馨香。摩阿布人有革摩士（Chemosh），阿孟人有米耳公（Milcom），大馬士革的敘利亞人有自己的神，巴耳（Baal）有客納罕人……

上主也有自己的子民，祂的葡萄園界限分明——就是以色列。祂要保護它，使它遠離偶像崇拜的心態和外邦人不道德的行為。我們知道，在羅馬帝國時期，猶太人之所以出名，不僅因為他們的一神信仰，更因為他們嚴格的道德觀，尤其是在性方面的操守。上主很好地保護了自己的子民。那保護他們的籬笆是什麼？是法律，是《托拉》。它不斷提醒以色列人，真正的子民該如何生活。

今天，上主的葡萄園也需要這道保護籬笆，因為周圍的世界不是按照納匝肋人耶穌的真福寶訓來思考和生活的，而是按照世俗的邏輯。主流思想根本不提福音的價值和主張。如果這種世俗精神滲透到基督徒的頭腦和心裡，就會感染並毀壞這個葡萄園，連最好的植株也會受害。今天，上主用來保護祂葡萄園的籬笆是什麼呢？是祂的聖言，是福音。

上主的第二個關注點：挖一個榨酒池。我身後放的這台榨酒機是耶穌前兩百年造的，非常古老。注意看有兩個池子：葡萄是在較大的池子裡壓榨的。你們也能想像出榨酒工人的樣子，因為岩石上有兩個孔，插著兩根木棍，上面架著一根橫樑，工人把繩子系在上面，好抓穩身體，工作時不會滑倒。他們一邊幹活，一邊唱歌跳舞。這正說明上主從葡萄園裡只期待喜樂、慶典、歌聲和愛。我剛才提到身後的榨酒池，你們也看到有一個較小的池子，用來收集葡萄汁。耶肋米亞先知在耶肋米亞先知書第25章回憶了榨酒工人歡樂的呼喊。

今天，天主從葡萄園——也就是教會——期待的，是為全人類結出喜樂的果實。如果基督的門徒像枝子連接在葡萄樹上一樣，與納匝肋的耶穌合而為一，讓祂的聖神在他們內流通，他們就會結出天主唯一感興趣的果實：愛德的工程。基督徒要用自己的生活向世界證明：凡按福音生活的人，就活在喜樂中，並傳播喜樂。

第三個關注點：他建了一座塔。如果去以色列，比如穿過撒瑪黎雅的田野，你常會看到田野裡有一些廢棄的塔，就像我身後這些。有些非常古老，早於耶穌的時代。你也可以看到這些塔最常見的復原模型。這座塔位於耶路撒冷附近的雅達舍摩納（Jada Scemonat）聖經花園。農民在這些小屋裡存放農具，屋頂則是瞭望和看守的地方。

這座塔有什麼含義？它是上主以慈母般的關切，看守自己葡萄園和子民的象徵。因為小偷和強盜隨時準備翻過圍牆和籬笆，一旦讓他們進去，就會偷竊、殺害、毀壞葡萄園。

今天，上主如何看守祂的葡萄園呢？祂不直接出面，而是派遣祂的天使，就是祂關懷的中保。我們知道許多這樣的天使就在我們的團體中。他們確保沒有人攪亂上主的葡萄園，不讓任何違背福音的主張混入。一旦發生這樣的事，在塔樓上守望的這些天使就會立刻介入，發出呼聲，喚起警覺。

家主把葡萄園交給佃戶後，就離開了。現在，收取果子的時節開始了。這個比喻的聽眾是法利賽人，是百姓的精神領袖，是大司祭，是向上主獻全燔祭的人。聽比喻的時候，他們心裡一定在想：“如果上主來跟我們要果子，我們可是應有盡有。看看聖殿的廣場……擠滿了祈禱的朝聖者，帶著精選的羔羊獻給上主……上主如果來收果子，一定會很滿意……”

不過，我們繼續聽比喻是怎麼說的：

“到了收成的時節，祂打發僕人到佃戶那裡去收果子。佃戶卻抓住那些僕人，打傷一個，殺了一個，用石頭砸死另一個。主人又派了別的僕人去，比先前更多，但他們也受到了同樣的對待。”

園主派去收果子的這些使者是誰？他們代表先知。耶肋米亞在他的著作——耶肋米亞先知書——第7章提到他的子民說：“自從他們離開埃及，上主不斷派遣祂的僕人——先知——指示他們當行的正道，他們卻不聽，自招滅亡。”

耶穌區分了兩組使者。他可能是指流亡前和流亡後天主所派遣的先知。這些先知向以色列子民要求什麼呢？他們不斷要求上主所期待的果子。依撒意亞在他的著作——依撒意亞先知書第1章中說：“你們要學習行善，尋求公道，幫助受壓迫的人，為孤兒伸冤，為寡婦辯護。”（依 1:17）而這些使者看到的卻是什麼？是隆重的禮儀和祭獻、羔羊、馨香、俯伏、全燔祭。這些都不是天主想要從祂子民那裡得到的果子。這些是外在的形式，他們以此欺騙自己，以為在天主面前做得很好。依撒意亞先知在他的著作——依撒意亞先知書開頭說：“不要再給我獻無用的祭品；馨香的煙味令我厭惡……你們的慶節和盛會我深惡痛絕……你們舉手祈禱時，我必掩目不看。”（依 1:13）祂對這些事不感興趣。祂要的是正義。

在依撒意亞先知書第58章，依撒意亞也常提到天主渴望的果子。他不要虛假的禁食，他要的是中悅天主的真禁食：“你們把頭垂得像蘆葦，躺在麻布和灰上。這算是禁食嗎？我所中意的禁食是：鬆開不義的鎖鏈，解開軛上的繩索，讓受壓迫的人獲得自由；把你的餅分給饑餓的人，把流浪的窮人接到家中；見到赤身露體的人給他穿，不要回避你的骨肉之親。”（依 58:3-7）他們是你們的兄弟。

然而，先知們的這些呼籲惹惱了以色列人。那麼他們是怎麼對待這些使者的呢？正如耶穌在比喻中所說的：有的被鞭打，有的被石頭砸死，有的被殺害。耶肋米亞是最被人恨的，他被石頭砸，被丟在枯井裡；烏黎雅被殺；匝加利亞在聖殿院子裡被石頭砸死。這就是發生在以色列身上的事。他們就是這樣對待那些不斷來要求天主所要的果子——正義、仁愛和對窮人的關懷——的先知。

今天，上主繼續派遣祂的先知，要求同樣的果子。這些先知是如何被對待的呢？讓我們想想，那些與他們信仰相同的弟兄是如何對待他們的：普裡莫·馬左拉裡（在邊緣地區工作的義大利司鐸）、洛倫佐·米拉尼（走出教會的先知）、奧斯卡·羅梅羅（捍衛窮人選擇的薩爾瓦多主教）、托尼諾·貝洛（義大利主教，和平主義者）、圖羅爾多（聖言的僕人）。讓我們捫心自問：今天，那些要求更福音化態度的人怎樣了？那些要求結束教會內政治攀附、譴責教會財產管理方式違背造物主計畫的人怎樣了？那些譴責虛偽虔誠——那種只求良心平安、卻不給上主所要求的東西——的人怎樣了？那些譴責某些宗教習俗、某些與福音毫無關係的傳統之矛盾性的人怎樣了？他們受到了迫害。

我們可能會問：如何認出這些先知呢？以下是一些識別的標誌：他們是從不謀求私利的人；他們的行動不是為了獲取好處、認可、榮譽頭銜或職位晉升。支配他們話語的，始終是對福音、對正義的熾熱；他們的呼籲始終以上主所期待的果子為中心：愛窮人，關懷窮人。他們總是站在弱小者一邊，因此總是與當權者——無論是政治的還是宗教的——產生衝突。最後一個準則：先知總是要付出自己的生命作為代價。

在先知之後，上主決定派遣自己的兒子。請聽：

“最後，祂打發自己的兒子到他們那裡去，心裡說：‘他們必尊敬我的兒子。’可是佃戶看見祂的兒子，就彼此說：‘這是繼承人。來，我們殺了祂，霸佔祂的產業。’他們抓住祂，把祂扔出葡萄園外，殺了。”

正如先知們所做的，兒子也來要葡萄園的果子。祂找到了什麼呢？對觀福音給我們講了另一個比喻：不結果的無花果樹。無花果樹和葡萄樹一樣，是以色列子民的象徵，這個民族本應結出美味的果子，獻給他們的天主。耶穌在這無花果樹上找到了什麼？聖史說：早晨，耶穌餓了，走到一棵無花果樹前找果子，卻只找到了葉子。當然，這只是一個比喻。葉子代表耶穌在以色列看到的宗教外表。祂沒有找到上主唯一想要的果子。葉子是騙人的，因為它遮住了果子的缺乏——而那才是天主唯一在意的東西。

兒子也令葡萄園的負責人不安。他們做了什麼？他們把祂趕出去，殺了祂。這個比喻準確描述了他們對耶穌所做的事——當然不是以色列人民，而是那些自認為是葡萄園主人、想在普通百姓面前抬高自己、維護自己特權的人。這就是為什麼他們除掉了那個讓他們不安的兒子。

我們要小心，因為今天我們也可能會犯同樣的錯誤：主宰葡萄園，趕走兒子……這個比喻當然提供了反省的理由。首先，那些在教會團體內肩負重大責任的人，可能會忘記福音才是每個選擇的參照點。他們不是葡萄園的主人。今天存在一種危險，因為在初期教會就已經有了。伯多祿在伯多祿前書中，寫信給各團體的長老說：“我這同為長老的，勸勉你們：務要牧養在你們中間的天主子民，不是出於勉強，也不是為了貪財，而是出於樂意；不是做領袖的，而是做群羊的榜樣。”（伯前 5:1-3）不僅教會的聖統必須反思自己生活和管理上主葡萄園的方式。每個受洗者都有把兒子趕出葡萄園的危險。

我們可以舉幾個例子：如果我們把為囤積貨物辯護的心態，就像世俗的公正所做的那樣——引入葡萄園，我們就是把基督和祂的福音趕了出去。因為耶穌說貧窮的人是有福的，而不是那些積蓄的人。這就是世俗的心態；如果我們把它引入葡萄園，就是驅逐了福音。如果我們為戰爭辯護，說“當然不是所有戰爭，只是必要的戰爭”，我們就是把基督和祂的福音趕出葡萄園，因為耶穌不是這樣想的。如果我們順從當下關於性的觀念，忘記了家庭是忠貞與無條件之愛的見證，我們就是把基督和祂的福音挪開，給世俗的性觀念讓路。

給世俗的性觀念讓路。當我們把福音之子從社會中趕出去，會發生什麼呢？那句名言流傳已久：“天主死了，我們殺了祂。”這謀殺的後果擺在所有人面前。我們看到人脫離福音、脫離基督所產生的後果：恐怖、孤獨、生命意義的缺失、暴力、破壞受造物、傲慢，以及許多其他的亂象——有些正在進行，有些已在計畫中。

比喻以戲劇性的一幕結束：那最後來要求上主所期待果子的兒子，被人殺了。兒子一死，一切就結束了。他們打贏了這場仗。他們會永遠霸佔葡萄園嗎？我們繼續聽比喻：

耶穌問司祭長和法利賽人說：“葡萄園的主人來的時候，會怎樣處置那些佃戶呢？”他們回答說：“他要兇狠地除滅那些惡人，把葡萄園另租給那按時交果子的佃戶。”耶穌對他們說：“你們從來沒有讀過聖經嗎：‘匠人棄而不用的石頭，反而成了屋角的基石；這是上主所做的，在我們眼中神妙莫測’？所以我告訴你們：天主的國要從你們手中奪去，交給那結果實的人。”司祭長和法利賽人聽了這些比喻，知道祂是在講他們。他們雖然想逮捕祂，但又怕群眾，因為群眾把祂看作先知。

在比喻的結尾，耶穌直接對聽眾說，他們這些長老、大司祭就是葡萄園的看守者。祂直接問他們：“如果你站在葡萄園主人的位置，你會怎麼做呢？”答案立刻就出來了，我相信和我們大多數人會給出的答案很相似：“他要把那些惡人除滅，把葡萄園租給別的、按時交果子的佃戶。”耶穌回答說：“你們沒有讀過聖經嗎？天主不會這樣做的。”天主只做愛的工作，祂不毀滅任何人。天主會做什麼呢？祂會把匠人棄而不用的石頭，立為奇妙新建築的基石，一座有祭獻升到天上的聖殿。唯一中悅天主的全燔祭，就是愛德的工程。耶穌的意思是：天主會把人犯下的最嚴重的罪行，變成祂愛與救贖的傑作。

結論給我們展示的畫面雖然震撼，卻是喜訊，傳遞的是喜樂與希望。耶穌看似是被擊敗的那一位；被棄絕的石頭，讓人以為邪惡已經得勝。但事實並非如此。比喻用這些戲劇性的畫面告訴我們：那跌在這石頭上的，必要被砸得粉碎。注意：這是閃族語的表達方式，告訴我們羔羊比狼更強壯；那愛並獻出生命的人，比奪去祂生命的人更強壯。因此，這是一個喜樂的宣告，一個邪惡永不能得勝的盼望。

這羔羊，這被丟棄的石頭，比狼更強壯。

祝大家主日喜樂，一周平安！

© 全屬於祢 & 樂仁出版社（中國香港）
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2026

喜乐与希望的圣言
甲年常年期第廿七主日
玛 21:33-46
Fernando Armellini神父讲道

大家好。

前几个主日，我们听了两个以葡萄园为比喻的故事。今天，耶稣沿用这个主题，讲了第三个比喻。要听懂这个比喻，我们必须记住那首著名的读经一——依撒意亚先知书第5章中的“葡萄园之歌”。这首歌很可能是依撒意亚本人在耶路撒冷城的小广场上创作并演唱的。那时候就已经有游吟诗人了。谁觉得自己有点诗才、想讲个故事，就会在耶路撒冷城中的小广场上表演。

依撒意亚就是这样。我们可以想象他被一群青年朋友围着——因为他写这首歌的时候，才二十出头。他先讲了一个农夫对自己葡萄园的爱情故事。他年轻的听众立刻就明白了：在这幅农夫与葡萄园的画面背后，藏着村里某个青年对一位美丽姑娘炽热的爱。所以大家对这个故事非常好奇。依撒意亚讲述了这份爱是如何开始的，又是如何在千百次的呵护与照料中培养起来的。这棵葡萄树不是随便选的：农夫去到外邦，精心挑选。然后他清理土地，拔除荆棘、杂草和石头，把葡萄树种在向阳的地方，因为它要结出葡萄、酿出好酒。他还在四周筑了围墙，好保护它。总之，他对它倾注了无微不至的照料。听到这里，我们也跟着投入了，想知道这个爱情故事的结局。葡萄园有没有回应这份呵护呢？出人意料的是：园丁期待着一串串上好的葡萄，但在收获的季节，他找到的却是四串又酸又涩、根本不能吃的葡萄。这真是令人痛心的失望。

我们都知道，伟大的爱一旦被背叛，就会化作极大的恨。于是，这个农夫被无法遏制的愤怒和怨恨所吞噬。他推倒分隔的围墙，任由路人践踏葡萄园；他要让野猪——那些野蛮的野兽——闯进去，把它毁坏；让荆棘覆盖它、窒息它；让云彩一滴雨也不降在这葡萄园上。

依撒意亚到底在说什么？农夫和葡萄园这些画面背后藏着什么？我刚才提到，听他讲故事的年轻人一定以为说的是城里某对青年男女，也一定有自己的猜测。在这首歌的结尾，先知揭开了谜底：那爱人就是上主，葡萄园就是以色列，就是祂从埃及赎回、移植到客纳罕地、却辜负了祂大爱的那个民族。这首歌最后说：天主期望的是正义，却看到了流血；祂期待的是公平，却只听到受压迫者的呼喊。对于这背叛了祂期望的葡萄园，上主会怎么做呢？我们刚才听到了那要毁灭它的狂怒。但要注意：天主当然不会做这些事。这些画面是诗人用来告诉我们，上主对人类的爱是何等投入，何等炽热。

现在，让我们来听耶稣的比喻：在这个比喻中，我们能立刻听出对依撒意亚葡萄园之歌的呼应。请听：

“你们再听一个比喻。有一个家主，栽了一个葡萄园，周围圈上篱笆，里面挖了一个榨酒池，盖了一座瞭望台。然后把园子租给佃户，就远行去了。”

在耶稣的时代，有些葡萄园规模不大，带有家庭性质。每家挨着自己的房子，都有几株葡萄藤。葡萄树寿命很长，甚至可以活几个世纪，所以几乎被当作家庭成员一样爱护，因为它陪伴了一个家族好几代人。咏128也用了这个画面：“你的妻子将如你家中一株果实累累的葡萄树。”一个人栽种葡萄树，意味着他相信自己和子孙后代会在这地方长久居住，这样，生命就成了和平与繁荣的标记。

也有一些大地主拥有广阔的葡萄园。他们自己不劳作，而是把园子交给佃户，自己住在罗马帝国的大城里——罗马、安提约基雅、亚历山大或厄弗所。只在收获的季节回来收取果子。耶稣正是受到当时这种社会经济现实的启发，编了这个比喻，并引入了一位这样的大地主。

分析这个比喻时，我们会从两个层面入手：首先，看比喻的直接含义。因为耶稣是对站在他面前的宗教权威讲的，他要让他们反省自己即将犯下的前所未有的罪行。但我们也会注意到，这个比喻对我们今天也非常贴切。它向受洗者的团体、向教会——上主的葡萄园——发言。虽然教会并没有取代以色列：上主的葡萄园仍是同一个，只是不再局限于以色列，如今已包含了全人类。

家主代表天主。我们刚才听到了对祂所有关心与照料的描述，这和耶稣引用的依撒意亚之歌非常相似。让我们回顾一下上主的这些照料。第一个：祂用篱笆把葡萄园围起来，要清楚地界定自己的产业，不让外人踏入祂的田地，祂要保护它。这就是天主对祂的葡萄园——以色列——所做的。在出谷纪第19章，天主说：“在普世万民中，你们为我是最珍爱的产业。”（出 19:5）旧约很多地方都重复了这句话。当时的以色列人相信，每个民族都有自己的神，每位神也保护自己的子民，并从他们那里接受祭品、全燔祭、祈祷和馨香。摩阿布人有革摩士（Chemosh），阿孟人有米耳公（Milcom），大马士革的叙利亚人有自己的神，巴耳（Baal）有客纳罕人……

上主也有自己的子民，祂的葡萄园界限分明——就是以色列。祂要保护它，使它远离偶像崇拜的心态和外邦人不道德的行为。我们知道，在罗马帝国时期，犹太人之所以出名，不仅因为他们的一神信仰，更因为他们严格的道德观，尤其是在性方面的操守。上主很好地保护了自己的子民。那保护他们的篱笆是什么？是法律，是《托拉》。它不断提醒以色列人，真正的子民该如何生活。

今天，上主的葡萄园也需要这道保护篱笆，因为周围的世界不是按照纳匝肋人耶稣的真福宝训来思考和生活的，而是按照世俗的逻辑。主流思想根本不提福音的价值和主张。如果这种世俗精神渗透到基督徒的头脑和心里，就会感染并毁坏这个葡萄园，连最好的植株也会受害。今天，上主用来保护祂葡萄园的篱笆是什么呢？是祂的圣言，是福音。

上主的第二个关注点：挖一个榨酒池。我身后放的这台榨酒机是耶稣前两百年造的，非常古老。注意看有两个池子：葡萄是在较大的池子里压榨的。你们也能想象出榨酒工人的样子，因为岩石上有两个孔，插着两根木棍，上面架着一根横梁，工人把绳子系在上面，好抓稳身体，工作时不会滑倒。他们一边干活，一边唱歌跳舞。这正说明上主从葡萄园里只期待喜乐、庆典、歌声和爱。我刚才提到身后的榨酒池，你们也看到有一个较小的池子，用来收集葡萄汁。耶肋米亚先知在耶肋米亚先知书第25章回忆了榨酒工人欢乐的呼喊。

今天，天主从葡萄园——也就是教会——期待的，是为全人类结出喜乐的果实。如果基督的门徒像枝子连接在葡萄树上一样，与纳匝肋的耶稣合而为一，让祂的圣神在他们内流通，他们就会结出天主唯一感兴趣的果实：爱德的工程。基督徒要用自己的生活向世界证明：凡按福音生活的人，就活在喜乐中，并传播喜乐。

第三个关注点：他建了一座塔。如果去以色列，比如穿过撒玛黎雅的田野，你常会看到田野里有一些废弃的塔，就像我身后这些。有些非常古老，早于耶稣的时代。你也可以看到这些塔最常见的复原模型。这座塔位于耶路撒冷附近的雅达舍摩纳（Jada Scemonat）圣经花园。农民在这些小屋里存放农具，屋顶则是瞭望和看守的地方。

这座塔有什么含义？它是上主以慈母般的关切，看守自己葡萄园和子民的象征。因为小偷和强盗随时准备翻过围墙和篱笆，一旦让他们进去，就会偷窃、杀害、毁坏葡萄园。

今天，上主如何看守祂的葡萄园呢？祂不直接出面，而是派遣祂的天使，就是祂关怀的中保。我们知道许多这样的天使就在我们的团体中。他们确保没有人搅乱上主的葡萄园，不让任何违背福音的主张混入。一旦发生这样的事，在塔楼上守望的这些天使就会立刻介入，发出呼声，唤起警觉。

家主把葡萄园交给佃户后，就离开了。现在，收取果子的时节开始了。这个比喻的听众是法利赛人，是百姓的精神领袖，是大司祭，是向上主献全燔祭的人。听比喻的时候，他们心里一定在想：“如果上主来跟我们要果子，我们可是应有尽有。看看圣殿的广场……挤满了祈祷的朝圣者，带着精选的羔羊献给上主……上主如果来收果子，一定会很满意……”

不过，我们继续听比喻是怎么说的：

“到了收成的时节，祂打发仆人到佃户那里去收果子。佃户却抓住那些仆人，打伤一个，杀了一个，用石头砸死另一个。主人又派了别的仆人去，比先前更多，但他们也受到了同样的对待。”

园主派去收果子的这些使者是谁？他们代表先知。耶肋米亚在他的著作——耶肋米亚先知书——第7章提到他的子民说：“自从他们离开埃及，上主不断派遣祂的仆人——先知——指示他们当行的正道，他们却不听，自招灭亡。”

耶稣区分了两组使者。他可能是指流亡前和流亡后天主所派遣的先知。这些先知向以色列子民要求什么呢？他们不断要求上主所期待的果子。依撒意亚在他的著作——依撒意亚先知书第1章中说：“你们要学习行善，寻求公道，帮助受压迫的人，为孤儿伸冤，为寡妇辩护。”（依 1:17）而这些使者看到的却是什么？是隆重的礼仪和祭献、羔羊、馨香、俯伏、全燔祭。这些都不是天主想要从祂子民那里得到的果子。这些是外在的形式，他们以此欺骗自己，以为在天主面前做得很好。依撒意亚先知在他的著作——依撒意亚先知书开头说：“不要再给我献无用的祭品；馨香的烟味令我厌恶……你们的庆节和盛会我深恶痛绝……你们举手祈祷时，我必掩目不看。”（依 1:13）祂对这些事不感兴趣。祂要的是正义。

在依撒意亚先知书第58章，依撒意亚也常提到天主渴望的果子。他不要虚假的禁食，他要的是中悦天主的真禁食：“你们把头垂得像芦苇，躺在麻布和灰上。这算是禁食吗？我所中意的禁食是：松开不义的锁链，解开轭上的绳索，让受压迫的人获得自由；把你的饼分给饥饿的人，把流浪的穷人接到家中；见到赤身露体的人给他穿，不要回避你的骨肉之亲。”（依 58:3-7）他们是你们的兄弟。

然而，先知们的这些呼吁惹恼了以色列人。那么他们是怎么对待这些使者的呢？正如耶稣在比喻中所说的：有的被鞭打，有的被石头砸死，有的被杀害。耶肋米亚是最被人恨的，他被石头砸，被丢在枯井里；乌黎雅被杀；匝加利亚在圣殿院子里被石头砸死。这就是发生在以色列身上的事。他们就是这样对待那些不断来要求天主所要的果子——正义、仁爱和对穷人的关怀——的先知。

今天，上主继续派遣祂的先知，要求同样的果子。这些先知是如何被对待的呢？让我们想想，那些与他们信仰相同的弟兄是如何对待他们的：普里莫·马佐拉里（在边缘地区工作的意大利司铎）、洛伦佐·米拉尼（走出教会的先知）、奥斯卡·罗梅罗（捍卫穷人选择的萨尔瓦多主教）、托尼诺·贝洛（意大利主教，和平主义者）、图罗尔多（圣言的仆人）。让我们扪心自问：今天，那些要求更福音化态度的人怎样了？那些要求结束教会内政治攀附、谴责教会财产管理方式违背造物主计划的人怎样了？那些谴责虚伪虔诚——那种只求良心平安、却不给上主所要求的东西——的人怎样了？那些谴责某些宗教习俗、某些与福音毫无关系的传统之矛盾性的人怎样了？他们受到了迫害。

我们可能会问：如何认出这些先知呢？以下是一些识别的标志：他们是从不谋求私利的人；他们的行动不是为了获取好处、认可、荣誉头衔或职位晋升。支配他们话语的，始终是对福音、对正义的炽热；他们的呼吁始终以上主所期待的果子为中心：爱穷人，关怀穷人。他们总是站在弱小者一边，因此总是与当权者——无论是政治的还是宗教的——产生冲突。最后一个准则：先知总是要付出自己的生命作为代价。

在先知之后，上主决定派遣自己的儿子。请听：

“最后，祂打发自己的儿子到他们那里去，心里说：‘他们必尊敬我的儿子。’可是佃户看见祂的儿子，就彼此说：‘这是继承人。来，我们杀了祂，霸占祂的产业。’他们抓住祂，把祂扔出葡萄园外，杀了。”

正如先知们所做的，儿子也来要葡萄园的果子。祂找到了什么呢？对观福音给我们讲了另一个比喻：不结果的无花果树。无花果树和葡萄树一样，是以色列子民的象征，这个民族本应结出美味的果子，献给他们的天主。耶稣在这无花果树上找到了什么？圣史说：早晨，耶稣饿了，走到一棵无花果树前找果子，却只找到了叶子。当然，这只是一个比喻。叶子代表耶稣在以色列看到的宗教外表。祂没有找到上主唯一想要的果子。叶子是骗人的，因为它遮住了果子的缺乏——而那才是天主唯一在意的东西。

儿子也令葡萄园的负责人不安。他们做了什么？他们把祂赶出去，杀了祂。这个比喻准确描述了他们对耶稣所做的事——当然不是以色列人民，而是那些自认为是葡萄园主人、想在普通百姓面前抬高自己、维护自己特权的人。这就是为什么他们除掉了那个让他们不安的儿子。

我们要小心，因为今天我们也可能会犯同样的错误：主宰葡萄园，赶走儿子……这个比喻当然提供了反省的理由。首先，那些在教会团体内肩负重大责任的人，可能会忘记福音才是每个选择的参照点。他们不是葡萄园的主人。今天存在一种危险，因为在初期教会就已经有了。伯多禄在伯多禄前书中，写信给各团体的长老说：“我这同为长老的，劝勉你们：务要牧养在你们中间的天主子民，不是出于勉强，也不是为了贪财，而是出于乐意；不是做领袖的，而是做群羊的榜样。”（伯前 5:1-3）不仅教会的圣统必须反思自己生活和管理上主葡萄园的方式。每个受洗者都有把儿子赶出葡萄园的危险。

我们可以举几个例子：如果我们把为囤积货物辩护的心态，就像世俗的公正所做的那样——引入葡萄园，我们就是把基督和祂的福音赶了出去。因为耶稣说贫穷的人是有福的，而不是那些积蓄的人。这就是世俗的心态；如果我们把它引入葡萄园，就是驱逐了福音。如果我们为战争辩护，说“当然不是所有战争，只是必要的战争”，我们就是把基督和祂的福音赶出葡萄园，因为耶稣不是这样想的。如果我们顺从当下关于性的观念，忘记了家庭是忠贞与无条件之爱的见证，我们就是把基督和祂的福音挪开，给世俗的性观念让路。

给世俗的性观念让路。当我们把福音之子从社会中赶出去，会发生什么呢？那句名言流传已久：“天主死了，我们杀了祂。”这谋杀的后果摆在所有人面前。我们看到人脱离福音、脱离基督所产生的后果：恐怖、孤独、生命意义的缺失、暴力、破坏受造物、傲慢，以及许多其他的乱象——有些正在进行，有些已在计划中。

比喻以戏剧性的一幕结束：那最后来要求上主所期待果子的儿子，被人杀了。儿子一死，一切就结束了。他们打赢了这场仗。他们会永远霸占葡萄园吗？我们继续听比喻：

耶稣问司祭长和法利赛人说：“葡萄园的主人来的时候，会怎样处置那些佃户呢？”他们回答说：“他要凶狠地除灭那些恶人，把葡萄园另租给那按时交果子的佃户。”耶稣对他们说：“你们从来没有读过圣经吗：‘匠人弃而不用的石头，反而成了屋角的基石；这是上主所做的，在我们眼中神妙莫测’？所以我告诉你们：天主的国要从你们手中夺去，交给那结果实的人。”司祭长和法利赛人听了这些比喻，知道祂是在讲他们。他们虽然想逮捕祂，但又怕群众，因为群众把祂看作先知。

在比喻的结尾，耶稣直接对听众说，他们这些长老、大司祭就是葡萄园的看守者。祂直接问他们：“如果你站在葡萄园主人的位置，你会怎么做呢？”答案立刻就出来了，我相信和我们大多数人会给出的答案很相似：“他要把那些恶人除灭，把葡萄园租给别的、按时交果子的佃户。”耶稣回答说：“你们没有读过圣经吗？天主不会这样做的。”天主只做爱的工作，祂不毁灭任何人。天主会做什么呢？祂会把匠人弃而不用的石头，立为奇妙新建筑的基石，一座有祭献升到天上的圣殿。唯一中悦天主的全燔祭，就是爱德的工程。耶稣的意思是：天主会把人犯下的最严重的罪行，变成祂爱与救赎的杰作。

结论给我们展示的画面虽然震撼，却是喜讯，传递的是喜乐与希望。耶稣看似是被击败的那一位；被弃绝的石头，让人以为邪恶已经得胜。但事实并非如此。比喻用这些戏剧性的画面告诉我们：那跌在这石头上的，必要被砸得粉碎。注意：这是闪族语的表达方式，告诉我们羔羊比狼更强壮；那爱并献出生命的人，比夺去祂生命的人更强壮。因此，这是一个喜乐的宣告，一个邪恶永不能得胜的盼望。

这羔羊，这被丢弃的石头，比狼更强壮。

祝大家主日喜乐，一周平安！

© 全属于祢 & 乐仁出版社（中国香港）
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2026

TWENTY-SEVENTH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME – YEAR A

Matthew 21:33-46

Commentary of Fr. Fernando Armellini

Greetings to all.

In the last Sundays we have listened to two parables that had the vineyard as their theme and today Jesus takes up the theme with a third parable. To understand it, we must remember the famous Song of the Vineyard which is found in chapter 5 of the book of Isaiah and which the liturgy offers us today as the first reading. It is a song that was composed and probably performed by Isaiah himself in a small square in the city of Jerusalem. Already at that time, there were singer-songwriters, and when one felt he had some poetic vein and some story to tell, he would interpret in these small squares in the city of Jerusalem.

It is precisely the case for Isaiah; we can imagine him surrounded by a group of young friends because Isaiah, when he composed this song, was in his early twenties. It begins by telling a love story of a farmer for his vineyard. His young listeners immediately understand that, behind the picture the farmer in the vineyard hides a yearning love of some young man from the village for a beautiful girl. So, they are pretty intrigued by the story. Isaiah tells how this love began and how it was then cultivated with a thousand attentions and care. The vine was not chosen at random; the farmer went to a foreign country and chose it well. Then he prepared the land, cleared it of thorns, weeds, and stones, and planted this vineyard in a sunny place because it should bring forth grapes and good and strong wine. He also built a surrounding wall to protect it. In short, he showered it with every care and attention.

At this point, we are also involved and want to know the outcome of this love story. Did the vineyard respond to this attention and care? Here is the surprise: the vinedresser was expecting bunches of excellent grapes and instead, at harvest time, he found four sour and inedible grapes; a bitter disappointment.

We know that great loves betrayed always give rise to great hatred. And so, this farmer is a prisoner of uncontainable anger and resentment. He tears down the wall of separation, he wants the passers-by to trample the vineyard; he wants the wild boars—which are wild (“worldly”) animals—to enter the vineyard and devastate it; let the brambles overrun it, and choke it, and let the clouds pour not a drop of water upon this vineyard.

What is Isaiah talking about? What is hidden behind the images of the farmer and the vineyard? I mentioned that the young men who listen to him certainly think of a boy and a girl of the city and also certainly make their assumptions. At the end of the song, the prophet reveals the riddle: The lover is the Lord, and the vineyard is Israel, the people whom He went to buy in Egypt and were transplanted in the land of Canaan, a people who have disappointed his love. And in the end—says the song—God expected justice and found bloodshed; he expected righteousness and instead, he heard only the cries of oppressed people. What will the Lord do with this vineyard that has betrayed his expectations? We have heard its rapture, the will to destroy it. Let us beware; God does not, naturally, do these things; they are images with which the poet wants to tell us to what extent the Lord is involved in this passion of love for man.

Let us now listen to Jesus’ parable in which we can immediately appreciate references to Isaiah’s Song of the Vineyard. Let us listen:

“Hear another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard, put a hedge around it, dug a wine press in it, and built a tower. Then he leased it to tenants and went on a journey.”

In the time of Jesus, there were vineyards of modest size, of family character; each family, next to its own house, had a few vine plants. And as the vineyard is very long-lived and can live even for centuries, it was loved almost like a family member because it accompanied several generations of the same family. Psalm 128 uses this image: “Your wife is like a fruitful vine in the privacy of your home.” And when one planted a vine, it meant that he was convinced that he and his children and grandchildren would remain a long time in that place, and life thus became a sign of peace and prosperity.

And some large landowners owned very extensive vineyards; they didn’t work them; they gave them to tenant farmers, and they went to live in the big cities of the Roman Empire, in Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Ephesus. They would come back at harvest time to gather the fruits. And Jesus is inspired in this social and economic reality of his time to compose his parable and introduces one of these large landowners.

In the analysis of the parable, we will proceed on two levels; we will refer first to the immediate meaning of the parable because Jesus tells it to the religious authorities before him, and he wants to make them reflect on the unprecedented crimes they are about to commit. But we will also notice that this parable is very topical for us. Speaks to the community of the baptized, of the Church, the vineyard of the Lord, even though the Church has not replaced Israel: the vineyard of the Lord is still the same, but it is no longer limited to Israel. It has now involved all humanity.

The owner represents God; we have heard the description of all his attention and care, very similar (and Jesus compares them) to the Song of Isaiah. Let us review these cares of the Lord. The first one: he surrounded the vineyard with a hedge; he wanted to delimit his property well because he did not want strangers to set foot in his field, he wanted to protect it. This is what God did with Israel, his vineyard. In chapter 19 of the book of Exodus, God says: “You are my property among all the peoples of the earth” and this is repeated in many places in the Old Testament. The Israelites at that time believed that each people had their own God and each God its people whom it protected and from whom they received sacrifices, burnt offerings, prayers, and incense. Thus, Chemosh had his people, the Moabites; Milcom had his people, the Ammonites, the Syrians of Damascus; Baal had his people, the Canaanites…

The Lord had his people, his vineyard well delimited—Israel—and he wanted to protect it from the idolatrous mentality, from the immoral practices of the pagans. We know that in the Roman Empire, the Jews were known to be not only for their monotheism but, above all, for their strict morals, especially in the sexual sphere. The Lord had protected his people well. What was the hedge of protection? The Torah, the Law, which continually reminded the Israelites how true people behave.

Today the vineyard of the Lord needs this hedge of protection because the surrounding world reasons and lives not according to the Beatitudes of Jesus of Nazareth but according to pagan logic; the prevailing thought does not refer to evangelical values and proposals. If this worldliness manages to infiltrate into the mind and in the hearts of Christians, it infects and damages this vineyard. Even the best plants are affected. What is the hedge with which the Lord today protects his vineyard? It is his Word; it is the Gospel.

The second concern of the Lord is to dig a hole to press the grapes. The crusher that I put at the back is from two centuries before Jesus, so it is very old. Notice there are two basins: in the larger one, the grapes were pressed. And you can also imagine the crushers because there are two holes in the rock where they inserted two sticks and on top of them, they put a beam to which they tied ropes the crushers used to hold on to and not to slip while they were working. And, while they did so, they sang, they danced, and this is the sign that from the vineyard, the Lord expects only joy, celebration, singing, and love. I have pointed out in the background that crusher and you also see that there is a smaller vat where the grape juice was collected. The prophet Jeremiah remembers in chapter 25, the shouts of joy of the crushers.

Today God expects from the vineyard—which is the Church— to produce joy for all humanity. If the disciples of Christ are united as branches to the vine, who is Jesus of Nazareth and let his Spirit circulate in them, they will produce the only fruit that interests God: the works of love. Christians are to give the world proof by their lives that those who live according to the Gospel live in joy and produce joy.

Third concern: He built a tower. If one visits Israel and passes, for example, through the fields of Samaria, you often see in the fields some ruined towers like the one you see behind me; some are very old and before the time of Jesus, you can also appreciate the reconstruction of the most common model of these towers. This one is located in the biblical garden of Jada Scemonat near Jerusalem. In these huts, the peasants kept their work tools, and on the roof was the observation point for surveillance.

What is the meaning of this tower? It is the symbol of the Lord’s gaze that protects and watches over his vineyard, his people, with a maternal solicitude. Watch because thieves and bandits are always ready to jump over the wall and the hedge, and if you let them enter, they steal, kill, and devastate the vineyard.

How does the Lord watch over his vineyard today? He does not do it directly, but he sends his angels, the mediators of his care. We know many of these angels who are present in our communities; they are the ones who see to it that no one messes up the vineyard of the Lord, that no anti-evangelical proposals are introduced. And when this occurs, these angels watching over the tower immediately intervene, raising their voices, awakening the attention.

After having entrusted the vineyard to the peasants, the great owner has left, and now begins the time of the harvesting of the fruits. The hearers of the parable are the Pharisees, the spiritual leaders of the people, the high priests are those who offer burnt offerings to the Lord. They must have been thinking as they listened to the parable: “If the Lord comes to ask us for the fruits, we have them in abundance. Just look at the esplanade of the Temple… is full of pilgrims praying, bringing chosen lambs to offer them to the Lord… The Lord will certainly be satisfied if he comes to us to gather the fruit”…

However, let’s listen to how the parable continues:

“When vintage time drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to obtain his produce. But the tenants seized the servants and one they beat, another they killed, and a third they stoned. Again he sent other servants, more numerous than the first ones, but they treated them in the same way.”

Who do these envoys represent, whom the vineyard’s owner sends to gather the fruits? They represent the prophets. Jeremiah, in chapter 7 of his book, refers to his people, saying: “Since they came out of the land of Egypt, the Lord has always sent his servants, the prophets, to show them the right decisions to make; but they have not listened to them and have decreed their ruin.”

Jesus distinguishes between two groups of envoys. He was probably referring to the prophets sent by God before the exile and those sent after the exile. And what did these prophets ask of the people of Israel? They continually asked for the fruits that the Lord expects. Isaiah says so in the first chapter of his book: “Learn to do right; seek justice, help the oppressed, defend the fatherless, protect the widow” (Is 1:17). And what did these envoys find instead? They found solemn liturgies and sacrifices, lambs, incense, prostrations, burnt offerings. These were not the fruits that God wanted from his people. These were external practices by which they deceived themselves into thinking they were right with the Lord. The prophet Isaiah says at the beginning of his book: “Bring me no more worthless offerings; the smoke of the incense is detestable… your solemnities and feasts I detest… I close my eyes when you stretch out your hands” (Is 1:13). He is not interested in these things. He wants justice.

In chapter 58, Isaiah always mentions the fruits that God desires. Instead of the false fast, he wants the true fast that pleases God: “You bend your head like a reed, to lie down on matting and ashes. Do you call that fasting? The fact that I want is this: to open unjust prisons, to break the bars of the stocks, to let the oppressed go free; to share your bread with the hungry, to give hospitality the homeless poor, clothe him whom you see naked, and do not neglect your brother, who is your flesh” (Is 58:3-7). They are your brothers.

These calls of the prophets, however, annoyed the Israelites. And what did they then do with the envoys? Exactly what Jesus tells in the parable: some they beat, some they stoned, some they killed. The most hated of all was Jeremiah, who was stoned and cast into a cistern; Uriah was killed; Zechariah was stoned in the Temple courtyard. This happened to Israel. This was how they treated the prophets who continually came to ask for the fruits that God wanted: Justice, love, and attention to the poor.

And today, the Lord continues to send his prophets, who call and demand the same fruits. How are these prophets treated? Let us try to think how their brothers of faith received them: Primo Mazzolari (an Italian priest who worked in the peripheries), Don Lorenzo Milani (prophet of a Church going out), Oscar Romero (Salvadoran bishop who defended the option for the poor), Tonino Bello (Italian bishop, pacifist), and Turoldo (servant of the Word). Let us try to ask ourselves what is happening today with those who ask for a more evangelical attitude, with those who demand the end of political climbing in the Church. What happens with those who denounce how the goods of the Church are managed today, a way contrary to the Creator’s plan? What about those who denounce a hypocritical religiosity that only appeases consciences but does not give the Lord what he wants? What happens with the prophets who denounce the incoherence of certain religious practices, certain traditions that have nothing to do with the Gospel? They are persecuted.

We may ask ourselves: How can these prophets be recognized? These are some signs that make them recognizable: They are people who never seek personal benefit; they do not act to obtain favors, recognition, honorary titles, and promotions in their career. A passion for the Gospel always dictates their words, for justice; their call are always centered on the fruits that the Lord expects: love and care for the poor. They are people who are always on the side of the last and, in fact, always have problems with those in power, both political and religious. One last criterion: Prophets are the ones who always pay with their own life.

After the prophets, the Lord decided to send his Son. Let us listen:

“Finally, he sent his son to them, thinking, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and acquire his inheritance.’ They seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him.”

As the prophets had done, the son asked for the vineyard’s fruit. And what did he find? The synoptic evangelists tell us another parable: the parable of the barren fig tree. The fig tree, like the vine, is one of the symbols of the people of Israel, a people that produce tasty fruits to offer to their God. What did Jesus find in this fig tree? The evangelists say that in the morning, Jesus was hungry and went to a fig tree looking for fruit and found only leaves. Of course, it is only a parable. The leaves indicate the appearances of religiosity that Jesus found in Israel; he did not find the only fruits that the Lord wants, and the leaves deceive because they hide the lack of the fruits, which are the only thing that God is interested in.

The son also disturbed those in charge of the vineyard. And what did they do? They cast him out and killed him. The parable describes exactly what they did to Jesus, not the people of Israel, of course, but those who considered themselves the owners of the vineyard and wanted to increase their prestige over the simple people, to maintain their privileges. That is why they got rid of the son that bothered them.

Let us be careful because today we can make the same mistake, lord it over the vineyard, drive away the Son… The parable certainly offers reasons for reflection. In the first place, those who have a great responsibility in the ecclesial community can forget that the Gospel is the point of reference for every choice. They are not the masters of the vineyard. Today, a danger exists because it already existed in the primitive Church. Peter, in his first Letter, writes to the elders of the communities and says to them: “I, an elder like yourselves, commend to you that you lead the flock of God not out of shameful self-interest, but in a generous spirit.” Do not become masters but become models of the flock. It is not only the ecclesiastical hierarchies who must rethink their way of living and administering the Lord’s vineyard. Every baptized person runs the risk of driving the Son out of the vineyard.

We can give some examples: If we introduce the mentality that justifies the accumulation of goods as it is done in the justice of the world; if we do this, we drive out Christ and his Gospel from the vineyard because Jesus says blessed are the poor, not those who accumulate. This is the mentality of the world; if we introduce it in the vineyard, we expel the Gospel. If we justify wars by saying: “not all, of course; only the necessary ones,” we drive Christ and his Gospel out of the vineyard because Jesus did not think so. If we conform to the present mentality regarding sexuality and forget the proposal of the family, which is a testimony of fidelity and unconditional love, we move Christ and his Gospel out of the way to make way to a pagan conception of sexuality.

What happens when we expel the Son of the Gospel from society? The famous phrase has been circulating for some time: “God is dead; we have killed him.” The consequences of this murder are before the eyes of all; we see what is produced by man detached from the Gospel, detached from Christ: horror, loneliness, lack of sense of life, violence, destruction of Creation, arrogance, and many other aberrations, some already in progress and others programmed.

The parable ends with the dramatic scene of the murder of the son, the one who came last to ask for the fruits that the Lord expects. With the killing of the son, it is all over. They have won the battle. Will they keep the vineyard forever? Let’s listen to how the parable continues:

Jesus asked the chief priests and Pharisees: “‘What will the owner of the vineyard do to those tenants when he comes?’ They answered him, ‘He will put those wretched men to a wretched death and lease his vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the proper times.’ Jesus said to them, ‘Did you never read in the scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; by the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes’? Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that will produce its fruit.’ When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they knew that he was speaking about them. And although they were attempting to arrest him, they feared the crowds, for they regarded him as a prophet.”

At the end of the parable, Jesus addresses his listeners directly and tells them that they, the elders, the high priests are the caretakers of the vineyard. And he asks them directly: “If you were in the place of the vineyard’s owner, what would you do?” The answer immediately emerges and I believe it is very similar to the one we would have given: “He will put an end to those wicked ones and will lease the vineyard to other vinedressers who will give him its fruit in due season.” Jesus replies: “Have you not read the scriptures? God does not behave like that.” God only does works of love; he does not destroy anyone. What will God do? He will take the stone rejected by the builders and lay it as a cornerstone of a wonderful new building, a temple from which sacrifices will be raised to heaven, the only burnt offerings pleasing to God, which are works of love. Jesus meant that God would transform the greatest crime committed by people into a masterpiece of love and salvation.

The conclusion presents us with dramatic images that may shock us but are good news, a proclamation of joy and hope. Jesus is a defeated one; the stone has been rejected and induces us to think that evil has conquered. But no. What the parable is telling us with these dramatic images is that, whoever falls under this stone will perish, will be crushed by it. Attention: These are Semitic images to tell us the lamb is stronger than the wolves; he who loved and gave his life is stronger than those who took it from him. And, therefore, this is a proclamation of joy, of hope that evil will never prevail.

This lamb, this stone that has been cast away, is stronger than the wolves.

I wish you all a good Sunday and a good week.

Copyright © 2026 Bible Claret

誠實的不
福音：瑪竇福音21:28-32

Fr. Jijo Kandamkulathy, CMF
Claretians Missionaries

我們很早就學會說言不由衷的話。從童年就開始這樣了。父母要求我們去做某事，我們答應，因為我們不想讓他們失望。老師問我們明白了麼，我們點頭，因為我們不想看上去很愚蠢。長大成人以後，我們對不能信守的承諾說「是」，答應赴我們不打算去赴的邀請，對我們無法維持的自我形象也說「是」。說「是」成了一種本能反應，一種社交潤滑劑，一種避免令人不適的方法。

今天耶穌講述的是兩個兒子和一個要求他們去葡萄園工作的父親的比喻。故事很簡單，但很犀利。因為它暴露出言語和腳步之間的差距，暴露出我們口頭答應和實踐之間的鴻溝。

第一個兒子說了「不」。他當著父親的面直接拒絕了。他沒有用承諾軟化拒絕。他沒有假裝，也沒有做作。這個「不」是誠實的，是直率的。這是那一刻他內心的真實寫照。接著發生了一件事，一件無人看見、在靜默中發生的事。他改了主意。希臘語中的這個詞暗示著深深的懊悔，一種轉向。他走了。他走進葡萄園做工。

第二個兒子說了「是」。他恭恭敬敬，立刻答應。他把自己的父親稱作「先生」，擺出順從的樣子，扮演好兒子的角色。可是，他什麼都沒做。他沒有去，沒有動一根手指頭。他沒有進葡萄園。這是一個「好」的表演。因為他想要給父親留下好印象，避免衝突。這個「是」只是讓他在當下看起來不錯。但它沒有實質內容。它沒有行動。它沒有結果。

問題不在哪個兒子更討人喜歡。問題在於哪個兒子承行他父親的旨意。答案是第一個兒子，就是那個說「不」、後來卻去了的兒子。就是那個毫不掩飾自己內心的抗拒、不演戲的兒子。因為「不」和「去」之間發生了一些事。聖寵來到，心軟了，心意改變了，腳也邁出去了。

耶穌把這個比喻用在祂那個時代的宗教領袖身上。他們代表第二個兒子。他們滿口正義之言，有聖殿，有法律，有祭獻，有名銜、長袍和聲望。他們天天對天主說「好」，在公開場合說「好」，在祈禱中說「好」，在禮儀中說「好」。可是，洗者若翰來了，他們不相信，沒有改變，沒有去承行天主的旨意。他們的「好」只是表演，腳不邁動一步。

至於稅吏和娼妓，他們代表第一個兒子。他們一生對天主說「不」，公開過著背命的生活。他們選擇錯誤的道路，違背法律，破壞信任，傷害自己，窮盡一切說「不」。洗者若翰來了。他們改變主意，去了。他們進到葡萄園。不是因為他們良善，不是因為他們配得，而是因為他們肯誠實承認自己說過「不」，肯謙卑改過。

福音令人不安的地方就在於此：天主不被我們的言辭、不被我們的頭銜、不被我們說多少次「好」打動。打動天主的，是那顆回心轉意的心。即使回心轉意得晚，即使在說了「不」之後才回心轉意，即使是在無人注視的靜默中回心轉意，天主依然為之所動。

我們實在應該反躬自省。我有多少次像那第二個兒子？我有多少次，在祈禱中，在禮儀中，在眾人面前對天主說「是」，出了門，什麼都不做。口中說寬恕，心裡卻懷恨。口中說服務，實際只做管理。口中說愛，卻與人保持距離。說「是」很容易，毫不痛楚，也很合群，但沒有行動。

我多少次像那第一個兒子？有多少次說「不」，對邀請說「不」，對挑戰說「不」，對召叫說「不」。可是，在靜默中，有一些事情發生改變。不是因為我被強迫，不是因為我受到羞辱，而是因為聖寵臨於我。我去了，雖然這遲了些，不是那麼完美，甚至很勉強，可是，我去了。

葡萄園不是完美之人的歸宿。它是那些願意改變心意之人的所在。它是那些說了「不」，卻仍然走向它的人的歸宿。葡萄園不是對說「是」之人的獎賞。它是那些願意付諸行動之人的所在。有時，去的人正是那些最先說「不」的人。有時，進入的人是那些拒絕表演的人。有時，誠實的「不」比圓滑的「好」更能帶來更深層次的「是」。

所以在今天，我要問自己：我在哪裡只是在表演？哪裡口裡說「好」、腳下卻說「不」？哪裡躲在無代價的言語後面？又在哪裡正被邀請回心轉意、掉頭、前去？

答案會令人不安。但這個答案正是道路——進葡萄園的道路。它始於誠實，始於承認自己說過「不」，繼而憑著此時此刻的聖寵回心轉意，起身前往。

© 全屬於祢& 樂仁出版社（中國澳門）
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2026