Context
Jumping right in as we continue with the same context and scene as last week.
Immediately we need to be very careful in our sermons this week. We need to take a hard look at the commentaries that we are using. Because this is one of the antisemitic clobber passages that has been blatantly mishandled for many generations.
Culpepper does a great job reframing in his commentary:
“Interpreters have traditionally read this verse as declaring that the kingdom of God will be taken away from Israel and given to gentiles. A different perspective emerges, however, when one reads the verse in context. Jesus is not speaking of Israel; he is addressing the religious authorities in the temple (v. 45). The vineyard will be taken from them and given to “a people” (cf. 1 Sam 15:28; Dan 2:44) who produce “fruit.” Although ethne and ethnikoi designate “gentiles” or more generally “nations” (24:7, 9, 14; 25:32; 28:19) when the plural is used (see 4:15; 5:47; 6:7, 32; 10:5, 18; 12:18, 21; 18:17; 20:19, 25), this verse ethnei refers to “a people” (singular; cf. 24:7), not “gentiles.” In this context, it designates a people, possibly Jewish and gentile, who bear the fruit of righteousness—the true followers of Jesus.”[1]
I think this is the right interpretation here that emphasizes that this is about those in authority, not about God abandoning Israel. However, I think it can also be taken one step further.
Remembering that Matthew is writing around 80-90CE, the temple has already fallen and none of these leaders have these positions anymore. Just as I introduced in Matthew 16 when Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, if Peter is no longer around (since he has been killed by the time of Matthew’s writing), then the authority of the kingdom transitions to the church. If the temple has fallen and authority is with the church, to whom is the question of proper authority and misuse of power being addressed? The leaders of the church.
As I wrote back for the 16th Sunday of Pentecost, “Less obvious than other gospels, Matthew is very concerned about abuses of power by those in authority. We see it in Herod’s use of the Wise Men to find Jesus and then we see it again in the slaughter of the Holy Innocents. It is exemplified further in Herod’s beheading of John the Baptist at a banquet of rich guests (only to then be immediately followed by Jesus’ feeding of the 5,000). It will be further exemplified throughout the passion narrative.[2] Again, it will be these disciples who become the leaders of the church. They will be the arbiters of admittance, justice, forgiveness, and mercy.”
While Matthew has Jesus speaking to the religious leaders here in the text, it is the Church who are the “tenants” in Matthew’s time. Based on the many instructions in Matthew to reconcile and the find forgiveness (Matthew 6, Matthew 18), it is clear that there is significant tension within his community. Are the leaders of the Church barring folks from the community, like the first slaves in the parable? Last week we just heard about John the Baptist and the chief priests and elders refusing to weigh in on the situation. Are folks being persecuted around Matthew’s community and the Church leadership is refusing to say anything?
As I’ve said before, now that the keys to the kingdom have transitioned to Peter and the disciples, we as the Church have to be listening closely to the lessons of Jesus for those in authority. This is not a historical synopsis. These are lessons for those in authority to (as we heard last week) ‘change our minds’ (v. 32).
The Parable
(Addendum added on Oct 6th)
There are a number of parables that are regarded as the hardest parable other than this one that we hear this week. But this one gets a lot of votes from commentators.
And a big reason is because of the violence that is within it. We hear the brutality of these tenants who seem to be rebelling against the Landowner. They kill the two sets of slaves who were sent to collect the produce of the land. They then even kill the landowner’s son, who he was sure they would respect. But that was not so, and they killed him to try and steal his inheritance.
And then we hear that the Landowner will “put those miserable wretches to death and lease the land to new tenants who give the produce at harvest time.”
But is that actually how the parable ends?
After Jesus shares that the tenants killed the son, he pauses the story and asks, 40Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”
And 41They 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.”
It’s not Jesus who gives the sentence, but the religious authorities. Us.
Who is it that chooses violence?
Jesus asked the chief priests and Pharisees, “40Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” 41They 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.”
It is we, the people, who so often choose violence. We lean into our anger. We lean into vengeance. We draw lines in the sand and deem people our enemies. We name villains and claim that they are beyond redemption.
We so often choose violence. But Jesus calls for us to see a different way.
(End Addendum)
As for the parable itself, it is certainly more transparently allegorical in each of the Synoptics. However, in Matthew I believe that this is a set-up and transition parable that should open our eyes to future teachings and parables.
It appears to be fairly obvious that Jesus is the “son” in the parable. But this illustrates that Jesus does not always have to be the Lord or hero figure in the text. And because of that it blows open the possible interpretations of future parables (like next week’s).
Preaching Possibilities
Unauthorized
What does it mean that our leadership in the church could be taken away from us?
As Pastors, Deacons, and Bishops…as Church Councils, Council Presidents, and Treasurers… as Congregations within our communities, as food pantries, as space for outside groups… we have a responsibility to care for those entrusted to us by God. We are tenants of this little piece of area that God has called us to steward.
When we in authority do not care for those entrusted to us, when we put others in harm’s way, when we neglect our responsibility, when we cause harm to those in our care, then we are no longer deserving of that authority, and it can and should be removed from us.
While God calls us to forgive, it does not mean that those who abuse their power should remain in power. The work of the Gospel and the work of the church is too important for us not to take our authority and power seriously.
So, what does it mean that God has entrusted us with authority? What does it mean that it could be taken away?
Crushed by Grace
One Wednesday morning about 6 years ago, I traveled to St. Mark’s Lutheran Church on St. Paul’s Street in Baltimore City for a pericope study. A pericope study is simply a group of folks studying the assigned Bible Texts for the upcoming Sunday. At this particular pericope gathering, there are pastors, deacons, seminarians, and even our bishop. It is one my favorite activities of my week and one of those places where profound perspectives and stories just radiate all around you. Every week I take away something amazing from the text because of the thoughtfulness, faithfulness, and brilliance of my colleagues in greater Baltimore.
I say all of this to brag on my colleagues and so they know just how much I appreciate them. I also preface this to say that, when Gospel texts begin to stump this group, it is not out of lack of intelligence, perspective, or faith. Sometimes Gospel texts can just be difficult to preach.
On this Wednesday gathering, we had this week’s Gospel, Matthew 21:42-44.
We read through the text a few times. And then we proceeded to spin our wheels for a while. We talked about Jesus as the cornerstone and what that meant. We talked about what a cornerstone is and why it’s important for buildings. We talked about church buildings and why they are a nightmare because they always need repairing.
After a while of just spitting out heartless perspectives, my bishop, Bill Gohl (who is one of the best church leaders I know) said, “I just don’t know where the grace is in this text.” And it hit me. Like a stone falling from the pinnacle of the temple, it hit me. Something about the way he phrased the question put it all in perspective for me.
“Crushed by grace,” I said out loud. Everyone looked at me a little confused, and so I explained. I hadn’t really articulated it that way before, but that has been my recovery experience.
I have been crushed by God’s grace time and time again, and only by that grace have I been able to make it to this point. There are so many ways that it has been true for me. Time and time again God’s grace was there for me when I didn’t feel I deserved it.
The falling and crushing of the stone is not violent. It’s cracking us open.
As the Gospel of John writes in chapter 1, verse 16, “From [Jesus’] fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.” Time and time again I have received grace upon grace from God.
When my parents sat by my bedside in the hospital. When I made amends with my family and friends after all I had done, and they forgave me. When my internship pastors allowed me to continue at Trinity after my hospitalization. When I was approved for ordination in the ELCA. When I was called by Bishop Gohl because of my openness about my recovery and not in spite of it.
Grace upon grace upon grace upon grace. God maneuvered me time and time again so that I would be in just the right spot for the stone to come down right on top of me. I have been crushed by the grace of God. Broken open. Shattered. So that my mind, my heart, my soul, and my faith might be able to see that God has been trying to get in and love me this whole time. That is what I call “rock bottom.”
Rock bottom is highly contested in the recovery world. Debate ensues about whether one needs to hit “Rock Bottom,” the lowest of the low, before someone can get sober. In all fairness, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that might be true. In 12-step groups around the world, people will often talk about how they tried to stop but couldn’t until they hit their lowest point. But I think that’s where it gets subjective. Does someone need to lose their job, marriage, house, car, and overdose to hit “Rock Bottom?” Or rather than everything being lost, is rock bottom the moment in which we are broken open, crushed, so that the love of the divine can finally show us a new possibility?
I don’t think that someone needs to lose everything in order to get sober. But I do think that there is a day when we’re crushed. The day when we don’t ever want to go back to the way things were.
[1] R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew, 413.
[2] The chief priests looking for a false testimony (26:59), being struck and told to prophesy (26:27), Pilate asks if they want Jesus or Barabbas (27:17-18), Crowd calling for crucifixion and Pilate washing his hands (27:22-26).
Micah Krey 
Leave a comment