Matthew 21:33-42 (KJV) (RSV) (NIV)
July 29, 2001 

“HUMANITIES UNIVERSAL GAME”

When I was a kid growing up in British Columbia, my Dad owned a machine shop.  Iused to work there after school and during the summers even though, my Mother says the only I did well at the shop was get dirty.  On the other hand, my brother was very skilled in matters mechanical and even at a youngage was being groomed to be the heir of the business.

One day, a logger came in with a job to be done and asked how much it would be.  My brother gave him an answer. The logger asked, what authority do you have?  About that time my Dad came out of the office.  Hewas asked what authority my brother had to make such a decision.

Dad said, he’s my son, if he speaks on the matter it is the same as if I did.

Our story today, is a partial answer to the question asked of Jesus, by what authority do you do thesethings?  This story appears in Matthew, Mark and Luke.  Unlike many otherstories that appear in more than one gospel, this one appears in the same general time of the life of Jesus.

The issue here is authority and that’s a question that is asked frequently, is it not?  By what authority are you pastor of this Church?  By what authority is this Church being built?  By what authority areyou a member?  By what authority are you doing whatever you are doing?

It is an issue in every Church of every style of polity; and, it seems to me, that unless Churches have anunderstanding of the authority issue within their own faith persuasion, there is potential peril as we will see in this story.

Why does each gospel writer include this story?  Well, the basicreason is that while each writer is dealing with the life of Jesus, none of them address it in the same.  Each has a different target audience and a different understanding and they state the storyfrom their viewpoint.  That is why Biblical Interpretation is much more than simplyreading words and why it is so important.

One thing that the gospels DO have in common is that like most of the Bible they turn key points intoconversation:- he said, she said; Moses said and God said, O.K. but you’ll be sorry.  It great writing because it is engaging and it puts the words into the PRESENT tense.  You are involved, if you are reading correctly.

Fred Craddock, truly great American Preacher and former teacher of Preaching at Candler Theological Seminaryat Emory Univ. in Atlanta puts it this way: Here is a story.

“Helen learned of Jim’s infidelity and left him, went home to her mother, stayedonly three weeks and returned to Jim over the objections of her Mother.”  Now,that’s clear. We understand.

Let’s put that same story into conversational form-

The Mother said,“Helen, what are you doing?”

“I’m packingmy suitcase.”

“Where are yougoing?”

“I’m goinghome.”

“You’re goinghome to Jim?”

“Yes, Mother,I’m going home.”

“You’re goinghome to….”

“Yes Mother,I’m going home to Jim.”

“After what hedid?”

“Yes Mother,After….”

“Why then areyou going home to Jim?”

“Mother, I lovehim.  I forgive him.  He’s myhusband.”

“Well, I never thought a daughter of mine would condone a thing….”

“Mother, I didn’t say I condoned it.  Isaid I forgave him.”

“Well, it looks the same to me.”   Noticehow much more involved we were.

Of the gospel writers, Matthew is the one who directs his words, most specifically, to the Jewish people.  He is committed to proving to them that Jesus is the Messiah.  Becauseof this emphasis, his approach is very different than that of Mark, Luke or John.  Matthew begins his work with a long genealogy.  You know the part;it’s as far as many of you got after a New Year’s resolution to read through the Bible or New Testament in one year.

It begins with Abraham, goes through David and ends up with Jesus coming through the genealogy of David butthrough the lineage of his Father Joseph—think about that for a bit.  In Matthew, Jesus is presented as a harsh, tough Moses like character.  Thestories have a moralistic tone and usually negative endings opposed to a positive.

Matthew is very different from Mark who presents Jesus as a blue-collar type of personality. There is no soft side.  There is no birth story so nohint of Mary as a Mother, no shepherds, no wise men.  One third of Mark’s book isabout the last week of Jesus life and the gospel ends with the angel at the tomb saying, go to Galilee, that where he said he wasgoing, you’ll find him there.

Luke is beautifully crafted.  The story begins in the temple in chapter 1 and ends in the temple in chapter 24.  Jesus is seen as a man of prayer- constantly in prayer.  Lukehas Jesus as a compassionate loving leader but it is all cast within the traditions of Israel.

John has a totally different Jesus.  His Jesus has a transcendentair about him.  In Chapter 1 John declares Jesus is from God and will return to God.  John’s gospel is about radical grace given freely, often to unsuspecting, and from anIsraelite view, unworthy recipients because of God’s freedom and love.

Very different approaches and messages about the same personality.  Isit any wonder that there are varying viewpoints among Christian believers in our day?

Now to this story: A landowner planted a vineyard, planted a hedge around it; built a wine- press to make thewine and a tower so the workers could live there and provide security.  The owner then left the vineyard in charge of the tenants and went away to a far country.  Thus we have a well-constructed vineyard that has an absentee landlord.

The agreement with the tenants apparently called for the land owner to get a percentage of the fruit, so atthe appointed time, representatives of the holding company came to pick up the fruit.  Insteadof abiding peaceably by the contract, the tenants beat one of the employees, killed another and stoned a third.

Exhibiting a great amount of patience, the owner sent more employees for a second visit, but the tenants didthe same to this party.  Next, the owner says, “I will send my son, they willrespect him.”  When the tenants saw the son instead of receiving him they said,“This is the heir that has come, let us kill him and take the inheritance.”

No one knows why these tenants thought the owner would will the vineyard to them after their terrible deedsbut then, employees do some strange thinking at times.

Now, the storyteller does not give a conclusion, instead he turns to the listeners and asks, “When theowner comes, what do you think he will do to the tenants?”  Before we deal with theconclusion, you should know that up to this point, Matthew, Mark and Luke all have the story in the same format, now we’ll seethe difference in the writers thinking.

Mark the blue-collar no nonsense writer and the earliest of the gospel writers says, “he will come anddestroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others Have you not read the scripture, “the very stone which the builders rejectedhas become the head of the corner, this was the lord’s doing and it is marvelous in our eyes.”

Luke, The compassionate writer, who has Jesus as a person of prayer and action within the Jewish tradition,quotes Mark and ends the story by saying, “He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others.  When they heard this they said, God forbid!  Buthe looked at them and said “what then is this that is written: the very stone which the builders rejected has become the head ofthe corners.”  There is a note of penalty but it simply ends with the statement about the rejected stone becoming thecornerstone.

Now listen to Matthew, pleading for acceptance of Jesus by the Jews and harshly stating penalties if they donot.  Matthew has the people saying, “He will put those wretches to a miserabledeath, and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him their fruits in their season.  Jesus said to them, note Matthew is the only one to say Jesus is making the statement. Jesus said to them,“Have you not read the scriptures, the very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; this was theLord’s doing ands it is marvelous in our eyes?”

Then Matthew adds, “Therefore I tell you, the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to anation producing the fruits if it.”

Matthew has Jesus, not the people giving the answer, and he has Jesus making the illusion to himself as theson who was killed and has become the chief cornerstone. Lastly, Matthew has the entire nation of Israel being rejected and thefruit given to another.  Matthew is stern. Matthew is punitive. Matthew is trying toscare the Jewish nation into accepting that Jesus is the heir and in killing him, they have rejected the very stone that is tobecome the cornerstone to a new Kingdom.

What can we make of this story? First, we can conclude that the religious authorities were well aware of themessage that was being presented; the Jewish nation as the vineyard of God was a familiar prophetic picture. The building of thevineyard was similar to most others and absentee landlords were a common reality in ancient Israel.

It also seems to be quite clear that, to the gospel writers, the employees who were sent and rejected werethe prophets of Israel. The son, who came at last, is none other than Jesus. Since all the gospel writers wrote after the life anddeath of Jesus and after the resurrection stories, this is an interpretive story of what will happen to Jesus, written after ithad happened.

This story tells us several important points. The first is God trusts humans. God pays humanity the ultimatecomplement by entrusting to us, the task of caring for the vineyard and sharing the fruit that is produced.

God is very patient; despite horrible blunders, God keeps sending messengers and keeps hoping to receive ashare of the crops. But, the story also tells that humans misuse the freedom given to them by the master. Humanity is answerableto the landowner or God and like the tenants, humans like you and me continually take advantage of the owners requests and mess upthe works by being selfish and trying to keep more than we are allotted. Sin is rebellion against God. Sin is selfishness thatputs our wants and wishes ahead of that of the creator.

Jesus is the son, in the story and he too is rejected and killed but unlike others, this “stone” whichthe tenants or humanity rejected has become the head of the corner” that is the foundation stone upon which an understanding ofGod is most visible.

In closing, there are some pastoral implications to this story that need to be stated. We err if we allowthis story to remain only with the nation of Israel. The vineyard represents all the people of God, which at the time of thewriters was Israel. The writers were evoking judgement from the people upon themselves. Put into today’s terms, this is a storyof judgement upon us and our leaders, like those of old, in many instances, we have rejected the servants sent us and we havesought to retain as much of the yield of the vineyard as we possible can.

Humanities Universal Game is, we insist on trying to play God. We reject God’s authority and try to replacewith our own.

The graciousness of the gospel message is that in spite of all the rejection, the owner still sends his son-the one most able to truly  represent the owner. He too is rejected. The people, onhearing of this, prescribed revenge- a reaction much like the evil servants.

But God! There’s the hope. How often is hope bound up in those words, but God? But God chose a differentway, God chose resurrection rather than rejection and thereby, in essence, said, “get on it with it”. You can become bettertenants than before through a process called redemption.

May it be so, right here, in our midst. Amen