19 May 2024
Luke 20:9-18 -- most people call this the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers, but Bailey insists that it should be more like the Noble Vineyard Owner and Son. That's because the focus is on the owner, not the tenants.
The fancy Greek word makrothumia is normally translated as "patience" or "long-suffering', but Bailey insists it means pushing anger far away. It is the picture of someone with authority and means to execute justice, but does not do so. Picture David standing over the sleeping form of Saul in the camp of soldiers pursuing David (1 Samuel 26).
This parable is told after the Triumphal Entry and Cleansing of the Temple (Court of Gentiles). It shows typical Jewish attitudes that they used this part of the Temple for common traffic, failing to treat it as sacred. Instead of answering the Sanhedrin query about His authority, Jesus counters with His own question. Since they do not answer, neither does He. Instead, He tells this parable.
Bailey almost admits there is no standard rhetorical structure here. He tries, but it does not follow any standard format. He does provide an outline.
1. Vineyard constructed and rented
2. Servant sent, beaten
3. Servant sent, beaten and shamed
4. Servant sent, wounded
5. Son sent
6. Son killed
7. Vineyard transferred
8. Listeners shocked
9. Reference to OT
The climax is not with the son's death, but with the owner's decision to send his son. Furthermore, his decision to replace the tenants is a big deal. This is what caused the objections in His audience, because they understood exactly what Jesus was suggesting.
The reference to a vineyard echoes Isaiah's Song of the Vineyard (Isaiah 5:1-6). In the prophecy, the owner does the work himself, and the vineyard is blamed. Here, Jesus blames the tenant vinedressers. Isaiah did not anticipate the first century wherein it was quite common for Diaspora Jews to prosper and return to purchase agricultural real estate in Palestine, and then rent it out before leaving again. Jesus updates the story.
Three servants were sent to collect the owner's share of the harvest, but each is treated progressively worse. This is what Israel has done to the prophets. Mark adds a few notes in his account about some being killed. So the owner engages in soliloquy and sends his son. Granted, the owner could have easily sent a servant with a petition to the authorities, who would likely have arrested and punished the tenants. Instead, he opts for grace.
Note that the Jews are not some foreign arrogant ruler like Pharaoh, whose empire God destroyed in the Exodus. Instead, the owner opts for vulnerability. This has a long history in the wisdom of eastern rulers. As recently as 1980, King Hussein bin Talal of Jordan arrived unarmed at a meeting of military staff plotting to overthrow him. He told them their plot would kill thousands and destroy the country. Instead, he offered that they could kill him right then and only one man would die. They forgot their rebellion and pledged loyalty to such a wise man.
The vineyard owner's words could be translated literally: "Perhaps they will feel shame in his presence." While a high risk move, this is an established ploy that is known to work at times. Hussein kept his commanders because they were otherwise very worthy men. We can be sure the vineyard owner was doing his best to save the tenants.
Jesus clearly knew what was coming. What most people miss is that, for the tenants to murder the son would defile the grapes. It would defile the land in the whole region, placing it under God's curse. The tenants understood from Talmudic tradition that if they could hold the land for three years running, it would be legally alienated from the owner ("squatter's rights"). But this is not about the land.
Jesus does not identify the "others" to whom the vineyard would pass. It didn't matter; the officials in the audience were shocked at the very idea that the descendants of Abraham would be kicked out. This is why they tried to seize Jesus at that very moment. The crowd understood it, too. Jesus didn't criticize them, only the rulers. But it was not the land that Jesus was claiming; it was the Covenant life of the nation. The Covenant would be taken from the tenants. Bailey dances around that point, using other terminology.
And this is the point Jesus makes in His quote from Psalm 118:19-28, having already acted out part of the passage in His Triumphal Entry. You can be sure the educated officials recognized that connection; the whole encounter was about Jesus claiming to be the Messiah. That passage in Psalms was long regarded as Messianic.
End of the book
This document is public domain; spread the message.