Sermon Tone Analysis

PRAY

Intro Review: ***

In this setting of confrontation with the leaders, and still on the topic of authority, Jesus now goes on the offensive.

He tells a parable that is relevant to us in its theme of our accountability to God’s ownership and authority.

It is a particularly stinging indictment, though, of the past and present (of Jesus’ day) spiritual leadership in Israel, and the final straw will be their refusal to recognize Jesus as the Son sent from God, the very cornerstone of God’s Kingdom.

Here we have one of the more comprehensive parables Jesus gives, and it is allegorical in that some of its features correspond to historical realities.

This is even more specific, for example, than the parable of the Forgiving Father (Prodigal Son), which is also more complex parable because it has several points of application.

It too is allegorical in that the father represents God and the sons represent sinners and repentance, and responses to his grace.

But the intent is not really to point to specific historical persons and events (except God) but to general actions and motivations that can apply to anyone.

But this parable of Wicked Tenants (or Wicked Vinedressers) is more specifically allegorical.

When this happens it should be obvious.

We are not left fishing for the correlation.

- In other words, we unwisely interpret scripture by trying to allegorize things not intended as such.

What is the deep spiritual meaning of the water and of the wine that Jesus transforms at the wedding in Cana of Galilee?

What do the fish and the bread represent when Jesus feeds the five thousand?

Food.

There’s no hidden spiritual meaning, only the obvious: the miraculous power of Jesus as the unique one sent from God, and the process of the disciples growing to understand more fully who Jesus is.

Anyway, as I said, this parable is pretty plainly allegorical, so let’s consider who and what the main characters and features represent:

Owner of the vineyard ..... God

Vineyard ..... Israel as a chosen people

(not the place/land as much as the community with whom God has made a covenant)

Tenant farmers ..... Religious leaders of Israel

Servants of the owner ..... the Prophets

Son/Heir of the owner ..... Jesus Christ

Now, as is typical of our manner of studying, let’s follow the flow of the text to dig deeper and make sure we both understand and apply it rightly.

I’ve divided this into three parts, with a fourth concluding section to specifically think more critically about how God’s truth here impacts our own lives.

We’ll consider first at the parable itself; then Jesus providing the punchline, coupled with the reactions to it (showing that they got the point); and finally Jesus explaining further the accountability and consequences of rejecting him (like what happens in the parable).

The Parable Illustrates the Wicked Response of Israel’s Leadership, Past & Present (vv.

9-15a)

v. 9a Matt and Mark both note that this parable is directed at the Jewish leaders, which is evident in Luke as well from the parable itself.

But Luke alone notes that Jesus told the parable to the people gathered.

- That’s relevant because although the leaders are particularly indicted here, it will become clear that the people will (by and large) join in the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus.

—> We are all implicated in this rebellious behavior toward God and, even though we weren’t there to cry out for his murder, our sin is the cause of Jesus’ sacrificial death.

v. 9b - The owner being away in a far country isn’t meant to represent God’s absence from involvement.

(Don’t try to develop an entire theology from a parable.

That is now what they are intended to do.)

But the owner’s distance from the immediate activity carries the plot forward in the sense of God’s expectation from heaven as the “owner” of this vineyard.

- The point is who owns the land and who planted the vineyard.

v. 9b - Tenant farmers - farmer who works the land of someone else on a contractual basis

But in vv.

10-12, we discover that even though the owner only expects to receive from what is rightfully his, they behave as if they own the vineyard.

Illustrations: Imagine abusing and kicking out the guy who came to collect rent for the owner.

Or letting movie filmmakers use the front lawn for a car crash or the swimming pool for a motorcycle busting through the fence into the pool.

Then the actual owner calls to find out what’s going on.

The people who gave permission were only tenants.

Again, these servants who have been sent represent God’s messengers, his prophets, whose warning and pleas the Israelites have continually refused to listen to.

vv.

10-12 Notice too how their disrespect and violence escalates with each new servant sent.

The third one they wound (which means to hurt so badly as to potentially maim or scar him permanently), and they don’t just send him away empty but expel him (cast him out).

- Don’t we also observe fallen human nature, that the longer people get away with their sin, the more brazen and emboldened we become in our wickedness?

(This isn’t even the end of their depravity.

But they also don’t get away with it in the end.)

v. 13 The owner’s response (to the mistreatment of these three servants) correlates to God the Father now sending the Son, but again is not meant to confuse your theology about the omniscience of God and his control over all aspects of providence.

- But bc the actor in the parable is human, he wonders what else to try and hopes that they will show more respect, more deference to the son.

It heightens anticipation of a chance for a different response.

—> But that isn’t what happens, of course.

The stakes are raised greatly.

The servants were sent and had the owner’s authority as his messengers.

And now the son will come with even greater authority, even a stake in ownership.

v. 14 Jesus’ parable explains their thought-process.

He is the heir to the very land we farm.

If we kill him, then maybe it can ultimately be ours.

(The owner might have no one else to give it to and may give up on fighting with us.) —> Of course, this would still in fact be stealing.

In order for the inheritance to be theirs, they would need to be the owner’s adopted children.

Again, the point is not that God is surprised by this (and that wouldn’t be the assumption of the Jews in Jesus’ day), but rather the conspiracy of the tenants is meant to shock the listeners.

(wow, the audacity of these tenant farmers!)

v. 15a They follow through on their threats.

These wicked tenants throw the son out and kill him.

—> The dramatic irony here is thick, as the Lucan reader knows about the conspiracy of the present Jewish leadership, and the Lucan reader is aware that they will in fact put Jesus to death.

Before we move on, ask yourself:

Isn’t your heart also inclined to behave as if you have autonomy over that which is not actually yours to begin with? - Seek God in his word, and as you do, pray for God to reveal wickedness hidden in your heart (Psalm 139:23-24) and to purify your desire to please him (Ps.

51:10).

And now we need to consider how Jesus asks and answers the question that reveals the parable’s punchline, and how both the people and the religious leaders react.

(Both groups react in ways that show they understand the parable’s meaning, especially with Jesus’ added statement of explanation.)

The People & the Priestly Aristocracy React to the Point of the Parable (vv.

15b-16,&19)

And what is the point of the parable?

What is the answer to the question Jesus asks when the parable is complete?

Two parts: First, the owner is clearly justified in judging the rebellious tenants.

Secondly, the owner is justified in giving the privilege and responsibility of tending his vineyard to others.

That seems plain enough, but the emotional reaction of some in the audience is “Surely not!”… or “may it never be!” - Why do they react this way?

In this case it is evident that the meaning of the parable was not hidden from them.

They seem to grasp the insinuation of Israel losing her privileged position as God’s representative to mankind, and that God will replace them (give the responsibility to others—the church).

So the people respond with shock.

And what is the reaction of the religious elite?

We see from v. 19 that the leaders react with vengeful anger.

They too understand the meaning that this parable was told against them and those who have gone before them.

It’s not as if we don’t see this coming.

Jesus has recently described their response to him and prophesied again that they will kill him.

The tiger is true to his stripes.

The wasp stings and the viper strikes.

Religious guides who are false toward God lead people away from God and not to him.

Luke wants us to see the culpability of these blind guides who have spiritually led the nation astray.

(more on that in vv.

17-18)

(Before we go to those verses) Think for moment in terms of completed NT theology (under the new covenant).

How does it matter to you that Israel did not faithfully discharge her duty and therefore in God’s sovereign plan he has entrusted stewardship to another?

This is of supreme interest to Luke and to every reader of the NT (and the reader of fulfilled prophecies of the former covenants in the Old).

What God is doing through Jesus is opening access to the Gentiles, that they might be grafted in, that Jews and Gentiles alike will be a part of his church.

And this could never come about without the sacrifice and resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, as well as the work of God to regenerate people from within (Ezek 36:22-27, causing them to have a heart of flesh where there was a heart of stone; and John 3:1-8, the Holy Spirit bringing about new birth).

For without internal spiritual life granted by God, even faith would not be possible (Eph 2:8-9).

And now back to Jesus’ description of their culpability: