Winter Bible Study Session 5

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

Series: Parables of Matthew

Description

Session 5
The Confrontation of the Kingdom with the Religious Authorities
(Matt 21.28-22.14)
When we arrive at this trilogy of parables, the situation in Jesus’ ministry has taken an ominous turn. Jesus has now arrived in Jerusalem and tensions are running high between Jesus and the Jewish leadership. In fact, things have become downright nasty.
A. The Two Sons (Matt 21.28-32)
Cultural Context
This is an honor/shame culture. Honor is the highest cultural value; dishonor is the greatest fear. Honor involves gender, power/authority, and being in right relationship with God. A father whose son disobeys, or even worse, says he will obey and then does not follow through, brings dishonor, for it calls into question (1) his authority and (2) his relationship to God, for disobedient sons do not reflect the household as God desires it to be.

Basic Teaching
The first son refused to go to the vineyard, but changed his mind and went. These are the sinners and tax collectors who by their lives had said no to God, but in heeding the call to repentance of John the Baptist, they had now said yes. The second son agreed to do the father’s will but did not follow through. These are the chief priests and the elders who loudly proclaimed their commitment to obey God, but by their refusal to heed John’s call for repentance, they said no. The parable is not directed against Israel, but against Israel’s leadership. Gentiles have not replaced Israel. There is now one people of God made up of anyone who believes, whether Jew or Gentile.

B. The Wicked Tenants (Matt 21.33-46)
This parable is one of only three that appears in all of the Synoptic Gospels, along with the parable of the Soils and the Mustard Seed. Apparently, the Gospel writers concluded that no account of Jesus' life and ministry would be complete without this parable. There is something in this story that they all perceived was central to the gospel. What was it? I would argue it is the parable’s declaration of a turning point in God’s grand plan. Jesus is shifting the focus from Israel alone to the entire world. This is not a replacement of Israel, but a shift to one people of God composed of both believing Jews and Gentiles.

Basic Teaching
The owner of the vineyard represents God. The vineyard is Israel, the people of God. The servants who were beaten, stoned, and even killed are the prophets. The son is Jesus himself. The tenants who eventually turn on the vineyard's owner and kill his son are clearly the religious leaders of Jesus’ day. In classic prophetic style (see David and Nathan in 2 Sam 12), Jesus tells the story and asks “when therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” They take the bait in Matt 21.41, “he will put those miserable wretches to a miserable death, and rent out the vineyard to other tenants.” The shocker, clincher, and key to the whole parable, however, is the citation of Psalm 118.22-23 concerning the stone the builders rejected having been made the chief cornerstone. But God was about to do a double-reversal: the son who got rejected will emerge as a powerful figure that will, in turn, reject the rejecters!
This idea was so central, in fact, that the once-obscure text of Psalm 118:22 went on to become one of the most-quoted Old Testament verses in the New Testament (five citations) and Psalm 118 the most cited Psalm (twelve citations). The little verse that seemed least among many other verses in the Hebrew Bible emerged as most significant.

C. The Wedding Banquet (Matt 22.1-14)
Cultural Context
a. Banquet Invitations
In a culture of poverty and want, an invitation to the wedding banquet of a king was reason for celebration.
b. Honor and Shame
In a culture where honor was the highest value, to dishonor or shame a king would have serious consequences. To have said “yes” to the initial invitation, and then “no” when all was prepared would have been unimaginable. To do so for routine matters even more disgraceful. To abuse and kill the king’s servants would have added insult to injury. Finally, an empty wedding banquet for a king’s son is a picture of dishonor and shame. Also, a person wore his/her very best to such an event. Even if you were a peasant, you cleaned up, and perhaps borrowed better garments. At a minimum, you wore your “Sunday best.”
Application
This is a story about well-intentioned religious people whose lives are progressing in every tangible way, whose businesses and careers are flourishing, and whose families are ordered and yet their priorities are not. The kingdom is like a banquet, and the invitation still goes out. The question that confronts us is whether we will make excuses and in essence reject the invitation?