Mark 12.1-12: The Wicked Tenants

Intro

Then he began to speak to them in parables. “A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the winepress, and built a watchtower; then he leased it to tenants and went away. 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.

Context

This is the first (and in some regards, the only) parable in the third stage of Mark’s gospel. In this stage, we find tensions rising around Jesus. He and his disciples are in Jerusalem as the Holy Week events unfold. This is where Mark includes some of the sharpest toe-to-toe confrontations between Jesus and the religious leadership in Jerusalem.

Audience

Mark’s last chapter identifies the primary audience of this parable: “the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders” (11.27). To amplify the tension of this confrontation, Mark specifies that this conversation happened “in the temple” (11.27). At the end of our parable, Mark mentions that the religious leaders feared the crowd’s reaction, so we can surmise that there were crowds around them. This is almost an afterthought, though: the crowds are only mentioned to explain what the religious leadership was doing.

The Parable

The narrative of this parable isn’t complicated. There’s a new start-up in Palestine Valley. A man prepares everything he needs for a wine-making business: the vineyard, the fence, the winepress, and the watchtower. He’s even creating jobs for his community. Unfortunately, the job creation aspect of this start-up is where the trouble starts. The workers he hires don’t want to play fair. Instead of providing the owner with his share of the profits, they assault his courier. He sends another servant to collect: the workers assault and (quite literally) add insult to injury. He sends a third messenger and the workers murder him. The owner shows remarkable patience: everyone he sends gets beaten or killed. Why send so many envoys when there’s no change? In first-century Palestine, it was common for the judicial system to run on a series of repeated appeals. The unjust judge in Luke 18 only relents after the widow wears him down with her repeated requests.

Finally, he sends his own son, hoping that the workers will respect him. Sadly, they don’t. The workers conclude that if they kill the owner’s son, they’ll take over the family business. (The word “inheritance” doesn’t imply a will and a family relationship; it simply means “property” or “possession” here.)

Then the punchline: Jesus the storyteller pulls the audience in with a question: what will the owner do? Well, being fully fed up, he’s going to come and destroy the workers and find someone else to run his business.

Jesus then quotes Ps 118: the stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.

Unlike other parables, the religious leaders don’t need to ask for an explanation later. They immediately realize that they’re the bad guys in this story. Unlike David, they don’t have to wait for Nathan to say, “You are the man!” They immediately consider retaliation, but because of Jesus’ popularity with the crowds, they let him go instead.

OT Background

Isa 5.1–7

I will sing for my beloved
my love song concerning his vineyard:
My beloved had a vineyard
on a very fertile hill.
2 He dug it and cleared it of stones
and planted it with choice vines;
he built a watchtower in the midst of it
and hewed out a wine vat in it;
he expected it to yield grapes,
but it yielded rotten grapes.

3 And now, inhabitants of Jerusalem
and people of Judah,
judge between me
and my vineyard.
4 What more was there to do for my vineyard
that I have not done in it?
When I expected it to yield grapes,
why did it yield rotten grapes?

5 And now I will tell you
what I will do to my vineyard.
I will remove its hedge,
and it shall be devoured;
I will break down its wall,
and it shall be trampled down.
6 I will make it a wasteland;
it shall not be pruned or hoed,
and it shall be overgrown with briers and thorns;
I will also command the clouds
that they rain no rain upon it.

7 For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts
is the house of Israel,
and the people of Judah
are his cherished garden;
he expected justice
but saw bloodshed;
righteousness
but heard a cry!

The introduction to Isaiah’s narrative song runs parallel to the opening words of our parable. In Isaiah’s song, however, there are no workers; rather, the owner finds fault with the vineyard itself: “When I expected it to yield grapes, why did it yield rotten grapes?” The consequence is that the owner will remove the sources of protection (hedge, wall) and provision (pruning, rain) and let the vineyard become a wasteland. The metaphors is explained in vs 7. The vineyard is Israel itself; good grapes are “justice” and “righteousness”; rotten grapes are “bloodshed” and “a cry [for help].”

When Jesus began his parable, the listeners would’ve recalled this centuries-old impeachment of Israel’s social sins. Jesus adds a twist, though. There’s nothing wrong with the vineyard in Jesus’ story: the problem lies with the workers. They’re trying to usurp the rightful vineyard-owner in spite of his long-suffering attempts at justice. In Jesus’ parable, we find that God’s case is not against Israel as a whole, but specifically against the religious leaders who’ve repeatedly harvest-blocked God’s attempts to enjoy the fruit of the vineyard. More simply put, those who should be taking care of God’s people are instead preventing God from enjoying the fruit of the people’s lives.

For those of us who’ve experienced mistreatment or abuse at the hands of church leadership, this is likely resonating strongly. I want to focus our attention past the harm we’ve experienced so that we focus on God, not on abusive leaders. Notice where the wicked tenants are placing themselves in this story: between the vineyard and its owner, between God’s people and God. It can be easy to identify the ways that authoritarian leaders have harmed church members, but consider what that kind of “leadership” does to God. Like the vineyard owner, God longs to enjoy the “profits” of the fruit of our lives. Christian leaders who behave like the vineyard workers are effectively trying to steal what God deeply desires and is rightfully due: relationship with us. Bad leaders often treat people as “resources” for building their own puny pseudo-kingdoms, valuing Christians merely for a utilitarian function and discarding people when we no longer serve their purposes. By doing so, they set themselves at odds with God.

God’s design is for us to be like an abundant, rich, lasting, fruitful vineyard. God doesn’t discard us if we’re not “useful enough.” So to those of you who’ve been through toxic church settings, let the weight of this parable sink in. You belong to God; God desires you dearly; any church leader who usurps that relationship has to deal with God. Look at the grace of where you are now. Though your experience may have seemed painfully long before, the fact that you’re not there now shows that God will maintain rightful possession of us, the vineyard. The usurpers will not win.

Ps 118.22–23

22 The stone that the builders rejected
has become the chief cornerstone.
23 This is the Lord’s doing;
it is marvelous in our eyes.

With Isaiah’s background, we considered a perennial danger: abusive leaders among God’s people. Now with this Psalm, we’ll focus more on the historically unique function this parable served when Jesus told it.

There’s a clever pun in this quotation, by the way. If you’re wondering about mixed metaphors and why Jesus shifted from a vineyard to a construction site, there’s a clever turn of phrase in Hebrew/Aramaic (which he’d have likely been speaking to his Jerusalem audience). The parable ended with the son: in Hebrew, ben. The Ps quotation begins with a stone: in Hebrew, ’eben. Jesus is connecting some dots to himself: he is the son who was killed and the stone that was rejected.

This isn’t the only place where a New Testament author quotes these verses. Matthew and Luke also include this quotation when they record this parable. Additionally, Peter cites it twice: once in a sermon and once in a letter.

Let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that this man is standing before you in good health by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead. 11 This Jesus is
‘the stone that was rejected by you, the builders;
has become the cornerstone.’
~ Ac 4.10–11

Here, Peter is (like Jesus) in a confrontation with the religious leadership in Jerusalem. He’s being criticized for healing a man who couldn’t walk. He cites the “rejected cornerstone” verse and ties it specifically to the resurrection. For Peter, the stone’s rejection was Jesus’ crucifixion; the stone’s placement as “cornerstone” was his resurrection. Where Jesus let the story’s implications sink in, Peter’s words are explicitly clear. The change triggered by that the rejection is deeply important in the story of God’s people: Luke is telling us that the newborn Church was not trying to abandon its religious roots, but was forced out by the leaders in Jerusalem.

Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by mortals yet chosen and precious in God’s sight, and 5 like living stones let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in scripture:

“See, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

7 This honor, then, is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,

“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the very head of the corner,”

8 and

“A stone that makes them stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the excellence of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

10 Once you were not a people,
but now you are God’s people;
once you had not received mercy,
but now you have received mercy.
~ 1Pe 2.4–10

I included the entirety of this passage to deal with some its big conclusions. First, the rejected cornerstone is set as the foundation of a Church that’s filling the role Israel formerly played. The Church is a holy priesthood offering spiritual sacrifice, a chosen people, a holy nation, God’s own possession. The final quotation comes from Hosea: after naming his kids “Not-My-People” and “No-Mercy,” Hosea prophecies the restoration of God’s people by reversing his children’s names. Peter re-interprets that for the Church, however. Formerly, Israel was God’s people with a special experience of God’s mercy. Now, the Church is in that place.

So what then, has the Church “taken over” in God’s plan? Has the Church fully replaced Israel as God’s people? This is a centuries-old question that would take far more time to answer than we’ve got now, so let me just drop some short observations for us to keep in mind:

These observations paint a nuanced picture. The Church is God’s people right now; Israel is included in Christ’s body with Gentiles, not relating to God through a separate / parallel spiritual reality. I’d suggest two practical takeaways from this balance:

In light of Ps 118’s emphasis on the saving work of Jesus, let’s consider another application. Are we ever inclined to miss Jesus in the midst of our religious/spiritual priorities? Jesus was doing something incredible in his day, something that the religious establishment couldn’t see; they were too wrapped up in their own system.

Where are we inclined to focus on our own plans, goals, priorities, even at Jesus’ expense? Do we do this at church, in our communities, at home? If we’re not doing it actively now, where do you see “danger zones” where we need to exercise caution and refocus on Jesus?

Summary

Jesus’ parable about the wicked tenants is still relevant for us on two levels. First, his adaptation of Isaiah 5 calls our attention to the ungodly nature of abusive religious leadership in any time or place. Of course, this warns us away from wielding God’s power as our own, but it also comforts those who have been harmed by toxic church leadership. Authoritarian pastors don’t sin merely against their congregants; they actually place themselves between God and the joy God derives from the fruit of our lives.

Second, Jesus’ use of Ps 118 calls our attention to the unique role he played in salvation history, reminding us not to be so caught up in our own Christian priorities that we devalue Jesus! By redefining “God’s people,” Jesus opens the door wide, welcoming people who would have been rejected out of hand by the religious leadership of that day. We’re called to mimic that work, putting aside prejudice and preferential treatment, welcoming all into Jesus’ body!