Amos 4:6-13

6 I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities,

and lack of bread in all your places,

yet you did not return to me,

says the Lord.

7 And I also withheld the rain from you

when there were still three months to the harvest;

I would send rain on one city,

and send no rain on another city;

one field would be rained upon,

and the field on which it did not rain withered;

8 so two or three towns wandered to one town

to drink water, and were not satisfied;

yet you did not return to me,

says the Lord.

9 I struck you with blight and mildew;

I laid waste your gardens and your vineyards;

the locust devoured your fig trees and your olive trees;

yet you did not return to me,

says the Lord.

10 I sent among you a pestilence after the manner of Egypt;

I killed your young men with the sword;

I carried away your horses;

and I made the stench of your camp go up into your nostrils;

yet you did not return to me,

says the Lord.

11 I overthrew some of you,

as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah,

and you were like a brand snatched from the fire;

yet you did not return to me,

says the Lord.

12 Therefore thus I will do to you, O Israel;

because I will do this to you,

prepare to meet your God, O Israel!

13 For lo, the one who forms the mountains, creates the wind,

reveals his thoughts to mortals,

makes the morning darkness,

and treads on the heights of the earth—

the Lord, the God of hosts, is his name! (Amos 4:6-13, NRSV)

On December 6, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the first Sunday of Advent, Year One), comments were repeated from December 1, 2005 (Thursday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two); the comments are repeated here with minor editing:

In the Book of Amos we read about a number of punishments inflicted by God. But it is important to note that the punishments are not just a series of senseless or absurd disasters. God uses them to confront his people and call them to repent and return to him. Speaking through Amos, the LORD says he has sent one disaster after another. “In chapter 4:6-11,” say Francis I Andersen and David Noel Freedman, “Amos enumerates seven plagues: (1) famine (v. 6); (2) drought (vv. 7-8); (3) blight (v. 9); (4) locusts (v. 9); (5) pestilence (v. 10); (6) sword (v. 10); and (7) ‘overthrow’–earthquake? fire? (v. 11)” (Amos; A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible, 24A, 1989, on Amos 4:6). “I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, / and lack of bread in all your places, / yet you did not return to me, / says the Lord.” (Amos 4:6). Gregory Mobley observes that “Cleanness of teeth,” represents “famine” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Amos 4:6). God claims to have punished Israel with famine, without the expected result: “yet you did not return to me.”

If withholding food did not produce the desired repentance, neither did withholding the rain. “And I also withheld the rain from you / when there were still three months to the harvest; / I would send rain on one city, / and send no rain on another city; / one field would be rained upon, / and the field on which it did not rain withered; / so two or three towns wandered to one town / to drink water, and were not satisfied; / yet you did not return to me, / says the Lord” (vv. 7-8). According to Andersen and Freedman, “Drought would logically precede and cause famine” (op. cit., on v. 7). They comment on the selectivity that arbitrarily treats “one city” differently from “another city”:

There is no analysis of the rationale behind this selectivity, as if one city were more wicked than another. Amos consistently speaks of cities rather than countries as targets of divine judgment (chaps. 1-2; 3:6, 9; 4:1; 6:1). It is cities that field armies (5:3). In his terminology ‘erets [Cr,x,, ‘land’] is usually the whole world and ‘ir [ryf9, ‘city’] is a city-state, what we could call a country or a nation. Amos is describing drought that affected now one country, now another. The migrations described in v. 8a are not just from one town to the next, but to neighboring countries, as in Gen. 12:10; 26:1; 47; Ruth; or 2 Kgs. 8:1-6. The setting is more like the international stage of chaps. 1-2 than a purely local problem restricted to the northern kingdom of Israel. The term chēlqâ [hq!l4H@]] refers to an allotted portion of arable land (‘farm’) to focus on crop failure. But in this context it could refer to national territory (Jacob is Yahweh’s chēleq [ql,He, Deut. 32:9]; cf. Amos 7:4). (ibid., on Amos 4:7)

The series of announced plagues continues with blight, mildew, and locusts: “I struck you with blight and mildew; / I laid waste your gardens and your vineyards; / the locust devoured your fig trees and your olive trees; / yet you did not return to me, / says the Lord” (v. 9). According to Andersen and Freedman, “The words šiddāpôn [‘scorching’] and yērāqôn [‘disease of grain, rust or mildew’] are always used together (Deut. 28:32; 1 Kgs 8:37 [= 2 Chr. 6:28]; Hag. 2:17) to form a stock phrase that cannot prove dependence of Amos on any other passage containing it except in the general sense that the curses of the covenant are the common background” (op. cit., pp. 441-442, on v. 9a; translations in brackets from William L. Holladay, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 1988, s.v. NODAw9, and NOqrAye, yērāqôn). “The blight and mildew,” say Anderson and Freedman, “ruin the cereal crops . . . while locusts devour all of the fruits” (p. 442, on v. 9a).

“I sent among you a pestilence after the manner of Egypt,” says the LORD, “I killed your young men with the sword; / I carried away your horses, / and I made the stench of your camp go up into your nostrils; / yet you did not return to me” (v. 10). According to Gene M. Tucker, revised by J. Andrew Dearman, in the phrase, “a pestilence after the manner of Egypt, the prophet alludes to the tradition of the plagues against Egypt (Ex. 5-11, esp. 9:3-7, 15). The remainder of the verse refers to a military disaster” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Amos 4:10).

The final plague in this series is compared to the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:12-29). “I overthrew some of you, / as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, / and you were like a brand snatched from the fire; / yet you did not return to me, / says the Lord” (v. 11). According to Andersen and Freedman,

The destruction of the cities of the plain as reported in Genesis 19 is the parade example and traditional object lesson of God’s anger against wicked cities. The [verbal] root hpk [‘overturn, destroy,’ among other meanings, cf. Holladay, s.v. j`p1h!, hāpak) is used in this connection in Gen. 19:21, 25, 29 (both noun and verb); Deut. 29:22 [Engl. v. 23]; Jer. 20:16, 49:18, 50:40; and Lam. 4:6, as well as Amos 4:11. It served both as a warning and as a measure of later acts of similar severity. (op. cit., p. 443, on v. 11a)

Although Andersen and Freedman enumerated “seven plagues” in this chapter earlier (cf. the citation above), they refer to the comparison with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as “the fifth plague” (perhaps due to their source analysis; cf. pp. 436-439), which “does not correspond to any of the conventional curses of the covenant . . . [but] is the last on the list, the most drastic, for the obliteration of Sodom and Gomorrah represented the most extreme case of divine judgment.” They add that, “It is not clear what happened, but it seems to have been a great disaster in one or another of the major cities (perhaps an earthquake) resulting in a devastating fire (usually an accompaniment to and consequence of a quake, and causing more loss of life and damage to property than the tremor itself). From the almost total conflagration only a bit of charred wood was rescued (cf. 3:12).” The word “plucked,” they say, “suggests rescue, not just survival” (ibid.).

Andersen and Freedman put this passage (Amos 4:6-11) “at the midpoint of Amos’ career” (ibid., p. 446); they offer the following analysis:

The threat of destruction in the first two visions [7:1-3, 4-6] and the stay secured by Amos’ intercession requires the preaching of repentance. The repeated reproach, ‘yet you did not return to me,’ in 4:6-11 indicates that this call was given, also that it was not heeded.

We are not to suppose that the people were left to work out for themselves that the famine, drought, locusts, and so on were divine visitations and that the correct response was penitence and amendment. Amos stated that there was no evil done in a city (the targets in vv. 7-8, 11) unless Yahweh did it; and that Yahweh never did anything like that without first telling a prophet, who was bound to declare it (3:6-8) as warning before, analysis during, and reproach afterward. Each of the plagues would have been accompanied by suitable preaching, and the refusal to listen to such preaching (2:12, 7:12-13) was a major factor in the eventual irrevocable judgment of Visions 3 and 4 [7:7-9; 8:1-3] and of chaps. 1-2. Amos 4-6 is the heart of Amos’ apologia. (ibid., p. 447)

This list of plagues serves as a warning, as Amos continues: “Therefore thus I will do to you, O Israel; / because I will do this to you, / prepare to meet your God, O Israel!” (v. 12). Today’s reading concludes with what Mobley calls a “doxology,” that is, “the first of three . . . interspersed throughout the book (5:8-9; 9:4-6). These hymn-like sections emphasize that the God Israel encounters in judgment is the creator” (op. cit., on v. 13): “For lo, the one who forms the mountains, creates the wind, / reveals his thoughts to mortals, / makes the morning darkness, / and treads on the heights of the earth–the Lord, the God of hosts, is his name!” (v. 13).

2 Peter 3:11-18

11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire? 13 But, in accordance with his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home.

Final Exhortation and Doxology

14 Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. (2 Peter 3:11-18, NRSV)

On December 7, 2008 (the Second Sunday of Advent, Year One), comments were repeated from December 6, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two), when comments were repeated from December 10, 2006 (the Second Sunday of Advent, Year One), when comments were combined with revision and supplement from December 5, 2004, (the Second Sunday of Advent, Year One), and from December 1, 2005 (Thursday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two). The combined comments are repeated here with minor editing:

Having reminded scoffers that “the promise of his coming,” that is, the Lord’s return, though apparently delayed, will take place (“the day of the Lord will come like a thief,” 2 Pet. 3:10), Peter emphasized the fact that “the day of the Lord” will come in spite of apparent delays and the disbelief of scoffers. He described events of the last days and “the day of the Lord"” when "”the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed (euJresqhvsetai, heuresthēsetai)” (2 Pet. 3:10 NRSV, or “will be burned up (katakahvsetai, katakaēsetai)” NRSV text note y). The verb “will be disclosed,” supported by manuscripts x B K P and other manuscripts, is used in the NRSV, and the verb “will be burned up,” supported by manuscripts A 048 049 056 and others (K. Aland et al., edd., The Greek New Testament, 3^rd ed., 1976, apparatus to 2 Peter 3:10, where they use the letter D to show “that there is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text,” p. xiii), is used in the Authorized (King James) Version. Bruce M. Metzger explains that “the extant witnesses present a wide variety of readings, none of which seems to be original. The oldest reading, and the one which best explains the origin of the the others that have been preserved, is euJresqhvsetai [heuresthēsetai] . . . In view of the difficulty of extracting any acceptable sense from the passage, it is not strange that copyists and translators introduce a variety of modifications” (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1971, pp. 705-706, on 2 Pet. 3:10).

The lesson Peter draws is that we should lead “lives of holiness and godliness”: “Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons (potapouvV, potapous) ought you to be (dei: uJpavrcein [uJma:V], dei hyparchein [hymas] ) in leading lives of godliness” (v. 11), waiting with patience for “the coming day of God, because of which the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire?” (v. 12). There are various opinions about punctuating these two verses. Ending verse 11 with a comma and verse 12 with a question mark, as in the NRSV, is supported by AV/KJV [1611], ERV (1881), ASV (1901). Ending verse 11 with a comma and verse 12 with a period is supported by the Greek New Testaments of Westcott and Hort (1881), Bover (4^th ed., 1959), Nestle-Aland (25^th ed., 1963), and the British and Foreign Bible Society (2^nd. ed., 1958), the German translation, Die Heilige Schrift (Zürich, 1942), and the French translation, Le Nouveau Testament . . . de l’École Biblique de Jérusalem, 1958). Luther’s German translation, Das Neue Testament, revised (1956), and the RSV (1946) have a comma after verse 11 and an exclamation point after verse 12, a pattern almost reversed, with an exclamation point after verse 11 and a period after verse 12 in the NEB (1961) and the French translation of Segond, Le Nouveau Testament (1962). (These punctuations are listed in the Punctuation Apparatus, K. Aland et al., edd., op cit., for 2 Pet. 3:11-12). The New International Version (NIV 1973, 1978, 1984, followed by Today’s New International version (TNIV 2001, 2005), differing from all the above, puts the question mark within verse 11, after “ought you to be?” (1 Pet. 3:11 NIV, TNIV).

The point of the question, if it is a question, is rhetorical in verse 11–How should we live?–in light of the fact that such a day of the Lord (v. 12) is coming. The word potapouvV (potapous), accusative plural of potapovV (potapos), is an “interrogative reference to class or kind, of what sort or kind (?), . . . of persons,” cited for Mt. 8:27; 2 Pt. 3:11; Lk. 7:39 (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. potapovV, potapos). “Sometimes,” says the Lexicon, “the context calls for the sense how great, how wonderful Mk. 13:1ab [re. the stones and temple buildings]; how glorious 1 Jn.3:1 [re. God’s love]” (ibid.). The former meaning would support those who see a question here, and the latter would support those who see an exclamation here. As a rhetorical question it would imply both senses. It would be stated in such a way that the expected answer is clear. Because these future events, judgment and transformation on a cosmic scale, are certain to happen, the readers must lead “lives of holiness and godliness” as the question implies.

But there is promise for the believers as well as admonition. “But, in accordance with his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home” (v. 13). In the meantime, the readers, or better, those hearing it read, are advised to “strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish” (v. 14), to “regard the patience of our Lord,” the delay in his coming? “as salvation” (v. 15), and not to be “carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of or Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (vv. 17-18).

The letter closes with a final exhortation about how to live “while you are waiting for these things,” which means to “strive to be found by him at peace without spot or blemish” (2 Pet. 3:14). The delay is good: “regard the patience of our Lord as salvation” (v. 15a). Paul is cited as an authority in support of Peter’s view (v. 15b), even though Paul writes “some things . . . hard to understand” (v. 16a). According to Patrick A. Tiller, “Paul also taught that the delay of judgment is an opportunity to repent (Rom. 2:4; 9:22), even though false teachers are likely to misinterpret him” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 2 Pet. 3:15-16). The false teachers, about whom Peter warned his readers at length in chapter 2, twist Paul’s letters “to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (v. 16b). The readers are not to be “carried away with the error of the lawless” (v. 17) but to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (v. 18).

Matthew 21:33-46

The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mk 12.1-12; Lk 20.9-19)

33 "Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a wine press in it, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenants and went to another country. 34 When the harvest time had come, he sent his slaves to the tenants to collect his produce. 35 But the tenants seized his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again he sent other slaves, more than the first; and they treated them in the same way. 37 Finally he sent his son to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.' 38 But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance.' 39 So they seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. 40 Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?" 41 They said to him, "He will put those wretches to a miserable death, and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the harvest time."

42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the scriptures:

'The stone that the builders rejected

has become the cornerstone;

this was the Lord's doing,

and it is amazing in our eyes'?

43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom. 44 The one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls."

45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking about them. 46 They wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowds, because they regarded him as a prophet. (Matthew 21:33-46, NRSV)

On July 2, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two), comments were repeated from December 6, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two), when comments were repeated from July 5, 2006 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two), when they were combined and revised from an E-mail message sent December 3, 2003, for December 4, 2003, from June 30, 2004 in an email sent June 28, 2004, for June 28-July 4, and from December 1, 2005 (Thursday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two). The combined comments are repeated again here:

For recent comments on Mark’s version of this reading, see the Archive for August 8, 2009 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year One). For recent comments on Luke’s version, see the Archive for June 15, 2009 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year One).

The Parable of the Wicked Tenants has common features in Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is clearly meant as an indictment of the Jewish leaders, not only for bad stewardship in their responsibility of caring for God’s vineyard, that is, Israel; but also, and especially, for killing the landowner’s (God’s) son (i.e. Jesus) (Mt. 21:38-39; Mk. 12:7-8; Lk. 20:14, 15). The indictment amounts to, if not charging these leaders with open and flagrant rebellion, at least implying putsch, an attempted coup d’état, an insurrection. The irony is that they were supposedly the religious leaders, and likely felt that Jesus was promoting a religious insurrection.

But some features of the parable as presented by Matthew and Mark clearly echo Isaiah’s song “for my beloved” [namely the LORD], “my love-song concerning his vineyard” (Isa. 5:1, cf. vv. 1-7). This Song of the LORD’s Vineyard is presented in a table with a column for the song parallel to columns for the Parable of the Wicked Tenants as presented in Matthew, Mark and Luke. See the separate file Wicked Tenants. Jesus says, “there was a landowner who planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a wine press in it, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenants and went to another country” (Mt. 21:33; cf. Mk. 12:1; Lk. 20:9). The versions of Matthew and Mark share terms used in the Song of the Vineyard, most of which are lacking in Luke, perhaps because this particular connection with the Hebrew Bible and/or Isaiah’s Song is less important to him. All use the term vineyard, of course (Isa. 5:1; Mt. 21:33; Mk. 12:1; Lk. 20:9 and frequently throughout the song/parable). But Luke has no reference to the wine vat or wine press, to the watchtower (Isa. 5:2; Mt. 21:33; Mk. 12:1), or to the hedge and wall or fence (Isa. 5:5; Mt. 21:33b; Mk. 12:1b). In Isaiah’s song, the LORD was looking for “grapes,” Myb9n!f3, ( ‘ănāvîm), but found “wild grapes,” Myw9xuB4, (b^e’ushîm, literally, “stinking things”), not “grapes” with a modifier, “wild,” but a completely different word (Isa. 5:2). Isaiah interprets these words in verse 7. The LORD expected “justice,” FP!w4m9 (mišpāt), but instead got “bloodshed,” HP!W4m9 (miśpāch)–spit it out, miśpāch, to get the effect of the word-play and God’s disappointment. He expected “righteousness,” hq!D!c4 (ts^edāqāh), but got “a cry,” hq!f!c4 (ts^e‘āqāh)!” Note the rhyme, but the gutteral sound f (’) which replaces the letter D (d) makes the latter term take more effort (for me, at least) to pronounce. This “bloodshed” and “outcry” are echoed in Jesus’ parable by the blood of killing the landowners son.

As he continues the parable, Jesus says that at harvest time, the owner “sent his slaves to the tenants to collect his produce” (Mt. 21:34; cf. Mk. 12:2 and Lk. 20:10a in which one slave is sent). According to J. Andrew Overman, “tenants would contract to give the owner an agreed-upon portion of the crop, keeping for themselves what was left” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 21:33). But these tenants don’t meet the terms of their contract. They “seized his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned another” (Mt. 21:35; cf. Mk.12:3 and Lk. 20:10, where the tenants “beat [the slave] and sent him away empty-handed”). Again, says Jesus, the “landowner” (Mt. 21:33; just the “man” Mk. 12:1; Lk. 20:9) “sent other slaves, more than the first; and they treated them in the same way” (Mt. 21:36). Mark says of the second slave sent, “this one, they beat over the head and insulted” (Mk. 12:4), cf. “that one also they beat and insulted and sent away empty-handed” (Lk. 20:11). At this point in the story, Mark and Luke include the sending of a third slave who, according to Mark was “killed” before the sending of “many others, some [of whom] they beat, and others they killed” (Mk. 12:5; cf. the one whom “they wounded and threw out,” Lk. 20:12). Note that the first sending in Matthew was of plural “slaves” (Mt. 21:34).

But the parable comes to its main point in the sending of the son, meaning, of course, the Son. “Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son’ ” (Mt. 21:37; cf. Mk. 12:6; Lk. 20:13). But far from showing respect for the owner’s son, “when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir (klhronovmoV, klēronomos); come, let us kill him and get his inheritance (klhronomiva, klēronomia).’ So they seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him” (Mt. 21:38-39; cf. Mk. 12:7-8; Lk. 20:14-15a). One might suppose that the tenants’ expectation of getting the inheritance in these circumstances, if not totally unrealistic, was in any case the height of chutpah (“brazenness, gall. [Yiddish],” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1969, s.v. “chutzpah”), But ironically, the parable points to the replacement of the Jewish leaders with the risen Christ and the Christian Church. The tenants, rather than gaining the “inheritance,” receive the inevitable punishment. “Now when the owner of the vineyard comes,” asks Jesus, “what will he do to those tenants?” (Mt. 21:40; cf. Mk. 12:9a; Lk. 20:15b). In the words of the Jewish leaders, who, for Matthew, pronounce their own sentence, “He [the landowner] will put those wretches to a miserable death, and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the harvest time” (Mt. 21:41). In Mark and Luke, Jesus himself says, “He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others” (Mk. 12:9b; Lk. 20:16). Killing the son, as noted, is a thinly veiled reference to the killing of prophets (cf. 23:29-30), they kill the son who was sent next, an anticipation of the crucifixion. This “parable” has been called “an allegory rather than a parable" (Krister Stendahl, Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted 1972, sec. 690k, p. 791, on Mt. 21:33-46). “The details and not only the total thrust of it have significance for the understanding: the owner of the vineyard is God, the vineyard is Israel (allusions to Isa. 5:1-7), the workers are the leaders of the nation.” Stendahl sees here a sharper criticism of Jesus' Jewish opponents than is found in the parallel accounts (Mk. 12:1-12; Lk. 20:9-19). “But the outcome of the story is one degree sharper than what has been found in Mt. so far: the Jewish nation has forfeited its elect status as a nation and the Kingdom will be given over to a new ‘nation’, i.e. the church (only Mt.)” (ibid., cf. Mt. 21:43).

Within Isaiah, of course, the sad story of the vineyard which produced "stinking things" is followed later by a song about "a pleasant vineyard" (Isa. 27:2). “Israel shall blossom and put forth shoots, / and fill the whole world with fruit” (Isa. 27:6). And the implications of God's expectation of fruit bearing continue within Christianity, for example, in the True Vine passage (John, chap. 15) and in Paul's contrast between the works of the flesh and the fruit of the spirit (Gal., chap. 5). Jesus’ parable is severe criticism of the Jewish leaders, but we should remember again, that it was only a few and only some of the leaders. And Paul offers some hope for Israel (Rom., chaps. 9-11). He even goes so far as to say, “And so all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26a), in a statement that he supports by quoting Isaiah 59:20-21 (in Rom. 11:26b, 27a; cf. Ps. 14; 7; Isa. 27:9). For Christians, the crucifixion has become central to our faith, but we hold that in God's plan the crucifixion was brought about by and as a remedy for the sins of us all, “for all have sinned,” not just of one group. There is absolutely no reason to make the actions of a few leaders at that time a basis for antisemitism or animosity toward Jews and Judaism.

In the three Synoptic Gospels, Jesus follows with reference to “the stone that the builders rejected” that “has become the cornerstone.” In Mark and Luke, the words of Jesus continue here, but since Matthew has attributed the previous answer to the opponents (21:41), he introduces the quotation about Psalm 118 as from Jesus: “Jesus said to them, ‘Have you never read in the scriptures” (v 42a). The first two lines of the quotation are identical in three Gospels, in Greek as well as in English: “The stone that the builders rejected / has become the cornerstone” (Mt. 21:42b, citing Ps. 118:22; cf. Mk. 12:10b; Lk. 20:17b). John S. Kselman, who describes Psalm 118 as a “thanksgiving for victory in battle,” refers to this verse as “a metaphor of reversal of expectations” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Ps. 118:22). In Matthew and Mark, the citation continues: “this was the Lord’s doing, / and it is amazing in our eyes” (Mt. 21:42c = Mk. 12:11, citing Ps. 118:23). Only Matthew directly interprets the stone in terms of the Kingdom of God. “Therefore, I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom” (Mt. 21:43). But in Matthew and Luke, Jesus warns that “the one (Mt.)/everyone (Lk) who falls on this (Mt.)/ that (Lk) stone will be broken to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls” (Mt. 21:44; Lk. 20:18). However, the verse in Matthew, while present in good early manuscripts, is absent in others (cf Kurt Aland and others, The Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 3^rd ed., 1975, apparatus on Mt. 21:44). In any event, Matthew’s putting the stone (v. 42) and the kingdom (v. 43) in juxtaposition reminds us of Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream about the stone that crushes previous kingdoms (Dan. 2:40), and symbolizes God’s “kingdom that shall never be destroyed” (v. 44; cf. v. 45). Later in Matthew, Jesus quotes Daniel by name (Mt. 24:15, cf. Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; cf. also 1 Macc. 1:54; 6:7).

The three Gospels each tell us that the opponents knew very well that Jesus was referring in the parable to them. Matthew’s Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mt. 21:33-46) is preceded by his Parable of the Two Sons (vv. 28-32), and so he refers to “parables, plural, saying, “When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking about them” (Mt. 21:45). In similar statements, Mark and Luke refer to “this parable”: When they (Mk.)/the scribes and chief priests (Lk.) realized that he had told this parable against them . . .” (Mk 12:12a; Lk. 20:19a). All report that the leaders “wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowds” (Mt. 21:46a; cf. Mk. 12:12b; Lk. 20:29b). Matthew adds the explanation that “the crowds . . . regarded him [Jesus] as a prophet” (Mt. 21:46b).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net