The peril of theology. Matthew 21.

For this reason I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.
(Matthew 21:43 NET)

The conclusion to Jesus' parable of the tenant farmers provides an interesting lesson in the interpretation of Scripture. Let's spend a little time looking at this. As we begin, I'll just say up front that I'm going to disagree with some men (didn't find any women in error) of great learning and ability, which is not meant to disparage them. In fact, my disagreement may stem from a misreading on my part of what they've written. But in my opinion, their interpretation is colored by their theology, and that's the point I'd like to look at closely today.

When you read Jesus' conclusion in v.21:23, the natural questions to ask are:

1. Who is "you" that the kingdom will be taken from?
2. Who are "a people" (nation in other translations) it will be given to?

Some commentaries answer these questions based on their theology. Here's what it says in the Bible Knowledge Commentary:

"Two interpretations of this verse are often presented. One is that Jesus was saying the kingdom had been taken from the Jewish nation and would be given to Gentile nations who would produce the proper fruit of genuine faith.
...
A better interpretation is that Jesus was simply saying the kingdom was being taken away from the nation Israel at that time, but it would be given back to the nation in a future day when that nation would demonstrate true repentance and faith."

In this commentary, while two interpretations are given, the first interpretation is made to align with the second one, with qualifying statements about it such as, "the kingdom has not been taken away from Israel forever," and "the church is not now inheriting the kingdom."

Explaining theological bias.
Are you following this? I didn't really at first glance. What the commentators are saying is that even though this looks like Jesus is saying that Israel has forfeited their right to the Kingdom, it's only temporary. And they're making sure both interpretations come to that conclusion. The reason they do, I think, is because their theology insists that this is how the end times will work out. Their belief is that God's covenants with Israel will be fulfilled in the end times. The answer to question #2 above can't be that the church has succeeded Israel's role in the world or that Gentiles are the people identified by Jesus as the ones to whom the Kingdom will be given.

It's important to realize that this theology (called dispensationalism) is based on a whole reading of the Bible, and it is the dominant theology in evangelical circles today. You may well ascribe to the basic teachings of this theology whether you realize it or not. And it's not my argument here that dispensationalism is an incorrect big picture of the message of the Bible, or a correct one. What I am saying is that I think the commentaries miss the true or reasonable interpretation when they let dispensational-colored glasses influence their interpretation, as above. Here are some other examples:

• Exploring the Gospel of Matthew: An Expository Commentary. The author spends a couple of paragraphs arguing that Jesus can't be referring to a permanent removal of the Kingdom from Israel, including this statement: "The nation cannot be the church, for the church is not a nation; it transcends all nations."
  
  
• The Holman New Testament Commentary seems to get this a little better, not emphasizing the dispensational concerns with this statement of Jesus, but still showing the concern is there. The author says, "the stewardship would reside in the hands of the church. but God was not finished with Israel. He grafted the church into Israel's roots, but he will set to it that his covenant with Israel and his calling of the nation will be fully realized upon a day yet future..." He then goes on to apply other Scripture to make the point.
  

The same criticism can be made of those who disagree with dispensationalism when they let their viewpoint color their interpretation.

When theology helps and hinders.
While it is important to consider the whole of Scripture as a part of a passage's context, it is the outer edge of context. Context begins with the verses next to the passage in question and works outward, from paragraph to chapter and so forth, eventually including the entire Bible. It is also important to harmonize what you might think is the meaning of a given passage with other teachings of Scripture. Theology is, in part, an attempt to apply both those principles, using the context of the whole teaching of the Bible to harmonize specific teachings. The weakness in a theological viewpoint shows up when theological concerns override a simple, clear understanding of a passage, often because the passage is one that's difficult to reconcile with tenets of the theologian. That's especially true if the passage is one that those who disagree with a particular theology use to bolster their arguments. Apparently, this passage in Matthew is one of those passages for dispensationalists.

A reasonable interpretation.
If we stick with the parable itself and the immediate context, it seems pretty clear that just as we talked about when discussing this parable in Mark, the villains in the parable -- the tenants -- are the leadership of Israel. Israel is the vineyard. And so, when Jesus says, "the Kingdom of God will be taken from you," he's referring to those leaders. That's really as far as we need to take this lesson.

Therefore, in answer to the two questions I posed at the outset, the "you" in question #1 is Israel's religious leaders. The people who will receive the Kingdom in question #2 are those who produce the fruit of faith. It may be possible to be more specific about the answer to #2, but I don't see it as essential. I'll come back to that in just a minute.

In the Bible Knowledge Commentary the author seems to recognize the pointedness of the parable toward the religious leaders, but then gets busy defending a dispensational point of view when it comes to answering the two questions. When he makes the answer to #1 the nation of Israel, not just its leaders, he has to spend time explaining why the answer to #2 then, isn't the church or the Gentiles. They can't be the successors to the covenant promises given to Abraham and David according to his theology.

If we were to extend this lesson any further, to see if there is more specificity in the the answer to question #2, it's certainly possible, maybe even probable, that Jesus had His followers in mind, as the "people" to whom the stewardship of Kingdom would pass to. That is, the apostles and their successors, the leaders of the church would replace the religious leaders of Israel. If that is a correct understanding of what Jesus meant we would expect to see it confirmed in other Scripture. Certainly if we look at 1 Peter 2:9, there is some validation in the idea that Jesus had the church in mind as stewards of the Kingdom message. We can definitely say that the criticism earlier quoted ("The nation cannot be the church, for the church is not a nation; it transcends all nations.") is incorrect. Peter uses the same word as Jesus did, ethnos, to describe the church as a holy nation, singular. And he uses it when talking about the stone that was rejected that became the cornerstone or capstone, just as Jesus did.

Beyond that extension, I suspect we're treading on thin ice if we want to add to the interpretation of verse 43. Clearly the Pharisees understood that in both parables of chapter 21, Jesus was talking about them, and not the nation of Israel. Matthew points that out in verse 45, "When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking about them." It seems sufficient to simply leave the lesson there. The leaders of Israel have rejected the Son of David and disputed His authority in the same way the leaders in the past rejected the prophets. But in rejecting the Son, they have rejected their rights to have anything further to do with the Kingdom of God and its promises. It's those who accept the Son who are now the stewards of the Kingdom and the recipients of the promises. And we know who their are, because they bear the right fruit.

What's the point.
Two points, really. The first is that you need to be careful when consulting commentaries, because sometimes their theological viewpoint may be reflected in their interpretation. The more important point, though, is that you can do the interpretation, and you should do the interpretation, to the best of your ability.

I'm going to guess that before you began to read this post, you had a pretty good understanding of the nature of these two parables Jesus told. Do your best to stick to the text and exercise your own judgment before consulting others. And when you do, remember that every teacher has his or her own biases, which may color the interpretation they give.

Even me.