Read the passage: The Message or The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).
Click here for an easy to print or email Adobe PDF version of this note.
It beats me why the creators of the Lectionary have us reading events from Holy Week for the months of October and November.
I guess it is to give us ample opportunity to explain that the clash between Jesus and the religious leaders of his time is NOT a clash between Christianity and Judaism; they should NOT be read as Jesus teaching that Christianity replaces Judaism; the Church replaces Israel. The phrase in Verse 43, "Taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruit of the Kingdom," does NOT mean "taken away from you Jews and given to Christians."
However, it is true that in so far as the religious LEADERS are concerned, this parable is a direct challenge to them, because, as usual, on the question of who is entitled to what, Jesus reframes the terms of reference for answering that question. The leaders would answer the question in terms of their status; Jesus answers the question in terms of activity - producing the fruit of the Kingdom.
Who, ACTUALLY, is producing the fruit of the Kingdom? It could be the religious leaders, nay, it should be the religious leaders. But are they? Are we?
Jesus certainly is upping the ante; escalating the heat between himself and the religious leaders. But we need to hear his challenges to them as challenges to US, for it is we who are the religious people today. We need to see ourselves in his parables. Are we people from whom the Kingdom will be taken away, or are we people who "produce the fruits of the Kingdom?"
As usual, the parable in today's text uses a real life situation that would be well-known to Jesus' listeners: foreign ownership and exploitation.
Centuries of exploitation and occupation had made it only a faint memory / dream, but also in the background would be the awareness that the land in question was "promised land," land given in the promise of no more slavery and oppression, no more hunger and homelessness.
The details of the parable are fairly straight forward, though the rebellious, violent actions of the tenants would create diverse excitements among Jesus' hearers:
- On the one hand, those who were agitating for the overthrow of the Romans would hear of the tenant's resistance with approval - freedom fighters casting off the yoke of the oppressor! Jesus is declaring his support for violent revolution!
- On the other hand, the Jewish leaders, who rightly knew the heavy penalties that would be paid for any resistance (which was doomed in the face of the overwhelming strength of the Romans), would hear of the tenants resistance with justified alarm. Jesus is declaring his support for violent revolution!
- On the third hand, the land, the vineyard, the wine press, the abundant harvest, and the wine are all symbols of God's peaceable Kingdom; of the land flowing with milk and honey; of the lion laying down with the lamb. The violent behaviour of the tenants seeking to take over the vineyard for themselves is a shameful dishonouring of their contract with the owner; a disobedience akin to Adam and Eve; and a hubris / pride akin to the Tower of Babel.
If, as I believe we must, we hear this as a parable directed at us, that is, we are the tenants in the story; then the first response to the text is a full and frank confession of just exactly what have we done with the beautiful, abundant, liberating, welcoming, good news of Jesus Christ? (Have I already mentioned that I think these texts should be read during Lent and not October and November?)
However, since Jesus is indeed good news, our first response should not be our last response. We need also to reflect on the second and third chances that are offered in the parable. And ask ourselves: What are we going to do with all these beautiful grapes? With all this good wine? With the trust that has been bestowed on us? We are certainly frail, faulty and sinful. Can we also be honourable and keep our side of the lease agreement?
David Ewart,
www.davidewart.ca
