This Parable is known variously as the parable of the wicked tenants or
the Parable of the Vineyard. While the parable in Mark has been allegorised, it
is not clear whether there was a non-allegorical parable going back to Jesus.
Those who are of the opinion that there was a non-allegorical parable interpret
it to mean that just as the tenants took radical action, so radical action is
required in order to gain the kingdom. Others see the parable to mean that the
kingdom will be taken away from Israel ’s
false leadership and given to gentiles and sinners. Still others see the
parable to mean that God does not abandon and relentlessly seeks and searches
for them and longs for a response from them.
In Matthew, this parable is
the centre of Jesus’ threefold parabolic response to the chief priests and
elders. The first of these is about the two sons (21:28 -32) and the third is about the great
supper (22:1-14). He also links it to the previous parable of the two sons by
means of common words like vineyard, son and the common theme of both which is
doing God’s will rather than paying lip service.
In Matthew, the one who
gives the vineyard to tenants is a “landowner” and not simply a “man “as he is
in Mark. This helps Matthew to use the term “Lord” towards the end of the
parable. The vineyard is described much like the one in Isa 5:1-7 which
indicates that Matthew intends the vineyard to be read as “Israel ” which
it is in Isaiah. If in Mark the man who hired out the vineyard wants only his
share, here he wants all the fruit. This indicates that God’s claim on the
human person and all possessions is total and not partial. There are no half
measures with God. It is all or nothing. The two groups of servants which are
sent before the Son probably represent in Matthew the former and latter
prophets whom God sent to Israel
to bring the nation back to him. It is only after the two groups of servants
are abused and murdered that the landowner decides to send his Son. In Matthew
the son is first taken out of the vineyard and then killed (unlike in Mark
where he is first killed and then thrown out of the vineyard) to correspond
with what actually happens at the passion and death of Jesus (27:32). In Mark
the question about the response of the owner of the vineyard is asked and
answered by Jesus, while in Matthew, Jesus asks the questions and the Jewish
leaders answer and through the answer pronounce their own condemnation. The
tenants had been unfaithful and will have to pay for this unfaithfulness. The
quotation of Ps 118:22-23 here results in increasing and intensifying the
condemnation of the tenants to whom what was given was given in trust. Since
they have been proved untrustworthy and unfaithful, they will be denied further
tenancy and others will be given the vineyard to tend.
The Jewish leaders realize
that the parable is about them and this only hardens their stance against Jesus
and strengthens their resolve to destroy him.
All that we possess is given
to us in trust. This means that while we may use what we have, we have also to
be concerned about those who do not have and be generous with them. Selfishness
on our part leads to our thinking that we must use the things we have
exclusively without even the thought of sharing them with others.
No comments:
Post a Comment
You may use the "Anonymous" option to leave a comment if you do not possess a Google Account. But please leave your name and URL as www.errolsj.com