In this powerful episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony and Jesse dive deep into Matthew 21:33-46, examining Jesus's parable of the wicked tenants. The hosts unpack how Christ masterfully draws the Pharisees into pronouncing their own condemnation, revealing not merely theological error but intentional usurpation of God's authority. Through careful exegesis, they explore the shocking setup of the parable—where the landowner does all the work while the tenants contribute nothing—and how this mirrors God's sovereign initiative in salvation. The discussion touches on confession, the value of full-time ministry, and the scandal of rejecting the Messiah despite recognizing His authority. This episode challenges listeners to examine whether they, like the Pharisees, attempt to claim God's work as their own.
The concentration of action verbs attributed solely to the landowner in Matthew 21:33 is theologically significant. The landowner plants, builds, digs, and rents—creating a fully functional, productive vineyard before the tenants ever arrive. This arrangement differs radically from typical first-century agricultural practices, where tenants would lease raw land and develop it themselves, sharing profits with the landowner. Jesus deliberately presents an extraordinary scenario where the tenants receive everything prepared and ready, requiring only stewardship of what already exists. This parallels God's sovereign initiative in election and salvation: believers contribute nothing to their standing before God, receiving instead a fully accomplished redemption. The Pharisees' rebellion wasn't against burdensome requirements but against simply acknowledging God's rightful ownership of what He alone created.
The hosts challenge the common sympathetic reading of the Pharisees as well-intentioned legalists who simply got sidetracked. Instead, verse 38 reveals the tenants explicitly recognize the son as heir and plot to murder him to "seize his inheritance." This isn't accidental rejection but calculated rebellion. The Pharisees weren't confused about Jesus's identity or authority—they understood precisely who He claimed to be and deliberately chose to destroy Him rather than submit. This interpretation carries significant weight for understanding the nature of unbelief: it's not primarily intellectual confusion but volitional rebellion. The religious leaders didn't need more evidence or clearer teaching; they needed transformed hearts. This same dynamic appears whenever humans recognize divine truth yet choose self-sovereignty over submission to God's rightful claim on their lives.
The parable begins with a scandalous premise that would have startled Jesus's original audience. Unlike normal tenant farming arrangements where landowners simply provided land in exchange for a share of whatever the tenants produced through their own labor, this landowner invests everything. He doesn't just own the property—he plants the vineyard, constructs the protective wall, digs the wine press for production, and builds the watchtower for defense. The tenants receive a turnkey operation requiring minimal effort. This extravagant preparation mirrors God's unmerited favor toward Israel and, by extension, the church. God didn't merely create humanity and wait to see what we would produce; He established covenants, sent prophets, preserved His Word, and ultimately sent His Son—all before requiring any response. The only "payment" demanded is acknowledging His ownership of what He created. The parable thus exposes the absurdity and ingratitude of claiming God's work as our own achievement.
God does all the verbs. All of the verbs are done by the landowner. There is nothing expected of these tenants—they really add nothing to the landowner's land.
Christ is not painting the Pharisees as well-intentioned but ultimately wrong. He's painting them as usurpers who recognize the proper authority and rather than submitting to it, they're going to reject that authority and try to take it for their own.
Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly. (Westminster Confession 15.5)
Welcome to episode 491 of the Reformed Brotherhood.
I'm Jesse.
[00:01:12] Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony. And this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey brother.
[00:01:17] Jesse Schwamb: Hey brother.
[00:01:18] Jesse Schwamb: So picture this, Tony, your landlord. You've built the perfect vineyard. We're talking wall watchtower, wine, press, the works like what everybody says. Everybody knows you need all those things. You've got it all set up, and then you hand the keys to some tenants.
You take a long trip, you go enjoy yourself. And when the harvest rolls around, you send your servants to collect the rent. And shockingly, your tenants, they beat. Stone. Another, the kill a third. So naturally you think, you know what? I'll fix this. Lemme just send more people. That's obviously the problem.
There's some kind of just profound misunderstanding about what's going on here and about our relationship in this business. And then when that doesn't work, you send your son now loved ones. If this were a business strategy, we would already be calling hr. But of course it's not a business strategy, it's a parable.
And Jesus is telling it to the very people about to prove the parable true. So welcome back to the Reformed Brotherhood because we're in Matthew Chapter 21 and we're gonna be actually getting all the way into the parable of the Vine growers where the patience of God looks, I would say, to almost anybody else, to humanize at least almost reckless until you realize that's exactly the point.
So yeah, grab your beverage of choice, grab your Bible, pull the car over, will you? Because this is gonna get real and we're going to reason together. But before we do all of that, let's do a little affirming with or denying against, what do you got?
[00:02:41] Tony Arsenal: So this is a sort of inside baseball, uh, affirmation. Um, I'm not sharing anything, although it may feel like I'm sharing something that is private and like, uh, like confidential.
It's not No, this is good. Um, so I had the opportunity to visit. Um, my presbytery, um, for those who are listeners of the show or people who like, have been with us a long time, um, I was part of a Baptist church. Uh, I've always kind of been a Presbyterian at heart, but, um, our church closed, uh, a little over a year and a half ago now.
And, um, uh, I've joined an OPC congregation in membership now. We've been members there for about a year. And, um, so I've been visiting Presbytery, which is the, the meeting of all of the leadership of all of the churches. So we won't do a polity breakdown here, but basically like, it's, it's the regional meeting.
It's the regional business meeting or church meeting for a group of churches in the OPC, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. And so a lot of the meetings, you know, have the normal kind of business type stuff. You have reports from different committee committees and stuff. Um.
[00:03:48] Tony Arsenal: Where this is affirmation is coming in here is at this most recent presbytery meeting, um, was pretty heavy on, um, licensing or, or, uh, not licensing on approving men who had received a call to formal ministry within the presbytery.
And so in the OPC, and I would imagine that other Presbyterian bodies are not like super different, although I'm sure there's some variation in the OPC. Um, when a church intends to extend a call to a pastor, to a teaching elder, um, to a minister, they must have the call, which is. Is both theological but is also eminently practical.
Like the call is a physical piece of paper that details, you know, what the pay is, how much vacation time. So it's kind of a combination between like a theological call and also a contract. Um, the presbytery has to approve that call. And so at this most recent one, there was a couple calls that were more or less uncontroversial.
There was no question about them, and they were approved pretty quickly. But there was one call, um, one call to ministry that took, I, I, I didn't time it, but it was probably like four or five hours of debate and discussion in various fashion in order to get to a point where the presbytery could approve the call.
So this was a call to a minister who is being called part-time, which is unusual in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Um, the OPC uh, acknowledges the fact that bivocational tent making ministry is sometimes a necessity, but really views the ministry of the word in sacrament as something that should not have.
Distractions. And actually our book of church order talks about, doesn't use the word distraction, I think, but it talks about a, a properly ordered call to a full-time minister includes phrasing that the congregation promises to compensate them in a way that allows them to be free of worldly burdens and cares.
And I might have not, not have gotten that wording exactly right. But that's the idea. And so this call was. Explicitly, um, not a full-time call it, they actually took the language out of promising to pay him in a way that he's able to ignore or to not be distracted by worldly care. And that was intentional, but there was a lot of question in discussion at presbytery level about the fact that the call did not include the phrase or the wording of part-time or bivocational.
So the conversation started out of like, can this call be modified to include that? So it's explicitly known in this man's call that his calling is part-time, which is both theological, to make sure that the call is properly formatted, but also like very practical that the congregation should acknowledge explicitly that they recognize that this person is not, not going to be putting, you know, 40 hours a week or 50 hours a week towards this position.
[00:06:34] Jesse Schwamb: Right.
[00:06:34] Tony Arsenal: Um. What I'm affirming is where it got to, right? So there was lots of discussion about that. There was some finagling about the retirement package. The OPC recommends that a, a minister be given a retirement contribution of no less than 5% a year of his salaried package. Um, which there's a couple line items that go into that, but 5%, and this was a little bit less than that.
And this is what I'm affirming and this, I, I don't know that this is a super widespread thing that would happen all across the, um, the OPC, but it happened in the presbytery of New York and New England this past week, and it's just amazing. And I just, I just want to lay it out there and then I want to hear your reaction.
[00:07:13] Tony Arsenal: And I, I wanna hear your reaction as the son of a minister who labored his entire adult, more or less, his entire adult career in ministry, working two or three additional jobs on top of his ministry, the presbytery decided. That because it did not like the idea of a part-time minister. They didn't think that was appropriate.
They didn't think that that was good or that that was really the right goal. The presbytery allocated, I'm not gonna say the figures 'cause they're not super germane, but allocated a significant amount of money to be dis to be dispersed to the church for the next three years in order to take what was a part-time call and enable it to become a full-time call.
[00:07:54] Jesse Schwamb: Wow.
[00:07:54] Tony Arsenal: And so there are a lot of, there are a lot of church bodies that would say, yeah, we don't love the idea of bi-vocational ministry. You know, we really think it's ideal that a minister could be full-time. Um, they may even put some, some theological freight behind that. Um, I have never encountered a body, um.
That was willing to put a sizable amount of money towards essentially supplementing a part-time call to make it full-time. Um, this was just amazing to me, and the candidate was there. I didn't get a chance to talk to him, but I would love to talk to him about what he felt. I, I can just imagine the phone call to his wife who was not, not at presbytery, but to his wife, following the outcome of this to be like, you are never gonna believe what just happened.
Right? This is a family who was intending to move across country. Right. He's currently a student at Westminster, California in seminary, uh, California, Westminster Seminary in California, finishing his M Div. They're planning a cross country move into a part-time position where she's probably gonna have to find a job, and then also he's gonna have to find a part-time job.
He had the ability to call her on the break and be like, you're never gonna guess what just happened? You're never gonna,
[00:09:09] Jesse Schwamb: it's wild.
[00:09:09] Tony Arsenal: Uh, sorry, I'm getting a little emotional here. You're never going to. Believe how faithful God is in this. Right. So I'm interested to hear your reaction to that as the son of a, of a try and quad at times Quad vocational.
Yeah,
[00:09:23] Jesse Schwamb: for sure.
[00:09:23] Tony Arsenal: Minister who labored his entire, more or less, his entire adult career, um, working full-time in a call as a part-time, part-time minister. You know, like that's a, that's a crazy situation. So I'm just affirming that again, I don't know how common that kind of thing is in the OPC. I don't wanna make it seem like that's the norm.
Um, I actually get the sense that this is probably not the norm, but it was amazing to see and it made me in intensely like. Proud in the right way of being a part of this broader body that would, would so emphasize and so value the ministry of the word and the sacrament, and the importance of a man being able to dedicate himself to that without distraction.
That they would put forward this amount of money and this kind of money. They had no reason to do so. And there's no real direct benefit to the presbytery for doing this. I mean, there's an indirect benefit of like not having a church with a part-time minister, but like there's no direct benefit to this.
There's no direct return on investments that's gonna come out of this. Um, it was pretty amazing to see. It was, it was, it was super encouraging.
[00:10:28] Jesse Schwamb: That is really encouraging. I, I think it's, there's no doubt that for the called pastor, their heart is in the ministry of the word. That's what they want to be doing.
They wanna be doing it all the time and as much time as they possibly can, and they wanna be able to have all of their intentional focus on it. So I. I'm excited for that guy. I mean, that's just an incredible blessing to go in hoping for funding, essentially for a part-time role and to basically be told, no, no, no, no, that's, that's not enough.
We want you to be committed to this fully as we know your heart is committed. As we validated that call.
[00:11:00] Jesse Schwamb: I do love being a part of churches, well, lemme say it this way. There is, I think, a benefit of being part of congregations that have like a wide resource network that has like appropriate hierarchy and structure and that can be one of them.
I've seen something similar in the Christian Missionary Alliance, which is the church that I'm in, not exactly the same, but I've seen some surprising allocations of resources where they basically said, you know, this is important. Like, it even trumps we're, we're gonna. Allocate or resource something so that this can move forward because it is important in a way that was like better than the person who was bringing it before them could have hoped for.
Yeah. And uh, suddenly it's as if everything aligned. And it was really in part because there was this structure to come alongside, to validate as you're saying, and then to authenticate and then again to resource assets that could be used. There's, there's something to be said for that interdependency where there is kind of this hierarchical structure in which all that's happening at a level where things are codified.
And again, like there's a structure and a way in which we move through those decisions to make sure that they suit the objective of the entire movement. So I guess there's nothing I'll say, but that's a beautiful thing, isn't it?
[00:12:14] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.
[00:12:15] Tony Arsenal: It was, it was, it was cool because it was like this, it was like this real.
Actualization of the principle of outdoing one another and showing honor. Yeah, sure. Because you know, like the initial debate was like, Hey, you know, I'm not sure we can approve this call because the, the OPCs guidelines tell us not to approve a call that has less than 5% of the retirement benefit. And there was a lot of discussion of like, well, the presbytery can't modify the call, but we don't wanna delay this guy coming in and like, we don't wanna delay his ordination, his installation.
And so the initial proposal was a, a. What feels like a large amount of money to me. But after I understood more about the, the budget of what's going on in, in the presbytery was actually a very small amount of money. Started with a very tiny, very modest proposal of basically like supplementing the retirement fund to make sure that like we could, they, I say we, like, I was part of this, I was just observing, but to supplement the retirement fund in a way that allowed the church to still proceed with the call as written, but still also make sure that this person had the appropriate retirement fund.
And then that just basically was like, there would be some instruction given to the church that like, you've gotta bump this up in the next budget cycle. Like you've gotta get to the 5%. That's, that's the expectation. It went from that. And like I said, I won't give you the specific numbers, but one of the presbyters and I, I'm, I, um, I, I've known this presbyter from a distance for quite a long time and, and I have an immense amount of respect for him.
He stood up and he's like, well, if we're gonna give X, why don't we just give 10 times X instead? And then actually, like the discussion was like, well, is, are we sure that 10 times X is even the right amount? Why don't we have this particular group meet over the lunch break and figure out whether that's the right number and then come back after lunch and we'll vote on it.
And then they came back after lunch and it was actually a number that was even greater than 10 times X. So it was like this exercise in like. This very small proposal that was still imminently generous, right? The presbytery has no obligation to do this. There's no obligation from any of the presbyters to stand up and say like, we should.
We should supplement this fund. They would've been well within their right, and no one would've looked, I think. I think some people would've been frustrated by it, but I don't think anyone would've looked sideways at it or thought it was sinful. If the presbytery just said like, we can't approve this call.
You guys are gonna have to come back with it and we'll vote on it at the next presbytery. Like that would've been problematic. This, this kind of poor guy who's coming outta seminary, his call and his beginning of employment would've been delayed, but like. That would've been good and orderly, but instead they were like, one, we don't want this pulpit to stay empty longer.
We don't wanna disadvantage this guy who's just getting done with seminary. We want him to get started. We don't wanna discourage him. So here's a small proposal, a very modest amount of money that we can put forward for this purpose. And then it was like, let's just keep seeing how much closer to a real full-time call we can get.
And they finally came back and said like, we're gonna do this. We're gonna do this in a wise fashion. They structured it. So like the first year he gets more, the second year he gets a little bit less. The third year the church gets a little bit less with the idea that like each year the church should be adjusting their budget to compensate and get this guy to that with the, the hope that like with a full-time minister, they're able to grow their congregation to the point where they can support a full-time minister.
So it was just this really cool, super encouraging exercise. And what I loved about it is the only real debate that was going on was about do we need to do more? There was no one being like, wait a second, why are we, why are we putting more money to this? The whole thing was like, is this actually enough to accomplish what we think God wants to do with this person's call?
Because if, if God is truly calling this man to this, this particular church, and we believe that he is. Then what do we as a, as a people of God need to do to enable that call to look like what we actually believe calls to ministry are supposed to look like, which is a full-time call to ministry that is undistracted by the cares of the world.
What do we need to do? The answer in this case was like, I think we need to put a sizable amount of money to it. Um, it's a, I mean, and again. I'm not gonna say it on the air. It was not a small chunk of change. Um, it was, it was a, it was a large amount of money that was devoted to this cause and that just goes to show how much this body values the importance of a full-time minister of the word, so.
[00:16:50] Jesse Schwamb: Right.
[00:16:51] Tony Arsenal: That's enough about that. I, I could gush about how proud I am to be a part of this body and how encouraged I am and how amazing it was and how awesome this, this guy, how, how much this guy must be thanking God for the providence and like, this is the last thing. I'll say this, this young man younger than me, I think he's graduating seminary.
I saw him across the room. He looks like he's probably in his mid twenties, right? Young guy. He's got a wife doesn't have kids yet coming into this ministry, not only is he coming into this ministry, but as a Presbyterian minister, when he's installed as the minister of this church. He will be joining this body of presbyters as the, as his brothers like.
He is not a member of the local church. He's a member of the presbytery, which is the regional church. So now he's coming into this fully supported by his brothers in the presbytery that he saw go to the mat to make sure he was properly taken care of, that the congregation was not unintentionally taking advantage of his labor, but also that he knows that all of these men are willing to do what they need to do to make sure that his ministry is successful and edifies the church like that is.
Uh, I don't want to gush on Presbyterianism too much, but like that is Presbyterianism at peak form, right? This is the body of elders making sure that every church in the region, even the ones they're not directly ministering in, has what it needs to succeed and to honor God and to do what needs to happen.
So I'm affirming the presbytery of New York and New England and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Um, I have been so blessed by knowing many of these presbyters. I've been so blessed by being a part of the congregation that I am. There are lots of really great churches and really great denominations out there.
If you are looking for a church and there is an OPC congregation in your area, absolutely go check it out. I know it feels stuffy sometimes, and I will admit, like sometimes it feels a little bit overly traditional in terms of like just the vibe of the congregation,
[00:18:52] Jesse Schwamb: right?
[00:18:52] Tony Arsenal: But press past that because I don't think, I don't think you will find, um.
You may find lots of congregations that are as faithful. I don't think you're gonna find many that are more faithful than your average OPC congregation. So I could be wrong. I just, I just love the OPC. I just really, really love it. So that's my affirmation. What do you got for us, Jesse?
[00:19:18] Jesse Schwamb: I think I got denial, which is maybe a little bit unusual for me.
[00:19:21] Tony Arsenal: As long as you're not denying the OPCI think we're fine.
[00:19:23] Jesse Schwamb: No, it's, it's not, it is church related and I, I'll try to keep it short 'cause I think I can make this way longer than it, it probably should be, but lemme think how to phrase this. So, I don't know with a devil negative, I guess when I'm a denying against is maybe not enough confession by your own standard.
So the, I'm gonna try to make this so brief. I, I just happened to be out with my wife this afternoon and we had to run errands. We got stuck in traffic and this gave me longer than usual to sit in front of our. Very local and very large Catholic church. So I happen to be looking at their sign. It's a very large congregation.
I've been actually been in this one on a couple of occasions for funerals. So not only do I know its size and scope, but again, if you get, if you get on this road at the wrong time on the Lord's day, you're gonna be stuck for a long time because there are so many people that attend. I say that because I noticed on the sign that there were three times for mass on the Lord's Day.
So that also says something about the number of people coming through. And then on the sign though, underneath it said for confessions, go to our website. Mm-hmm. So I was like, man, I gotta lick this up because I can't tell if they're telling me I can confess on the website or if it's go to the website for the times.
And I said to my wife, only half jokingly, if I can confess online, I'm gonna confess something. So I went to, I went to the website and, and sure enough it was almost disappointingly. It was just the times.
[00:20:45] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.
[00:20:46] Jesse Schwamb: Here's what I've found interesting, which just launched me into this like deep rabbit hole.
There were three times for confession. Two of those times were just a half an hour, and the third time was an hour. So, uh, what I did was I went through, actually, I think what they had on there was, was three full hours a week. It was a little bit confusing, but I think it was three full hours. Now I think about it.
So I went back, I just couldn't help myself, Tony. So I started to think, alright, let's say. I think it's fair to assume
[00:21:15] Tony Arsenal: math, Jesse is kicking in right now. Yes. You're gonna calculate how many minutes per, per person is what you're doing. I'm thinking, ah,
[00:21:22] Jesse Schwamb: yeah, it's something like that. So what I thought was, I don't think it's, uh, I was gonna be conservative.
I wanna be fair. I wanna be fair. So, and now we should say like, I think most people realize that the Catholic understanding of confession and the Protestant one is, is very different. The Catholic sacrament of confession is the right through which Catholics are gonna confess their sins to a priest receive absolution, and it's gonna restore the relationship with God in the church.
And, and they're gonna believe that the priest acts as a person of Christ and is bound by the seal of confession and an absolute kind of obligation. Uh, of course never to reveal what was disclosed during that process. So, by the way, the website that I went to, lovely instructions. I mean, I was like, wow. I was reading it to my wife who was, uh, not familiar with this at all, and she was like, they can make you do stuff.
And I was like, well, yeah. I mean, obviously like there's, there's a portion of this where there's contrition or penant penance. It could be a prayer, it could be act of charity, like all kinds of stuff. So I went back and I thought. I don't think it's unreasonable that there's 350 persons that would say, let's say an average, uh, that would wanna take part of confession.
Now, let's say that they did that at, at least monthly, just once a month. And, and I don't know how people's conviction is on that, but I'm gonna say conservatively once a month. Let's say that, and I don't think this is unreasonable, Tony, but you tell me. Let's say you're, you're trucking, you're moving through confession.
Let's say it's five minutes a piece. So we're up to 1,750 minutes, uh, per month. That's the demand on the priest because I was, I was looking at this time and I was thinking something is strange here to me, so. That was the demand then, and I'll spare you the other math, which could be very long and un uninteresting.
I'm coming up with, you'd need 2.24, two and a quarter priests, which of course you can't have a quarter priests or a quarter person for any reason. So you'd hire, you'd hire three priests, which satisfy the demand if, and the major assumptions here, that is like everybody can't show up at the same time.
Obviously, I'm assuming that like everybody has their own time, they're spreading it out. So everybody gets the confession, but it's just five minutes. And I, I have no idea. I mean, if you're a Luther, that's certainly not sufficient time.
[00:23:20] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.
[00:23:20] Jesse Schwamb: And you would need three priests. Now here's the thing that I just kind of backed into that, besides like three being like, okay, that, that's, you would need three priests just to satisfy this congregation.
If they're confessing for five minutes, once per month. Uh, by the way, if you said, well, half the congregation is going to go weekly, uh, then you, you would double the number of priests you need to 5.98 or six. But here's, here's the bottom line for me. This is why the denial comes in about maybe not enough, is.
If you were just to distill that down to like, if you could have one priest cover that time, that there's a demand for like 779.4 hours, or excuse me, minutes of confession, that priest would only be allocating approximately like seven and a half percent of their working hours, their work toward handling confession.
This seems like not enough confession given the standards of confession in the Catholic church. And again, I know that I'm, I'm now allocating that to one priest and I just told everybody you need three. That's true. So if you had these three now, if you hired three just to meet the demand, that would only be about like three and a half or a little under three and a half percent of their combined time.
So the denial is Catholics, I think, unless I'm way off in some of my assumptions here, you might not be confessing enough by your own standards because
[00:24:33] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.
[00:24:34] Jesse Schwamb: Uh, that seems like not enough time.
[00:24:38] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.
[00:24:39] Tony Arsenal: I mean, I think, um. I don't want to be too bombastic here, but I think,
[00:24:46] Jesse Schwamb: I think I already started this on this
[00:24:48] Tony Arsenal: path.
Maybe this, maybe this isn't all that bombastic. Um, because this is so much about ritual and actually I say this is gonna sound really, we, we go, but trying to think from the Roman Catholic perspective, it's actually not, and I'll I'll tell you a brief story, uh, to explain it. Um, a lot of Roman Catholics are just going through the motions.
[00:25:13] Jesse Schwamb: That's true.
[00:25:14] Tony Arsenal: But the point, the, the, the point of contention actually is that going through the motions is valuable for the Roman Catholic, right? So I, I knew this, uh, this young woman when I was in college who was a Roman Catholic, and we had many discussions about, about the differences between Protestantism and and Roman Catholicism.
And what I came to understand is that going to mass for her. Itself was an act of faith. And so for the Roman Catholic, the concept of, of faith is different than the concept that Protestants operate under. So for the Roman Catholic who, um, goes to mass, even when they feel like they're, like, when they think they're just going through the motions, going through the motions is itself the act of faith.
And that's because for most of Roman Catholics, most of Roman Catholicism, faith really equals faithfulness, right? So, so doing the act is the act of faithfulness. Doing the act is faith. Where for the Protestant, like faith is about belief and trust and knowledge. Like it's, it's an. Not entirely intellectual, but it's, it's an inward thing for the Roman Catholic faith is an out is primarily an outward thing.
It's what you do, it's how you act. It's faith formed in love. It's faith formed in charity.
[00:26:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right.
[00:26:37] Tony Arsenal: So I think most Roman Catholics going to obligatory confession first. I think once a month is probably like, probably more frequent than most Roman Catholics go to mass or go to confession. Um, I thought I read a stat that it was like every six months is, is pretty average and I think that's what's required by the church maybe even once a year is, is required by the church.
Um, I think like most Roman Catholics go into the, the confessional booth and like father forgive me for I've sinned. It's been such and such a number of days since my last confession. Right. And they may bring up a couple particular things that they've done and, and then I think the priest commonly absolves them of all of their sins.
Like, almost like in an omnibus fashion and then prescribes their acts of penance, which is it, it like, honestly, it's probably things they should already be doing as a faithful Catholic saying Hail Marys and doing our fathers and acts of charity and things like that. So I think your math is probably right.
[00:27:39] Tony Arsenal: I think your, your theory that more confession is probably like, I'm gonna read this from, uh, the Westminster confession, just to, just to say it here, is, this is chapter 15, which is titled of Repentance Under Life. And this is, uh, this is section five or paragraph five. It says, men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but is every man's duty to endeavor, to repent of his particular sins, particularly.
And I think that's just such a beautifully phrased sentence like. Not only is it like potent theologically, but like, it just, it just feels good, like in terms of like the English language to repent of your particular sins, particularly. And like the idea is yes, Protestant reform, Christians affirm a general repentance from sin, right?
We repent of our sin before the father, uh, as a result of our, of our coming to faith in Christ. And as part of our sanctification, we mortify our sin and we, Viv we are vivified by the spirit and repentance falls in that ongoing sanctification process. And there is this general repentance of like, I repent of the fact that I'm a sinner and that I commit sins, but there is this element in the reformed faith of like, I should be confessing to God.
And I think by extension, like we should be confessing to our fellow Christians, our particular sins, our individual sins, and we should be doing that on particular occasion. And I think like. The Luther style confession of like going into the confessor and confessing like every particular sin.
Particularly I think most Roman Catholic priests would, priests. Priests would probably have the same reaction Tobits did where he was like, get outta here. Like, come on dude. Like just go live your life and like deal with it. I think that's probably the reaction most Catholic priests would have. But yeah, I think you're right.
Like if we're really talking about like. Five, five minutes of confession once a month and that somehow having some sort of spiritual efficacy. I'm not sure I buy that math. Like I think you're, you're probably spot on.
[00:29:47] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.
[00:29:47] Jesse Schwamb: I just was curious about how many priests would be required and then the allocation of the duties.
By the way, you are right. So I, because I had to check on this, the, the fourth letter in council of 1215 does say that the church requires confession of any grave or mortal sins at least once a year. But the church, yeah, strongly encourages more frequent confession as a spiritual practice, even for, of course, like the venial or the less serious sins in their eyes.
So yeah, my thought here was just that. I think it's actually undervalued by way of the math. Like the, as the kids say, the math just isn't math thing for me on this one. But I was more curious about, since this is one of the seven sacraments, even if you just said like, well, it should have at least one seven of the allocation.
That's like, what? Like something like 14%. And so this is, um, almost half of that. I just found it a little bit, a little bit odd and yeah, I think you'd have to be, uh, so in other words, when I looked at the, basically, here's the bottom line. When I looked at the hours for confession one, there were weird times and uh, two, I was like, that doesn't seem like enough hours.
Like, it was just more like that. Like how that's like saying like, Hey, the post office is open three hours a week, and by the way, one of those hours is from seven to eight o'clock on Friday. Like they had some hours. One hour just on Friday was like, I guess that's the way you wanna start your weekend is like, let's get all of this off my chest.
Yeah. And, and do it. Right. And the last thing I'll say by the way, is you're correct. When you look at the instruction they give you, and this is common of course, toward the end, when they say like, here's how you like wrap up your part. Actually everybody should go read, go to the local, local Catholic church website and read the instructions.
'cause in some ways they're just interesting and kind of, um, I don't wanna say funny 'cause I'm not making fun. I'm just saying like, they have to give you instruction if you've never done it before. And so most of us are not really probably familiar with the process and they give you explicit instruction and toward the end it's like, here's how you kinda like hang up the call with the priest.
And it's like you said, you know, these are my sins and all others, would you be willing to forgive? So you're right. Right. They just kinda wrap them all up because it's sins of omission, sense of commission, it's all to be together. But I, I wonder, you gotta think there's people in there that are like. The priests are like, okay, man, just yeah.
Wrap, come on, wrap, wrap it up.
[00:31:55] Jesse Schwamb: And other people that come in are just like, you know, forgive me father. And uh, lastly to your point, when they give you instruction about how you should start, of course you're always to signify how long it's been since your last confession. Right. Confession. And they say parenthetically, like, reference the days, weeks, months, or years.
So you're right. There are gonna be people that probably do it very frequently and probably people who do it infrequently still, I would say I just couldn't believe for a church this large, that there was just three hours a week.
[00:32:21] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.
[00:32:21] Jesse Schwamb: For everybody else.
[00:32:22] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.
[00:32:23] Tony Arsenal: This leads me to two very brief sub, uh, denials slash affirmations.
Uh, I don't know if you saw this, um, this is not a political statement, right? I, I have lots of feelings and thoughts about the current administration and I think most of my feelings and thoughts would surprise. Everybody. But I thought it was hilarious because JD Vance, who is a Roman Catholic, uh, confessed Roman Catholic part of the Roman Catholic Church, uh, he ha I, I'm not sure if I'm affirming or denying this, there was this funny, uh, funny exchange.
I think he was at doing like a, doing like a TPU, I don't know, speech. He was doing a speech at some conservative event and he said something like, I think that the Pope should be more careful when he makes theological statements. I'm wanna be like, do you understand what the pope is in your religion?
That was one of my sub denials. Uh, I don't remember what the other one is, so it must not have been that important. It'll come back to me at the worst possible moment and I will try very hard not to interrupt our show for it, but I probably will fail.
[00:33:25] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.
[00:33:25] Jesse Schwamb: Listen, we, we gotta get to some scripture because.
We're, we're doing this old school style where we take like half the time and just talk about affirmations. It's true in house. It's true. Which is great fun. But let's, let's get back to Matthew 21. And I, I know we did this last time, but I am gonna rock through the passage 'cause of course, that's the best part of any of our discussion, is actually hearing from, from the Holy Spirit through the scripture, uh, which he's given to us.
So this is, uh, Matthew 21, starting in verse 33. And you're gonna hear the, the whole thing right here. Uh, this is Jesus speaking. Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard and put a wall around it and dug a wine press in it and built a tower and rented it out to vine growers and went on a journey.
Now, when the high risk time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine growers to receive his fruit, and the vine growers took his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Again, he sent another group of slaves larger than the first, and they did the same thing to them. But afterward he sent his son to them saying they will respect my son.
But when the vine growers saw the sun, they said among themselves, this is the heir. Come let us kill him and seize his inheritance, and they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine growers? They said to him, he will bring those wretches to a wretched end and will rent out the vineyard to other vine growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons.
Jesus said to them, did you ever read in the scriptures the stone, which the builders rejected? This has become the chief cornerstone. This came about from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes. Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruit of it.
And he who falls in the stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust. And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they understood that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to seize him, they feared the crowds because they're regarding him to be a prophet.
[00:35:28] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.
[00:35:30] Tony Arsenal: This is like a super heavy parable. Right. And we talked a lot last week about how like the point of this parable is not necessarily to try to instruct the Pharisees or the Sadducees. Like it's not to instruct the people who were going to reject Christ, uh, the, the builders who would reject the cornerstone.
It's really a parable to teach those. Who are observing this process happening. But I think it's, I, I think it's really interesting just listening to you read this and reading through it, and I guess this is a question I haven't asked and I, I need to study a little bit more. It's crazy to me in verse 41, um, Christ seems the, the, the, um, Matthew seems to say here, and maybe I need to do a little bit more Greek study, so bear with me and, and have grace if I'm wrong here.
Matthew seems to say that like Christ asks the people he's speaking to, the Pharisees he's speaking to, what is he gonna do to these people? And the Pharisees answer, he's gonna put those wretches to a miserable death.
[00:36:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right?
[00:36:37] Tony Arsenal: Like the people listening to this parable understand the outcome, like they understand the.
The consequence that the, the, the vineyard owner or the vineyard tenant tenants are facing based on their lack of faithfulness to the covenant. To me, that is like a really striking part of this parable. And, and it's not even like the parable proper, but like the striking element of the context of this is that nobody listening to this parable, including the Pharisees that this parable has basically spoken against, nobody fails to see the gravity of the consequence of rejecting God's emissary, like rejecting the Messiah.
That to me is like a really, I dunno, paradigmatic. Portion of this that I think we need to grapple with. This is not an unclear, an unclear outcome. This is not, this is not masked or vague or OPA opaque. Like everybody understands, the people who reject the Messiah are going to face dire and eternal consequences for that act.
[00:37:48] Jesse Schwamb: That does make this really interesting, doesn't it? Because it's not just entirely like Romans one adventures or even Romans two. It's that this is what Jesus does and he does it in a profound way that's not trickery like I think kinda like you're saying like the lead up to this isn't as if he's even leading the witness.
He's making it very clear, all like the parameters of the story and the characters involved and what should be the proper judgment. And it's not as if like they start saying, they're like, oh, we shouldn't say anything more like we, we plead the fifth because it's gonna condemn ourselves. He draws his audience in to producing and pronouncing like their own sentence.
It's very much like, I think I mentioned this last time, the prophet Nathan and David, isn't it? It's the exact same. Yeah. And the verdict is unanswerable, like even in its own terms. These other, like these other vine growers, prefigures of course like the inclusion of the Gentiles and the apostolic office.
But I like that what Jesus does here, even before he gets to that point, is he extorts from them an acknowledgement of the punishment which awaited them. And so in this way there's like, I think the Puritans use this passage a lot actually to demonstrate that the natural conscience even of like the unregenerate, still bears witness to divine justice.
That's Romans two. Like they, they can't get out from underneath it and Jesus isn't using any trickery on them to get them to say this thing. They are compelled in their own way, even being unregenerate to, like you said, even as they're rejecting the Messiah to recognize that punishment is due these characters in the story, even as they perceive at the end that they are those characters.
[00:39:21] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.
[00:39:22] Jesse Schwamb: Saying we'll receive the judgment.
[00:39:24] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.
[00:39:25] Tony Arsenal: And I think too, like, um, this is kind of one of those chicken or the egg scenarios, right? Like Christ is both recognizing the intention of their heart as well as prophesying. And, and not just prophesying, but like inception level prophesying the, the outcome of the intention of their heart.
And so like, again, like we've, we spent a whole week kind of like leading into the parable and now we spent a whole week, we're gonna spend a whole week again kind of leading into the parable. This is such a deep parable, and that like Christ is not just laying bare. The fact that the, the people who were going to reject him were doing so out of this sort of like attempt and intention of usurping the kingdom of God for their own purposes.
I think that brings a layer to this that we don't often appreciate in. Christ's interaction with the Pharisees. I think sometimes, and maybe this is because I just listened to an episode of where Matt Whitman on the 10 minute Bible hour talked about this. I think sometimes we actually have a tendency to sort of be sympathetic to the Pharisees where we think, you know, they were, they were just trying to obey God's law and they got a little sideways on it and you know, they were putting these boundaries in place, but they were doing it in this sort of like misguided attempt to protect the people.
Christ actually here seems to contradict that in that the comparison he's making is not to a, a well-intentioned group of people who just get it wrong, but he's painting the Pharisees, the, the religious leaders, the Sadducees, the chief priests. He's painting them as these usurpers who recognize the proper authority of right.
The master and his emissaries and ultimately of his son, they recognize this proper authority and rather than submitting to it and submitting to the covenant obligations that they, they already actually agreed to, instead of doing that, they're going to reject that authority and try to take it for their own right.
It's not just that they do the wrong thing, it's that they recognize the heir, which is Christ. They recognize this heir and they kill him to try to take his place. That is a really heavy element of this parable. Christ is not painting. Um, the, the, the Pharisees here, the, the religious leaders. He's not painting them as um, well-intentioned, but ultimately wrong, which is I think a lot of times, and I think there's reason to do this right.
I'm not being overly critical and I've done this, I've actually done this myself, and I think there's some. Space for it. Like the Pharisees were wrong, but they were wrong, kind of in the right direction sometimes. Um, Christ is not really on board with that, at least in this parable. Right. This isn't about them thinking that the heir was a threat, and so killing the threat in, you know, inadvertently this is them absolutely seeing who the hair, who the heir is, and intentionally deciding to reject that heir and to murder him and to try to take his inheritance.
Mm-hmm. That's an affront to not only the heir who they murder, but an affront to the owner of the vineyard himself, which of course in this parable is figured to be God the father primarily. But God in sort of general terms, like the whole Godhead, um, with Christ as the second Adam has, as his representative, as his heir.
This is a really heavy parable and I think where this comes into play for us in our own Christian life is. Are there times where we. Sort of do the same thing in refusing to, maybe it's tie into your denial a little bit. Like refusing to acknowledge our own sinfulness, refusing to acknowledge the ways that God has provided for us.
Um, do we at times look at what we have and lay claim to it as though it is our own inheritance that we've taken? Um, right. Do we kind of crucify the son of God anew in, in refusing to repent of our sins particularly? I dunno. I think those are some open questions for us to kind of explore as we dig into this a bit more.
[00:43:54] Jesse Schwamb: And that may relate as well to, well eventually at some point, I dunno, like 2040, get to like the parable of the talents. There's some similarity there with a little bit, right? You're saying? I think you're right.
[00:44:06] Jesse Schwamb: And where I think we can anchor some of that is in those first couple of verses. I'm really always impressed by really the number of action verbs that are packed within, like that just initial statement of Jesus explaining the situation.
[00:44:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.
[00:44:19] Jesse Schwamb: So he sets it all up and he's saying there's a planting that goes on, this landowner puts up a wall, digs a wine press. Builds a tower and then RINs it. So there's all these like amazing things being done, all this action verb. And I, I think in part why he comes against the Pharisees so hard in the same way that we're looking at like the parable that, uh, the, uh, talents for instance of saying like, what did you do with that was entrusted to you was like this great treasure which Christ has entrusted or God has entrusted to his people, which is, is the gospel essentially is, is all a prophetic witness, is like the truth of who God is and his revelation of himself.
And so I think. The first thing we gotta see in those verbs is that there's this emphasis that the vineyard was God's sovereign creation. You know, he plants it, he chose it, he established it. Israel didn't plant herself. She was planted. And that sovereign initiative is foundational, I think in, like you're saying, the parables indictment, because these vine growers, they don't possess anything that they did not receive.
Right. You know, they did not find a vineyard already planted, but God himself made it from the wilderness that all his glory, all the glory might be his. So. I think it's helpful for us to observe that the church is always the planting of the Lord and that no congregation flourishes that is not first planted by God.
And so there is a major offense here when those who are to care for it, who know, like you're saying, that they ought to care for it, who understand something about the hierarchy and the way it has been entrusted to them. Not to only break that covenant, but then seek to try to usurp the power in the roles of those whom they should be, quite frankly, in our own language, like under shepherds too.
And so it starts with all, all those verbs. Like I think we could probably spend a. A lot of times just speaking about what does it mean? Why? Why is there all this explicit in particular language about the fact that there's a hedge and there's a press besides just these are part in piece mail or part and parcel of what it means to have a vineyard, apparently, but that they're all part of this narrative of God talking about how he protects and cares for his people and sets them in a place and chooses them and is particular about the construction and does so with great volition and authority and care and concern and creative ability.
And then again, you have those who are meant there to do the very job that he's entrusted them with. And not only are they not doing that, and of course you're right. Jesus elsewhere, comes in, comes in hot, right, with a Pharisees saying like, listen, you set burdens on people's backs that you yourselves cannot lift.
You're twice as in the hell as anybody else, and that's who you are. Yeah. It's not just hypocrisy, but you're literally setting people up to fail in this. So you can see how you're right. It's not just like, guys, I appreciate that. Like you wanted to set up some additional boundaries and maybe you took it a little bit too far.
This parable is just scorched earth. It's, it's nuclear. Yeah.
[00:47:10] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.
[00:47:11] Tony Arsenal: And you know, I think, um, we are obviously gonna spend another week on this 'cause we still have not really addressed a single verse in this parable. I, I think like a lot of ink has been spilled on explaining sort of like the feal agricultural arrangements of this passage.
What it represents. M my understanding is. A typical arrangement would be that a, a landowner would basically just lease out land and the tenants would be responsible for the planting, for the development. Right. And the, the, the landowner would essentially just collect a portion of whatever they produce.
Right. This parable is actually taking this a step further. Exactly. That it's not as though the landowner just says like, all right, you can use this land. Right. And I own the land, so I get a portion of the pro, the profit. He's actually done all the work. Yes. And all that. The, all that the, the tenants need to do essentially is reap the harvest and then provide the portion of the harvest that belongs to the landowner, and so there is a greater investment.
Of the landowner into this land than would be expected. We've commented in the past about how a lot of times the, the parables start on sort of a premise of shock. Like there's a, there's an element of the setup of the, of the parable where the audience would kind of like sit back and gasp or kind of be like, wait a second.
Like that's not normal. Right. In the parable of the, the, um, lost son, it was the idea that like the son demanded his inheritance. And that wasn't the shocking part. The shocking part was that the father just granted it. Right. Or, um, the lost sheep, like the, there's actually a sort of a shocking element to the fact that like the, the land, the like sheep owner would just go get this other sheep.
So we've, we've commented on there's kind of like. There's sort of like a scandalous setup. The scandalous setup in this is not that the land has been leased to tenants, right? It's that the land has been prepared for the tenants before it was leased out in the first place. And I think that's something we might miss if we read over this too quickly, is.
The landowner has prepared everything for these, these tenants.
[00:49:30] Jesse Schwamb: That's right.
[00:49:31] Tony Arsenal: So the, the, at the, the punchline of the parable where they refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of, um, sovereignty and maybe a lowercase s in the, in the context of the parable, they refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty and the rightful claim of the tenant or of the landowner on the, the profit of the land.
And sort of like highlighter emphasized by the fact that they actually didn't do any of the work. There's a certain kind of like Amer, like American rugged individualism where we're kind of like, yeah, like if I planted all the crops, then it's kind of lame that this guy's coming in expecting to take a portion of it, right?
Like, yeah, I guess he owns the land, so maybe he gets a little piece of it, but like, who does he think he is? All of that already is already short circuited. Like I. The, these tenants are not actually, um, portrayed as doing anything in this parable. That's right. Like they just lease the land. They, they, um, and leased is not really like the right.
The right word, the, the Greek word is omi, which is like he gave over the land to them. Um, when we say leased, we have this idea that like the tenants pay to use the land and then like part of their contract is that whatever profits they reap, uh, off the land goes back to the, to the landowner. This is really more like the landowner graciously allowed them to live on this land, and the only payment he required was that they would eventually provide him part of the profit back.
Like he's planted the land, he's put up the fence around it. He dug the wine press so that they could make a product out of it. He built the tower so it would be defended. Yes. And he gave it over to them essentially just to like live on until it was time for the harvest. And all he is asking for is basically like, alright, so this is my land.
I've planted the vineyards, the profit is mine to have. And so when the time came for him to come claim that that's where they have now rejected him. Yes. That's where they've now said like, I know you did all the work and really graciously allowed us to live in this land, but we're gonna keep all of it for ourselves.
That's the scandal of this. That's what I think like the original audience would've set up and like, wait a second here. Like, hold on. They didn't even plant the vineyards themselves. They didn't even build the tower themselves. That's really the force of this that I think we miss when we, when we overemphasize, trying to think through like what the original agricultural arrangements were.
'cause this is painted. Very different than what the original arrangements would've been typical for. Like this is a different scenario and I think intentionally so,
[00:52:09] Jesse Schwamb: and we need those words like rented, at least in English, to help us understand that it didn't belong to them. It wasn't a gift, right? It wasn't as if like it was just turned over in the sense that it belongs to you now do with it what you will.
And it's very clear in the passage one, like you said, that the landowner does all those things. So it was a, you know, he completely set it up. I mean, this is just such a beautiful, I think, depiction of the hold of prophetic, you know, understanding of God's word here, but it's very clear that says the, he sent his slaves to the vine growers to receive his fruit.
So you're right. The scandal is that they're like, well, obviously. They need to give him his fruits, like
[00:52:48] Tony Arsenal: right.
[00:52:48] Jesse Schwamb: It was all set up before he left on this long journey. He then turned it over to them to care for, and that was really all that they were supposed to do. They had no role in this. And so it does like lead us in into this weird space where it's like, well, well what, what did the Pharisees think they were trying to do themselves?
What does actually Jesus commenting on, on their own, like licit on their own initiative here, is he basically saying that not only are they not respecting his sovereignty, but they were trying to claim for themselves what only rightly belongs to God that even their position right. Society in culture as their representatives, God himself, they wanted to take that over for themselves, which he does bring that condemnation upon them in other parts of the scripture.
So again, this is really hot. I think it's a, it's both heat and light, but there's no doubt that there's fire to this, right? Because it's a direct indictment that God the father set all of this up. You yourselves are on rented property, but guess what? Even the property that you've rented, I'm not exacting a tax from you as if like you have put forward and grown or supplied or created some kind of profitable outcome here.
And I just want a piece of that. He's not even talking about tithing in that sense. What he's basically saying is, none of this belongs to you. Like how? Right? How dare you? None of this is yours. I set all of this up and in fact, because you've done so poor poorly at this, I'm gonna take it away from you and give it to those who actually produce fruit and guess what's gonna be the Gentiles?
So it's, there's a wild. Amounts of condemnation packed into a very small story.
[00:54:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. It really is.
[00:54:22] Tony Arsenal: Um, there is nothing expected of these tenants. Right. There's no contract, like there's no terms, they, they really add nothing to the, the landowner's land, except I guess maybe they're the ones harvesting these, this fruit.
Right. But even that's not explicit in the parable.
[00:54:43] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly.
[00:54:43] Tony Arsenal: Right. Right. He, he does all just to steal your thunder, like he does all the verbs. Yes. All of the ves are done by the landowner.
[00:54:50] Jesse Schwamb: Yes. Right
[00:54:51] Tony Arsenal: on. There is an implication that the, the tenants are somehow like the ones harvesting this, or they're the ones producing the wine, I guess, in the wine vat or the wine press.
But at the end of the day. A normal tenant landowner agreement would be, I'm, you're, first of all, you're probably gonna pay me to use this land, right? You're paying me to use this land, and the way you pay me is you're gonna plant the, the gr the crop. You're gonna harvest it. You're gonna make the produce, and all I'm gonna do is let you live on this land.
I'm gonna take the pro, like the profit, you're gonna pay me outta that profit. There is nothing asked or expected of these, these landowners, except to give the fruit that is already hit.
[00:55:36] Jesse Schwamb: Yes, exactly.
[00:55:37] Tony Arsenal: And, and that's where like, I think our Christian life, John Piper, I won't get into too much, but like John Piper is all in the news again for the same like finance, final salvation stuff that he's, he's been controversial for, for years.
Right. And I think like this ties into that thi this is a, a direct parallel in many ways to the par, like the, the parable of the talents, which I'm, we we'll get into eventually is like. The, the landowner provides these talents or the, in this case, the land and the fruit. All of this is brought forth by his will and the fact that these, these worthless tenants do nothing and then still have the audacity to basically like refuse to.
Provide back to this landowner what he has produced.
[00:56:25] Jesse Schwamb: Right? Yes. That's
[00:56:26] Tony Arsenal: the key. That's, that's really the point of this parable.
[00:56:29] Jesse Schwamb: Yep.
[00:56:29] Tony Arsenal: Is somehow the Pharisees, and I think where the application of this is probably where we'll go next time, is like somehow the Pharisees have got in their mind that this thing that God has done in the people of Israel and is now doing in the Messiah, this ministry of the Messiah, in coming to claim the fruit, that somehow they have a right to lay claim to that and to withhold it from the Father.
[00:56:54] Jesse Schwamb: Yes.
[00:56:54] Tony Arsenal: Even though they had nothing to do with anything that brought about, its, its, uh, its occurrence. Right. The Pharisees didn't create the nation of Israel. They didn't create the gospel. They didn't create the Messiah, and somehow they think that they can withhold the fruit of that ministry from the father and take like lay claim to it for themselves.
And this is where I think. We have to trust the Holy Spirit and trust Jesus because there's really nothing in the gospels that explain what they were doing that sort of like showed them trying to like take over the Messiah's inheritance, right? But that's what this parable teaches, is that that's what they're being criticized for, that they were somehow trying to usurp the position of the Messiah.
They were trying to become the mediators. They were trying to become the sons of God or the son of God who interceded from God for God's people. They were the ones that were gonna do that. They were the ones that were gonna accomplish that. So I think what'll be interesting next week is when we come, come back to this parable and sort of try to talk about like what does that actually teach us as believers 2000 years later, who aren't Pharisees.
We're not trying to do that. What does this have to do with us? What does this have to say to us?
[00:58:07] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, I think you're entirely right and I'm looking forward to, uh, well, we'll wrap it up officially.
[00:58:13] Tony Arsenal: Yes.
[00:58:13] Jesse Schwamb: In, in that next episode, it's gonna be
[00:58:15] Tony Arsenal: probably
[00:58:16] Jesse Schwamb: totally, probably, it's like a 70% chance, honestly. Loved ones,
[00:58:21] Tony Arsenal: 70%, 50.
[00:58:22] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. There's definitely a meaningful material probability that that still won't be the last one once we get started, but we're gonna try. As always. I, I'm totally with you. I, I hope people take a little time to go read through this because I think the more we slow down and really try to set ourselves into the details and actually be particular about maybe envisioning the circumstances exactly as they're laid out for us and not as we sometimes try to fill out in our minds.
I think maybe the biggest challenge that we've learned in this particular conversation is that verse 34, what is meant when the scripture says Now, when the harvest time approached. He that is the landowner sent his slaves to the vine growers to receive his fruit. And I think what you've challenged here is this idea of, well, it doesn't say like he sent to go get them to harvest it.
Right. Just saying like, listen, it's my fruit. Like let's do this thing. Like you knew I would show up. I've left you to, to care for all these things which I put into place. So here I am, I've sent my people to come and receive the fruit. And, uh, they can't do it. They refuse to do it. They won't do it. Uh, they kill everybody whom he sends, including his own son.
And so, you're right, it's not even here. We gotta be careful about the actions and of presuming that they here, like the Pharisees were these people who were in charge somehow of even harvesting. There's, there's actually no mention of that except for it was just harvest time.
[00:59:40] Tony Arsenal: Right?
[00:59:40] Jesse Schwamb: And so it's even there, I think it's purposely ambiguous to remind us that God is doing all the things.
I'm a little embarrassed that I missed the phrase. God does all the verbs when I was literally saying. The landowner does all these verbs.
[00:59:53] Tony Arsenal: It's okay.
[00:59:54] Jesse Schwamb: The first sentence I, I've, I've fallen down on you loved ones. I'm so sorry I missed it,
[00:59:58] Tony Arsenal: Jesse. It's okay because God does all the verbs
[01:00:02] Jesse Schwamb: is factually. That is factually correct, so we'll give this one.
One more shot because at least there's so much for us. We could do a whole series just on this one, and I think if you're tracking with us, you're probably discovering that we also, sometimes in real time, as we really spend a little bit of effort kind of speaking about the particulars, find that these parables are more chock full than you think.
There isn't just one idea. There's often many ideas coalescing around. Yeah. The central theme and the setup in the context is important. The word choice is important, and I am as well, just as you were saying, blown away by the way in which Jesus really evokes from the audience here, their own condemnation, their own judicial decree, which is, yeah, he's gonna take those wretches and kick 'em out.
And they're saying it about themselves. This is what sin does, isn't it? This is what the natural man is like. Ken has to bow down to this great sovereign justice that comes from God while at the same time they think in their self-righteousness. They're proclaiming that in somebody else, and what they're really doing is they're putting it on their own head apart from God.
We are all like that. All of us are like this. So glory beats a God who through the Holy Spirit, opens our eyes to receive and to understand the gospel, to be changed by, to be transformed by it because he does all the verbs. I'm so grateful that that's in fact what he does, that that God has planted us, that he's pull a wall around us, that he stick out this wine press for us, that he's built a tower to protect us and that he has grown the fruit in us because of all the things that he has done.
[01:01:42] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Well, this is normally the part of the episode where we would do all of our announcements, uh, which just shows you we are not great podcasters. 'cause really we should do that at the beginning of, of the episode. Uh, but you know what, like if you wanna know what all of our announcements are, you're just gonna have to come back next week.
'cause we are out of time. We're not gonna do that. So I, I know that that's the most cliff of all cliffhangers is if you have listened this far and you want to hear about Oliver of our housekeeping assignment, an announcements and whatnot, you're just gonna have to come back next week and listen to it.
Uh, because as much as my brain is telling me I should tell you all about it now, I'm not going to. So, Jesse, until next time when people join us for our housekeeping announcements, honor everyone.
[01:02:31] Jesse Schwamb: Love the brotherhood.