Let’s begin with a little
framing. Think back to the religious
leaders challenging the authority of this man called Jesus. They wanted to know by whose authority was he teaching and preaching and doing all
of these things that had stirred up quite a following.
If they said from God, then Jesus
would chastise them for not getting with the program. If they said from people, the people might
form a lynch mob because they believed John to be a prophet. So they told Jesus, “We don’t know.”
Jesus replied by telling them that he
would not answer their question either; but that was only the beginning of this
encounter. Jesus had the religious
leaders squarely in his sights and offered them the Parable of the Two Sons. At
the end of this parable, he told these self-righteous leaders that the tax
collectors and prostitutes were entering the Kingdom of Heaven ahead of them.
Apparently, Jesus launched immediately
into another parable focused mainly at the Pharisees and other religious
leaders.
Next, we need to note that we might
make an exception to the general rule of trying not to be allegorical in our
interpretation of parables. This parable
makes that task nearly impossible. It
seems that most things in the parable directly represent something else, though
not all scholars agree exactly what all is represented.
So Jesus is teaching—and maybe
chastising the Pharisees in parable, he is perhaps allegorical, and we are
again keeping company without our old parable friend—the Kingdom of Heaven.
Let’s get allegorical.
The vineyard is Israel. Isaiah 5
and the fact that it is set apart from the rest of the world by a wall helps
here. The landowner is God the
Father. The tenants are the Jews—especially
the Pharisees. The servants are the
prophets and the Son is the Lord Jesus Christ.
So what happens in this parable?
The tenants seem to be a rebellious
and selfish lot of individuals. They
have no regard for the landowner. They
don’t want to give him what he is due.
The landowner sent his son. Surely the tenants will have some regard for
his own son. The tenants kill the son.
This isn’t an arbitrary murder. It is motivated by wanting what the son
had—what was rightfully his. The tenants
wanted his inheritance.
“If we kill him, then what was his
will be ours. We can keep this sweet
deal that we have.”
But Jesus asks, “What do you think the
landowner will do now? What will he do
when he comes in person?”
Those listening replied, “He will give
those wicked men exactly what they deserve, and it is not going to be a pretty
sight. Then he will rent the vineyard
out to other tenants who will give him what is due.”
On the allegorical side, we have been
introduced to new shepherds for Israel and opened the gates for the Gentiles to
be in a good relationship with the landowner.
The stone the masons threw out
is
now the cornerstone.
This is God’s work;
we
rub our eyes, we can hardly believe it!
It is at this point that the Pharisees
and other religious leaders were sure that Jesus was talking about them. This part you didn’t have to figure out.
God’s kingdom will be taken from you and given to people who will live
as God’s people.
Before we move beyond this point, we
should not that all manuscripts do not have that last verse. It is the one that reads:
And whoever falls on this stone will be
broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.
That sounds like bad news across the
board. It might be the ultimate
lose-lose scenario, or not. For there is
an interpretation on the first part of this phrase which is very much good news
and is in sync with the audience to whom this parable was delivered.
Whoever falls on this stone will be broken. What
does that mean? It could mean that this
is the stone that breaks hardened hearts.
It could be the only way that the self-righteous could come to accept
Jesus as Lord. Brokenness prepares the
heart for redemption.
On the other hand, it could be that it
is just typical Hebrew parallelism. That
is say something one way and then say something that means the same thing
another way. It’s the walk on the right side of the road; do now
walk on the left sort of syntax that we see frequently in the Psalms and
other Old Testament writings. We see it
very clearly in verses 16 & 17 of John’s gospel.
Realize in this interpretation at the
end of the Parable of the Tenants, that this is the lose-lose scenario. Fall on the stone or let it fall on you and
you are toast either way. That could be
it.
I think for this age, it leans more
towards be broken in human spirit so that we can receive God’s Holy Spirit by
acknowledging Christ as Lord. That is
exactly what the Pharisees needed. They
needed to give up their self-righteousness and come to Jesus as the broken men
that they truly were.
The good news is that Jesus receives
the broken. He calls out to the weary
and heavily burdened. He came not to
condemn but to save. But some
reject. Some rebel. Some want God and Jesus out of the way and
out of their lives.
But sometimes we adopt a position or
strategy or even a doctrine. It may have
developed in a moment or over the course of years. We may have heard a fantastic sermon or done
a biblical study that hit home. It could
be anything, but it is something that we believe. It may or may not be true and if we continue
to learn, we may update our doctrine or outright have a change of heart and
mind so long as we have a teachable spirit.
God wants us to grow and grow in his
grace, where we may fail time and time again; yet, through confession and an
absolute assurance of his pardon, we get back in our race of faith.
But sometimes, we find ourselves
defending a position, or a mindset, or a doctrine. The more we defend it, the more we become
anchored to it. Logic and emotion
combined and produce anchoring. The more we become anchored to it, the less we
want to learn, because learning may invite change—and we don’t want to change.
We are comfortable in our way of
thinking. Sometimes, that is a great
thing. There are some thoughts and
beliefs that I am anchored to and will not change. For instance:
God is good! I’m not giving that up.
God loves me. Sometimes that seems hard to believe, but in
the worst of times, I will hold fast to this.
I am anchored to it.
The Pharisees were smart people. They memorized much of the Old
Testament. They knew the law and where
it seemed that there were gaps in the law, they came up with their own rules and
regulations and made the people comply with them as if God was the author.
They defended their rules and
regulations and their way of life and became anchored to them. God told them to have no other gods, but what
if your own version of godly living becomes your god.
Why did the religious leaders want to
kill Jesus? He was taking away their
god. He was busting up this whole
religion business and bringing people to right standing through relationship. The whole story of how we would come to this
right relationship was unfolding before their eyes—not yet complete—but already
sending tremors through the comfort zones of those anchored to religion.
The religious leaders did not want the
one true God because he was not made in their own image. The Pharisees and the Sanhedrin did not want
to be the tenants in the vineyard; they felt like they were the owners. And if the son of the landowner came to set
things right, they would kill him.
Make no mistake about it, this was an
in-your-face parable for the Pharisees and the Teachers of the Law. The son had not only come in the parable, but
he was the one delivering the parable and he was messing with the
establishment.
The religious leaders were looking at
Jesus as a rebel when all the while they were the rebels. They are the ones rebelling against God. They are the wicked tenants.
Jesus will hit them with another
parable where they are the primary target audience, but we will keep that for
another time.
Of course our initial answer is that
there is nothing, notta, no thing or practice that we hold in equal status with
God. Good! Are we willing to confirm that?
How many people have left one
congregation for another because they didn’t like the pastor, or the color of
the carpet, or that newfangled music, or words on the wall. Sometimes people leave because the words are
projected on the wall instead of transmitted onto huge video screens.
We are people who are supposed to
worship God, serve God, and grow in grace.
A whole bunch of this gets wrapped up in loving one another. That’s where the rubber meets the road.
But sometimes, we let things get in
the way of worshiping God and serving God and when we continue down this path,
we surely are not growing in God’s grace.
I can’t believe in a God who would
send people to hell.
I can’t believe in a God who would not
send people to hell.
I can’t believe in a God who would let
homosexuals in the church.
I can’t believe in a God who would not
let homosexuals in the church.
I can’t believe in a God who lets his
church host an Easter Egg Hunt.
I can’t believe in a God who would not
let his church host an Easter Egg Hunt.
I can’t believe in a God who lets
people raise their hands in worship.
I can’t believe in a God who won’t let
his people raise their hands in worship.
I can’t believe in a God who ministers
to prostitutes and drug addicts.
I can’t believe in a God who does not
minister to prostitutes and drug addicts.
I can’t believe in a God who lets his
people smoke cigarettes and watch Captain Kangaroo.
I can’t believe in a God who won’t let
his people smoke cigarettes and watch Captain Kangaroo.
I am intentionally including the
mundane and the absurd on this lengthy litany because any of these things can
get in the way of our relationship with God.
Any of these beliefs can become as important as God if we let them.
We all have personal preferences and
pet peeves, but when they become more important than loving one another or
having ears to hear when God is speaking to us or getting absurd in our
behavior—God hit me with lighting if you
don’t want me to run Billy Jo Bob out of the church—then we have become the
wicked tenants in the vineyard.
We know the truth. God loves us more than we can imagine. How will we respond? Will we respond by loving God in every way
that we can or will some of our pet peeves, personal doctrines, pious policies
get in the way?
We wrestle sometimes with being a
friend of God and being the tenant, but this is not a dichotomy. This should cause no dissonance. God is almighty, holy, righteous, good,
forgiving, redemptive, and his primal nature is love. I am glad that he is the landowner. I am not up to the job just yet. I have not been made for that job.
I am being shaped in the image and likeness
of his Son. I am a joint heir with his
Son. I am a friend of God. But I am not God and neither are my pet
peeves or personal doctrines or my pious policies. My religion is not my God. God wants a relationship with me where we are
friends not in competition for sovereignty.
This week, do some personal inventory.
See what thinking or beliefs or thoughts or attitudes that we have that get in
the way of our relationship with the one true God.
See where religion is getting in the
way of relationship.
See if we are producing the good fruit
that God desires.
Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment