Some pairings of Gospel and Old Testament texts are so
tightly linked in imagery that the preacher’s task becomes one more of
presentation than theme. That is the case this Sunday, as Aaron Couch describes
their connections.
Matthew 21:33-46
and Isaiah 5:1-7
Imagery
for the parable may have been drawn from Isaiah’s “love song” concerning his
beloved’s vineyard. Just as Isaiah announced God’s judgment on the leaders of
Jerusalem in the eighth century B.C., so Jesus indicts the temple authorities
of his time. That the tenants in the parable certainly do not love the owner,
but are only concerned with their own gain, suggests that Jesus believes that
the temple authorities are devoted to their own power and privilege rather than
to God.
The
parable becomes a telling of salvation history, with the landowner’s slaves
representing the prophets sent by God. The story reaches its critical turning
point with the arrival of the son, who represents Jesus himself. While it is
unlikely that there were any circumstances under which actual tenants could
have taken an inheritance by killing the rightful heir, historical plausibility
is not the parable’s purpose. Instead, the story functions to condemn the
Jewish leadership for rejecting Jesus as Messiah. Matthew’s editorial concerns
are visible in verse 39 (compare Mark 12:8), so that the parable conforms more
closely to the events of Jesus’ death.
Jesus
tells the story in such a way that the religious authorities pronounce judgment
against themselves. The owner will take the vineyard away from them and give it
to others. It is important to resist reading this parable in any manner that
suggests the church will supersede and replace Israel as God’s covenant people.
Certainly the church’s history of persecuting Jews calls for a different
reading of the text. In addition, the parable itself is not concerned with the
status of God’s covenant with the Jewish people. Jesus directs his words
specifically against the temple authorities, not the Jewish people. Unlike
Isaiah 5, judgment does not fall on the vineyard itself, but rather on the
rebellious tenants. The powerful Jerusalem elites will lose the privilege of
representing God’s rule. Against them Jesus quotes Psalm 118:22–23.
The
“song of the vineyard” . . . effectively hides its true meaning until the end,
when it is revealed that the vineyard represents the kingdom of Israel. In this
way, the poem delivers the announcement of judgment with devastating power.
Isaiah of Jerusalem denounced the betrayal of covenant loyalty on the part of
the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the eighth century B.C. The prophet’s
consistent themes are summed up in parallel accusations in verse 7: no justice,
no covenant fidelity (righteousness).
– Aaron
J. Couch is a pastor at First Immanuel Lutheran Church in Portland, Oregon.
Thematic clarity still leaves a preacher with
questions like those posed by Ron Anderson about the Epistle reading.
Philippians 3:4b-14
Philippians
suggests that the vineyard might be worthless apart from knowing Christ Jesus
as LORD. As Isaac Watts wrote, “Were the whole realm of nature mine, that were
an offering far too small; love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my
life, my all.” In what ways do we express our desire to know Christ today? . .
. Is our relationship to Christ such that we would willingly suffer the loss of
all things for the sake of that relationship?
—E. Byron Anderson is Styberg Professor of Worship at
Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois.
Homily Service 38,
no. 11 (2 Oct 2005): 3-14.
No comments:
Post a Comment