Threatening Judgment on the Elite
Threatening Judgment on the Elite
In this parable tenants in the vineyard refuse to yield to the owner his share of the produce, and resist his benevolent messengers. So evil do they prove that they kill the owner’s son, foolishly assuming that if he has no heir they will come to own the vineyard. By this point in the story, Jesus’ audience will have long been ready for the owner to take vengeance on the tenants;24 like Nathan of old (2 Sam 12:1-7), Jesus uses a parable to invite some hearers to recognize the just verdict of condemnation against them.
That the relationship between God and Israel constitutes the most common theme in early rabbinic parables25 may be significant here. Because the vineyard probably refers to Israel,26 the vine-growers refer to the nation’s religious leadership (Mk 12:12). Thus while Jesus borrows the imagery of Isaiah, he adapts it so that the primary evildoers represent not Israel but her leaders.
Despite some realistic details, the landowner’s behavior here is unrealistically benevolent. Ancients valued the benevolence of landowners toward tenants, but even those who recommended that they be less than insistent on timely payment27 warned them not to neglect collection of payment lest the tenants default.28 In antiquity, all sides regarded as treacherous the killing of unarmed messengers, or heralds.29 As most commentators suggest, the rejected messengers probably depict the biblical prophets;30 Jewish tradition not only acknowledged but amplified their sufferings.31
But even had hearers not recognized the image of God and his prophets here, no one would expect the benevolent landowner to remain benevolent any longer; indeed, normal landlords sometimes even had their own hired assassins to remove troublesome tenants.32 The state would clearly side with the landlord, and the murderers would die or be enslaved.33 The landlord would also know by now that the tenants hate him; in antiquity, the way people treated one’s messengers is the way they would treat the sender.34 Ancient cultural conventions were clear: by continuing to appeal to their sense of honor, the landowner has made himself appear a fool; to maintain any vestige of honor, he must retaliate against their repeated shaming of him.35
Quite in contrast to expectations, however, the landowner acts with such benevolence that ancient hearers could have regarded his action only as utter folly: he believes that the murderous tenants will at least respect his son as his own representative. This turn of events would raise the suspense for the parable’s first-time hearers. Those who respected an authority figure would respect his son,36 but those who hated that figure might kill his son.37 Jesus tells about the death of the father’s own “beloved” son.38
Who is the “son”? The designation “son” is consistent with Jesus addressing God as “Abba” elsewhere (Mk 14:36).39 What would the “heir” inherit, that the tenants wanted to control? In Scripture, Israel was God’s “inheritance.”40 What was the produce due the owner, that the tenants refused to offer? In “Q,” “fruit” involved obedient works (Matt 3:10//Lk 3:9; Matt 7:17-19//Lk 6:43-44).41 Instead of welcoming the benevolent landowner’s “son,” however, the tenants commit the ultimate act of treachery. Casting him outside the vineyard, they kill him.42
In the final week of his ministry, then, Jesus seems ready to begin to unveil the “messianic secret”: more than any prophet before him, Jesus stands in a special relationship with God, and his rejection finally spells doom on the land.43 Even here, however, his self-revelation would remain somewhat obscure to hearers without the larger context of his ministry; a similar Jewish parable portrays the son as Jacob and thereby Israel.44
Jesus’ brief “interpretation” of the parable involves God’s response. As we have observed, Jesus cites Psalm 118:22, familiar at the season from the Hallel: “The stone rejected by the builders has become the chief cornerstone.” The cornerstone or topstone45 to which Jesus refers possibly could allude to the architecture of the temple; some hearers might have recognized that he was comparing the elect community to a temple, as in the Dead Sea Scrolls.46 Most clearly, however, they would recognize that he was challenging the “builders,” here the temple authorities. (On the historical level, this represented especially, though probably not exclusively, the Sadducees.)47
Although the challenge was not explicit, conjoined with Jesus’ recent overturning tables in the temple it would be plain enough. Jesus had challenged the authorities, whose honor could best be regained, and whose control could best be maintained, by retaliating against him (just as Mk 12:12 implies).