The Landlord and the Tenants
V Lent/March 25, 2007
Isaiah 43:16-21
Psalm 126
Philippians 3:8-14
Luke 20:9-19
The Parable of the Vineyard comes just as we are about to relive the final days of Jesus’ earthly life and enter into his Passion and Resurrection. The story is surrounded by a series of confrontations with the Scribes and Pharisees as they try to get Jesus into serious trouble. This parable is Jesus’ answer to those confrontations and is his teaching about the way God deals with us (the tenants), what our opportunities are and what the consequences of our decisions can mean. It is a tough message one in which God does not compel, but only invites, a story where the free will of the tenants is never compromised. This is Jesus’ snapshot of the way God relates to us, the give and take of that relationship and the consequences which will follow.
When Jesus turns to review Israel's history of response to God, he presents that history through a story, a parable. Like many of Jesus' parables, it is a rebuke to Israel, especially its leadership (v. 19). But the people also reject the story (v. 16).
The message is not a pleasant one for the audience. Nonetheless, there is a point to the story, a lesson to be learned. Though the Son will be removed through death, the promise will not remain in the leadership's hands; it will go to others. They can destroy neither the Son nor the promise.
Jesus opens the story by referring to a vineyard. This image is rich with Old Testament and Jewish background, alluding to the presence of promise in Israel (Ps 80:8-13; Is 5:1-7; 27:2; Jer 2:21; Ezek 19:10-14; Hos 10:1; 1 Enoch 10:16; 84:6; 93:5). When Jesus places tenants in the story, he enriches the Old Testament imagery by setting up the role of the nation and leadership as caretakers for the promise. This addition is significant because the parable concludes with the vineyard given to others, a reference to Gentile inclusion in the promise.
The servants represent the series of prophets whom the nation rejected. This theme has been constant in Luke (11:47-51; 13:31-35; Acts 7). The nation is a poor tenant, lacking fruit and abusing those sent to check on its work (13:6-9). The calls for fruit and repentance for its absence have gone unheeded--in fact, they have been rejected and ignored. Three times the owner's representatives are cast out. The vineyard owner, God, decides to send His Son, hoping that the stubborn tenants will at least respect him. The owner anticipates that his son's visit will be fruitful. But with logic that illustrates sin's blindness, the tenants decide that if they slay the son, they will inherit the land. When land belonged to someone without an heir, inheritance followed a certain custom: when the owner died, the land usually passed on to those who worked it. Their scheme, of course, assumes that the murderers will not be discovered. There is a major blind spot in their thinking. Given their past track record with the owner's servants, wouldn't these tenants be among the first murder suspects? Hardness of heart does strange things. So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him, an allusion to Jesus' death outside Jerusalem. In Luke's telling of the parable, the violence steadily increases as each messenger comes. The rejection is firmer all the time. The nation has gone the opposite direction from repentance.
So what will the owner do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. The vineyard goes to those outside the leadership, even the nation, as the promise will encompass many people of the nations. The point of God's judgment on the nation is clear as the crowd responds, "Heaven forbid!" The point is clear and shocking to all--this should never happen, they respond. Yet this very act of murder is days away from taking place!
What can we make of this? At the time of telling the story, the Pharisees and Priests were furious, because they, quite rightly, could see themselves in it. Jesus was saying: God sends his messengers, the prophets, over and over again, (as we hear in our Hebrew Bible) and you religious leaders disregard and disrespect them. You arrogantly assume that you are in control of the Hebrew faith and people, not God, that all your rules and regulations please God…(not a belief to which Jesus subscribed). And what of the final betrayal, the killing of the son? We Christians understand the son to be Jesus, who will be killed. This is a story of a God who creates everything, offers choices while expecting a return, a God who will bring judgment upon those who forget whose creation it is and invite others to take their place. This is a parable of missed opportunity, of evil caused by misuse of free will and the resulting consequences.
This parable was used by the Church throughout the centuries, when new communities were formed over older ones and to justify breaking away from an existing hierarchy which was thought to be wrong ( The Eastern Orthodox from the Holy Catholic Church in the 4th Century, by the Reformers of the 15th and 16th Centuries as they severed ties with the Roman Catholic Church, (Lutherans and Anglicans come to mind), and think now of the stance of many in the worldwide Anglican Communion. This is what has come out of the recent House of Bishops meetings in Texas:
“The nation’s Episcopal bishops have rejected a demand from the larger Anglican Communion, saying a plan to place discontented U.S. parishioners under international leadership could do permanent harm to the American church”. (Alan Cooperman, Washington Post, 3.22.07).
The bishops themselves said:
“The Primates' Communiqué, … raises significant concerns. First among these is what is arguably an unprecedented shift of power toward the Primates, represented, in part, by the proposed "Pastoral Scheme."… We believe this proposal contravenes the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Moreover, because it is proposed that this scheme take immediate effect, we were compelled, at this March meeting, to request that the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church decline to participate in this aspect of the Communiqué's requests. Nonetheless, we pledge to continue working to find a way of meeting the pastoral concerns raised by the Primates that are compatible with our own Church's polity and canons. We should note that our recommendation to Executive Council not to participate in the Pastoral Scheme, though not unanimously endorsed by this House, came at the conclusion of long and gracious conversation. Finally, we believe that the leaders of the Church must always hold basic human rights and the dignity of every human being as fundamental concerns in our witness for Christ. We were, therefore, concerned that while the Communiqué focuses on homosexuality, it ignores the pressing issues of violence against gay and lesbian people around the world, and the criminalization of homosexual behavior in many nations of the world.”
The bishops requested a meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Primates, as soon as could be arranged, to discuss these matters. To the best of my knowledge, the Archbishop has said his schedule is too full to consider a meeting in the near future.
What does this all mean for those of us, sitting in the pew faithfully, Sunday after Sunday? As we approach Holy Week and move from Jesus’ teaching and example as expressed in his holy life, as we enter into his Passion and Resurrection, let’s not forget today’s parable. From the Passover feast, to Gethsemane, to the Temple, the Praetorium and finally to Golgotha, what do we believe is happening? Is the whole drama pre-ordained and really out of Jesus’ hands? Are the Pharisees and Romans merely actors in a play or do all the characters have real choices? Today’s parable suggests they do, we do, that God the creator is profoundly present but the people involved have free choice and they will be held accountable. Jesus’ choices included associating with people the Jewish leaders thought unclean. He broke Sabbath laws, saying ‘the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath”. He identified with the powerless. He welcomed women into his inner circle. He healed people. He was inclusive, and as such, Jesus was a threat to the powerful, just as our Episcopal Church is learning to be inclusive and is perceived to be a threat to those who would like to think of themselves as being powerful. The Jewish religious hierarchy and the Romans went the way of the tenants into darkness, disobedience and death. Jesus chose the higher path which led into the light of obedience and life. His choices, his response to his vision of who he was, his relationship with God his Father, his desire to seek God’s truth with all his being, led to his death and ultimately to his Resurrection. His life’s journey ( freely chosen) mattered: to God, to his disciples, to us.
A while back, I was sharing a meal with some friends, a couple of whom happen to be gay. One of them told of the pain felt by the exclusion threatened by certain provinces of the Anglican Communion, and expressed a desire to “give up on the Church”. I urged this person not to “give up”, because as Jesus’ example teaches us, OUR life’s journeys really matter. God invites and we respond, day after day, week after week, for good or ill. Our faith tells us the Risen Lord walks with us, but it is still OUR walk. As we move from the disciplines of Lent and the brokenness of the cross toward the light of the Resurrection, may our walk go forward, towards the light, towards Him, forever and ever. Amen
The Rev. Canon Joan Butler Ford
March 25, 2007