Matthew 21:33-44 (Year A, Proper 22)
The one where the Father sends his Son to pick up some fruit
The gospel reading for Sunday, October 8th is Matthew 21:33-44.
It helps to know:
That this is Episode 2 of 3. Jesus tells three parables about a "man" with an obedient son (21:28-32), a "master of a house" who sends his son to die (21:33-44), and a "king" who throws a wedding feast for his son (22:1-14). Try this on: It's the same man, and the same son.
Some scholars: "But the son dies in Ep. 2. How could he get a wedding feast in Ep. 3?" The Church: "hahahaha."
For now, notice the opening line: "Hear another parable" (21:33).
The Vineyard tradition. It's pretty clearly configured in today's texts. Start at Psalm 80:8, "You brought a vine out of Egypt." Israel is the vine. The psalm explains the conquest in agrarian terms: "You drove out the nations and planted it. You cleared the ground for it; it took deep root and filled the land." (vv. 8-9) Its vocation: to cover the mountains with its shade and the mighty cedars with its branches. "Cover" connotes both protection and adornment. And the sent-branches remind us of the priest-king figure, Joshua, called "the Branch," who, seated in the temple, would branch out God's justice and righteousness throughout the world.
If Israel is the vine, God is the vine-keeper. Hence, "Have regard for this vine, the stock that your right hand planted, and for the son whom you have made strong for yourself." (vv. 14-15). And hence, "My beloved had a vineyard on a very fertile hill" (Isa. 5:1f).
Each of the gospels subverts the tradition that Israel is the vine. John does it the niceliest, when Jesus says, "I am the vine; you are the branches" (ch. 15). Matthew focuses instead on the incompetence of Israel's leaders: i.e., the tenants who run the vineyard.
Matthew 21:33-44
"Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country. When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit. And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. 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 have his inheritance.' And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. When therefore 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 let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons."
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 marvelous in our eyes'?
Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. Ands the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him."
What I noticed
This is "another parable" (v. 33), building on the previous one, which had ended with the CP&E's remorseless experience of watching the tax collectors and prostitutes TC&P repent and obey. It was for their repentance and obedience that Jesus came to teach the commandments, and it is their repentance and obedience that kicks off the story cycle.
For the religious and generally obedient, Matthew offers a key invitation into the kingdom of heaven: learn how to repent and obey by watching the TC&P do it. (For Luke, it's "rejoice," like the angels [e.g. Luke 15]). One week ago, we read about the grumpy tenants who complained, "You have made them equal to us" (20:12). This is the same implicit complaint as that.
The landowner wants fruit, and the TC&P could have been producing it earlier if they'd had better leadership.
The slaves, which are the prophets, are sent by God and killed by the CP&E. No motivation is stated until the murder of the son, and the motivation is simple greed: "This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance" (v. 38). "Come" is a cohortative, collaborative word. It reminds me of Psalm 2, when the leaders gather together to discuss their overthrow of Yahweh and his Anointed (vv. 1-3). Yahweh laughs and installs his Son as King on his holy hill (v. 4-6).
The context of the parable does a lot to configure this "greed."
Go back to the Rich Young Ruler, owner of many properties. His wealth, and his desire to abstract Jesus' teaching and frame it in his own terms prevented him from fellowship with the poor. (19:16-22)
Peter confessed his jealousy of the RYR's many estates, and got Jesus to tell him that the disciples would be made judges of Israel, and heirs of estates in the future age. (19:23-30)
The day-laborers assumption that they'd be paid more than a denarius is a crass greed that reveals a deeper prejudice: "you have made them equal to us." Here, the function of wealth is to distance them from their neighbors. (20:1-15)
The mother of the sons of Zebedee wants her two sons to sit on Jesus' left and right hand, which cheeses off the other ten. (20:20-28)
By contrast, Jesus makes the two blind men "equal" to the disciples by healing them. (20:29-34)
The CP&E were indignant at the joy the children found in Jesus. (21:1-11)
By contrast, Jesus is indignant with the fruitless fig tree, and he curses it. (21:18-22)
Finally, in Ep. 1 of the parable cycle, the CP&E fail to respond with joy and imitation when they see the repentance of the TC&P. (21:28-32)
Matthew has a lesson for us on greed: Those who are either hungry for or satiated with owning property and exerting authority will both fail to keep the commandments and be triggered by Jesus' preferential treatment of the obedient poor. Their greed for property and power will blind them to the purpose of both property (the world is God's vineyard) and power (tending vines, harvesting fruit).
Oh, also, there only seem to be three emotions in these stories. The rich and powerful being moved to anger at the elevation of the poor. Jesus being moved to pity at the sight of the poor. And the "man" and the ten being moved to anger at others' self-elevation.
When Jesus asks the CP&E what the owner of the vineyard will do, they give him one answer in two parts: (a) "He will evilly kill those evil men (kakous kakos apolesei autous)," (b) "and will let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons" (21:41). This answer reminds me of a line David wrote: "With the twisted, you will show yourself crooked" (2 Sam. 22:27).
Jesus gives his own answer, in an inverted order: (a) "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits" (21:43), and (b) "And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him" (21:44).
Plenty could be said here, but I think what's most interesting is the word of promise: The vineyard will be given to "a people (ethnei, lit. "nation") making/doing (poiounti) its fruits." So, this is the church. But the word choice is interesting.
For one, up to this point, Matthew has used the term ethnos to refer to the Gentiles (4:15; 6:32; 10:5, 18; 12:18, 21; 20:19, 25). After this point, he uses it to refer to "the nations" more broadly (24:7, 9, 14; 25:32; 28:19). I don't want to make too much of that, other than to say that this transfer of ownership is jarring. Israel was Yahweh's vine. But now the vineyard belongs to a different nation?
He doesn't say which nation, but he says what kind: a nation making the fruit of the kingdom of God. This makes me think of REI, and other companies who transfer ownership (of the means of production!) to people who produce the fruit itself. (Notice, though, that "seizing" is bad, and "receiving" is good.)
Lectionary Resonances
I think I've already said enough.
How I might preach this
Personally, I'm still gripped by the line, "You have made them equal to us," and I can't read these latter texts in Matthew apart from its resonance in them.