Reading the Parable of the Vineyard Workers (Matthew 20:1-16) in Light of Martha Nussbaum’s Criticism of John Rawl’s Theory of Justice

“That’s not fair!”

I used to say this to my parents when I was growing up with my younger sister.

My sister is 4 years younger than me. So, she should get a smaller portion of dessert, right? At least, that’s what I used to think. Because I am her big brother, I deserve a bigger dessert portion than hers. But, she was also getting the same size of dessert. So, I protested to my parents, screaming, “That’s not fair!”

Of course, my sister and I have had many collisions when we were growing up. She and I have different expectations. Given our immaturity, it was rather natural that we get into arguments. And, sibling disputes between my sister and I were handled by the court of my father.

I understood that my father was the right person to play the role of the judge in resolving the sibling disputes between my sister and I, simply because he is the father to my sister and me. But, I often found that his rulings were “unfair”, as I felt that he ruled in favor of my sister.  Relatively, I felt that I was not treated “fairly”. And, my father’s reasoning was as simple as this, “Because you are her big brother”, when I challenged the validity of his rulings.  No more argument or discussion. Case simply closed with these words of my father.

When I thought a support from my mother, she simply told me, “If you don’t like the way things are in this house, leave home and get adopted by someone.”

Neither my father nor mother entertained my quest for “fairness” for me.

………………….

The Gospel story for the 25^th Sunday in Ordinary Time (Year A), Matthew 20:1-16, the parable of the vineyard worker, brought me back to the above-described my childhood memory. Looking back now, it is a bit embarrassing to admit that I was such a brat, as my view of respect and dignity for myself was tainted by typical preadolescent self-centeredness.  So, I was simply screaming, “That’s not fair!” to my father out of jealousy toward my younger sister.

The parable in the Gospel narrative is about how the workers in the vineyard were rewarded by the owner of the vineyard for the works they did. In the parable, all the vineyard workers received the same amount of per diem pay, regardless how many hours they worked on that day. To this, workers, who started working early in the morning, became very upset that workers who came in the afternoons received the same pay, because that’s not fair to workers, who put more hours, if workers, who worked less ours, get the same amount of pay. But, in the parable, Jesus teaches that the way God cares us is like the way the vineyard owner pays his workers.  The punch line of Jesus’ teaching here is: the last will be first, and the first will be last (Matthew 20:16).

Because this is a parable, there is a metaphorical allegory. If we tried to interpret a metaphor literally, we will get lost.  The parable would make no sense at all, if taken literally.

After all, who in the world would pay the same wage to workers, who worked longer hours, and workers who worked less hours? The parable literally says that the vineyard wonder pay the same amount to all of his workers, regardless of their work hours.  Those who literally interpret this parable might feel discouraged to work harder, thinking, “Why in the heck do I have to work harder, if I am rewarded the same way as those who work less hard are?!”  Some even wonder, if Jesus was trying to teach communism.

See, how dangerous  a literal interpretation of this kind of  parable can be?  Now you see what a literal interpretation – fundamentalist approach – can lead to.

Of course, the parable of the vineyard worker is not about Marxian utopianism, where everyone receives the same pay, raising the status of the poor at the expenses of the rich.  The parable’s fact that the vineyard owner paid both workers , who worked all day long, and workers, who worked only some portions of the day, the same wage, does not mean raising the status of the latter workers at the expenses of the former’s hard work.

Obviously, the vineyard owner in the parable is a metaphor for God.  The vineyard workers who have been working since the crack of dawn refer to righteous people.  The workers who came to the vineyard in later hours to work are metaphorically meant for people who are considered less respected and esteemed, such as the outcast, the infirm, the sinners, and so forth.  Given that vineyard owner is a metaphor for God, the vineyard in the parable is about the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus begins this parable with these words, “The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at down to hire labors for his vineyard” (Matthew 20:1).  It suggests that God, the vineyard owner (landowner) went out to fill his kingdom, the vineyard, with good people, the vineyard workers.  The Kingdom of Heaven is not a static thing. Rather, it is dynamic, thus requires constant maintenance and development work, just as any vineyard and a farm demands constant work of care.  The harvest of the Kingdom can be compared to abundant harvest of grape in the vineyard.

The fact that God the vineyard owner need, people, the workers, also evokes the Creation narrative, in which God needed to fill the earth He created with people, thus, creating the first humans, Adam and Eve. Though Adam and Eve were not good stewards or tenants of the land that God provided, through Jesus, we make sincere efforts to be good stewards of God’s vineyard, which can be a metaphor for the Kingdom of Heaven.

In order for us to be good stewards – good workers – of God’s vineyard, the Kingdom, we shall not argue who is better – who should get more pay than others.  We have been wasting so much energy and so many hours arguing over such things. This is a typical human folly. No wonder that the first reading, Isaiah 55:6-9, that is echoed by this Gospel parable (Matthew 20:1-16) reminds us of the immeasurable supremacy of  the thinking and ways of God. It was like God telling us, “Don’t you dare to even mess with the way I do things!”  Yes, we need to be humble, acknowledging that the our ways, human ways, and thinking are plagued with problems and potential problems, often leading to conflicts and divisions.

Thinking and arguing who is better – who deserves more, etc. is a good example why God needs to remind us of His way’s supremacy. And, the parable of the vineyard workers (Matthew 20:1-16) further makes this point from Isaiah 55:6-9 with these words of the vineyard owner – God -, “My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? Or am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?”(Matthew 20:13-15).  Basically, God in the image of the vineyard worker is telling, “Hey, shut up! If you don’t like the way I manage this vineyard, just take what you get and get out!” to teach those who complain a critical lesson that who is the boss – whose way is better. Not to mention, these words are like the aforementioned words of my mother, “If you don’t like the way things are in this house, leave home and get adopted by someone”, in response to my complaint, “That’s not fair!”

Well, I chose to stay home and adopt myself to the way my parents run the house.  I just let my younger sister enjoy the same privilege she got – though she is younger than me.

Note that what follows this parable is the story of the mother of James and John, together with her sons, begging Jesus a favoritism for them,  to have their status be elevated above the other disciples’ (Matthew 20:20-28). Of course, Jesus did not grant this request at all. Rather than flatly declining the request,  Jesus referred the authority of deciding who can sit his right and left I to the Father in heaven, as to remind the teaching of the supremacy of God the Father in Isaiah 55:6-9. Even Jesus, the Son, is subject to the Father’s authority.

The rest of the disciples responded with indignation to James and John, for their mother asking Jesus for favoritism.  This is similar to how workers, who worked all day, complained to the vineyard owner, about the fact that workers who came late and worked shorter hours received the same pay in the parable of   the vineyard workers.  The rest of the disciples felt, “That’s not fair!” about the prospect of James and John having their status elevated above theirs, sitting right and left to Jesus.

To this complaint from the rest of the disciples, Jesus responded in a similar way to the way he commented on the complaining vineyard workers.   Jesus said, “Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last”(Matthew 20:16), in regard to the vineyard workers complaints, and stated, “Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to first among you shall be your slave”(Matthew 20:26-27).

So, if we attempt to understand the parable of the vineyard workers (Matthew 20:1-16) in comparison to the narrative of James, John, and their mother, asking Jesus favoritism (Matthew 20:20-28), we can conclude that the vineyard owner’s preferential treatment of the workers who joined in later hours and worked less is not a favoritism, because Jesus made it clear to James, John, and their mother, that favoritism has no place in his world, which can be referred to the Kingdom of Heaven and the discipleship, as well as the Ekklesia.  Another conclusion we can draw is that an argument on fairness, based on the human thinking, is fruitless. To those who complain, “That’s not fair!”, Jesus simply teaches us, in a way of saying, “Listen! If you think you have the right to complain as you do, do you really understand what I mean by ‘the last will be first, the first will be last’ and ‘whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant, whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave’?”  And, this is the end of useless argument of “That’s not fair!”

In God’s supreme thinking (Isaiah 55:8-9), and in the Kingdom of God, which comes with the metaphor of a vineyard in Matthew 20:1-16, the equity-based human thinking is useless. Perhaps, if you have followed Martha Nussbaum’s criticism of John Rawl’s equaity-based theory of justice, you can understand this matter better.

Unlike John Rawl’s theory of justice, Martha Nussbaum’s concept of justice recognizes significance of affective factors, including empathy and compassion. In other words, Nussbaum argues that justice cannot be understood like a mathematical equation.  Thus, we can compare Jesus’ view on the wage payments of the vineyard workers and the complaining workers’ view on wage distribution to Nussbaum’s view on justice and Rawl’s theory of justice.

For this comparison, we need to explore the allegorical metaphors in the parable of the vineyard workers.

The workers who joined working in the vineyard in later hours were just wasting their hours of the day in the market place (Matthew 20:3-7).

As I mentioned, the vineyard is the domain of the Lord, can be referred as the Kingdom. There is important work to do there – represented with the vineyard work. And the owner of the vineyard, the King of the Kingdom, is the Lord, who provides all of us what we need generously, as the vineyard owner pays his workers.  The market place, on the other hand, can be understood as a metaphor for a world of sin, outside God’s domain.  This is easily understood from how upset Jesus was when he saw the Temple had turned into a market place (i.e. Matthew 21:12-13). Thus, those who were wasting time, not working, in the market place, refer to sinners, as well as outcast. Because they did not have means to earn wages, they can be understood as the poor.

God in an image of the vineyard owner, goes out to the market place at 9 am (3^rd hour), noon (6^th hour), and 3 pm (9^th hour), to recruit additional workers out of those who were just wasting their day out in the world of sin – market place. Thus, the parable can be understood as a allegory of how God goes out to the world of sin to bring sinners and outcast into his domain, the God’s vineyard, the Kingdom. After all, the parable of the vineyard worker is a story of how God’s salvation works.

In fact, the vineyard owner, who goes out to the market place, contacting those who are wasting their lives there, is God in Jesus, who came to this world of sin, recruit his disciples – his workers, saying, “Come follow me” and who reaches out to those who are outcast, ignored, sick, sinners – those lest among peoples, to bring into his care – his vineyard.  An image of the vineyard workers going out to the market place to picking more to invite to work into his vineyard, giving opportunity to spend their wasted life more productively and meaningfully, can be also compared to Jesus, the Good Shepherd, who goes out to find and bring back to a lost sheep.

Human thinking only view those who are wasting their lives all day outside the market place useless, perhaps, deserve to be ignored. In human thinking, these people are regarded as incapable of working. But, God in the image of the vineyard worker sees them otherwise.  In fact, these people are not losers, as God sees them as capable of working.  That is why he called them to come into his vineyard and work there. And, they did.

This aspect of the parable of the vineyard worker touches Martha Nussbaum’s “capabilities approach”, as her concept of justice is unique enough to include not only empathy and compassion, which characterize God of mercy – Jesus, but also honoring the capabilities of people, especially those who tend to be seen incapable, incompetent, less capable, and less competent.

John Rawl’s equity-based theory of justice rather fits the typical human thinking, represented by the workers who complained about the wages in the parable of the vineyard worker.  Rawl’s view also reflects how the righteous older brother of the prodigal son complained and became angry in Luke 15:11-18.

In the world of Jesus, in his teaching, where the Kingdom is found, where the God’s vineyard is found, and where the salvation is attained, there is no space for Rawl’s view on justice.

Jesus’ teaching against the Lex Talionis legal principle in Mathew 5:38-42, is another strike against Rawl’s view.

To Rawl’s equity-based theory of justice, Jesus’ teaching in the parable of the vineyard workers (Matthew 20:1-16) and his teaching against the Lex Talionis, “That’s not fair!” But, to Nussbaum’s holistic view on justice, with attention to empathy and compassion, as well as with the capabilities approach, Jesus truly teaches justice.

The Triumphant Cross, the Holy Name of Mary, and the Sorrows of Mary

The Catholics tend to associate the Cross with Lent. In fact, during Lenten season into the Holy Week, we journey with Jesus to the Calvary, where the Cross stood for Jesus to die. As Bishop Fulton J. Sheen said, unless there is a Good Friday in our life, there can be no Easter Sunday, there would not have been the Resurrection without the Cross. Because the Cross is indispensable to the Resurrection, it is not simply a symbol of the sorrowful death of Jesus but rather a powerful symbol of the victory of life in God over death.

According to Genesis, death entered into human life through the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. And, they were seduced into committing the Original Sin by Satan, who was in the form of serpent in the Garden of Eden. In other words, it was Satan in serpent, who brought death into human life by seducing Adam and Eve into committing the Original Sin. Therefore, death is an effect of Satan upon the humans through the Original Sin. However, the Cross, on which Jesus died, was necessary for Christ overcome death through the Resurrection, as prophetically hinted in Isaiah 52-53.Thus, the Cross is a triumphant symbol of life in the risen Christ over an effect of Satan, alluding to God’s victory over Satan in Revelation 20.

In Genesis 3, Satan, who infused death into humans, appeared as a serpent that tricked Adam and Eve into committing the Original Sin. In the first reading for the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Numbers 21:4-9, the Israelites on Exodus rebelled against God. Because of this sin of theirs, they died from snake bites. This can be compared to the fact that the rebellion of Adam and Eve against God by smitten by a snake let death entered into human life. Though a snake was a killer to those who sinned in this story, it was transformed into an object that brings healing, after God made Moses make bronze serpents sticking to a pole.

The transition of a snake from what killed into what healed the rebelled Israelites in Numbers 21:4-9 is reflected in the theme of the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.

As a snake was associated with death before God helped Moses made bronze snakes, making snakes a symbol of healing, the Cross before the death and the resurrection of Jesus symbolized the most shameful and humiliating execution. However, through the Son’s death and resurrection, the Father has turned the Cross into a powerful symbol of the victory of His power over Satan’s power. This victory, indeed, further leads to Christ’s ultimate victory over Satan in Revelation 20. Thus, the celebrating the victorious feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross not only remembers Christ’s victory over death but also his victory over Satan, who brought death to the humans through Adam and Eve.

Speaking of victory, it is also what connects the triumphant feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross on September 14 to the celebration of the Holy Name of Mary on September 12. Though, this Marian feast is to celebrate Mary as the Theotokos – the Mother of God, this feast also comes with a victorious impression, relating to European history.

In 1529, Vienna was conquered by the Ottoman Empire – the Siege of Vienna, as the Muslim Turks were advancing further into Western Europe. But, in 1868, John Sobieski, the King of Poland, entrusted the his army to the mantle of protection of Mary for the Battle of Vienna in 1683. Because the battle turned out to bring victory to the Holy League, including King Sobieski’s Polish-Lithuanian army, and redeeming Vienna back to the Christian control (the Holy Roman Empire) from the hands of the Muslim power of the Ottoman Empire. Thus, it has been believed that the Holy Name of Mary, the Mother of God, guided the Christian Holy League to its victory and redemption of Vienna.

Celebrating not only the triumphant power of Mary’s Holy Name but also the victorious power of the Holy Cross of the Christ make September a truly joyous month.

That being said, the Cross, though Jesus transformed its symbolic meaning from shame into victory, is a sure reminder of sorrow.

If you look at the Cross, its vertical line shoots up toward heaven. But, its other side is deeply grounded on earth. And, it is where we exist now and always struggling with multitudes of consequences of what Satan in serpent, had brought into our life, through Adam and Eve. One of the gravest consequences of the influence of Satan in us is the sin of killing Christ on the Cross. And, it is the greatest shameful act of sin that the humans have committed.

As this most shameful sin of the humans was killing Christ in agony on the Cross, Mary, the Mother of Christ, remained at the foot of the Cross, watching her son die. As Simeon predicted in Luke 2:35, while Jesus was still a baby, presented to the Lord as the first-born son in the Temple, according to the law in Exodus 13:2, 12, Mary’s heart was pierced by the sword of sorrow and grief. It was when Jesus was truly offered up to God, as the first-born to redeem us, in light of the Jewish law of offering sacrifice to reconcile with God. This is the significance of Good Friday, filled with sorry and grief. But, it was indispensable for the Resurrection to prove the victory of the Cross – to transform the Cross from a symbol of shame and death into the symbol of the victory of God’s power over Satan’s power – setting the pretext to God’s ultimate victory over Satan, through Christ victory over Dragon, great serpent, in Revelation 20. Therefore, the period between Good Friday and Easter Sunday is the period to prepare to move upward on the vertical line of the Cross: from the sorry on earth, as Mary experienced at the foot of the Cross, to the new eschatological hope rising with the Resurrection of Christ.

On the following day, September 15, the Memorial of Our Lady of Sorrows, is commemorated, in sequence to celebrating the victory of the Holy Cross, to remind us that there were deep unfathomable sorrows of Mary, the Mother of God, at the foot of the triumphant Cross.

Just as with any war, there are so many brave lives sacrificed, even the war ended with victory.

Ever since Satan in snake in Genesis 3 brought death in human life through the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, we have been in constant battle with Satan and his collaborators. Satan’s mission is to corrupt us morally and spiritually into demise, by cutting us off from God.

The victory of the Holy Cross and the sorrows of Mary give us one great momentum to inspire us to continue our fight against Satan – until Christ returns to ultimately conquer Satan, as prophetically envisioned in Revelation 20. 

Binding and Loosing on Earth – Being Bound and Being Loosed in Heaven – A Lesson from Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice

“Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”(Matthew 18:18).

These words of Jesus to the disciples are not easy to understand.

As these words are found in the Gospel reading for the 23^rd Sunday in Ordinary Time (Year A), I asked the participants of the scripture study class I teach, what Jesus meant by these words.

In fact, everyone “confessed” that they wondered what this peculiar phrase meant.

Based on the original Greek text, “bind” is δέω (deo), which can mean “bind”,”fasten”, and “declare to be prohibited”, and “loose” is λύω (luo), which can mean “release”, ‘resolve” and “permit”.  Thus, Matthew 18:18 can be understood as: Whatever we prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and whatever we permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.

In the context of Matthew 18:15-20, Jesus is referred to the pastoral authority to forbid and permit in his name, now given to the disciples. If you remember the Gospel reading of the 21^st Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year A, Mathew 16:13-20, you also recall:

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.  Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matthew 16:19).

In Matthew 16:19, upon Peter’s confession of Jesus’ Messianic nature, Jesus is giving the pastoral authority to forbid and permit in his name. But, with Matthew 18:18, this authority is now shared by all of his disciples.

So, what the disciples, including Peter, forbid and permit on earth in Jesus’ name will be forbidden and permitted by Christ upon his return for the Judgement.  Thus, both Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18 indicates that what we forbid and permit  on earth in Jesus’ name bears heavenly consequences.

Though this can be a bit too liberal interpretation of Matthew 18:18, we can also appreciate a lesson from Matthew 18:18 in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, in regard to how the trial of Antonio turned into the trial of Shylock.

For this, we can also understand  “bind” is δέω (deo) as holding or clinging, while λύω (luo) as releasing or letting go. Thus, what we release can mean what we forgive. So, what we forgive on earth will be also forgiven in heaven. On the other hand, what we bind can mean what we cling to, or what we refuse to release or let go. Thus, what we cling to on earth can be clung to us in heaven.

In this story, Antonio borrowed money from Shylock, for his friend, Bassanio, a money lender. 

Though Antonio thought he could pay Shylock back as said in the contract. However, it turned out that he could not. So, Shylock comes after Antonio, based on the contract. But, to begin with, Shylock and Antonio had been like cats and dogs. Because Antonio had beaten Shylock’s practice of usry, Shylock was harboring grudge against Antonio. So, the term of the contract for Antonio’s loan from Shylock was that Antonio would “pay” Shylock one pound of his own flesh, in case of his failure to fulfill his loan’s contract term. Now, having failed to keep the term of the contract, Antonio owes Shylock one pound of his own flesh. That is what Antonio is bound for, based on the loan contract.

Though Antonio tried to settle the matter with Shylock by the money his friend, Bassanio can pay. But, filled with personal grudge against Antonio, Shylock refused to receive money and demands Antonio’s flesh. Obviously, Shylock’s intent was a personal revenge against Antonio, inflicting excruciating pain on him.

Antonio took the matter to the court. At first, the court allowed Shylock to take one pound of flesh out of Antonio, based on the terms of the contract. However, the court also rules that Shylock would be subject to punishment if Antonio’s blood is lost, because Shylock can only take Antonio’s flesh, but not his blood.  With this ruling, Shylock gave up taking Antonio’s flesh. Instead, he demands money. To this request of Shylock, the court rules that Shylock cannot demand money from Antonio, because he once refused to receive money to settle the matter. Then, the judgement is upon Shylock, for his attempt to kill Antonio. But, Antonio took mercy on Shylock and asked the court to change Shylock’s death sentence to confiscation of Shylock’s assets.

Though his life was spared by Antonio’s merciful plea to the court, Shylock ended up losing all his assets.

Imagine, if Shylock had settled with Antonio with the money that his friend, Bassanio offered…

Shylock would not have to lose all his assets. Not to mention, he would not have to be sentenced to death.

Imagine, if Shylock could loose his grudge against Antonio…..he would have been loosed from such a harsh judgement of losing all of his assets.

It was Shylock’s stubborn binding that led him to be bound by such a judgement.  It was because of what he binds that led him to be bound by the judgemnet.

.................

  

In fact, the Gospel reading for the following Sunday – 24^th Sunday in Ordinary Time (Year A), Matthew 18:21-35 gives a good example to illustrate what Matthew 18:18 means. (but, this year, 2014, the 24th Sunday coincides with the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross).

Matthew 18:21-25 is often cited in light of this part of the Lord’s prayer, “….forgive our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us”, which is based on Matthew 6: 9-16, in Jesus’ sermon on the mount.

In Matthew 18:21-35, Jesus explains that the wicked servant, who refused to forgive his fellow servant’s debt to him, is not forgiven by his master – even though he was once forgiven his debt to his master. The wicked servant is like Shylock, for his inability to let go - or to loose.  To put this in light of Matthew 18:18, the wicked servant was not loosed (released) from his debt to his master – though he once was, because he failed to loose (release) his fellow servant from his debt to him on earth. Of course, the master in Matthew 18:21-35 refers to God in heaven. Thus, this wicked servant was not loosed from his debt to God in heaven because he did not loose his fellow servant from his debt.

If we are loosed from our debt to God in heaven, then, we must loose another person’s debt to us on earth. Here, “debt” does not necessarily means the amount of money owed. “Debt” can be referred to consequences of our sinful actions, including punitive judgement and restitution. Thus, “loose” in Matthew 18:18 can be understood as “forgive”.  In this sense,  John 20:23 corresponds to Matthew 18:18, as both of these are Jesus directly telling his disciples that it is their mission to forgive each other in his name, as elaborated in Matthew 18:21-35.

...........................................

We must examine what we are holding on to…what we are binding ourselves to on earth, as these what we hold on to can haunt us later and in heaven. Some of what we are clinging to need to be let go so that we will be free from their negative or harmful consequences later or in heaven.  If we are holding on to grudges, then, these must go first – unless we want to be like Shylock.

Meaning of Personal Cross

“If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me”(Matthew 16:24).

Jesus said that we must first deny ourselves and then, take up our cross and follow him, carrying our cross.  This is a part of the Gospel reading for the 22^nd Sunday in Ordinary Time (A) – Matthew 16:21-27.

Jesus commanded the disciples to practice self-denial and carry their own cross to follow him, after scolding Peter for trying to stop him from heading to Jerusalem. This episode took place between Peter’s confession of Jesus’ Messianic nature and the Transfiguration.

So, what does this command of Jesus mean?

It seems that self-denial is a necessary condition to carrying our personal cross, in order to follow Jesus. This appears to say that our psychological clinging to ourselves makes it difficult to take up and carry our cross. In other words, it is our ego that can become a impeding factor in taking up and carrying our cross, as Jesus has commanded.

I do not think that anyone would interpret this literally and go to a lumber shop, making a wooden cross to carry, upon reading these words Jesus.

Though this passage evokes an image of Jesus carrying his heavy cross on his way to Golgotha, as in the Stations of the Cross, Jesus was using the word, “cross”, symbolically. With this understanding, we must ask ourselves, what the cross means to us and what is the cross we carry.

In the Bible study group I teach, I asked participants this twin question.

Suffering, sacrifice, victory…

These are some of the answers that came up. All of these make sense.

In regard to suffering and sacrifice, I had to add a bit of note to distinguish salvific suffering from non-salvific suffering and salvific sacrifice from non-salvific sacrifice, to make sure that Jesus’ teaching on self-denial and the cross is not about masochism.  Masochistic suffering and sacrifice simply are destructive and produce nothing meaningful.  These are what Devil tries to drive us into.

Unfortunately, some religious people, especially those with rigid cognitive schemata and those with certain psychopathologies, such as insecurity and narcissism, tend to go through masochistic suffering and sacrifice. In some cases, they practice sadistic suffering and sacrifices, especially when narcissism is evident.  These pathological misunderstanding of self-denial and the cross are often observed in monastic and ascetic religious practice – though not all monasticism and asceticism are pathological.

Just as we must be very careful which spirit we follow, we must exercise full caution as to our understanding of self-denial and the cross, in regard to suffering and sacrifice.

With this caution, I shared an image of the cross as a mother carrying out her pregnancy and delivering her child, enduring sufferings and sacrifices. Having witnessed tragedies during pregnancy and child birth as a hospital chaplain intern, I am convinced that pregnancy and childbirth are fit to an image of the cross that Jesus encourages us to carry.

Though today’s advanced OB/GYN (obstetrics/gynecology)  level of care has reduced many pregnancy-and-childbirth-related deaths, pregnancy and childbirth still come with a certain degree of risk of death – not only for children in their mothers’ wombs but also mothers themselves.

We may wonder why women have been choosing to become pregnant and give birth to their children   - even though pregnancy and childbirth demands a lot of self-sacrifices and come with a risk of death for generations?

To continue human species, as it is an instinct. 

This can be a good answer – if the above question is asked in a biology class. But, I am not teaching biology here.

Psychologically, philosophically, and theologically, it is out of love – self-sacrificing love, namely, agape.  For the sake of a tiny life growing inside of her womb, a psychologically and spiritually healthy woman is willing to sacrifice herself and endure sufferings, because she knows there is joy and meaning in her suffering and sacrifice – even though a risk associated with pregnancy and childbirth could mean her death and/or her child’s death.

A woman, whom I had the privilege of ministering and counseling, told me, “Now, I think I can accept this sad and painful loss as my cross”, after some meaningful pastoral counseling and reflection upon her miscarriage. As she was Catholic, we prayed the Sorrowful Mystery of the Rosary, following this conversation. Then, she reflected her cross upon the cross that Mary had to carry for being perfectly obedient to God’s will. After the Rosary, she told me with some smile, “After all, if Mary did not go through all that suffering she had to bear for her son’s suffering and death, we would not have Easter to celebrate, right?” She also said that she offered the baby she carried in her womb to the Lord, as well as all the sufferings and self-sacrifices she made during her pregnancy.  I witnessed that the weight of her grief was lightened as she found the meaning of the cross she has been carrying – as she recognize the weight of her cross, though pastoral reflection and counseling.

She also said she still wants to become pregnant again, though she sure does not miss all that throwing up and other sufferings associated with pregnancies. It is because she wants to be a mother. So, she asked me to join her in praying that the Lord will let her share the next new life in her womb more.

Now, God has blessed her and her husband two healthy children. She shares her joy, as well as suffering and sacrifices, of motherhood, with the Lord, as she is grateful.

So, this is one way to understand the cross.

A cross can also symbolize a junction of the divinity and the humanity, where the Holy Spirit meets the human flesh.  It symbolizes where God and the humans meet.

A perfect crossing of the divinity and the humanity began with Mary’s pregnancy and completed with the Cross that Jesus carried and died on.  All of these are in God’s salvific plan.

In discerning meaning of our personal cross to take up and carry it, we can certainly reflect the cross Mary carried with her absolute obedience to God. As Mary’s cross – her suffering and sacrifices – was God’s major salvific plan, bringing the Messiah in the human flesh to this world and let him complete his mission with his Cross in Calvary, this reflection helps us make our personal cross also bear some salvific meaning. For this, we can also think of suffering and sacrifices that women endure during pregnancy and childbirth.

As Mary is symbolically projected in the woman, who cried out in pain and gave birth to a male child, facing further challenges, in Revelation 12, we can connect our own cross to Mary’s cross through this woman’s suffering and sacrifice. After all, Revelation 12 also symbolically indicates that we are the rest of her offspring that Satan declared war against. And, Christ, her first-born son in Revelation 12, is our elder brother. It is him, this elder brother, who now invites us to deny ourselves, take up our personal cross and carry it in order to follow him.

We know Christ’s victory not only over death with the Resurrection but also over Satan from Revelation 19-20. This means that carrying our cross and following him, upon our self-denial will lead us to a victory over Satan.  Realizing this makes our suffering and sacrifice well worth to endure. In other words, denying ourselves, taking up our cross and carrying it is well worth, because it leads us to the ultimate victory, ushering us into the Kingdom of Heaven.

The woman, whom I was given an opportunity to provide pastoral care and counseling, after her miscarriage, regained her hope for a child, because she recognized that her suffering and sacrifices with that pregnancy led to the miscarriage is her cross toward a victory with a child to raise.

After all, a cross is not just a cross. There is so much to a cross.