The parable of the tenants (1)
He then began to speak to them in parables: "A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. (Mark 12:1)
The parable of the tenants is written in the gospel of Matthew and Luke. It is written Tomas’ gospel too, and according to the Bible Scholars, the story in Thomas’ gospel (65) is ahead of other gospels in transmission. There is a little differentiation in the story of three gospels but these are similar on the whole. The fact that it was written in all the synoptic gospel means it was well-known story to the entire early Christian community. It also was peculiar that all the three gospels set this story up at the last part of Jesus’ official life. It might be the reason that this parable intimates the theological meaning of Jesus’ cross. It says that Jesus also was killed innocently as the son of the landlord of vineyard in this parable was killed by the tenants.
This parable begins with an explanation about how to make a vineyard. Such work follows the contents written in Isaiah 5:1, 2. The landlord of vineyard didn’t directly cultivate his vineyard but tenanted it. The meaning of ‘went away on a journey’ is ‘an absentee landlord’. In modern terms, he is a multination industrialist. There is high possibility of disputation between such absentee landlord and the tenants according to reckoning the profits and losses. This is the following stories.
Before entering the story let’s think of the form of ‘parable’ for your reference. Jesus told the parables only not to his disciples but others. The reason of teaching in parable was that they neither understood the fact that Jesus was Messiah nor accepted it. However, Jesus couldn’t but deliver the fact the rule of God presently dwelt in him. The best way to pass through such barrier was to teach them by parable.
The parable of the tenants (2)
At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. (Mark 12:2)
Yesterday I told you the similarity between the landlord in his parable and multinational industrialist but today I would like to give you an additional explanation in order to escape from misunderstanding about the concept of the landlord of vineyard. Though the image of multinational industrialist in today is negative but we shouldn’t regard the landlord of vineyard with such negative image. We have to read a parable as parable. The core point of the parable is the wrongdoing of the tenants.
There is a theological disputation whether this parable is rooted in the fact or fiction. We cannot confirm it decisively. There might be both possibilities. In those days there were many absentee landlords. They entrusted a farming work to the tenants and collected a harvest at a certain ratio. The tenants might feel mortified at the season of harvest. If this sentiment grew up they raised a riot. In those days, the nation couldn’t solve this problem by intervening in such disputation. However, it doesn’t important whether it is grounded in fact or fiction. The center theme of gospel, the author of gospel would like to deliver, is important.
This parable back grounded the unbelief of Israel people. They rejected the man of God. They killed the prophets. Such cases appears not only in this parable but often even in the books of prophets in the Old Testament. It is indeed strange that the people particularly beloved by God rejected God’s love more severely. God’s love for Israel was similar case to one-sided love. Despite God’s burning love Israel’s history was filled with idol worship. Probably people may not be changed by love. This is not other’s story but ours.
The parable of the tenants (3)
But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. (Mark 12:3)
Most of Jesus’ parable is written on the theme of the kingdom of God. The parable of mustard (Mark 4:30-32), the parable of the wedding banquet (Matt. 22:1-10), the parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15:1-7), the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:11-32) and etc are in such category.
The reason Jesus teaches us the kingdom of heaven through parable is that we cannot realize the kingdom of heaven directly. The kingdom of heaven indicates God. God exists as the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of heaven indicates the rule of God. God, the kingdom of heaven and the rule of God all are the same concept. As we cannot look up the sun directly we cannot realize the kingdom of God directly.
The word we cannot recognize God or the kingdom heaven and his rule has two meanings at the same time. First, God is not a decisive certain existence. It means God is opened in eschatological. Second, God is a perfect being as such method. It means God includes the entire history including the end when the universal history will decide. How can we describe such God with a demonstrative language?
The parable of the tenants now we are reading explains about not the kingdom of heaven but indicates the disobedience of the high priest, the scribes and the elders, representative of Israel. So there is a detailed description and whoever could understand the content of the parable. It may be compared with people’s unawareness of the parable of the kingdom of God.
However, verse 3 says that the tenants seize him, beat him and send him away empty-handed. It is violence for an innocent. No need to give a long explanation for how often such things happened in human history. How long the period of revolution is required for human to give up violence?
The parable of the tenants (4)
Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. (Mark 12:4)
The atmosphere of the parable is getting up. The first servant sent by the landlords was bitten and driven out (3) The landlord again sent another servant. He might be sent him at the level of confirming whether the first servant was bitten because of his rudeness or any mishap. However, the result was against his expectation. The tenants resorted more violence to the second servant. They struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. (4) The landlord sent another servant again. The landlord also was an unyielding person. However, the tenants were superior to the landlord. They killed the servant. The landlord sent many others. But some of them they beat others they killed. (5)
We know well what this parable says. As I mentioned earlier, it is Israel’s disobedience. The author of Mark’s gospel would like to say that Israel’s disobedience had a direct responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion. Is man’s disobedience toward God was not the matter of those days only but the matter till the end of the world?
Disobedience is destiny for man. Adam, Eve and Cain are the representative of such disobedience. Why man’s disobedience acts like an original sin? We can find out the answer from selfishness, the instinct of survival, an evil culture and etc but the entire problem cannot be solved with these.
The one of the answer we can find out from the Bible is idol worship. The disobedience of Israel was caused by idol worship. Idol worship is the attitude of life to absolutize man-made things. If man gives his heart to such side then man may reject the sound of life, which man cannot make, and the calling of God, the owner of life.
The parable of the tenants (5)
"He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, 'They will respect my son.'(Mark 12:6)
In yesterday’s meditation, I told you the cause of disobedience toward God was idol worship. I would like to give an additional explanation how it worked in Israel’s history. Because there will be a possibility to misunderstand about the concept of idol worship.
Let’s begin with this question. Why Israel again and again fell into idol worship by rejecting the prophets’ teaching to stop idol worship? It is not strange thing. Idol worship is a natural phenomenon which comes from man’s apprehension for survival. The natives of Canaanite, the neighbor of Israel, cultivated an affluent civilization through worshiping Baal and Asherah, god and goddess of agriculture. For Israel people who lived nomadic life in the desert this Canaanite civilization was so attractive. The character of this civilization is present, the secure device for the survival here and now.
Compare to this civilization the covenant of the Lord God was different in two points. One point was that it didn’t absolutize material affluence. The other was the promise of salvation was future thing. Such God’s promise was difficult for Israel to accept. They felt uncomfortable for these teaching of the prophets. They killed the true prophets and followed the false prophets who delivered the sugar coated message only. The tenants in this parable represent such Israel.
The landlord finally decided to send his son with expecting they would at least respect his son. Of course this parable indicates the event of sending Jesus into this world. God sent Jesus into this world with expectation that everything would be solved properly by doing this. What had happened?
The parable of the tenants (6)
"But the tenants said to one another, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.'(Mark 12:7)
The tension in this story is growing more and more. The tenants beat and killed the servants who came to collect certain about of money or grape according to a contract bases. Now the son of landlord was sent. The tenants conspired to kill the son, an heir of the landlord thinking that if the son died the entire inheritance would be theirs if the son died. How was the expression of their eyes when they shared such word? Was it similar to the expression of Judah who sold Jesus? This was the naked truth of man.
Of course this story asks Israel people’s responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion. It delivers this fact with a dramatic parable. However, we who read this story feel uncomfortable. We are not in the position to call Israel people who should account for Jesus’ crucifixion. No human is immune before the fact of crucifying the son of God on the cross.
I would like to approach this matter not a theological level but a daily life level. Think again the idea of the tenants. They said if the heir died then they would be the owner of the vineyard. Such things repeat in our daily life. We often think other’s misfortune can be my fortune. Going a step further we conspire of such things. It happens in politics, business and even in religion.
Such thought and activity also somewhat may be a destiny of man. It can be reduced such stubborn thinking with our effort but we may not completely escape from it. Though we escape from it in consciousness but we may be still ruled by such desire in our unconsciousness. Lord! Have mercy on us.
The parable of the tenants (7)
So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. (Mark 12:8)
Finally the tenants killed the son of landlord. There might be not even a single man with sound mind. Though they had a mind to steal the vineyard in a moment if they were people of counting the sequence of the things they wouldn’t do such cruel thing. If people put into practice what they think in this way there will be nothing remains in this world.
This incident is similar to the incident of Joseph in the Old Testament. Joseph’s brother conspired of killing their brother Joseph thinking that their father Jacob was partial to Joseph. Fortunately Reuben persuaded other brothers and put him into a dungeon instead of killing so that he would save him later on. Reuben’s tactic seemed to succeed but got failed due to Judah’s idea to sell Joseph to the merchants. However, Joseph was saved in debt of Reuben.
Likewise human history is continued with dynamical crush between conspiracy and its activation and the reversing power. Though we cannot remove the evil from this word completely we have to resist against the evil in many ways. We have to give our best effort for invalidation of evil power or reduce it.
If we change this matter into a modern concept we call it as ‘whistle blower’. Such whistle blower is indeed necessary for no one knows the evil that happens inside of a certain community except the member of that community. Through this we have to struggle to protect the activation evil conspiracy.
There was not even single tenant with sound mind. According their plan they killed the son and threw him out of vineyard. The meaning they didn’t bury the dead body means a sort of insulting behavior for the dead. How was the feeling of the landlord, the dead son of father?
The parable of the tenants (8)
[9] "What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. (Mark 12:9)
Till previous verse it was past tense but now it changes into future tense. It is a prediction of the future plan of the landlord of vineyard. He will kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.
While the tenants’ evil is past or present tense punishment of landlord is future. The tenant might be happy mood when they thought their conspiracy would be fulfilled. They never imagined judgment for their evil in the future. Was it fortune or misfortune? If they were able to predict the future things they would have a heart-melt experience.
God is the owner of ‘future’. Man is the owner of ‘present’. No. Precisely speaking, man is nothing but pretend as an owner of present. They eagerly expect the achievement of their conspiracy by thinking that God cannot intervene in their present life. How foolish they are. We have to accept this fact seriously.
You should not misunderstand about this word. It doesn’t mean that you have to think importantly the matter to go to the kingdom of heaven after death because of meaningless and nothingness of present life. Such idea is nothing but a religious projection of the desire for present life.
God is the owner of our life means our life will be completed in the future. In the future the Lord will come as the Lord of judgment. The judgment is the event to select what is not life. It is the incident to pick out untruth, weeds from wheat. God is the only one can do it. According to Pannenberg, it is “the reality to define everything”(die alles bestimmende Wirklichkeit). This God only changes every tentative thing of today in this world into a perfect reality someday. Yes. All our future only depends on his hand.
The parable of the tenants (9)
"What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. (Mark 12:9)
The plan of the landlord of vineyard was two; to destroy the tenants and to give his vineyard to other. The author of Mark delivers the fact that God judges Israel’s disobedience and give the position of the chosen people to others. The others are, that is, Christian community.
In the Bible the idea of changing position is revealed strongly. It frequently happens in the other quotations from Jesus. The words of “So the last will be first, and the first will be last” (Matt. 20:16), Tax collectors and sinners enter into the kingdom of heaven ahead and the invited cannot participate the banquet but the people who were called from street belong to this category. The prophets of the Old Testament also often declared such prophesy.
Our fundamental limitation is not to recognize the possibility of changing position. We think a rich always should live as a rich and a poor always has to live as a poor. Though we know such thought is wrong but we don’t want its change. We struggle a lot not to be an object of change despite our helpless for such matter. We are not the owner of history. The future of history transcends our expectation.
The reason that the tenants didn’t anticipate the landlord’s thought was that they didn’t accept the fact they were not the landlord of a vineyard but the tenants. Or they might have a strong desire to be a landlord. The result reached till to kill the son of landlord.
It might sound as giving a sermon, but we cannot claim the ownership of a vineyard. We just are entrusted tenants for the time being. Our life itself is like that. Tentatively entrusted life!
The parable of the tenants (10)
Haven't you read this scripture: "'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?" (Mark 12:10, 11)
Continued to preach the parable of the tenants Jesus quoted Psalm 118:22, 23. This parable and the word of Psalm don’t connect directly. The landlord’s judgment is the theme of the parable of tenants while Psalm’s quotation is the teaching that God uses preciously what man had rejected.
It seems right that the above Psalm is not a direct Jesus’ quotation but added by the latter Christian community. It is because the connection of the parable and Psalm set the confession of faith for Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection forth as a premise.
The tenants’ activity to kill the landlord’s son is compared to the builders’ action of rejecting the stone. The word that the stone the builders rejected has become the capstone intimates Jesus’ resurrection after crucifixion. The one who has done is the Lord. It cannot be done by man’s idea. God only can raise Jesus from the dead.
When we read the gospels we have to keep two things in our mind. One fact is that the content of the gospels are not written at the very spot immediately but later on. The other fact is that it is the memory of Jesus’ followers. People remembers their experience not by chronically and demonstratively but by meaning centered. The above verse also was written in such way.
Despite these facts, it doesn’t mean that the contents of the gospels don’t have reliability. The gospels contain of the ultimate truth beyond a certain objective fact. It doesn’t confine to outer fact but explore the things in depth. At this point it is a revelation.
The parable of the tenants (11)
Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away. (Mark 12:12)
The people who received Jesus’ parable and advice were the high priests, the scribes and the elders. They were the people who argued with Jesus who was walked along the temple court saying, “With what authority you are doing this?” (Mark 11:28) They thought the parable pointed out them. If I say it a little in objective manner, the early Christians judges like that. If the important members of Sanhedrin had a direct responsibility Jesus’ death on the cross then they should become the evil tenants.
The atmosphere of story builds up toward Jesus’ execution. The necessary atmosphere was making. The high priests’ party wanted to catch Jesus immediately. They were not able to allow Jesus as it was who touched them on a sore spot. However, they couldn’t do it because they were afraid of the crowd.
We can imagine this scene as follows. Here are the high priests and other party and Jesus is standing beside and other crowds position behind. The disciples are watching this situation. Because of crowds supporting for Jesus, the high priests’ party were not taking an action. However such situation doesn’t continue. After some time whether the crowds are conciliated by the high priests or any other reason they finally reject Jesus. The crowds, that is, the public seem easily follow others blindly.
The author of gospel describes the crowds in dual. Getting extremely excited in Jesus’ teaching and action is the one and disappoint very simple and easily is the other. If the crowds supported Jesus continually then Jesus wouldn’t be killed on the cross. And also the fervent response of the crowds might drive Jesus into the more risky situation.
The parable of the tenants (12)
Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away. (Mark 12:12)
The high priests, the scribes and the elders wanted to arrest Jesus but couldn’t. They didn’t give up their conspiracy. They just a little postponed the enforcement of evil. Evil is very clever and if we even a little bit are careless then makes us their slave. However, we don’t need to be afraid of them. They cannot instinctively demonstrate fear.
As we confirm from the above verse, the high priests’ party were afraid of the crowds. In my point of view they were afraid of the crowds because of two reasons. First, they didn’t belong to the truth. They didn’t know what truth was. They were expert in their religious duty but never understood Jesus the truth. Such people cannot but fall into fear unconsciously.
Such fear and an awe that comes from religious experience should be distinguished. The awe that is experienced before creation, life and wonder of salvation is not fear or dread but the fruit of truth. Such awe read us not fear but peace and joy. Remember Jesus’ saying, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)
Second, they were only in mind to extend their territory. In the case of not extending their territory they lose their meaning of existence. They indulge in the various way of extending their territory. Once the moment to be threatened comes then they are frozen in fear.
It is no exaggeration that the psychological character of the modern who enjoy fully its civilization is fear. What is different point of Christians? We are fearless for Jesus has shifted us from death to life.
He then began to speak to them in parables: "A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. (Mark 12:1)
The parable of the tenants is written in the gospel of Matthew and Luke. It is written Tomas’ gospel too, and according to the Bible Scholars, the story in Thomas’ gospel (65) is ahead of other gospels in transmission. There is a little differentiation in the story of three gospels but these are similar on the whole. The fact that it was written in all the synoptic gospel means it was well-known story to the entire early Christian community. It also was peculiar that all the three gospels set this story up at the last part of Jesus’ official life. It might be the reason that this parable intimates the theological meaning of Jesus’ cross. It says that Jesus also was killed innocently as the son of the landlord of vineyard in this parable was killed by the tenants.
This parable begins with an explanation about how to make a vineyard. Such work follows the contents written in Isaiah 5:1, 2. The landlord of vineyard didn’t directly cultivate his vineyard but tenanted it. The meaning of ‘went away on a journey’ is ‘an absentee landlord’. In modern terms, he is a multination industrialist. There is high possibility of disputation between such absentee landlord and the tenants according to reckoning the profits and losses. This is the following stories.
Before entering the story let’s think of the form of ‘parable’ for your reference. Jesus told the parables only not to his disciples but others. The reason of teaching in parable was that they neither understood the fact that Jesus was Messiah nor accepted it. However, Jesus couldn’t but deliver the fact the rule of God presently dwelt in him. The best way to pass through such barrier was to teach them by parable.
The parable of the tenants (2)
At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. (Mark 12:2)
Yesterday I told you the similarity between the landlord in his parable and multinational industrialist but today I would like to give you an additional explanation in order to escape from misunderstanding about the concept of the landlord of vineyard. Though the image of multinational industrialist in today is negative but we shouldn’t regard the landlord of vineyard with such negative image. We have to read a parable as parable. The core point of the parable is the wrongdoing of the tenants.
There is a theological disputation whether this parable is rooted in the fact or fiction. We cannot confirm it decisively. There might be both possibilities. In those days there were many absentee landlords. They entrusted a farming work to the tenants and collected a harvest at a certain ratio. The tenants might feel mortified at the season of harvest. If this sentiment grew up they raised a riot. In those days, the nation couldn’t solve this problem by intervening in such disputation. However, it doesn’t important whether it is grounded in fact or fiction. The center theme of gospel, the author of gospel would like to deliver, is important.
This parable back grounded the unbelief of Israel people. They rejected the man of God. They killed the prophets. Such cases appears not only in this parable but often even in the books of prophets in the Old Testament. It is indeed strange that the people particularly beloved by God rejected God’s love more severely. God’s love for Israel was similar case to one-sided love. Despite God’s burning love Israel’s history was filled with idol worship. Probably people may not be changed by love. This is not other’s story but ours.
The parable of the tenants (3)
But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. (Mark 12:3)
Most of Jesus’ parable is written on the theme of the kingdom of God. The parable of mustard (Mark 4:30-32), the parable of the wedding banquet (Matt. 22:1-10), the parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15:1-7), the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:11-32) and etc are in such category.
The reason Jesus teaches us the kingdom of heaven through parable is that we cannot realize the kingdom of heaven directly. The kingdom of heaven indicates God. God exists as the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of heaven indicates the rule of God. God, the kingdom of heaven and the rule of God all are the same concept. As we cannot look up the sun directly we cannot realize the kingdom of God directly.
The word we cannot recognize God or the kingdom heaven and his rule has two meanings at the same time. First, God is not a decisive certain existence. It means God is opened in eschatological. Second, God is a perfect being as such method. It means God includes the entire history including the end when the universal history will decide. How can we describe such God with a demonstrative language?
The parable of the tenants now we are reading explains about not the kingdom of heaven but indicates the disobedience of the high priest, the scribes and the elders, representative of Israel. So there is a detailed description and whoever could understand the content of the parable. It may be compared with people’s unawareness of the parable of the kingdom of God.
However, verse 3 says that the tenants seize him, beat him and send him away empty-handed. It is violence for an innocent. No need to give a long explanation for how often such things happened in human history. How long the period of revolution is required for human to give up violence?
The parable of the tenants (4)
Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. (Mark 12:4)
The atmosphere of the parable is getting up. The first servant sent by the landlords was bitten and driven out (3) The landlord again sent another servant. He might be sent him at the level of confirming whether the first servant was bitten because of his rudeness or any mishap. However, the result was against his expectation. The tenants resorted more violence to the second servant. They struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. (4) The landlord sent another servant again. The landlord also was an unyielding person. However, the tenants were superior to the landlord. They killed the servant. The landlord sent many others. But some of them they beat others they killed. (5)
We know well what this parable says. As I mentioned earlier, it is Israel’s disobedience. The author of Mark’s gospel would like to say that Israel’s disobedience had a direct responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion. Is man’s disobedience toward God was not the matter of those days only but the matter till the end of the world?
Disobedience is destiny for man. Adam, Eve and Cain are the representative of such disobedience. Why man’s disobedience acts like an original sin? We can find out the answer from selfishness, the instinct of survival, an evil culture and etc but the entire problem cannot be solved with these.
The one of the answer we can find out from the Bible is idol worship. The disobedience of Israel was caused by idol worship. Idol worship is the attitude of life to absolutize man-made things. If man gives his heart to such side then man may reject the sound of life, which man cannot make, and the calling of God, the owner of life.
The parable of the tenants (5)
"He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, 'They will respect my son.'(Mark 12:6)
In yesterday’s meditation, I told you the cause of disobedience toward God was idol worship. I would like to give an additional explanation how it worked in Israel’s history. Because there will be a possibility to misunderstand about the concept of idol worship.
Let’s begin with this question. Why Israel again and again fell into idol worship by rejecting the prophets’ teaching to stop idol worship? It is not strange thing. Idol worship is a natural phenomenon which comes from man’s apprehension for survival. The natives of Canaanite, the neighbor of Israel, cultivated an affluent civilization through worshiping Baal and Asherah, god and goddess of agriculture. For Israel people who lived nomadic life in the desert this Canaanite civilization was so attractive. The character of this civilization is present, the secure device for the survival here and now.
Compare to this civilization the covenant of the Lord God was different in two points. One point was that it didn’t absolutize material affluence. The other was the promise of salvation was future thing. Such God’s promise was difficult for Israel to accept. They felt uncomfortable for these teaching of the prophets. They killed the true prophets and followed the false prophets who delivered the sugar coated message only. The tenants in this parable represent such Israel.
The landlord finally decided to send his son with expecting they would at least respect his son. Of course this parable indicates the event of sending Jesus into this world. God sent Jesus into this world with expectation that everything would be solved properly by doing this. What had happened?
The parable of the tenants (6)
"But the tenants said to one another, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.'(Mark 12:7)
The tension in this story is growing more and more. The tenants beat and killed the servants who came to collect certain about of money or grape according to a contract bases. Now the son of landlord was sent. The tenants conspired to kill the son, an heir of the landlord thinking that if the son died the entire inheritance would be theirs if the son died. How was the expression of their eyes when they shared such word? Was it similar to the expression of Judah who sold Jesus? This was the naked truth of man.
Of course this story asks Israel people’s responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion. It delivers this fact with a dramatic parable. However, we who read this story feel uncomfortable. We are not in the position to call Israel people who should account for Jesus’ crucifixion. No human is immune before the fact of crucifying the son of God on the cross.
I would like to approach this matter not a theological level but a daily life level. Think again the idea of the tenants. They said if the heir died then they would be the owner of the vineyard. Such things repeat in our daily life. We often think other’s misfortune can be my fortune. Going a step further we conspire of such things. It happens in politics, business and even in religion.
Such thought and activity also somewhat may be a destiny of man. It can be reduced such stubborn thinking with our effort but we may not completely escape from it. Though we escape from it in consciousness but we may be still ruled by such desire in our unconsciousness. Lord! Have mercy on us.
The parable of the tenants (7)
So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. (Mark 12:8)
Finally the tenants killed the son of landlord. There might be not even a single man with sound mind. Though they had a mind to steal the vineyard in a moment if they were people of counting the sequence of the things they wouldn’t do such cruel thing. If people put into practice what they think in this way there will be nothing remains in this world.
This incident is similar to the incident of Joseph in the Old Testament. Joseph’s brother conspired of killing their brother Joseph thinking that their father Jacob was partial to Joseph. Fortunately Reuben persuaded other brothers and put him into a dungeon instead of killing so that he would save him later on. Reuben’s tactic seemed to succeed but got failed due to Judah’s idea to sell Joseph to the merchants. However, Joseph was saved in debt of Reuben.
Likewise human history is continued with dynamical crush between conspiracy and its activation and the reversing power. Though we cannot remove the evil from this word completely we have to resist against the evil in many ways. We have to give our best effort for invalidation of evil power or reduce it.
If we change this matter into a modern concept we call it as ‘whistle blower’. Such whistle blower is indeed necessary for no one knows the evil that happens inside of a certain community except the member of that community. Through this we have to struggle to protect the activation evil conspiracy.
There was not even single tenant with sound mind. According their plan they killed the son and threw him out of vineyard. The meaning they didn’t bury the dead body means a sort of insulting behavior for the dead. How was the feeling of the landlord, the dead son of father?
The parable of the tenants (8)
[9] "What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. (Mark 12:9)
Till previous verse it was past tense but now it changes into future tense. It is a prediction of the future plan of the landlord of vineyard. He will kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.
While the tenants’ evil is past or present tense punishment of landlord is future. The tenant might be happy mood when they thought their conspiracy would be fulfilled. They never imagined judgment for their evil in the future. Was it fortune or misfortune? If they were able to predict the future things they would have a heart-melt experience.
God is the owner of ‘future’. Man is the owner of ‘present’. No. Precisely speaking, man is nothing but pretend as an owner of present. They eagerly expect the achievement of their conspiracy by thinking that God cannot intervene in their present life. How foolish they are. We have to accept this fact seriously.
You should not misunderstand about this word. It doesn’t mean that you have to think importantly the matter to go to the kingdom of heaven after death because of meaningless and nothingness of present life. Such idea is nothing but a religious projection of the desire for present life.
God is the owner of our life means our life will be completed in the future. In the future the Lord will come as the Lord of judgment. The judgment is the event to select what is not life. It is the incident to pick out untruth, weeds from wheat. God is the only one can do it. According to Pannenberg, it is “the reality to define everything”(die alles bestimmende Wirklichkeit). This God only changes every tentative thing of today in this world into a perfect reality someday. Yes. All our future only depends on his hand.
The parable of the tenants (9)
"What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. (Mark 12:9)
The plan of the landlord of vineyard was two; to destroy the tenants and to give his vineyard to other. The author of Mark delivers the fact that God judges Israel’s disobedience and give the position of the chosen people to others. The others are, that is, Christian community.
In the Bible the idea of changing position is revealed strongly. It frequently happens in the other quotations from Jesus. The words of “So the last will be first, and the first will be last” (Matt. 20:16), Tax collectors and sinners enter into the kingdom of heaven ahead and the invited cannot participate the banquet but the people who were called from street belong to this category. The prophets of the Old Testament also often declared such prophesy.
Our fundamental limitation is not to recognize the possibility of changing position. We think a rich always should live as a rich and a poor always has to live as a poor. Though we know such thought is wrong but we don’t want its change. We struggle a lot not to be an object of change despite our helpless for such matter. We are not the owner of history. The future of history transcends our expectation.
The reason that the tenants didn’t anticipate the landlord’s thought was that they didn’t accept the fact they were not the landlord of a vineyard but the tenants. Or they might have a strong desire to be a landlord. The result reached till to kill the son of landlord.
It might sound as giving a sermon, but we cannot claim the ownership of a vineyard. We just are entrusted tenants for the time being. Our life itself is like that. Tentatively entrusted life!
The parable of the tenants (10)
Haven't you read this scripture: "'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?" (Mark 12:10, 11)
Continued to preach the parable of the tenants Jesus quoted Psalm 118:22, 23. This parable and the word of Psalm don’t connect directly. The landlord’s judgment is the theme of the parable of tenants while Psalm’s quotation is the teaching that God uses preciously what man had rejected.
It seems right that the above Psalm is not a direct Jesus’ quotation but added by the latter Christian community. It is because the connection of the parable and Psalm set the confession of faith for Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection forth as a premise.
The tenants’ activity to kill the landlord’s son is compared to the builders’ action of rejecting the stone. The word that the stone the builders rejected has become the capstone intimates Jesus’ resurrection after crucifixion. The one who has done is the Lord. It cannot be done by man’s idea. God only can raise Jesus from the dead.
When we read the gospels we have to keep two things in our mind. One fact is that the content of the gospels are not written at the very spot immediately but later on. The other fact is that it is the memory of Jesus’ followers. People remembers their experience not by chronically and demonstratively but by meaning centered. The above verse also was written in such way.
Despite these facts, it doesn’t mean that the contents of the gospels don’t have reliability. The gospels contain of the ultimate truth beyond a certain objective fact. It doesn’t confine to outer fact but explore the things in depth. At this point it is a revelation.
The parable of the tenants (11)
Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away. (Mark 12:12)
The people who received Jesus’ parable and advice were the high priests, the scribes and the elders. They were the people who argued with Jesus who was walked along the temple court saying, “With what authority you are doing this?” (Mark 11:28) They thought the parable pointed out them. If I say it a little in objective manner, the early Christians judges like that. If the important members of Sanhedrin had a direct responsibility Jesus’ death on the cross then they should become the evil tenants.
The atmosphere of story builds up toward Jesus’ execution. The necessary atmosphere was making. The high priests’ party wanted to catch Jesus immediately. They were not able to allow Jesus as it was who touched them on a sore spot. However, they couldn’t do it because they were afraid of the crowd.
We can imagine this scene as follows. Here are the high priests and other party and Jesus is standing beside and other crowds position behind. The disciples are watching this situation. Because of crowds supporting for Jesus, the high priests’ party were not taking an action. However such situation doesn’t continue. After some time whether the crowds are conciliated by the high priests or any other reason they finally reject Jesus. The crowds, that is, the public seem easily follow others blindly.
The author of gospel describes the crowds in dual. Getting extremely excited in Jesus’ teaching and action is the one and disappoint very simple and easily is the other. If the crowds supported Jesus continually then Jesus wouldn’t be killed on the cross. And also the fervent response of the crowds might drive Jesus into the more risky situation.
The parable of the tenants (12)
Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away. (Mark 12:12)
The high priests, the scribes and the elders wanted to arrest Jesus but couldn’t. They didn’t give up their conspiracy. They just a little postponed the enforcement of evil. Evil is very clever and if we even a little bit are careless then makes us their slave. However, we don’t need to be afraid of them. They cannot instinctively demonstrate fear.
As we confirm from the above verse, the high priests’ party were afraid of the crowds. In my point of view they were afraid of the crowds because of two reasons. First, they didn’t belong to the truth. They didn’t know what truth was. They were expert in their religious duty but never understood Jesus the truth. Such people cannot but fall into fear unconsciously.
Such fear and an awe that comes from religious experience should be distinguished. The awe that is experienced before creation, life and wonder of salvation is not fear or dread but the fruit of truth. Such awe read us not fear but peace and joy. Remember Jesus’ saying, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)
Second, they were only in mind to extend their territory. In the case of not extending their territory they lose their meaning of existence. They indulge in the various way of extending their territory. Once the moment to be threatened comes then they are frozen in fear.
It is no exaggeration that the psychological character of the modern who enjoy fully its civilization is fear. What is different point of Christians? We are fearless for Jesus has shifted us from death to life.
No comments:
Post a Comment