Matthew 21:33-46 (NRSV)
33 “Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a wine press in it, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenants and went to another country. 34 When the harvest time had come, he sent his slaves to the tenants to collect his produce. 35 But the tenants seized his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again he sent other slaves, more than the first; and they treated them in the same way. 37 Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance.’ 39 So they seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. 40 Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” 41 They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death, and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the harvest time.”
42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the scriptures:
‘The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
this was the Lord’s doing,
and it is amazing in our eyes’?
43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom. 44 The one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls.”
45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking about them. 46 They wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowds, because they regarded him as a prophet.
Matthew 21:33-46 (Mark 12:1-12, Luke 20:9-19) (Year A October 2-8) is the parable of the wicked tenants. Matthew clearly contextualizes this parable within Jesus’ string of conflicts with Jewish authorities: the “chief priests,” “scribes” and “Pharisees,” in the surrounding chapters (21:1–24:2). As Matthew has it, the parable becomes an allegory to interpret the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD as punishment for the unfaithfulness of the leaders, and is therefore the product of the community.[1] The heart of this parable is in 21:33-40, as the parable ends with a question, with the rest being an application.[2]
33 “Listen to another parable. There was a rich landowner who planted a vineyard, a real vineyard, but may be a metaphor for Israel. The vineyard image is prevalent in the Old Testament. It refers to Isaiah 5:1-7. He put a fence around it, dug a wine press in it, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenants, typical of absentee landlords, but may be a metaphor for the Jewish leadership. The tenant farmer had a difficult life. Yet, they entered a contract with the rich landowner. Was it an unjust or unfair contract? We do not know. And he went to another country. Like many absentee property owners, he may have taken advantage of them. On the other hand, he may have been very generous. We do not know. 34 When the harvest time had come, he sent his slaves, metaphor for prophets who were continually rejected or murdered, to the tenants (metaphor for Jewish leaders) to collect his produce. 35 But the tenants, surprisingly, seized his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again he sent other slaves, more than the first; and, surprisingly, they treated them in the same way. 37 Finally he sent his son, a climax of iniquity demanded by the plot leads to the owner sending the heir, to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance.’ Such thinking is a realistic description of the revolutionary attitude of the Galilean peasants toward their foreign landlords, an attitude that aroused various violent reactions by the peasants, whose situation had become desperate enough that they risked life and property to oppose those who were over them. much of the area around Galilee was in the hands of foreign landlords. They could respond the messengers because the landlord was living abroad. They have in mind a law that under specified circumstances an inheritance may be regarded as ownerless property, which anyone may claim.[3] 39 So they seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, (not in Mark, but Matthew wants to make the connection with Jesus crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem, as in Heb 13:12, and killed him. The description of the murder of the son does not show signs of the specificity of what happened in the crucifixion.[4] They act resolutely to take possession of the vineyard by getting rid of the only heir. At this point, the story ends with a crime. One can compare it to the unjust steward in Luke 16:1-7. The two parables share a basic realism about economic and social conditions in Galilee. Jesus asks, 40 Now when the owner, God, of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants (or what did these people deserve[5])?”
Gospel of Thomas 65: A ... person owned a vineyard and rented it to some farmers, so they could work it and he could collect its crop from them. He sent his slave so the farmers would give him the vineyard’s crop. They grabbed him, beat him, and almost killed him, and the slave returned and told his master. His master said, “perhaps he didn’t know them.” He sent another slave, and the farmers beat that one as well. Then the master sent his son and said, “Perhaps they’ll show my son some respect.” Because the farmers knew that he was the heir to the vineyard, they grabbed him and killed him.
Jesus did not provide a conclusion but left the tale open as a sad and tragic event. The story disturbs. It contains tragedy. It leaves us with some discomfort. The question scholars raise is whether Jesus stopped here, given the version of the story we have in the Gospel of Thomas. If so, Jesus has related a sad and tragic event for us to ponder. It reflects the disturbed conditions of the time, partly due to the economic causes that existed in Palestine preceding the revolt of 66 AD. There were absentee landlords in Galilee in Jesus’ day, and there were peasants who were unhappy with their lot.[6] Jesus directs his message to the religious leaders, The religious leaders, especially those who care for the Temple and the members of the Sanhedrin, are like the farmers who refused year after year to render to their Lord his due share of the produce of the land, heaping outrage upon outrage upon the Lord.[7] The parable foretells the disruption of the Jewish community. The question demands a response from the listeners, which Matthew provides in saying that the owner will put to death the miserable wretches and lease the vineyard to other tenants, who are often interpreted as Christians or the church, who will give him the produce at the harvest time. However, even this does not coincide precisely with what happened, for Jewish leadership continued until 70 AD in Jerusalem and Jewish leadership continues today. Jesus regarded his ministry as the culmination of the dealing of God with Israel. It suggests, by a tragic irony, the impending climax of the rebellion of Israel in the murderous assault upon the heir.[8]
At the same time, I find it quite understandable that the early church understood the story considering Easter and its belief in Jesus as the Son. The response of those listening was that the owner will put the wretches to a miserable death, and let out the vineyard o other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons. The conclusion is polemical as Jesus said to them in verse 42, “Have you never read in the scriptures in Psalm 118:22: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and, because it was an action of the Lord, it is amazing in our eyes’?The early church would have instantly viewed the son as Jesus, the first tenants as rabbis and chief priests, and the new tenants as the leaders of the Christian movement. The rule of God is no longer a possession of Israel or Judaism but given to Jew and Gentile alike to produce fruit for the rule of God. To fall on the stone the builders rejected is self-destruction. Such rejection shows the danger of overestimating human judgment in such matters. Divine judgment will always transcend human judgment.[9] 43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God, the only time in the synoptic gospels when this phrase refers to the lasting reign of God over Israel,[10] will be taken away from you, Israel, and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom. These new tenants will be more honest in providing the fruits of the harvest. For Schweizer, God will take God’s kingdom from Israel and give it to a people that produce proper fruits. However, recent scholars have argued that this parable is a Jewish prophetic attack on the behavior of certain Jewish leaders. This conflict should not reveal any personal hatred for the Jewish leaders, much less hatred for Judaism itself. Indeed, this level of polemic was not unusual in the Jewish prophetic tradition, a tradition of which Jesus understood himself to be a part. Thus, the parable can illuminate the prophetic critique of authority — especially religious and political authority — so central to the biblical witness. As such, the story becomes a prophetic attack on the behavior of certain Jewish leaders in the time of Jesus who have not faithfully fulfilled their tenant responsibilities of tending the spiritual life of Israel. At this point, we can connect the parable with Isaiah 5:1-7, where the Lord plants a vineyard that yields only wild grapes. The Lord will remove its defenses and allow its destruction. It would have a level of polemic like that of Jeremiah 7, where the prophet challenges the people not to trust deceptive words of safety, but rather, repent and act justly. The Lord will cast them out of sight, even though the Lord wants to dwell with them. They provoke the Lord to their self-destruction. The Lord has persistently sent prophets, but the people of Israel have resisted their message. They do not accept the word or discipline from the Lord. The Lord promises the land of Israel will become a wasteland. In Micah 3, the rulers of Israel should know justice, but they treat the people wickedly. The prophets use words of peace, but the Lord is bringing destruction. Jerusalem will become ruins due to the rulers, who act unjustly and yet expect the Lord to hear their prayers. Thus, I hope we can see that the parable illuminates the prophetic critique of religious and political authority that we find in the Old Testament. Postexilic Jerusalem knew that the prophets and writings in their Scriptures told the story of the consistent disobedience of Israel, despite the repeated wooing and warnings of the Lord. God is patient — long-suffering even — while waiting for his followers to bear the fruit God expects from the people of God. This is how the grace of God and standards fit together. As far away from God as we sometimes feel, God desires us to repent, for the relationship is not exhausted yet. However, the story also suggests that the patience of God is exhaustible. The eschatological intrudes: The wicked will receive their just reward. Matthew has placed the parable in that type of context, as Jesus contends with religious authority. In a reference to Dan 2:34-5, 44-45, 44 The one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls.” The response was that when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking about them. They wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowds, because they regarded him as a prophet, the common verdict of those who heard him.[11] He stresses in verses 45-6 that the chief priests and the Pharisees heard it as speaking against them. They want to arrest him, but recognize the people view him as a prophet.
This parable of the murderous vine growers brings out clearly the mimetic, or satanic, cycle. Each time the owner sends a messenger to the vine-growers, this message sets in motion a crisis among them, which they resolve by ganging up against the messenger and expelling him. This unanimous agreement is the height of the mimetic snowballing. Each violent expulsion is the completion of a mimetic cycle. The last messenger is the Son, expelled just like all the preceding messengers and finally murdered. This parable confirms that Jesus’ death is one example among many others of the single victim mechanism.[12]
I share another shocking and tragic story. A family living in India shared their hut with a mongoose. One day, while extremely hot, the mother placed the child outside. Suddenly, she noticed the mongoose creeping into the hut toward its accustomed bowl of water. Dust covered the sleek rodent, and the mother was shocked to see its jaws stained with blood. In a flash, she guessed that the animal had attacked the sleeping baby. In her horror, she snatched a heavy rice-pounder, and smashed the head of the mongoose. Rushing outdoors to minister to her child, she found the baby peacefully asleep, and beside him the body of a cobra that the mongoose had fought and killed.
The community of faith in the first century applied the parable, considering its belief in Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus refers to Psalm 118:22, where the stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone, which is the action of the Lord, which makes it amazing in our eyes. The first tenants were rabbis and chief priests, the new tenants are the leaders of the Christian movement, and the son is Jesus. The rule of God is no longer a possession of Israel or Judaism but given to Jew and Gentile alike to produce fruit for the rule of God. To fall on the stone the builders rejected is self-destruction. Such rejection shows the danger of overestimating human judgment in such matters. Divine judgment will always transcend human judgment.[13] The rule of God will be taken away from Jewish leadership and given to a people that produce fruit for the rule of God. The one who falls on this stone will break and it will crush anyone one whom it falls.
The segment concludes (verses 45-6) with the chief priests and Pharisees realizing Jesus was speaking about them. They want to arrest him, but they feared the crowds, who regarded him as a prophet.
I would not be a responsible reader of this parable if I refused to acknowledge the painful history of this parable. It has had a role to play in the anti-Semitism of the church. The standard allegorical interpretation also presents ethical problems for Christians interested in their continued relationship with Judaism. In short, it has generated and supported the central anti-Jewish opinions of Christian history. Through allegorical interpretation, the parable becomes a small, violent version of Christian “salvation history”: God first extends a covenant to the Jews, which they continually violate, and so God takes away their covenant and makes a covenant with a new people, the followers of the crucified Jesus. This view is theological supersessionism, a worldview in which Christians have superseded Jews in a unique covenantal relationship with God. What is more, the allegorical interpretation of the parable of the tenants supports all three aspects of the so-called “teaching of contempt,” which is the classic encapsulation of Christian anti-Judaism.[14] In the “teaching of contempt,” some Christians have understood the Judaism of Jesus’ day as degenerate, here demonstrated by the tenants’ dishonesty and their string of violent murders. Second, some Christians have represented the Jews as the killers of the Son of God, as shown here by the tenants’ murder of the landowner’s son. Finally, some Christians have understood the dispersion of the Jews as divine punishment for their killing of Jesus, a painful teaching that one can interpret here in God’s taking away of the vineyard. Many Christians have worked to reject the “teaching of contempt,” and reinterpretation of this parable is a crucial part of that task. While the parable says that God will take the rule of God away from Israel and give it to a people bringing forth its fruits, the idea of a new people of God is only implicit here. Further, the passage does not contend that Israel was once indeed the people of God.[15]
Application
I did not think that I had much experience with being a tenant, until I realized that most United Methodist pastors spend much of their lives being tenants. The church owns the home, but you are the one who lives there. Our Annual Conference around this time of the year sends out a check list for a member of the trustees and the pastor to fill out. Part of it is to be sure that the church is being a good landowner, and part of it is to be sure that the clergy family properly cares for the property. The conference has not always done this. Part of the reason is that some congregations do not care properly for the home. Of course, part of it is that some clergy families do not care properly for the home.
I came across an article about landlord and tenant relationships in New York City that I found interesting.
You can hear the rats rummaging through your cupboards. You wake up to cockroaches crawling across your bed. The faucet leaks. The door sticks. Water damage has left a hole in your ceiling with light peering through from the apartment above. Several questionable characters have begun sleeping and selling dope out of the unlocked basement below. The toilet? Well, let us just say it is not pretty. The radiator turns all 600 square feet into a sauna in the winter and the lackluster A/C unit strapped precariously inside your only window ensures it stays just as toasty during summer. You have complained to the owner. When he actually picks up your call -- which is about once every 2 to 3 years -- he simply chuckles and reminds you that "Hey, $3,500 a month is a steal for a New York studio!"
He is right. You are stuck. For many New York residents, living in a dangerous and disgusting apartment is a tough reality. With housing so scarce and affordable rent almost nonexistent, a good number of New Yorkers find themselves at the mercy of a slumlord; a building owner who holds his tenants hostage with insanely cheap rent yet in return refuses to protect their dignity or safety by maintaining his facility according to even the most modest of living standards.
The problem has gotten so out of hand that the City of New York launched a watch list for its worst landlords. A website allows angry, rat-bitten tenants to lodge official complaints, and prospective renters to search and see if the apartment of their dreams could end up a roach-infested nightmare. The nastiest of slumlords not only find themselves facing fines from the city but, worst of all, the scorn of other New Yorkers.
The Village Voice in New York turned the tables in the debate over terrible landlords in an article in 2010. The paper ran an article noting that for every bad owner there are equally evil renters. There are those who always need an extension on the extension on the extension of their rent. There is the party guy who cannot help but play his music loud. There is the vandal who paints and puts holes in the walls and even does a bit of remodeling without permission. Not to mention the disgusting dude whose apartment is ripped from a reality television show about compulsive hoarding. There are slumlords, it argues. However, just as prevalent are slum-tenants.
One Los Angeles landlord posted a rental opportunity on Craigslist. However, rather than selling others on the benefits of being his tenant, he openly admitted how horrible he was. That, or one of his disgruntled tenants decided to vent their frustrations in the form of a phony ad. Either way, it is humorous:
We take great pride in our inability to keep good tenants happy. Do you pay your rent on time every month? We will reward you by increasing it to the maximum allowable limit every year like clockwork. Love hot water for your morning shower? Who doesn't? Well, you won't find those kinds of luxuries here. The water temperature is tepid at best. And if your bathtub stops draining, you'll be billed for the repair, even though that's illegal. Don't worry when the ceiling leaks on sunny days. Those are the pipes above the ceiling that are leaking. All repairs will be made by unlicensed handymen found in the Home Depot parking lot. Even though you see air-conditioners in two other apartments, do not be fooled into thinking that you, too, may enjoy electrically cooled rooms. Should you decide to install one in your unit, you will find an eviction notice taped to your front door. We also like to snoop around your apartment once a month under the guise of smoke alarm checks. Enjoy the beautiful pool -- but only during the week. Here's the schedule: Every Saturday at 10 a.m. the gardener uses his leaf blower to fill the pool with leaves and debris. It remains this way until the pool cleaner comes by on Monday. Perfect for kids that don't yet have health problems.
Yes, landlord-tenant relationships can be difficult. The tenant is a steward of property that belongs to someone else. Ideally, they will care for the interests of each other. It would be mutually beneficial for them to do so.
Human life is like being a tenant of this time and place in which God has placed us. God is the landlord, but more than that, a partner, in caring for this time and place. It just might be that human life and Christian life boils down to a simple question: Why kind of tenant have we become?
Reviewing this story in the life of the church today does not have the purpose of saying how bad Judaism was as a tenant and how wonderful the church has been. Reading this story today is a reminder that we need to learn to be good tenants of what God has given us. God has expectations for those who have responsibilities within the kingdom.
This is a parable about stewardship. You know, managing God's stuff on God's behalf. There are two central aspects of stewardship.
First, a central aspect of stewardship is what we are entrusted with. As tenants, we have each been entrusted with two things: the gospel of Jesus Christ and our personal, worldly goods. Both come from God. Both are to be used in service to God. The gospel is the message that despite humankind's universal rebellion against God's authority, God desires a reconciled relationship with us. God has pursued us through the sending of his Son and made reconciliation possible through that same Son's sacrificial death on the cross. Because of the cross, the entire world is now welcome to enter the vineyard and labor under God's love.
God has not only blessed us through that message but has made us the dispensers of it. Paul's command for Timothy to "guard the good deposit" of sound, life-giving teaching applies not only to teachers of the faith but to all those who've been granted the gift of faith (2 Timothy 1:14).
We must also recognize that all things -- the clothes on our backs, the dollars in our wallets and even the rented ceilings above our heads belong to God and are on loan to us from God. The Psalmist reminds us "the earth is the Lord's and everything in it" (Psalm 24:1, NIV) God owns everything. It has simply been leased to us. "We brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world" (I Timothy 6:7). We are renters of everything and owners of nothing.
Second, a central aspect of stewardship is what we do with what we have. However, as we see in the parable, it takes more than simply knowing how blessed you are and who the owner is to be considered faithful. The bad tenants in Jesus' parable understood all that. No, a good tenant, a solid steward does something with the gospel and his goods. He produces a crop. He makes sure that both leave the vineyard in a way that brings blessing to the world at large.
Here are some questions to ponder.
When was the last time you invited someone to church with you? How long has it been since you last read the Scriptures with your children? Have you yet matured to the place where you can pray for a coworker or serve here, in the ministry? Is there growth in knowledge of your faith? If called upon, could you even begin to defend your faith? What kind of crop are you producing with the gospel?
Likewise, how are you doing at managing your goods? Whether it is much or little, are you seeking to grow what God has given you? Would Dave Ramsey -- the passionate, Christian financial guru -- be applauding you or feeling sorry for you?
Here is one. Is there anyone out there who could tell a story of being blessed by your generous sharing of goods at a time when their own vineyard felt empty and bare? When was the last time some of your stuff -- correction, God's stuff -- blessed anyone other than you and yours?
Are we producing a crop? Be honest. What do we have to show for the vineyard we are in? If we were to write honestly about ourselves, as tenants in God's kingdom -- workers in his vineyard -- what would we say? Would we admit that we are at times incredibly ungrateful? Terribly unfruitful? Would we confess that we tend to live as if everything we have been lent by God is ours to keep? No matter what you would write, the good news is this: Because of the work of Christ, he would still be glad to have you as his. Even if you refuse to pay your rent on time.
Could Christianity be as simple as learning to be a good tenant? The first step might be that we need to realize that we are tenants. Everything we have is on loan from God. God has entrusted us with the precious gospel message. God has entrusted us with material possessions. We are tenants. It might be that being a disciple of Jesus Christ to transform the world is that simple.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
liked the idea of putting ourselves into the characters. Also the take on us being tenants.
ReplyDeleteThank you
Delete