Sunday Sermon 10/9/11

Today's gospel contains the third of the three parables of the vineyards, all three delivered by Christ in his last weeks during his final, fatal visit to Jerusalem. The first parable is of the two brothers asked by their father to work in the family vineyard, one says he will go but doesn't and the other said he would not but eventually does. The second is of the king who sends men and eventually his son to collect profits from his vineyard and all of his emissaries are killed by the sharecroppers. The third is of the wedding guests who don't come to the wedding and are eventually replaced by people from the highways and byways. The first is pretty straightforward--as straightforward as genius is--the third is the most famous with the scary ejection of the guest who has not worn the correct wedding clothes. The second is really interesting; according to most biblical authorities this is the first major allusion Christ makes as being the Son of God and this parable is responsible for the rage of the Jewish infrastructure that leads to His crucifixion.

There is an interesting part of the parable where the sharecroppers finally explain their violence towards the king's men and, eventually, his son. They say they want to take the son's inheritance. What could all this mean?

First, the king is beyond patient; he is optimistic about the sharecroppers almost to the naive. They kill two groups of ambassadors and yet he sends his son to negotiate. Second, the sharecroppers have a motive, a strange motive but a motive. If they kill the heir they will get his inheritance. Thus it is a revolt, a revolution, but on the face of it there is no chance this will be successful; the logistics will not allow it. It is as if they are trying to create an alternative universe. How will killing the son get them anything other than destroyed? The sharecroppers are farmers trying to change a system that is written in stone. There is no chance they will succeed against the king. Their revolt is a symbolic and egocentric act doomed to fail. Their acts are monstrous specifically but tiny in the eyes of the king who can--and will--bring a terrible vengeful justice upon them. Not only is the behavior of the tenants reprehensible, it is stupid; it defies the way of the world. It defies how things are.

Like walking naked in a snowstorm, it mocks freedom. It is the rebellion of Adam and Eve. It is an attempt to replace the certainty of God with the uncertain ambitions of men.