May God fill you with his graces so that you produce the expected fruits of Christian love towards him and your needy neighbours. – Happy Sunday! + John Okoye
Doctrine And Faith
(Isaiah 5, 1-7; Philippians 4, 6-9; Matthew 21, 33-43: 27th Sunday of Year A – October 8, 2017)
Today’s gospel as well as the first reading from the book of Isaiah narrates a parable whose subject matter is a vineyard. In the first reading, the attentiveness of the vineyard owner is clearly sketched during the cultivation of the vineyard. Each step of the viticultural process is carefully accomplished. Everything was done to guarantee a bountiful harvest. Unfortunately, the harvest was poor. But what is more, the vineyard produced wild grapes. The unnatural yield was not as a result of poor cultivation on the part of the owner. The vineyard was a failure. At this juncture, the owner of the vineyard (no longer the prophet who acted as a narrator) turns to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah for some sort of judgement as he asked: What could I have done for my vineyard and I have not done. I expected it to yield grapes. Why did it yield sour grapes instead? One might be able to offer some reason for a paltry harvest, but how does one explain the presence of wild grapes? The only answer is deliberate treachery or the rejection of all the careful attention provided. The indictment of sin has been introduced. Judgement is now passed on the unnatural vineyard. Some of the steps taken to ensure its productivity will be undone. Protection against animal ravages and human theft were removed and the vineyard becomes vulnerable. Even the clouds will be commanded (by God, the real owner of the vineyard) to withhold rain necessary for crop growth. The owner of the vineyard turned to the people of Jerusalem and Judah for judgement on the case before them; scarcely did they know that their judgment will be directed back to them. God, through the prophet, decodes the meaning of the parable: the owner of the vineyard is God: the vineyard, the cherished plant, is the house of Israel. Then the prophet describes the heinousness of the people’s offence. God looked for justice (good behaviour: mishpath) but found bloodshed (mishphah); for justice (sedeq) but found an outcry (seaqah). God has invested much in the future of this people and they scorned the attention of the beloved vineyard owner.
In Jesus’ narrative of the parable of the vineyard in the Gospel, the master of the house planted the vineyard himself, built a protection around it, and constructed the winepress to be used at the time of vintage. After the hard work was finished, he leased it out to tenants who had only to care for the vines until the grapes were ready for the press. He then went abroad and from there he sent words to have the produce of the vineyard sent to him. Interpreting the parable as an allegory (a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one), God is understood as the owner of the vineyard and the leaders of the people would be the tenant vinedressers to whom the vineyard was leased. To these leaders, God periodically sent prophets to announce his designs. Israel’s history records how both the leaders and the people refused to listen to the prophets and even put some of them to death (cf. Isaiah 52, 13 - 53, 12). Continuing the allegorical interpretation, the parable suggests that God sent Jesus with full divine authority and the leaders of the people put him to death outside the city. When Jesus finished narrating the parable, he turned to the leaders and asked them to provide a legal ruling on the situation. In compliance they stated: He (the vineyard owner) will bring those wretches to a wretched end and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will deliver the produce to him when the season arrives.Thus the leaders condemn themselves in their own words.
In Jesus’ narrative of the parable of the vineyard in the Gospel, the master of the house planted the vineyard himself, built a protection around it, and constructed the winepress to be used at the time of vintage. After the hard work was finished, he leased it out to tenants who had only to care for the vines until the grapes were ready for the press. He then went abroad and from there he sent words to have the produce of the vineyard sent to him. Interpreting the parable as an allegory (a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one), God is understood as the owner of the vineyard and the leaders of the people would be the tenant vinedressers to whom the vineyard was leased. To these leaders, God periodically sent prophets to announce his designs. Israel’s history records how both the leaders and the people refused to listen to the prophets and even put some of them to death (cf. Isaiah 52, 13 - 53, 12). Continuing the allegorical interpretation, the parable suggests that God sent Jesus with full divine authority and the leaders of the people put him to death outside the city. When Jesus finished narrating the parable, he turned to the leaders and asked them to provide a legal ruling on the situation. In compliance they stated: He (the vineyard owner) will bring those wretches to a wretched end and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will deliver the produce to him when the season arrives.Thus the leaders condemn themselves in their own words.
The first reading and the gospel describe two attempts at thwarting God’s plan. In both instances there is deliberate treachery (betrayal of trust). The first reading describes the tender and solicitous care God has taken on behalf of the vineyard. God worked tirelessly to ensure that it would thrive and be a source of enjoyment and prosperity. Despite all God’s plans and effort, it produced an unacceptable crop. There was no mistake here. God was in no way remiss in planting or on tending. The vineyard was simply rebellious. The metaphor of the vineyard functions differently in the gospel account. Here the fault is not with the vineyard. It produced an abundant crop. In fact, it is the very productivity of the vineyard that sets the stage for the treachery described. In this case, those who were trusted stewards turn out to be traitorous usurpers. They want the vineyard for themselves and they are willing to use any means to acquire it.
Without interpreting any of the metaphors allegorically, we can see ourselves in each instance. There are times when regardless of what God seems to be doing for us, we simply rebel against God’s plans. We stand in defiance and cry out: I will not serve; I will do what I want. There are other times when we, who are only disciples of Jesus, act as if the kingdom is ours to direct or to manage it as we see fit. We might even marginalise or force out others with whom we do not agree, so that we have sole control. Unfortunately, we may not be above such treachery.
God is connected in both parables and what is expected to be his stand? He does not tolerate treachery. That is why out of his tender love for his vineyard (the People of Israel of Old and the New People of God) treachery cannot be tolerated. If we have produced unacceptable fruits, it is for our own good that God steps in and dismantles the structure that enables us to produce as we did. If we attempt to usurp the kingdom (the church or any of its organisations or structures, etc) in order to exercise our own control over it, it is appropriate that God snatch it from our grasp and entrust it to those who will faithfully carry out his plan. May we therefore, pray in today’s liturgical celebration for the grace not only to produce the expected fruit but also be completely engaged in humble and sacrificial services to the church and to our needy neighbours. Happy Sunday! + John I. Okoye
No comments:
Post a Comment