Parable of the Wicked Tenants

Homily for Sunday, October 8, 2023

Nineteenth Sunday After Pentecost

Matthew 21:33-46

The “Parable of the Wicked Tenants” we just heard is one of Matthew’s several “landowner” parables.  It was two weeks ago that we heard another of Matthew’s “landowner” parables, the so-called Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (the parable in which some worked all day but others only an hour, and all were paid the same).  In my homily that day, I asserted that the early-morning workers  were not the Jews, and the one-hour workers not the Christians:  “Forget that old interpretation,” I said.  “I don’t often use the word ‘should,’” I continued…

…and I even less frequently use the word “always.” But….  We always should be suspicious of any scripture interpretation that puts us on top, [I said].  And we always should be deeply suspicious of any scripture interpretation that puts Jews on the bottom.  

Further, in my homily that morning I insisted that the landowner is not God.  I pointed out how the Greek behind what is sometimes translated as “landowner” is οἰκοδεσπότῃ (“oikodespotē”), which literally means “house despot;” and I noted how the “house despots” in Matthew were indeed “despots” who did as they pleased.  They (and here I again quote my homily) [they]:

paid those who had worked one hour the same as they paid those who had worked all day.  They put wicked tenants “to a miserable death” (21:41).  They owned slaves (13:27; 21:34; 24:45). They cut “unfaithful” slaves into pieces (24:51), and they threw“worthless” slaves “into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (25:30).  

“I urge us not to assume the landowner is God,” I said, because “the landowner is not God.”

Having said what I said two weeks ago, in this morning’s text, after Jesus tells his “Parable of the Wicked Tenants,” and after he declares, “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” – after Jesus says this – Matthew writes:

When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking about them.

So…  Are the“wicked tenants” in this morning’s parable the Jews?  Are those “other tenants” to whom he will lease the vineyard and “who will give him the produce at the harvest time” [are they] Christians?  And in this parable is the“landowner” God?  And do I need to retract all I said two weeks ago about the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, that the all-day workers are not the Jews, the one-hour workers are not the Christians, and that the landowner is not God?

Perhaps.  Or perhaps Jesus told this parable, not against Jews generally, but against only “the chief priests and the Pharisees.”Or perhaps it could be that Matthew, who was Jewish and whose community was Jewish – while we always should be suspicious of any scripture interpretation that puts us on top and Jews on the bottom – maybe Matthew as a Jew has permission to speak of his fellow Jews differently than do we.  

Or – the simplest solution – maybe two weeks ago I was just plain wrong.  Maybe Matthew’s “landowners” are God.  Maybe Matthew does speak these parables against his fellow Jews.  Maybe in them Matthew does raise up his “Christian” community.

Two weeks ago, towards the beginning my homily, I said that

My first inclination is to try to make the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard“better” for us…. I want to remove the “sting” from this passage; I want to“make it better” for us.  

My inclination this morning likewise is to resolve the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, to somehow “make it better.”  But maybe this passage and Matthew’s other“landowner” parables are intended to remain a mystery; maybe these passages are intended to stay “wild” and to unnerve us. Each of the Gospels has passages that unnerve us.  Luke has much to say about the wealthy whom he says are to be sent away empty (1:43). John’s Jesus scandalizes with language about eating flesh and blood:  “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me and I in them,” writes John (6:56).  Mark’s Gospel originally ended with: “[The women] went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid” (16:8) and contained no appearance of the resurrected Jesus.  And Matthew’s animus against his fellow Jews is painful to hear.  Matthew’s Passion narrative, for example, contains the so-called “blood curse:”  “His blood be on us and on our children,”shouted the people to Pilate (27:25).   And Matthew’s “landowner” parables – such as the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard and this morning’s Parable of the Wicked Tenants – are likewise unnerving.

So, which is it?  Is it:  “When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking about them”?  Or is it “We always should be suspicious of any scripture interpretation that puts us on top and Jews on the bottom”?

I think it’s both.  Jesus did speak this and perhaps the other“landowner” parables against the chief priests and the Pharisees.  And we always should be suspicious of any scripture interpretation that puts us on top and Jews on the bottom.

Each Sunday our liturgy helps us to practice living with mystery,with what is unresolved and perhaps unnerving in our faith.  In the Creed we are about to say, God is one yet God is three, and Jesus is divine yet Jesus is human.  In the Eucharist we are about to celebrate,the bread is the body of Christ, and the wine is his blood.  The more we live with these mysteries that are unresolved and perhaps unnerving, the greater our capacity, not to seek to“make it better,” not to remove the “sting,” but rather to allow ourselves to be “stung.”  Which is perhaps not so different from allowing ourselves to be “stuck,” as was Christ with nails to the cross, and sharing in that mystery whereby his death leads to our life, and our dying with him leads to rising with him. May God give us the grace to be so “stung” with what is unresolved and unnerving in our faith.  And to regard that “sting” as grace.

‍