Caring For The Gifts Of God
Preaching
The Parables Of Jesus
Applications For Contemporary Life
"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. When the harvest time had come, he sent his slaves to the tenants to collect his produce. But the tenants seized his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other slaves, more than the first; and they treated them in the same way. Finally he sent his son to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.' But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance.' So they seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?" 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 harvest time."
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'? 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."
Theme
God has provided us with all that is necessary for life. Some receive many gifts and talents and others receive few, but all receive what we need. In our hedonistic and highly self-motivated society we tend to forget that gifts are provided for the benefit of all and not a select few. Using God's gifts wisely, fully, and for the betterment of our world is a constant challenge and one that necessitates constant vigilance and reflection.
Spiritual Food For The Journey
The United States has always been known, especially to immigrants, as the land of opportunity. Throughout our nation's history, people, operating under the banner of the "Protestant work ethic," have labored long and hard to provide for immediate family needs and to build futures in a land where all is possible for those who are willing to work. Many "Horatio Alger" stories, describing the heroic efforts of people, exist. They inspire us to do our best and produce much.
There is no question that America is a land of plenty that has produced an abundance for many for almost 225 years. Personal effort and achievement in our land, as well intentioned as it generally is, can lead, if we are not careful, to a selfish attitude toward what we have. We can become possessive of opportunity, position, relationships, and certainly material things. All we have, however, comes from God and thus is given for the benefit of all God's people. Attitudes which say "I worked hard and I deserve it" are inconsistent with Jesus' message that sharing all that we have helps build the road that leads to eternal life. God has provided us with gifts to the extent that we can use them, not for personal gain alone, but to build the Kingdom of God in our world.
The parable of the wicked tenants demonstrates how God was displeased with the people of Israel because of their selfish use of the gifts provided to them. We must learn a lesson from Scripture that God asks us to use opportunities and gifts properly and wisely. What we have is given by God; let us make our best effort to return the fruit of our labor to God and all God's people.
Application Of The Parable To Contemporary Life
Sermon Openings
1. "Use it or lose it." We have all heard this expression, said it ourselves, and applied it more than once. The words tell us that it is necessary rightly and fully to use the gifts given us by God. We are challenged to use God's gifts for the betterment of all and for our own growth in the Spirit. If we fail to use properly and fully or abuse the gifts of God they will be taken away.
There are many examples of how the gifts of God have been left dormant or abused with adverse results for all. In Greek mythology we remember the story of Icarus and Daedelus. This father and son were given the ability to fly by the gods. It was a special gift that set them apart from all other humans. But they abused the gift, thinking that with their special ability they could be like the gods and fly to the sun. As they rose high in the sky their wings began to melt; the great gift was lost.
Position in society and the power and authority that come with it are often abused. Throughout history there have been many examples of leaders who have been invested with power and authority, have used it to abuse people, and who in the end lost the gift entrusted to them. Many of the kings in Israel rejected the warnings of the prophets, abused the people, and turned away from God. Their fate was death, punishment of future generations, and ultimately exile of the Hebrew people to Babylon. In our own twentieth century we recall all too well the terror inflicted upon the world by dictators such as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Their abuse of power led to their ultimate demise. In our own country the Watergate scandal demonstrated the abuse of executive privilege. The shock of a nation that its leader might be a criminal was magnified when Richard Nixon resigned, the only President to leave office as a result of alleged wrongdoing.
In our own lives we can think of examples of how we have failed to use properly or fully or possibly have abused God's gifts. Most of us have studied languages, but few of us today can use what we learned in high school or college Spanish, French, or German class. The gift of reading or speaking another tongue must be exercised or it will be lost. If we have the ability to shoot a sub-par round on the golf course, but refuse to practice this skill, then the next time we "hit the links" the results will not be what we want or expect. As the expression goes, use it or lose it.
Today's readings challenge us to use the gifts of God wisely or they will be taken away.
2. Is the life you lead now the life for which you want to be remembered? That very challenging and thought-provoking question certainly came to the mind of the famous Swedish scientist Alfred Nobel one day. In the common everyday exercise of reading the morning paper Nobel discovered the challenge of God before his very eyes.
Nobel was born in 1833 to a scientist and his wife. From his earliest days it was evident to everyone that Alfred was a gifted young man. He read voraciously all the books and periodicals he could find; he excelled in literature. By the time he was fifteen years old he could read, write, and speak four languages besides his native Swedish. Although he showed promise in the humanities area, it was his love of science and his desire to be an inventor, like his father, that most excited him.
When Nobel was sixteen he had exhausted the educational possibilities of his native district in Sweden. He decided to move away for more training. He first went to Paris and then across the Atlantic to the United States, where he spent four years studying science and engineering principles, ideas that had become that much more important after the onset of the Industrial Revolution in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
With his education complete, Nobel returned to his native land. He began to tinker around in his laboratory, creating an invention or two, but nothing of any significance. In the 1860s, however, he began to conduct experiments with nitroglycerin, a highly volatile and unstable substance. One experiment produced an explosion and Alfred's younger brother was killed. The experience crushed Nobel in one way, but in another it was the catalyst to find a way to harness the energy of this substance and make it of practical use to the world.
Nobel discovered a functional use of nitroglycerin, but it came about quite accidentally. One day in his workshop, he noticed that some of the nitroglycerin, which is a liquid at room temperature, had leached into some packing material which surrounded the many bottles of chemicals sent him for his various experiments. Nobel found that this third substance, made from the initial two, had all the energy capacity and blasting potential of nitroglycerin, but it was stable and thus could be better controlled. Without knowing it, Alfred Nobel had invited dynamite.
The uses of dynamite throughout the world made Nobel a rich and famous man overnight. Mountains could be blasted away to make room for railroads. Of equal use, however, was the placement of dynamite in bombs, projectiles, and other weapons of war. With patents received in 1867 and 1868, first in the United States and later in Great Britain, for dynamite and blasting caps, Nobel gained great notoriety. With the discovery of oil on land he owned in the state of Russia, Nobel became one of the richest men in the world. He could sit back, relax, and enjoy life.
Alfred's serenity came to an abrupt halt one day when he picked up the morning paper. The headline read, "Dynamite King Dies." The story and obituary in the paper were erroneous; he was alive and well. Nobel decided to read the article, however, in order to know what people would think of him after his death. Besides all the normal facts and dates of an obituary, Nobel read a description which labeled him as the "merchant of death." The expression disturbed the scientist greatly. Certainly the comment came in reference to his association with dynamite, but this did not lighten the blow. Nobel realized at that moment that the life he had led was not the life for which he wanted to be remembered.
Something needed to be done to correct this attitude. The past was history; its record was etched in stone. The future was something, however, over which Nobel had some control. Alfred was a rich man. How could his money be put to a positive use? He decided to change his will. He left his vast fortune in trust to a committee which each year would select people who, in theory and practice, had made positive contributions to the furthering of humankind. Thus, in 1901, five years after his death, the first Nobel Prizes were awarded, initially in five areas: physics, chemistry, literature, medicine, and the famous Nobel Peace Prize. Later, in 1968 and thereafter, a prize in economics was added.
Alfred Nobel had experienced conversion. God had been challenging him in many ways, but he never took the time, nor realized the significance of God's presence. He was determined not to allow the presence of God to pass him by again!
Is the life you lead the life for which you want to be remembered? The same question that haunted Alfred Nobel must be our question as well. Alfred Nobel was given many great gifts but needed conversion in order to use them wisely. What will it take for us?
Points Of Challenge And Questions To Ponder
1. Are we selfish with the gifts provided us by God? Do we use these gifts for ourselves alone or do we make every effort to share our time, talents, and resources with others?
2. Are we lazy and through neglect do we fail to use God's gifts? Have we been remiss in our duty to provide for others?
3. Are we willing to serve others when called upon by the local community and/or the church? Do we opt out, saying we are too busy, when the true reason is we don't want to get involved?
4. Do we take care of ourselves so that we can effectively use God's gifts? Do we hurt ourselves through lack of sleep or exercise or overuse of alcohol, tobacco, or other chemicals?
5. Do we give God sufficient time in our lives? Do we make a concerted effort to build the Kingdom on earth? Do we slight God in favor of personal gain or pleasure?
Exegesis And Explanation Of The Parable
The parable of the wicked tenants is the centerpiece of Jesus' threefold response to the chief priests and elders who challenge his authority. Like the parables of the two sons and the king's wedding feast which precede and follow this passage, this pericope is a parable of judgment. Scholars disagree on the application of Jesus' words of judgment because of the uncertain allegorical nature of the parable. Clearly, however, the passage is Matthew's attempt to demonstrate Jesus' dissatisfaction with the Jews' response to his teaching.
The parable offers a true picture of rural life in Galilee in apostolic times, but not without some inconsistencies. There were lands, held by absentee landowners, which were worked by peasants on a system similar to sharecropping. Rent was paid by workers through a fixed amount of produce or as a percentage of the entire crop. It is not unlikely that at times there were violent assaults upon agents who came to collect the rent. Matthew thus used images and situations that allowed his readers, generally thought to be Aramaic-speaking converts to Christianity, to understand better Jesus' words of admonition and warning. At this point allegory appears to be the purpose of the evangelist. It is unlikely that the response of the owner to violence would have been to send more agents, and then later, when problems were not resolved, his son. Still, some exegetes have viewed the parable as a realistic description of the revolutionary attitude of Galilean peasants toward foreign landlords.
Scholars agree that the parable is allegorical, but opinions differ on the intent of Matthew in this passage. The significance of the vineyard is uncertain, but the echo of Isaiah's Song of the Vineyard (5:1-7), where the vineyard represents Israel, is recognizable. Unlike Isaiah, however, the vineyard in Matthew's parable has produced the expected fruit; the problem lies with the refusal of the peasants to remit the owner's share of the produce to the agents. The tenant farmers have generally been understood to represent Israel's religious leaders who, despite their alleged loyalty to the Torah, fail to give God his due by believing in God's present activity in the world, manifest in the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus. Although the chief priests and elders have been charged with the responsibility of leading Israel in the way of righteousness, they have in fact rebelled against God and will be replaced. The chief feature of the allegory is the violent treatment of the owner's slaves, including the son. Most biblical experts agree that reference is made here to Israel's persecution of the prophets sent to it by God (1 Kings 19:10, 14; 2 Chronicles 24:18-22, 36:15-16; Acts 7:51-53).
The principal area of disagreement in the allegorical interpretation of this parable is the question of who will lose the kingdom. In verse 43 we read how the Kingdom of God will be taken "from you [collectively] and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom." Although Jesus specifically addresses "the chief priests and elders" (v. 23), the tradition of the prophets (especially as understood in verse 43) suggests that behind the leaders stands the whole generation of rebellious Israel. Many scholars thus suggest that the evangelist is making an indictment of the whole nation, not merely its leaders. Thus, Israel will be replaced by the Gentile church. Other exegetes state that it is incorrect to assume the transfer is to the Gentiles alone. For Matthew the church is not Jew or Gentile; it is a new community that transcends segregation and traditional groupings of peoples. Despite the differences of opinion it is clear that Matthew believes the Kingdom will be taken from those who reject Jesus and given to a people who have listened to Christ's message and can bear much fruit.
The use of Psalm 118 (verse 42), a passage well-known to the Jews of Jesus' day, gives additional evidence to the belief that the Kingdom will be transferred to a new people. Jesus' rhetorical question had to be answered in the affirmative. The imagery is shifted from the tenants who rejected the servants to the builders who rejected the stone. The tenants, by killing the son, destroyed themselves, while the builders who rejected the stone which became the capstone made themselves appear to be foolish. Exegetes generally agree that as the verse reads it can only refer to the admission of the Gentile church. However, scholars point out that this verse and verse 43 are probably later expansions of the original parable added to demonstrate Jesus' favor of the Gentiles.
The possible extrapolation of the parable to the early church situation raises the question of what the original parable intended. Some biblical exegetes state that the original parable of Jesus can be discovered in the repeated call for due return on the use of gifts provided God in the vineyard. In each successive case the deliberate refusal of the tenants is met with increased violence. When refusal to cooperate does not result in punishment, but only further requests, the tenants begin to feel secure. They forget that they are tenants and make plans to use the vineyard, which they do not own, as their own property. Jesus' message gains strength since the wickedness of the tenants consists not only in keeping for themselves any produce, but also in claiming the whole enterprise as their own. The Lord's message of misuse of God-given gifts is highlighted in this parable.
If a message warning the Jews of their misuse of God's gifts was Jesus' original intent in the parable, then, as many scholars have suggested, the sending of the son is a secondary feature of the pericope. It reflects the interpretation of the death of Christ in relation to Israel's whole history. The parable thus does not look forward to the death of Jesus, but looks back to it and sees it (from the perspective of the apostolic church in its continuing conflict with Judaism) as the climactic event in a long history of the rejection of God's prophets. It was bad enough to kill the prophets, but infinitely worse to murder the son. This is clearly a creation of the early church and Matthew's attempt to demonstrate Jewish complicity in the death of Christ. In the past this understanding has fueled the fires of anti-Semitism, leading in more recent years to a changed interpretation for the sending of the son. Scholars suggest that although there is no reason for anti-Semitism, it is wrong to change what Matthew apparently meant, if indeed he believed that God had rejected Israel and replaced it with the church (Jew and Gentile) because of the death of Jesus.
Scripture exegetes provide additional evidence that the death of the son is a creation of the Apostolic Church and not a prediction of Jesus. The allegory that suggests that the tenants would inherit the vineyard at the death of the son does not make sense. Nothing in Hebrew law of the day would have designated tenants as the heirs to the vineyard. Thus, it appears that the passage about the son was added later by Matthew to highlight his message of the ill will of the tenants who represented Israel.
Context Of The Parable
Context In The Church Year
As the centerpiece of a trilogy of parables on judgment, the story of the wicked tenants is chosen by the church to continue to challenge our sensibilities and to encourage personal and communal growth in the Lord. Jesus tells this parable and those that frame it on both sides to demonstrate his authority. Last week we heard of harsh judgment for those whose actions and words are inconsistent. Today we are told that God's gifts must not be taken for granted. Next week we will realize our need to be ready for God's call, for many are called but few are chosen.
The Christian community needs to be reminded of our place in God's plan. As God's greatest creation our place is integral and extremely important, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that we are creatures and thus subject to God's law and judgment. In its wisdom the church presents this series of parables from Matthew's Gospel to encourage us to renew our attitudes and review our actions to assure that we are on the correct road. We must remind ourselves that our mission is to build God's kingdom, not our own.
Context With Other Gospels
The parable of the wicked tenants is provided in four versions: the Synoptic writers and the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas. Mark 12:1-12, Luke 20:9-19, and the Gospel of Thomas (Saying 65) present this parable with slight differences that provide various interpretations. In Luke and Thomas there is no reference to Isaiah's "Song of the Vineyard." Another difference between Matthew and Luke compared with Mark is found in the murder of the son. Mark places the crime in the vineyard, while the other Synoptics say the son was dragged outside the vineyard and killed. The latter version is clearly an illustration of the apostolic church allegorizing the son to Jesus who was crucified on Calvary outside the city of Jerusalem. Another difference in these versions of the parable is the escalation of violence. In Matthew two sets of servants are sent (allegorized as the sets of former and latter prophets) and then the son, but in Luke and Mark three individual servants precede the arrival of the son. In Matthew and Mark death comes to a servant before the son; Luke says only that the servants were wounded.
Possibly the most important difference in these versions is in how Jesus phrases his question on guilt. In Mark and Luke Jesus answers the question himself, but in Matthew Jesus forces the Jewish leaders to respond. Thus, Matthew has the chief priests and elders in a way convict themselves, since for the evangelist's audience the allegory of the tenants as representative of Israel's religious hierarchy is clear. Verification of guilt is provided in Matthew, verse 45: "When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized he was speaking about them."
Context With First And Second Lessons
First Lesson: Isaiah 5:1-7. Isaiah's "Song of the Vineyard" provides the Old Testamant background to Matthew's parable of the wicked tenants. God created a vineyard, Israel, which was given every opportunity to produce a rich harvest, "but it yielded wild grapes." Isaiah, in this first third of his book of prophecy, writes to the people of Judah and predicts their destruction. God nurtured the people, providing everything that was needed, yet the people went their own way and the produce was not satisfactory. The yield of the people was not acceptable to God.
The failure of the Hebrews should have been a warning to the Jews of Jesus' day, but the message was not heeded. God provided the necessary gifts, but the people failed to use them properly; they did not understand or refused to accept their responsibility. Since the gifts were misused they will be taken away and the nation will be destroyed.
Second Lesson: Philippians 3:4b-14. Saint Paul, a former Pharisee and persecutor of the "new way," realized his need for and dependence upon God. All that he possessed was a gift, and thus he could forcefully say to the Philippians that he would give up all for Christ. There is one and only one great prize and that is life with Christ. He realized his need to press forward to achieve this great prize. God would provide what was needed, but Paul understood his responsibility. His cooperation with God's plan was essential. What Paul has is not his own; it is on loan from God and thus must be wisely used.
Paul's exhortation to the Christian community at Philippi must be heeded today. We work hard and feel that personal compensation is our right. We at times lose sight of the one who gave us the opportunity to work. We sometimes as well forget the reasons for the gifts we possess. Paul challenges us to return to a basic understanding that gifts are provided to be properly used; they are not for us alone. Use gifts for God's kingdom and look forward to its realization in our world.
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'? 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."
Theme
God has provided us with all that is necessary for life. Some receive many gifts and talents and others receive few, but all receive what we need. In our hedonistic and highly self-motivated society we tend to forget that gifts are provided for the benefit of all and not a select few. Using God's gifts wisely, fully, and for the betterment of our world is a constant challenge and one that necessitates constant vigilance and reflection.
Spiritual Food For The Journey
The United States has always been known, especially to immigrants, as the land of opportunity. Throughout our nation's history, people, operating under the banner of the "Protestant work ethic," have labored long and hard to provide for immediate family needs and to build futures in a land where all is possible for those who are willing to work. Many "Horatio Alger" stories, describing the heroic efforts of people, exist. They inspire us to do our best and produce much.
There is no question that America is a land of plenty that has produced an abundance for many for almost 225 years. Personal effort and achievement in our land, as well intentioned as it generally is, can lead, if we are not careful, to a selfish attitude toward what we have. We can become possessive of opportunity, position, relationships, and certainly material things. All we have, however, comes from God and thus is given for the benefit of all God's people. Attitudes which say "I worked hard and I deserve it" are inconsistent with Jesus' message that sharing all that we have helps build the road that leads to eternal life. God has provided us with gifts to the extent that we can use them, not for personal gain alone, but to build the Kingdom of God in our world.
The parable of the wicked tenants demonstrates how God was displeased with the people of Israel because of their selfish use of the gifts provided to them. We must learn a lesson from Scripture that God asks us to use opportunities and gifts properly and wisely. What we have is given by God; let us make our best effort to return the fruit of our labor to God and all God's people.
Application Of The Parable To Contemporary Life
Sermon Openings
1. "Use it or lose it." We have all heard this expression, said it ourselves, and applied it more than once. The words tell us that it is necessary rightly and fully to use the gifts given us by God. We are challenged to use God's gifts for the betterment of all and for our own growth in the Spirit. If we fail to use properly and fully or abuse the gifts of God they will be taken away.
There are many examples of how the gifts of God have been left dormant or abused with adverse results for all. In Greek mythology we remember the story of Icarus and Daedelus. This father and son were given the ability to fly by the gods. It was a special gift that set them apart from all other humans. But they abused the gift, thinking that with their special ability they could be like the gods and fly to the sun. As they rose high in the sky their wings began to melt; the great gift was lost.
Position in society and the power and authority that come with it are often abused. Throughout history there have been many examples of leaders who have been invested with power and authority, have used it to abuse people, and who in the end lost the gift entrusted to them. Many of the kings in Israel rejected the warnings of the prophets, abused the people, and turned away from God. Their fate was death, punishment of future generations, and ultimately exile of the Hebrew people to Babylon. In our own twentieth century we recall all too well the terror inflicted upon the world by dictators such as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Their abuse of power led to their ultimate demise. In our own country the Watergate scandal demonstrated the abuse of executive privilege. The shock of a nation that its leader might be a criminal was magnified when Richard Nixon resigned, the only President to leave office as a result of alleged wrongdoing.
In our own lives we can think of examples of how we have failed to use properly or fully or possibly have abused God's gifts. Most of us have studied languages, but few of us today can use what we learned in high school or college Spanish, French, or German class. The gift of reading or speaking another tongue must be exercised or it will be lost. If we have the ability to shoot a sub-par round on the golf course, but refuse to practice this skill, then the next time we "hit the links" the results will not be what we want or expect. As the expression goes, use it or lose it.
Today's readings challenge us to use the gifts of God wisely or they will be taken away.
2. Is the life you lead now the life for which you want to be remembered? That very challenging and thought-provoking question certainly came to the mind of the famous Swedish scientist Alfred Nobel one day. In the common everyday exercise of reading the morning paper Nobel discovered the challenge of God before his very eyes.
Nobel was born in 1833 to a scientist and his wife. From his earliest days it was evident to everyone that Alfred was a gifted young man. He read voraciously all the books and periodicals he could find; he excelled in literature. By the time he was fifteen years old he could read, write, and speak four languages besides his native Swedish. Although he showed promise in the humanities area, it was his love of science and his desire to be an inventor, like his father, that most excited him.
When Nobel was sixteen he had exhausted the educational possibilities of his native district in Sweden. He decided to move away for more training. He first went to Paris and then across the Atlantic to the United States, where he spent four years studying science and engineering principles, ideas that had become that much more important after the onset of the Industrial Revolution in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
With his education complete, Nobel returned to his native land. He began to tinker around in his laboratory, creating an invention or two, but nothing of any significance. In the 1860s, however, he began to conduct experiments with nitroglycerin, a highly volatile and unstable substance. One experiment produced an explosion and Alfred's younger brother was killed. The experience crushed Nobel in one way, but in another it was the catalyst to find a way to harness the energy of this substance and make it of practical use to the world.
Nobel discovered a functional use of nitroglycerin, but it came about quite accidentally. One day in his workshop, he noticed that some of the nitroglycerin, which is a liquid at room temperature, had leached into some packing material which surrounded the many bottles of chemicals sent him for his various experiments. Nobel found that this third substance, made from the initial two, had all the energy capacity and blasting potential of nitroglycerin, but it was stable and thus could be better controlled. Without knowing it, Alfred Nobel had invited dynamite.
The uses of dynamite throughout the world made Nobel a rich and famous man overnight. Mountains could be blasted away to make room for railroads. Of equal use, however, was the placement of dynamite in bombs, projectiles, and other weapons of war. With patents received in 1867 and 1868, first in the United States and later in Great Britain, for dynamite and blasting caps, Nobel gained great notoriety. With the discovery of oil on land he owned in the state of Russia, Nobel became one of the richest men in the world. He could sit back, relax, and enjoy life.
Alfred's serenity came to an abrupt halt one day when he picked up the morning paper. The headline read, "Dynamite King Dies." The story and obituary in the paper were erroneous; he was alive and well. Nobel decided to read the article, however, in order to know what people would think of him after his death. Besides all the normal facts and dates of an obituary, Nobel read a description which labeled him as the "merchant of death." The expression disturbed the scientist greatly. Certainly the comment came in reference to his association with dynamite, but this did not lighten the blow. Nobel realized at that moment that the life he had led was not the life for which he wanted to be remembered.
Something needed to be done to correct this attitude. The past was history; its record was etched in stone. The future was something, however, over which Nobel had some control. Alfred was a rich man. How could his money be put to a positive use? He decided to change his will. He left his vast fortune in trust to a committee which each year would select people who, in theory and practice, had made positive contributions to the furthering of humankind. Thus, in 1901, five years after his death, the first Nobel Prizes were awarded, initially in five areas: physics, chemistry, literature, medicine, and the famous Nobel Peace Prize. Later, in 1968 and thereafter, a prize in economics was added.
Alfred Nobel had experienced conversion. God had been challenging him in many ways, but he never took the time, nor realized the significance of God's presence. He was determined not to allow the presence of God to pass him by again!
Is the life you lead the life for which you want to be remembered? The same question that haunted Alfred Nobel must be our question as well. Alfred Nobel was given many great gifts but needed conversion in order to use them wisely. What will it take for us?
Points Of Challenge And Questions To Ponder
1. Are we selfish with the gifts provided us by God? Do we use these gifts for ourselves alone or do we make every effort to share our time, talents, and resources with others?
2. Are we lazy and through neglect do we fail to use God's gifts? Have we been remiss in our duty to provide for others?
3. Are we willing to serve others when called upon by the local community and/or the church? Do we opt out, saying we are too busy, when the true reason is we don't want to get involved?
4. Do we take care of ourselves so that we can effectively use God's gifts? Do we hurt ourselves through lack of sleep or exercise or overuse of alcohol, tobacco, or other chemicals?
5. Do we give God sufficient time in our lives? Do we make a concerted effort to build the Kingdom on earth? Do we slight God in favor of personal gain or pleasure?
Exegesis And Explanation Of The Parable
The parable of the wicked tenants is the centerpiece of Jesus' threefold response to the chief priests and elders who challenge his authority. Like the parables of the two sons and the king's wedding feast which precede and follow this passage, this pericope is a parable of judgment. Scholars disagree on the application of Jesus' words of judgment because of the uncertain allegorical nature of the parable. Clearly, however, the passage is Matthew's attempt to demonstrate Jesus' dissatisfaction with the Jews' response to his teaching.
The parable offers a true picture of rural life in Galilee in apostolic times, but not without some inconsistencies. There were lands, held by absentee landowners, which were worked by peasants on a system similar to sharecropping. Rent was paid by workers through a fixed amount of produce or as a percentage of the entire crop. It is not unlikely that at times there were violent assaults upon agents who came to collect the rent. Matthew thus used images and situations that allowed his readers, generally thought to be Aramaic-speaking converts to Christianity, to understand better Jesus' words of admonition and warning. At this point allegory appears to be the purpose of the evangelist. It is unlikely that the response of the owner to violence would have been to send more agents, and then later, when problems were not resolved, his son. Still, some exegetes have viewed the parable as a realistic description of the revolutionary attitude of Galilean peasants toward foreign landlords.
Scholars agree that the parable is allegorical, but opinions differ on the intent of Matthew in this passage. The significance of the vineyard is uncertain, but the echo of Isaiah's Song of the Vineyard (5:1-7), where the vineyard represents Israel, is recognizable. Unlike Isaiah, however, the vineyard in Matthew's parable has produced the expected fruit; the problem lies with the refusal of the peasants to remit the owner's share of the produce to the agents. The tenant farmers have generally been understood to represent Israel's religious leaders who, despite their alleged loyalty to the Torah, fail to give God his due by believing in God's present activity in the world, manifest in the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus. Although the chief priests and elders have been charged with the responsibility of leading Israel in the way of righteousness, they have in fact rebelled against God and will be replaced. The chief feature of the allegory is the violent treatment of the owner's slaves, including the son. Most biblical experts agree that reference is made here to Israel's persecution of the prophets sent to it by God (1 Kings 19:10, 14; 2 Chronicles 24:18-22, 36:15-16; Acts 7:51-53).
The principal area of disagreement in the allegorical interpretation of this parable is the question of who will lose the kingdom. In verse 43 we read how the Kingdom of God will be taken "from you [collectively] and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom." Although Jesus specifically addresses "the chief priests and elders" (v. 23), the tradition of the prophets (especially as understood in verse 43) suggests that behind the leaders stands the whole generation of rebellious Israel. Many scholars thus suggest that the evangelist is making an indictment of the whole nation, not merely its leaders. Thus, Israel will be replaced by the Gentile church. Other exegetes state that it is incorrect to assume the transfer is to the Gentiles alone. For Matthew the church is not Jew or Gentile; it is a new community that transcends segregation and traditional groupings of peoples. Despite the differences of opinion it is clear that Matthew believes the Kingdom will be taken from those who reject Jesus and given to a people who have listened to Christ's message and can bear much fruit.
The use of Psalm 118 (verse 42), a passage well-known to the Jews of Jesus' day, gives additional evidence to the belief that the Kingdom will be transferred to a new people. Jesus' rhetorical question had to be answered in the affirmative. The imagery is shifted from the tenants who rejected the servants to the builders who rejected the stone. The tenants, by killing the son, destroyed themselves, while the builders who rejected the stone which became the capstone made themselves appear to be foolish. Exegetes generally agree that as the verse reads it can only refer to the admission of the Gentile church. However, scholars point out that this verse and verse 43 are probably later expansions of the original parable added to demonstrate Jesus' favor of the Gentiles.
The possible extrapolation of the parable to the early church situation raises the question of what the original parable intended. Some biblical exegetes state that the original parable of Jesus can be discovered in the repeated call for due return on the use of gifts provided God in the vineyard. In each successive case the deliberate refusal of the tenants is met with increased violence. When refusal to cooperate does not result in punishment, but only further requests, the tenants begin to feel secure. They forget that they are tenants and make plans to use the vineyard, which they do not own, as their own property. Jesus' message gains strength since the wickedness of the tenants consists not only in keeping for themselves any produce, but also in claiming the whole enterprise as their own. The Lord's message of misuse of God-given gifts is highlighted in this parable.
If a message warning the Jews of their misuse of God's gifts was Jesus' original intent in the parable, then, as many scholars have suggested, the sending of the son is a secondary feature of the pericope. It reflects the interpretation of the death of Christ in relation to Israel's whole history. The parable thus does not look forward to the death of Jesus, but looks back to it and sees it (from the perspective of the apostolic church in its continuing conflict with Judaism) as the climactic event in a long history of the rejection of God's prophets. It was bad enough to kill the prophets, but infinitely worse to murder the son. This is clearly a creation of the early church and Matthew's attempt to demonstrate Jewish complicity in the death of Christ. In the past this understanding has fueled the fires of anti-Semitism, leading in more recent years to a changed interpretation for the sending of the son. Scholars suggest that although there is no reason for anti-Semitism, it is wrong to change what Matthew apparently meant, if indeed he believed that God had rejected Israel and replaced it with the church (Jew and Gentile) because of the death of Jesus.
Scripture exegetes provide additional evidence that the death of the son is a creation of the Apostolic Church and not a prediction of Jesus. The allegory that suggests that the tenants would inherit the vineyard at the death of the son does not make sense. Nothing in Hebrew law of the day would have designated tenants as the heirs to the vineyard. Thus, it appears that the passage about the son was added later by Matthew to highlight his message of the ill will of the tenants who represented Israel.
Context Of The Parable
Context In The Church Year
As the centerpiece of a trilogy of parables on judgment, the story of the wicked tenants is chosen by the church to continue to challenge our sensibilities and to encourage personal and communal growth in the Lord. Jesus tells this parable and those that frame it on both sides to demonstrate his authority. Last week we heard of harsh judgment for those whose actions and words are inconsistent. Today we are told that God's gifts must not be taken for granted. Next week we will realize our need to be ready for God's call, for many are called but few are chosen.
The Christian community needs to be reminded of our place in God's plan. As God's greatest creation our place is integral and extremely important, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that we are creatures and thus subject to God's law and judgment. In its wisdom the church presents this series of parables from Matthew's Gospel to encourage us to renew our attitudes and review our actions to assure that we are on the correct road. We must remind ourselves that our mission is to build God's kingdom, not our own.
Context With Other Gospels
The parable of the wicked tenants is provided in four versions: the Synoptic writers and the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas. Mark 12:1-12, Luke 20:9-19, and the Gospel of Thomas (Saying 65) present this parable with slight differences that provide various interpretations. In Luke and Thomas there is no reference to Isaiah's "Song of the Vineyard." Another difference between Matthew and Luke compared with Mark is found in the murder of the son. Mark places the crime in the vineyard, while the other Synoptics say the son was dragged outside the vineyard and killed. The latter version is clearly an illustration of the apostolic church allegorizing the son to Jesus who was crucified on Calvary outside the city of Jerusalem. Another difference in these versions of the parable is the escalation of violence. In Matthew two sets of servants are sent (allegorized as the sets of former and latter prophets) and then the son, but in Luke and Mark three individual servants precede the arrival of the son. In Matthew and Mark death comes to a servant before the son; Luke says only that the servants were wounded.
Possibly the most important difference in these versions is in how Jesus phrases his question on guilt. In Mark and Luke Jesus answers the question himself, but in Matthew Jesus forces the Jewish leaders to respond. Thus, Matthew has the chief priests and elders in a way convict themselves, since for the evangelist's audience the allegory of the tenants as representative of Israel's religious hierarchy is clear. Verification of guilt is provided in Matthew, verse 45: "When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized he was speaking about them."
Context With First And Second Lessons
First Lesson: Isaiah 5:1-7. Isaiah's "Song of the Vineyard" provides the Old Testamant background to Matthew's parable of the wicked tenants. God created a vineyard, Israel, which was given every opportunity to produce a rich harvest, "but it yielded wild grapes." Isaiah, in this first third of his book of prophecy, writes to the people of Judah and predicts their destruction. God nurtured the people, providing everything that was needed, yet the people went their own way and the produce was not satisfactory. The yield of the people was not acceptable to God.
The failure of the Hebrews should have been a warning to the Jews of Jesus' day, but the message was not heeded. God provided the necessary gifts, but the people failed to use them properly; they did not understand or refused to accept their responsibility. Since the gifts were misused they will be taken away and the nation will be destroyed.
Second Lesson: Philippians 3:4b-14. Saint Paul, a former Pharisee and persecutor of the "new way," realized his need for and dependence upon God. All that he possessed was a gift, and thus he could forcefully say to the Philippians that he would give up all for Christ. There is one and only one great prize and that is life with Christ. He realized his need to press forward to achieve this great prize. God would provide what was needed, but Paul understood his responsibility. His cooperation with God's plan was essential. What Paul has is not his own; it is on loan from God and thus must be wisely used.
Paul's exhortation to the Christian community at Philippi must be heeded today. We work hard and feel that personal compensation is our right. We at times lose sight of the one who gave us the opportunity to work. We sometimes as well forget the reasons for the gifts we possess. Paul challenges us to return to a basic understanding that gifts are provided to be properly used; they are not for us alone. Use gifts for God's kingdom and look forward to its realization in our world.
