Brendan Nolan,
Kristie Raynovich,
Gabe Rivera,
T.J. Schaffner
11 April 2000
Parable of the Wicked Tenants
"This passage is closely linked to the preceding paragraph (11:27-33) in which the question of authority is put to Jesus by a hostile group of chief priests, scribes, and elders." (Williamson, pg. 213) In Mark 12:1-12, Jesus is taking the offensive against them. He tells the story in a way that describes the wrongdoings of the elite’s, and shows them that they are using their power in the wrong way. The passage that follows the Parable of the Wicked Tenants is another story about people coming to Jesus because he is the authority figure, and all knowing. The people are asking Jesus whether or not to pay Rome taxes in the name of Caesar the Lord. "Some Jews are convinced that one could not be a Jew and honor Caesar as Lord, a title reserved for God." (Juel, pg. 164) These three passages deal with the power and authority of Jesus as Lord.
Due to the fact that is a parable, this passage can be read alone; it is not necessary to read this passage along side other passages in order to understand the parable. This passage is simply a parable in which the author intends to show the rejection of "a way of life demanding unselfish service to others and that people have been rejecting that option down through the centuries" (Vickers, 181). However, as Paul V. Vickers, author of Person to Person: The Gospel of Mark, states, "This parable is clearly a sequel to the argument with the temple authorities in [Mark 11]" (Vickers, 183). Therefore, there is an appropriate division for the pericope. While further understanding can be found when reading in connection to Mark 11, Mark 12:1-12 is not dependent upon the argument with the temple authorities.
Mark (a.k.a. John Mark) was not actually a follower of Jesus Christ but was a follower of Peter. He was learned about the acts and words of Jesus through oral and written tradition. He was a companion of Paul but for a period of time he and Paul had a falling out and did not get along with each other. They made up and were companions once again. In Rome during the 60’s A.D. he was a helper of Peter and Paul before they were killed. He was a Jewish Christian of Jerusalem. Peter actually witnessed the acts of Jesus and Mark didn’t.
Mark wrote this pericope for a Jewish audience. There is strong use of Jewish symbolism present in this passage. One example of this symbolism is the Jewish tradition reflected in the motif of the maltreated messengers. It was widely believed by Jews that their people had constantly rejected and abused God’s prophets. It is urged by some interpreters that the parable "in its original form denounced Israel as a whole for its rejection of the prophets and Jesus" (Hare 150). But now, in its present form, it is evident that the story pertains to Israel’s leaders rather than the people. The parable is directed against the Jerusalem council, not against the Jewish people as a whole (Hare 152).
This passage is clearly written for the aristocrats of the society: religious leaders, scribes, and elders. In fact, Williamson sees the characters of the pericope as symbols representing actual people. The owner of the vineyard is God himself, the vineyard is Israel, the tenants are the religious leaders, the servants are the prophets, and the son (who was killed) is Jesus. The passage is used to remind the leaders of Israel that they are abusing power and Jesus has the real power.
This basis for this passage is the realization by the author of a way of life that has been occurring in his time, which is very selfish. In particular, as Vickers states, many generations had been living a very selfish way of life and the author intended to show the people of his time that "anyone who rejects self-centeredness and strives to love others is living from the love made incarnate" (Vickers, 182). Also, this passage was written as a "condemnation" of the way Jewish leaders were behaving as far as their threats against the Son of God (Vickers, 184).
It is believed that this was written around 60 A.D. because Mark wrote this around the time of Peter. The gospel was written in Rome because that is where Peter died. Plus the Latin grammar of the gospel is evidence that it was written in a place that speaks Latin, Rome.
The Webster’s Dictionary defines a parable as, "a short, simple story teaching a moral lesson" (310). In Mark’s passage Jesus says "The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?" (12:11-12). Jesus tells a short story first and then ends with this final statement, which is the moral lesson that makes this pericope a parable.
The passage was written during Nero’s reign in Rome (54-68). Nero was an oppressive leader, and chaos and instability mired his reign. There was much turmoil when he was the leader, and this passage could have been written to reflect the times. The people were confused as to whom they should follow, and Jesus is attempting to set them straight.
After looking at this passage compared to the similar passages of Matthew 21:33-46 and Luke 20:9-19, it seems as though Mark may have been written first, along with a Quelle (Hamerton 27). This suggests the two-source theory because Matthew and Luke contain similarities to Mark such as the order of killing and wounding the servants sent by the tenant. However, Matthew and Luke present these similarities in a condensed form. Also, the fact that Matthew and Luke present different parables in the end suggest possibly an outside oral source (Matt 21:43 and Luke 20:18).
There are a few parallels raised in the passage. For example Matthew 3:17 and Luke 3:22, 9:35 show similarities and are tied in with this part of Mark. Another parallel present is Matthew 17:5 which reads "But even as he said it, a bright cloud came over them, and a voice from the cloud said, ‘This is my beloved Son, and I am wonderfully pleased with him. Obey him.’" This is a parallel because it refers to Jesus in our Mark passage (the son of God). Also, how he should have been listened to.
Since Mark was the first of the synoptic gospels, it is not likely that he could have used Mt or Lk as sources. The author of this allegorical work could have used Q as an outside source, or possibly oral tradition. The author took what he knew or learned from an outside source and shaped the entire piece into an account of Jesus’ life. He also attuned the work to reflect what was occurring in Rome during his time.
The key term in this passage is "rejected." It can be very ambiguous as to what the author is suggesting be rejected. Is the reader being told to reject Jesus? Is the reader being told to reject the Word of God? In fact, what the reader is being told to reject is the selfish lifestyle. Basically, the "rejection" deals with making a distinction between good and evil and between unselfish love and the "fundamental selfishness that powers the lives of men and women" (Vickers, 181).
The central idea of the pericope is the leaders of Israel (the tenants) rejected and killed prophets sent by God (the owner’s slaves) and then rejected and killed Jesus the Son of God (the owner’s son). In response, God destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and Israel (the vineyard) was given to the Gentiles (the owner will come and kill those men and turn the vineyard over to other tenants).
Since this passage is a parable, Mark has a very specific aim for his audience. Jesus tells the story so express a point, a moral. The lesson that is learned in this section is present in many other parts of the Bible. Psalm 118:22-23 reads, "The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes." The same moral is recorded in Isaiah, Thomas, Matthew and Luke. So when Mark writes this story he is trying to get Jesus’ words out to the people. And he is saying that everything and everyone has importance. The stone that was rejected became the most important part of the building.
The writer makes the passage persuasive be using symbols that represent powerful objects. The use of the vineyard representing Israel and the tenants representing the religious leaders can have a lasting impact on the reader. The author makes Jesus seem very strong and worthy leader by using the symbols that represent what is really happening. The passage also discredits Rome, which has a persuasive effect.
The entire idea of rejecting selfishness and shifting our focus from our own lives to the life of Jesus and the Word of God is what was most persuasive to the audience which the author wrote to and also to a contemporary audience. Contemporary audiences also will be persuaded by the notion in the passage, which suggests that for the love of God to work through us, we must reject selfishness in our lives.
A contemporary audience might find a problem with this gospel saying that Israel was taken away from the Jewish leaders when Israel currently is in the possession of Jewish leaders. A Catholic interpretation, however, would be literal. They would believe that the religious leaders were abusing their power.
References