Friday March 22
Readings: GN 37:3-4, 12-13A, 17B-28A; MT 21:33-43, 45-46
In the first reading we hear the story of “Joseph the Dreamer” who out of jealousy for his giftedness is beaten and sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites for 20 pieces of silver. Joseph then comes to play a very important role in their lives at a later point in their story. This idea of that which is rejected coming to play a crucial role at a later point is a very deep theme in the scriptures.
In the gospel Jesus tells a parable to the Pharisees about a landowner who sends messengers back to the vineyard and each gets beaten and killed by the workers. Finally, the landowner sends his son – whom the tenants beat and kill as well. Jesus goes on to say that the landowner will then take the vineyard back, kill all of the occupants and give it to more deserving people. The Pharisees “recognize” that the story is somehow about them and grow angry.
One of the difficult things about the gospel is that Jesus says it’s a parable, not an allegory. Most of us, however, have heard this story told as an allegory and here’s how it usually spins out: The landowner is God, the “tenants” are the Jews, the messengers are the prophets and Jesus. The tenants kill the messengers and, ultimately, the landowner’s son and the landowner then kills them all and starts over with new people (the Gentiles). Many interpreters have tended to overlook the overt violence of this story and the relatively blatant anti-Semitic overtones – and spin some tale about how we’re supposed to be good stewards and heed the invitations from the landowner when they come our way.
Is this the interpretation that Jesus intended? Was the God of Jesus’ understanding the kind of God who would wipe out everyone and hand the vineyard over to someone else? Is there anything else that could be going on here?
Jesus said that sometimes he taught in parables to hide things from those who weren’t meant to understand. He also used parables to upend common understandings and reveal something else.
From what I have read, there are numerous modern biblical interpreters who are questioning an allegorical reading of this passage – saying that it misses what Jesus was trying to tell his hearers and “spiritualizes” a very powerful teaching on economics and power.
These interpreters reflect that a landowner like the one mentioned in the story would be a member of the wealthy elite. Why? Because only a wealthy person could “afford” to start a vineyard (which takes 4 – 5 years of work to bear ANY fruit) and then go on a journey. The tenants on the land would likely be displaced workers working very hard for little money, and some of them might have even been displaced by the landowner who “put a fence” around the land and claimed it for their own. The messengers who come to collect for the absentee landlord would be the hired hands who come to take away what little the tenants and their families have.
With this new perspective, we might hear elements of the story differently and “see” some underlying justice issues that are not visible through an allegorical reading. For example, we might begin to ask questions about how the landowner came to possess the land and question if anyone was dispossessed in the process. We might interpret the actions of the tenants differently when we consider that the messengers were being sent to collect payment from them. We might hear the tenants’ dream of inheriting the land (back) differently if the son of the landowner was no longer alive. And we might view the landowner’s violent actions differently as he “cleaned house” and wanted new tenants who would do as he wanted.
If we read the parable this way, it might beg the questions, “So where is God in this parable? Where are we in this story? Why would Jesus tell a story like this? And why would he tell it to the Pharisees and leaders? What would make them angry in hearing a story like this?”
William Herzog, a former professor at Colgate Rochester Crozier Divinity School in Rochester, wrote a groundbreaking book in the 1990’s called Parables as Subversive Speech. His contention was that the parables were meant to subvert systems of oppression and reveal underlying dynamics of power. If we are reading the parables of Jesus, he says, and do not have our worldview challenged in some way, we’re probably missing something essential.
It’s very likely that we will never know what, exactly, Jesus was trying to teach in this story. But it is also likely that we might need to unlearn a lot of what we thought we knew about scripture and about Jesus if we’re going to be more attentive disciples. Just spend a few minutes today reflecting on what an alternative reading of this parable might mean for you.