I haven't posted my sermons on line in recent years, but am going to try and post more of them in the coming months. One of the reasons is that they are now recorded and available online. You can listen to this message and others preached at HopeWhangarei (by our preaching team) by following this link to the HopeWhangarei website https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/hope-whangarei/episodes/15-09-24-Howard-Carter---Jesus-authority--the-parable-of-the-wicked-tenants-and-the-rejected-stone-e2odeip/a-abhdl9c
In first century Judea much of the rural land was held in
large estates and owned by absentee landlords. People who lived overseas. It
was part of the unease about being an occupied country. Peasant farmers would work the land and pay
rent to these landlords. Unlike today that rent wasn’t paid on a weekly basis, in
cash or by automatic payment or internet banking, at the press of a button,
rather the rent was a proportion of the harvest that would be collected
annually, usually by an agent of the landlord. They would get an agreed fixed amount
of the grain, and the wine produced, despite the years yield, that would then
be transported back to the landowner. Like in today’s world disputes between
landlords and tenants were quite common. Maybe those of you who’ve been
landlords or tenants can relate to that. Maybe you’ve got some horror stories. We
actually have preserved Papyrus documents that tell of the legal disputes over
these situations from before and after Jesus day. But also there was a tension
over who owned the land, peasant farmers wanted to own the land they farmed,
and if a landlord died the heir had a certain time to come and claim the land otherwise the tenant could claim it as unowned land. Of
course if there was no heir then the land could be claimed more easily. Jesus uses this social context as the
background for the parable that is at the centre of the passage we had read
this morning. Tying it in with the reading we had from the book of Isaiah he
uses it to speak against the religious leaders in Jerusalem.
For about a year now we have been working our way S L O W L Y through mark’s fast-paced account of the beginning of the good news of Jesus the messiah, the Son of God. The series is called the ay of the cross, as against the cultural expectations of the day Mark portray Jesus primarily as the Suffering servant, who came not to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many, and calls those who would follow Jesus to walk the same way of the cross with service and self-sacrificial love.
We talk about Mark’s fast paced gospel but now we are in Jerusalem, the gospel actually slows down. We have a day to day account of what is happening with Jesus. Then later as we come to the events of the crucifixion the gospel slows down even further, hour by hour minute by minute. Time is being slowed in the story line, like a slow-motion sequence in a movie, as we focus in on the pivotal event of the crucifixion, this pivotal event in human history, this pivotal event in God’s salvation plan for the whole of humanity and creation.
The context of the passage this morning is Jesus third day in
Jerusalem. As we looked at way back on Palm Sunday, he came to Jerusalem went
to the temple looked around and went out again to Bethany, then the next day
had come in and drove the money lenders out of the temple, and on the way into
the city he had cursed a fig tree for not producing fruit, an enacted parable
about the corrupt nature of the temple worship system, it was not producing the
fruit God required of it.
AS Jesus was travelling to Jerusalem he had spoken three
times of his rejection by the religious authorities, his suffering, his death
ion the cross and his resurrection and that sets the agenda and acts as a table
of content for what happens in Jerusalem. The passage we have today is the
first in a series of conflicts between Jesus and the various religious
groupings in Jerusalem that lead to their rejection of him. The passage today
finishes with the religious leaders going away to try and find a way to arrest
Jesus, with their rejection of him.
The passage is in three parts. The first revolves around a question of Jesus authority. Then in response to that we have the parable of the wicked tenants, which finishes with the son murdered and thrown out of the vineyard and the owner coming and removing the tenants. But then we have a second parable, with an architectural theme, a quote from psalm 118 about a rejected stone becoming the capstone of the new temple. So we are going to look at those three parts then see its implications for us today.
A question of Jesus authority… The Sanhedrin was the council
that was the supreme court of the Jewish religious system. It was made up of
the high priests, the teachers of the law and the elders, and so we have
representatives from all these three groupings coming to question Jesus. It’s a
pretty high powered official delegation, different from Pharisees and Sadducees
who were actual a couple of the dominant factions, within the Sanhedrin. Sort
of like political parties in our parliamentary system. They come to ask Jesus
what authority he has to do these things. These things refers directly to his
coming in and overturning tables and driving out the money lenders, disrupting
the financial system that was set up in the temple. But also had a wider
inference to Jesus teaching and preforming miracles, this is a continuation of
the conflicts Jesus had had earlier with groups from Jerusalem in the gospel in Mark 3.
The religious leaders, are thinking in terms of earthly
authority, Jesus didn’t have the training or their approval to be a rabbi, and
definitely didn’t have their approval to do what he’d done in the temple the
previous day. Jesus action challenge their authority in the temple and community.
Jesus however steps it up a notch with the question he then asks the
authorities. In asking that question he is not being obtuse, but rather using an
established part of rabbinical teaching. He is saying if you answer my
question, correctly, you will have the answer to your question. You’ll know
whose authority I have.
He asks them was John’s baptism from heaven, or of human
origin? Jews were reluctant to use God’s name so when Jesus asks is it of
heaven he is asking was on God’s authority. Did they consider John to be a
prophet? Jesus and John are linked,
John’s baptism was for repentance, for being whole hearted about serving God,
but also he pointed people towards one who would come after him, who would
baptize with fire and the Spirit, referring to Jesus.
The religious leaders confer and rightly realize if they say
John’s baptism was from heaven that they will be accused of not believing him.
Also that Jesus will claim the same authority from heaven, which means they
will have to acknowledge him as at least a prophet sent by God. That Jesus has
God given authority. If they say john’s baptism was of man they are aware that
the people may turn against them, as they believed John a Prophet. There
concern is not in the truth but rather their own position status and authority.
So they answer Jesus in a shocking manner. They say they do
not know… AS they have shown themselves
unwilling to handle the truth Jesus is not prepared to tell them straight out
where his authority comes from.
This question of
Jesus authority is not only from the religious authorities of Jesus day as
people who read the scripture who look at it, we too are invited to ask who is
Jesus, how can he do the things he does. What is our answer to that question. C
S Lewis says, when you see what Jesus taught and did we are left with three
options, we can write Jesus off as a lunatic or a liar, or we have to
acknowledge that he is Lord. That is a challenge for those who are irreligious
and for those of us who are religious as well. We need to do what Jesus says.
In response to the
religious authorities answer Jesus now tells the parable of the tenants.
As I said before this is a parable that is very much rooted in the social
context of first century Judea. With absentee land lords and disgruntled
tenants, but what makes in very pointed is that Jesus goes back to the prophecy
e had read from Isaiah 5 his morning. The picture of Israel as the vineyard
that God planted. God built a wall and watch towers to protect it, he invested
time and energy into it. In Isaiah it did not produce fruit, so it was removed,
here the tenants put in place to tend the vineyard by the owner do not give the
harvest back to the owner. They want to keep it for themselves. The owner sends
his agents and servants, but the tenants mistreat them, beat them and even kill
them, rather than acknowledge the owner of the vineyard. You get a picture here
of the historic way in which God had sent prophets to call Israel and Judea
back to himself, to call them to live in a way that bears the fruit God wants,
living a way that reflects God’s justice and mercy.
Finally, the owner sends his own son, thinking that the
tenants will respect him. But they don’t, in fact they beat him, kill him and
toss his body out over the vineyard wall. With no heir they believe that the
vineyard will become theirs. Inn fact one commentator said that as the son had
come the tenants may have assumed that the landowner was dead so in getting rid
of the son, there was the very real possibility that they would receive the
land as unowned. The parable parallels
the Old Testament where Israel and Judah continually rejected God’s prophets
and were eventually taking out of the land. Jesus point is that with his
rejection they are repeating this process, that they will be removed and the
vineyard will be given to someone else.
It's hard for us to read this parable and not focus in on
the person of the son. In Mark we are let into the identity of Jesus from the
very start of the gospel, it is the gospel of Jesus the messiah, the Son of
God. It looks towards his crucifixion, and the judgment on the religious system
based on the temple. Depending on the dating of Mark’s gospel the original
readers would have been aware of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in
70 ad by the Romans. Certainly just before the account of the crucifixion
narrative in Mark Jesus speaks of that going to happen.
It might seem that this parable leaves us in a dark place,
with the Son of the owner dead, and tossed aside, and judgment coming on those
who have rejected him. But Jesus finishes with a glimmer of hope. That the
vineyard will be given to others. Mark’s original hearers and we enter into the
story. Jesus finishes with a quote from the Old testament that acts as another
parable. One of hope.
The
builders of the temple may have rejected a stone. In Hebrew there is a play on
words between the word for son (ben) and stone (ebin) they sound alike. God has made this stone rejected by the
builders of the temple the capstone or corner stone, the central important
stone of a new temple totally radically different. The quote is from psalm 118
and comes after the verses that people sang out as Jesus entered Jerusalem…
blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. It’s a psalm which the jews saw
as speaking of and looking forward to their messiah. In the previous parable
the son may be rejected killed and thrown over the wall, but that is not the
end of the story. God would take that stone and make it the stone which was the
capstone. The stone at the center of an arch which holds it all together of a
new temple. A new dwelling place of God.
The religious leaders knew Jesus had told this parable
against them and they start to look at ways of arresting Jesus. They reject
him. It is very sad and it leads to the judgement of that whole system. But as
we have read the gospel we know that is what will happen, Jesus had predicted
this he will be rejected, suffer and die
on a cross, and be raised to life again.
Perhaps the best way
to look at the implications for us of this passage is again through the lens of
one of Jesus disciples. The Disciple who tradition says is the source of much
of Marks material that of Peter. In 1 Peter 2 he picks up Jesus quote from
Psalm 118 and the idea of the vineyard being given to others and says
As you come to
him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him—
5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be
a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus
Christ.
As We, you and I, come to put our faith in Jesus Christ, who
was rejected, suffered, crucified and raised to life again, we are
being built into this new dwelling place of God. The challenge of this passage is that we like
the religious leaders may put our trust in places, in rituals and traditions,
in keeping the rules and doing what is right, trust in our own status and
position, but our faith our relationship with God is not founded on those
things it is founded on the person and action of Jesus the Messiah. What he has
done for us… and now God dwells with and with in his people.
No comments:
Post a Comment