This is the thirty-fourth installment, comprising Act 5,
Scene 5, chapter 12: 1-12 in the online commentary on the Gospel of Mark, which
I am blogging on throughout the liturgical year. Please
see the thirty-third installment here. Links to the entire series are
available in one spot at The
Complete Gospel of Mark Online Commentary.
This is my division of the Gospel:
Prologue, 1:1-13;
Act 1, 1:14-3:6;
Act 2, 3:7-6:6;
Act 3, 6:7-8:26;
Act 4, 8:27-10:52;
Act 5, 11:1-13:37;
Act 6, 14:1-16:8(20).
Scene 5: 12:1-12
1 Then he began to speak to them in parables. "A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watchtower; then he leased it to tenants and went to another country. 2 When the season came, he sent a slave to the tenants to collect from them his share of the produce of the vineyard. 3 But they seized him, and beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. 4 And again he sent another slave to them; this one they beat over the head and insulted. 5 Then he sent another, and that one they killed. And so it was with many others; some they beat, and others they killed. 6 He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, "They will respect my son.' 7 But those tenants said to one another, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' 8 So they seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. 9 What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others. 10 Have you not read this scripture: "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; 11 this was the Lord's doing, and it is amazing in our eyes'?" 12 When they realized that he had told this parable against them, they wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowd. So they left him and went away. (NRSV)
The issue of authority was left unsettled in Act
5, Scene 4 and anytime there is a void in power, a challenge to authority,
or unsettled leadership, conflict is certain to occur. In many ways, from this
point forward in the dramatic narrative, it is Jesus who now presses the issue
and forces the scribes, Chief Priests, Pharisees, all of the religious
authorities, to decide for or against him: Who am I? Who sent me? What is my
mission? How will it be fulfilled? Now is not Jesus’ time to fall into the
background, but to press his point publicly. Even as Jesus speaks openly amidst
the crowds, though, his words can remain a riddle for those who do not want to
hear. The parable spoken here, however, whether understood entirely by the
Temple and religious authorities is clearly enough understood to be spoken
against them and to indicate their lack of authority according to Jesus. More significantly, it is understood by Mark to demonstrate Jesus' divine authority.
The parable shares many things in common with other of Jesus’
parables, especially in that it takes place in an agricultural context. The precise
context, though, draws upon the reality of agricultural estates common in the
Greco-Roman world, owned by wealthy landowners who generally did not live on
their own land. These landowners lived in the city and had workers and slaves
run the operation for them. The man in charge, in fact, was often a slave,
though he had a wide range of authority and freedom. In Greek, he was called the
oikonomos, in Latin, the vilicus, the “manager” or “steward.”
(For an ancient view of how these agricultural estates were to run and who was
to run them, see Columella
and his writings.)
Often parts of the estate were leased to tenant
farmers, who were then to supply the owner with an agreed upon percentage of
their crops, and it was often a high percentage. Jesus, therefore, has set a
common, ancient scene, with which all would be familiar from rich to poor to
slave. The parable is familiar to other of Jesus’ parables, too, because the
cast of characters comprise so many of his regular troupe: a rich man; his
slaves; tenant farmers; his son.
In the parable “a man planted a vineyard, put a fence around
it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watchtower; then he leased it to
tenants and went to another country. When the season came, he sent a slave to
the tenants to collect from them his share of the produce of the vineyard. But
they seized him, and beat him, and sent him away empty-handed” (12:1-3). This
is the core of the parable, the basic premise upon which all is based. It would
be a parable, I think, that people would be fascinated to hear in an ancient
context, Jewish or not, because it is all out of order. Social order and
hierarchy mattered more in the ancient world than in our own and the fact that
the tenants defy so boldly and with such violence the representative of the
master would challenge every listener, regardless of social station. All
hearers, let me suggest, would see the tenants as out of order. They are crazy!
What do they hope to gain by their effrontery? It would also be a parable that
would be seen, at least initially, as humorous: who are these tenants -hardscrabble,
dirt farmers - to defy their master, the Lord of the manor? Their defiance is
so bold it is unbelievable!
The parable continues, though, with acts of violence that
get worse and worse. First, one slave is beaten and sent back without any of
the produce owed (11:3)! Then another slave is sent, and he was “beat over the head
and insulted” (11:4) and then another was sent and he was killed (11:5). This
is already high farce! A master has sent three official representatives to receive
the master’s due and not only is it not provided, but two of his slaves are
beaten and another is killed? This is a joke! Who would be so patient and
forgiving with these rogue anarchic tenant farmers? They might be crazy, but
how can the master be so forgiving and understanding about what is rightfully
his. But that is only the beginning of the absurdity, for Jesus tells us in his
parable that “so it was with many others; some they beat, and others they
killed” (11:5). The travesty continued without the master taking any sort of
punishment out on the impudent, violent and out of control tenants. He keeps
giving them another chance and they keep killing people. Who is this fool?
Finally, the owner of the vineyard sends someone else, “a
beloved son” and he says to himself that “they will respect my son” (11:6).
This cannot be a comedy any longer; it must be a tragedy. Why would he possibly
think that the tenants would respect his son? Because they only killed some of
the slaves he sent to them? The owner cannot stop himself from his kindness and
forbearance and the tenants cannot stop themselves from their foolishness, due
at least one must think to his very patience and forbearance. They believe that
if they kill the heir “‘the inheritance will be ours.’ So they seized him,
killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard” (12:7-8). The limit of the
vineyard owner has been reached and, again, the fact that it has taken this
long is intended to be ridiculous, farcical, yes, a joke.
His limit has been reached. The death of his “beloved son” is
the point of no return. “What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will
come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others” (11:9). The end
of the parable cites Psalm 118:22-23 to interpret the parable: the vineyard
parable gives way to a key early Christian motif of the “rejected stone.” The
son that the tenants killed is interpreted as the rejected stone of the builders,
which is now the cornerstone, that on which everything else is built (12:10-11)
Moreover, Psalm 118 understands this rejection and subsequent exaltation as “the
Lord’s doing” (12:11).
A reader of Mark’s Gospel would understand this as a
type of the Passion Predictions. Once the “beloved son” appears in 12:6,
the parable all falls into place. Jesus has been noted as the “beloved son” at the
beginning of the Gospel and at the Transfiguration.
If Jesus is the “beloved son” in the parable, then the owner of the vineyard is
God. The vineyard must be Israel and the tenants are the leaders of Israel (or less likely, all the people of Israel). The “slaves”
who are sent to pick up the produce owed to God must be various prophets, who
have come to take the “fruit” owed to God. This motif of fruitfulness also connects
us to the fig tree and Temple scenes of Act
5, Scenes 2 and 3. The leaders are not producing what they should have
produced, or they are not offering their fruitfulness to God. Instead of paying their just wages and dues,
they have sent away God’s messengers and workers, including, finally, his son.They have been given so many opportunities to "pay up" it is a joke.
The manner in which Mark has constructed this parable makes
it clear that it has been reworked in light of Jesus’ death and rejection amongst
his own people, for apart from the focus on the numerous opportunities God has
given the tenants to repent and accept his rule and the numerous times he has
forgiven them for their folly, the point of the parable finally rests on Jesus
as the rejected son who is placed in a position of authority by God (see the
previous scene, Act
5, Scene 4) and fact that God “will come and destroy the tenants and give
the vineyard to others” (12:9). This does not necessarily indicate that the
parable has been constructed in light of the destruction of the Temple in 70
AD, for I think it is likely that Jesus did tell this parable, when it became
clear that the Jewish leaders were not accepting him, and placed himself and his
mission in the context of the rejected prophets. Mark’s editorial function here has been to
place the parable in light of the Psalm 118 passage, so significant for early
Christian understanding of why Jesus was rejected and then exalted, and
especially in the context of Gentile acceptance of Jesus, which has been
building since the
Gerasene demoniac, the
Syrophoenician woman, and the
second feeding miracle as an underground motif. Why did the Jewish leadership reject him and was
this a failing on the part of Jesus or a part of God’s plan? This parable makes
it clear that God’s plan included all of his people, but they have turned from his
son, who represents God’s own authority, and countless other representatives from God. So many times have they turned from the Vineyard owner in the parable, that God seems like a doddering old man, too scared to act. Instead, it is love for the tenants that has motivated him and hope that they would repent from their rejection of God. Mark stresses that the inclusion of
the Gentiles is in some way linked to this rejection. Indeed, this parable makes one think that the Gentile inclusion is based only upon rejection by the Jewish leadership, which cannot be so, as other Markan passages (cited above) indicate that it is a part of Jesus' intention from early in his mission.
Only one editorial comment is offered by Mark, apart from
the parable itself, and that is that “when they realized that he had told this
parable against them, they wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowd. So
they left him and went away” (12:12). “They” are the leaders of the people who
we saw in the previous scene and once again their desire to arrest Jesus, to
assert their own authority is present. Interestingly, it is only the crowds, those who are under the authority of the "tenants" of the parable, whose presence protects Jesus, but how long can
that last?According to the parable, not for long.
John W. Martens
Follow me on Twitter @BibleJunkies
0 comments:
Post a Comment