NL 233: Parable of the Tenants

image: wikimedia

Mark 12:1-17

Initial Thoughts

  • Parallels in Matthew

    • Similar place within the story - just after cleansing the Temple, cursing the fig tree, and having his authority questioned.

    • Proper 22A - Matthew 21:33-46 (Parable of Tenant Farmers)

    • Proper 24A - Matthew 22:25-22 (Question about taxes)

    • In between Matthew inserts parable of the wedding party (Proper 23A)

  • Narrative jump

    • For the first time the narrative lectionary jumps out of order - passing the Palm Sunday/Triumphal entry and the “Cleansing of the Temple” in Mark 11:1-26

    • Palm Sunday will allow for the Mark 11 reading or to continue with the narrative by focusing on the anointing at Bethany in Mark 14 (and skipping the Palm Sunday reading altogether)

  • A passage about loyalty, devotion, and hypocrisy - not about church and state or about paying taxes

  • Connection to the preceding passage about John and Baptism (Mark 11:27-33)

    • Opponents approach Jesus

    • Question about authority

    • Jesus answers with a question

    • Opponent reveal their motivations/loyalties

    • Jesus answers the original question

Bible Study

  • Parable of the Vineyard

    • Jesus is referring to a common metaphor of the vineyard for Israel - Read Isaiah 5:1-7

      • Jesus reframed this metaphor in his context - with the land/vineyard being leased to tenants

      • Clear allegory

        • Vineyard - Israel

        • Tenants - the religious authorities

        • Servants - Prophets

        • Beloved Son - Jesus (cf. Mark 1:11; 9:7)

      • The Tenants/Religious and political authorities have mismanaged and are attempting to steal the “vineyard”

        • They have rejected the call of the prophets to care for the widow, orphan, and least of these

        • They have rejected Jesus’ call to live into the kingdom of God and extend God’s grace to all people (Leper, poor, sinner, tax collector, etc.)

        • They have attempted to “steal” the vineyard by making the temple a profit-bearing commercial enterprise (see Mark 11:15-17)

      • The beloved Son - Jesus will be killed and “thrown out” by the religious and political authorities as well

        • Inheritance - if the son was killed and there was no heir to inherit the property, then, upon the owner's death, the land would be come ownerless and thus the tenants would gain control of the land simply by being there first (a kind of squatter’s rights)-Myers, Binding the Strong Man p.308-309

      • Destruction of the tenants - allegorical. Palestinian tenant farmers would have been well aquainted with angry landowners who would “destroy” them by casting them off the land, leaving them destitute.

      • The cornerstone (Myers)

        • Refers to Psalm 118:22

        • David was interpreted to the rejected cornerstone whom God redeemed by making King

        • This is a religious as well as political statement - Jesus is claiming the mantle of David

        • However, Jesus is not going to “restore” the glory of Israel, but rather to rebuild it. Jesus will change our notion of what the “house of the Lord” is and emphasizes this in the next passage.

  • Another way to read the parable sees it through the lens of the Psalm that is quoted

    • Jesus quotes Psalm 118:22-23, the stone that the builders rejected is now the cornerstone.

    • Faced with the destruction of the Temple or at least impending doom, the early Christian community was looking for blame.  

    • Blame could be heaped on the religious leaders or on those that caused the rebellion.

    • Jesus offers a different way of interpreting these events.  The vineyard itself is no longer important. Jesus is the beginning of something new entirely.  Blame for destruction of Temple is pointless. New Kingdom is what Jesus is calling for.

      • In this reading, the vineyard is not Israel, but the Kingdom of God, which is now opened up to other tenants.

      • Tenants who do now bear and share fruit are rejected and the kingdom or vineyard is given to those who do bear and share good fruit (Jew and Christian alike)

      • “The saving activity of God continues in that community where taking up the “yoke of the kingdom” means adherence to the Torah as fulfilled in Jesus Christ.” (M. Eugene Boring, NIB 8, p. 415)

      • Not Christians superseding Jews but faithful superseding unfaithful

    • The expectation of the new tenets are the same as the old: bear and share fruit (see cursing of the Fig Tree)

  • An alternative interpretation (Ken Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes)

    • Parable of the “noble” Vineyard Owner and his Son

    • A lot of connections to Isaiah 5, but with a very different result

      • Isaiah 5 leads to the total destruction of the vineyard

      • There is no wrath given here except by the assumption  of the Pharisees

    • Vineyard Owner/God’s reaction

      • 3 servants sent away in the midst of escalating violence

      • Vineyard owner is expected to “bring wrath” upon the wicked tenants, but instead chooses vulnerability- he send his son, unarmed

      • Great story about King Hussein and the Jordanian military coup (early ‘80s) see p. 418

      • Violence only leads to violence - the vineyard owner chooses a 3rd way

      • The hope is to remind the tenets of their humanity and empathy that they might feel shame in the presence of vulnerability

    • Main Themes:

      • Incarnation and Atonement - God send God’s beloved son. “The short term result of the offer of love is the death of the son.” (Bailey, p.425) What will the long term effects be?

      • Christology - Jesus is consistent with the prophets and the beloved incarnate son.

      • Vineyard owner respond to violence with vulnerable love. Anger is reprocessed into grace (and “implies forgiveness for those willing to accept his offer of love”.

      • The vineyard is God’s - never the stewards or the tenets, never has been nor will be. The Tenets have a massive misunderstanding of squatter’s rights

      • Inheritance - Jesus’ inheritance is not the earthly kingdom or power, but the theological and ethical heritage of Abraham and Moses and the prophets

  • Taxes and Caesar

    • Like in the conversation around John the Baptist - the opponents seek to trap Jesus with this “battle of wits”, wherein Jesus exposes their true motivations and loyalties

    • Like the rich man (rich young ruler) of Mark 10, they begin with flattery, but Mark reveals their motivations in v. 13. (Also, this collaboration between the Pharisees and Herodians goes back to Mark 3:6 when they begin to plot to kill Jesus).

      • Even in their flattery, they attempt to lure Jesus into a trap by saying that he is not concerned about the consequences of his teachings, if Jesus sides with paying taxes - then he is a collaborator with Rome, but if he doesn’t then Jesus is a subversive revolutionary - either way Jesus loses, but Jesus shouldn’t care about the consequences, he should simply speak the truth.

    • Jesus’ request

      • When he asks for a Roman coin, the leaders readily produce it.  It would, presumably, have the Emperor’s face on it as well as an inscription that reads “Son of the Divine Augustus.”  Having such a coin within the Temple is itself against the law. Simply by producing the coin, the leaders have fallen into their own trap.

      • Image: a graven image, which is in direct violation of the law. Simply by having the coin, especially by having the graven image in the temple is idolatry and a violation of the law. He has exposed their hypocrisy.

      • Inscription: Mark’s audience would have known the inscription on the coin, “Caesar, August and Divine Son”

    • Answer

      • “Give” - better translated as repay. The Greek word apodote refers to the repayment of a debt. In other words, repay to Caesar what you owe Caesar and repay to God what you owe God. (Myers)

      • Obviously to a devote Jew (or Christian) the debt owed to God is far greater than any debt owed to any human or human institution

      • Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God’s is neither a condemnation of taxes nor capitulation to the authorities of Caesar.  It is a reminder that the coins they produce have no value in the Kingdom of Heaven.  

      • Jesus’ answer reminds the crowds that in fact, all things first belong to God.  “Jesus is not saying, ‘There is a secular realm and there is a religious realm, and equal respect must be paid to each.’  The second half practically annuls the first by preempting it. In Jewish religious thought, foreign kings had power over Israel only by permission from God.  Tax may be paid to Caesar because it is by god’s will that Caesar rules. When God chooses to liberate his people, Caesar’s power will avail him to nothing.” (Douglas Hare, Interpretation: Matthew, p. 254)

    • Whose Image?

      • There is a deeper connection between image and what we owe.

      • Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar - Caesar has claimed what is his by virtue of imprinting his image upon it - SO HAS GOD

      • God also claims what is God’s by imprinting God’s image upon us (see Genesis 1:26.

        • Give your wealth back to Caesar, but give your life to God

    • Jesus’ answer is no answer.  Instead, it further points out the hypocrisy of those that are coming to trap him.

Thoughts and Questions

  • Where do our true loyalties and motivations lie? Are we committed to our church (local, denomination, etc), to our country, to a specific political party or agenda, or are we dedicated to God? Most of us have many loyalties - to family, church, nation, work, God - what do we do when these loyalties come in conflict with one another

  • What is God’s?  If the answer seems easy - “all things,” the implication is anything but easy.  What does it mean to render all things to God?  

  • The coins we carry are not all that different than the coins that the Romans carried.  They have pictures of our Caesars, and the inscription “In God We Trust.” Yet are those words an empty promise? In what do we truly trust?  “We write ‘in God we trust’ upon the god we truly trust” (Chris Rock and Brian McLaren).

Year 2Eric FistlerMarkComment