Daily Scripture Readings
Tuesday (November 30, 2010)*
Daily Office Lectionary, The Book of Common Prayer, the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A., 1979; cf. The Revised Common Lectionary (RCL), Abingdon Press, 1992	Daily Lectionary, Book of Common Worship, the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., 1993	Daily Lectionary, Book of Worship Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship, c. 1978 (2002 printing) ‡
http://www.satucket.com/lectionary/index.htm http://www.pcusa.org/cgi-bin/lectiond.cgi YOU MAY NEED TO COPY AND PASTE THESE URLs IN YOUR BROWSER
‡ Daily Lectionary, Evangelical Lutheran Worship, ELCA, 2006. In the Evangelical Lutheran Worship book of 2006, the Daily Lectionary (pp. 1121-1153) is revised to correlate with the Sunday Lectionary (the Revised Common Lectionary) on the three year cycle: Year A, Year B, Year C (now current). “The readings are chosen so that the days leading up to Sunday (Thursday through Saturday) prepare for the Sunday readings. The days flowing out from Sunday (Monday through Wednesday) reflect upon the Sunday readings” (p. 1121).
Unless otherwise indicated, the scripture texts quoted are from The New Revised Standard Version (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers), 1989.
Tuesday AM Psalm 5, 6 PM Psalm 10, 11 Isa. 1:21-31 1 Thess. 2:1-12 Luke 20:9-18 St. Andrew Andrew AM: Psalm 34; Isaiah 49:1-6; 1 Corinthians 4:1-16 PM: Psalm 96, 100; Isaiah 55:1-5; John 1:35-42 From the Sunday Lectionary: Psalm 19 or 19:1-6; Deuteronomy 30:11-14; Romans 10:8b-18; Matthew 4:18-22 Eucharistic Readings: Psalm 72:1-8 Isaiah 11:1-10; Luke 10:21-24	Tuesday Morning Pss.: 33, 146 Isaiah 1:21-31 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12 Luke 20:9-18 Evening Pss.: 85, 94	Tuesday Morning Pss.: 33, 146 Isaiah 1:21-31 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12 Luke 20:9-18 Evening Pss.: 85, 94
		Year A Daily Readings Psalm 124 Genesis 9:1-17 Hebrews 11:32-40
*Tuesday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year One

Isaiah 1:21-31

The Degenerate City

21 How the faithful city

has become a whore!

She that was full of justice,

righteousness lodged in her-

but now murderers!

22 Your silver has become dross,

your wine is mixed with water.

23 Your princes are rebels

and companions of thieves.

Everyone loves a bribe

and runs after gifts.

They do not defend the orphan,

and the widow’s cause does not come before them.

24 Therefore says the Sovereign, the LORD of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel:

Ah, I will pour out my wrath on my enemies,

and avenge myself on my foes!

25 I will turn my hand against you;

I will smelt away your dross as with lye

and remove all your alloy.

26 And I will restore your judges as at the first,

and your counselors as at the beginning.

Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness,

the faithful city.

27 Zion shall be redeemed by justice,

and those in her who repent, by righteousness.

28 But rebels and sinners shall be destroyed together,

and those who forsake the LORD shall be consumed.

29 For you shall be ashamed of the oaks

in which you delighted;

and you shall blush for the gardens

that you have chosen.

30 For you shall be like an oak

whose leaf withers,

and like a garden without water.

31 The strong shall become like tinder,

and their work like a spark;

they and their work shall burn together,

with no one to quench them. (Isaiah 1:21-31, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here with editing and supplement from December 2, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from December 5, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year One), when comments were repeated with revision and supplement from November 30, 2004, (Tuesday of the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year One).

In yesterday’s reading, the LORD, speaking through the prophet Isaiah, launched a bitter complaint–an indictment–against Judah and Jerusalem (called “Sodom” and “Gomorrah”) for acts of worship as though they were faithful to God, while they were in fact guilty of serious sin, of grievous social injustice. The LORD rejects their various sacrifices and offerings (Isa. 1:11-13a, b) and festival celebrations (vv. 13c, d, 14). He refuses to listen to the prayers of people who lift up “hands . . . full of blood” (v. 15). He does make a plea for repentance, cleansing (v. 16a), removing evil (v. 16b, c, d), doing good and promoting justice for the oppressed, the orphan and the widow (v. 17). If the people respond with repentance, “though your sins are like scarlet, / they shall be like snow; / though they are red like crimson, / they shall become like wool” Given the seriousness of the charges, one may wonder if the call for repentance, though genuine, is a bit ironic. The people are offered a choice: “If you are willing and obedient, / you shall eat the good of the land; / but if you refuse and rebel, / you shall be devoured by the sword” (vv. 19, 20a, b).

Isaiah follows the appeal for repentance (Isa. 1:16-20) with what Victor R. Gold and William L. Holladay call a “Lamentation over Jerusalem” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., on Isa. 1:21-23): “How the faithful city / has become a whore! / She that was full of justice (FPAw;mi, mišpāt), / righteousness (qd,c,, tsedeq) lodged in her– but now murderers!” (Isa. 1:21). For “whore,” which metaphorically refers to the city’s unfaithfulness to God, Gold and Holladay refer to “Jer. 3:6-10; Ezek. chs 16 and 23” (ibid on v. 21). Benjamin D. Sommer calls the present section “Lament and hope” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Isa. 1:21-27), and adds: “Like the last unit, this unit is defined by a framing device involving repeated vocabulary. In both vv. 21 and 26 we hear faithful city, righteousness and the root ‘sh-p-t,’ meaning justice (Heb. ‘mishpat’) in v. 21 and both magistrates (better, ‘judges,’ Heb ‘shofetayikh’) and justice in 26-27” (ibid.).

The lament, which continues the indictment of Jerusalem for gross sins, continues, first with metaphors, “Your silver has become dross,” that is, spoiled and worthless, and “your wine is mixed with water,” that is, cheapened (v. 22). “Dross (vv. 22, 25),” says Joseph Blenkinsopp, is “the waste product of metal refining” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible [NOAB], 3rd. edition, augmented 2007, on Isa. 1:21-26). The metaphor applies especially to the “princes,” who are rebels, / and companions of thieves” (v. 23a, b). The indictment, more general earlier in the chapter, now focuses on specific kinds of sins. “Everyone loves a bribe,” says the prophet, “and runs after gifts. / They do not defend the orphan, / and the widow’s cause does not come before them” (v. 23c, d, e, f). Contrast this with Deuteronomy 10:17-18: “For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who is not partial and takes no bribe, who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing” (cf. Deut. 16:11). In spite of special provision for care for widows and orphans in Israel’s traditions, the prophet now charges them with neglect in these matters.

The prophet continues with a summary of God’s judgment: “Therefore says the Sovereign, the LORD of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel: / Ah, I will pour out my wrath on my enemies, / and avenge myself on my foes!” (v. 24). Judgment is pictured as a refining process. “I will turn my hand against you; / I will smelt away your dross as with lye / and remove all your alloy” (v. 25). According to Sommer, “In the ancient Near East, laments for a city typically mourn a destruction that has already occurred, but this lament mourns the city’s sinfulness, which will lead to a disaster in the future” (op. cit., on Isa. 1:21-25). Blenkinsopp says, “The object of the prophet’s polemic is the capital city, Jerusalem (the condition of which is described with a mix of metaphors), and especially the ruling class (cf. 3:1-5; 5:18-23; 30:1-5). The principal accusation, as elsewhere in prophetic diatribe, is the corruption of the judicial process (cf. 5:23; 33:15; Am. 5:10, 12; Mic. 3:9, 11)” (loc. cit.). The prophet represents a judgment that is not a pleasant process, but is, in the long run, for Israel’s good. And this refining process will result, contingent, presumably, on the repentance and changes called for in verses 16-20, in a redeemed and restored city. “And I will restore your judges as at the first, / and your counselors as at the beginning” (v. 26a, b). According to J. J. M. Roberts, “the judges and counselors can only refer to royal officials of the Davidic era [i.e., the kingdom period?], since Jerusalem first became an Israelite city in his day (2 Sam. 5:6-9). “Afterward,” says the Lord, “you shall be called the city of righteousness, / the faithful city” (v. 26c, d). Sommer says, “Having been punished, Zion will again know justice and faithfulness. A new name is given to the reformed Jerusalem” (op. cit., on vv. 26-27). In the version used by Sommer, note the capitalized words: “After that you shall be called / City of Righteousness, Faithful City” (Isa. 1:26c, d, NJPS 1985, 1999).

Although the city will be redeemed, restoration and renewal will be contingent upon repentance and righteous living. “Zion shall be redeemed by justice, / and those in her who repent, by righteousness. / But rebels and sinners shall be destroyed together, / and those who forsake the LORD shall be consumed” (vv. 27-28). In consequence, Judah (or the “rebels and sinners,” v. 28) will be ashamed of her former idolatry: “For you shall be ashamed of the oaks / in which you delighted; / and you shall blush for the gardens / that you have chosen” (v. 29). The decimated oak tree, sturdy and flourishing, as a rule, and unwatered flower gardens become symbols of the fate of sinners. “For you shall be like an oak / whose leaf withers, / and like a garden without water” (v. 30). “The strong,” says the prophet (for the LORD), referring to the sinners under the metaphor of the oak tree, “shall become like tinder, / and their work like a spark; / they and their work shall burn together, / with no one to quench them” (v. 31). Of these verses, Sommer asks:

Are the sinners whose end is described contrasted with the reformed Zion described in the preceding vv., which will be spared their fate? Or are residents of the sinful city as a whole the subject of these vv.? The prophet leaves the answer unclear, perhaps intentionally; it will be given by the inhabitants of Jerusalem themselves; through their behavior, they will lead God to decide whom to punish. (ibid., on vv. 28-31)

1 Thessalonians 2:1-12

Paul’s Ministry in Thessalonica (Cp Acts 17.1-9)

2:1 You yourselves know, brothers and sisters, that our coming to you was not in vain, 2 but though we had already suffered and been shamefully mistreated at Philippi, as you know, we had courage in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in spite of great opposition. 3 For our appeal does not spring from deceit or impure motives or trickery, 4 but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the message of the gospel, even so we speak, not to please mortals, but to please God who tests our hearts. 5 As you know and as God is our witness, we never came with words of flattery or with a pretext for greed; 6 nor did we seek praise from mortals, whether from you or from others, 7 though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, like a nurse tenderly caring for her own children. 8 So deeply do we care for you that we are determined to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you have become very dear to us.

9 You remember our labor and toil, brothers and sisters; we worked night and day, so that we might not burden any of you while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God. 10 You are witnesses, and God also, how pure, upright, and blameless our conduct was toward you believers. 11 As you know, we dealt with each one of you like a father with his children, 12 urging and encouraging you and pleading that you lead a life worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory. (1 Thessalonians 2:1-12, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here with some editing from April 28, 2010 (Wednesday in the Fourth Week of Easter, Year Two), when comments were based on those of December 2, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from April 16, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Easter, Year Two), when comments were repeated from December 5, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year One), when comments were combined with revision and supplement from November 30, 2004, (Tuesday of the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year One), and from May 10, 2006 (Wednesday of the week of the Fourth Sunday of Easter, Year Two).

Paul’s Thanksgiving section, in which he thanks God for the Thessalonians’ faith and exemplary conduct in spite of persecution (1 Thess. 1:2-10) is followed by his review of his own ministry while at Thessalonica. “You yourselves know, brothers and sisters,” he says, “that our coming to you was not in vain” (1 Thess. 2:1). This, of course was already evident from his thanksgiving for their faith and Christian lives. But the emphasis turns to Paul himself, who says, “though we had already suffered and been shamefully mistreated at Philippi,” referring to his arrest, beating and imprisonment there (Acts 16:19-20), “as you know, we had courage in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in spite of great opposition” (1 Thess. 2:2; cf. Acts 17:1-9). He reminds them that he preached the gospel of God with an appeal that “does not spring from deceit or impure motives or trickery” (v. 3). Paul refers to his call, for “just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the message of the gospel,” he spoke “not to please mortals, but to please God who tests our hearts” (v. 4). Some think that opponents of Paul’s gospel sought to discredit him by comparison with wandering charlatan philosopher preachers, common at the time, including some Cynics. The name of this group means “dog-like”

probably from their manners and their meeting place, the Cynosarges, an academy for Athenian youths], ancient school of philosophy founded c.440 B.C. by Antisthenes, a disciple of Socrates. The Cynics considered virtue to be the only good, not just the highest good as Socrates had asserted. To them, virtue meant a life of self-sufficiency, of suppression of desires and restriction of wants. The Cynics paraded their poverty, their antagonism to pleasure, and their indifference to others, thereby gaining a reputation for fanatical unconventionality. After Antisthenes the principal Cynics were Diogenes of Sinope and Crates, his pupil. The Cynics, who survived until the 6th cent. A.D., influenced the Stoics, with whom they shared some philosophical objectives. (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07, on the Internet at http://www.bartleby.com/65/cy/Cynics.html (accessed, Dec. 1, 2008; apparently unavailable now April 28, 2010 and November 29, 2010)

Probably, not all Cynics deserved the charge of being “charlatans,” but, in any case, whether Paul responds to identification with such charlatans, or simply to charges of deception and fraud, he emphatically denies it. “As you know,” he says, “and as God is our witness, we never came with words of flattery or with a pretext for greed” (v. 5), and, he adds, “nor did we seek praise from mortals, whether from you or from others” (v. 6). He claims the right to such praise, but denies the exercise of that right, adding “though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ” (v. 7a). This, says Edgar M. Krentz, is “the only explicit reference to Paul’s apostleship in the Letter” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 1 Thess. 2:7). Compare his claim to the right to a “living by the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:14, cf. vv. 4-14), of which he has “made no use” (v. 15). According to Krentz, “Using the language of philosophers of his day (deceit, impure motives, trickery, v. 3; words of flattery, pretext for greed, v. 5; praise from mortals, v. 6), Paul presents himself as an ideal philosopher whose way of life refutes the idea that he acted out of greed” (ibid., on vv. 3-8).

Paul describes his pastoral work among the Thessalonians as being “gentle among you, like a nurse tenderly caring for her own children” (v. 7b), and he expresses strong love for the Thessalonian believers: “So deeply do we care for you that we are determined to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you have become very dear to us” (v. 8). We may compare Paul’s words to the Ephesian elders as reported by Luke, who was present on that occasion:

You yourselves know how I lived among you the entire time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, serving the Lord with all humility and with tears, enduring the trials that came to me through the plots of the Jews. I did not shrink from doing anything helpful, proclaiming the message to you and teaching you publicly and from house to house, as I testified to both Jews and Greeks about repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus. (Acts 20:18b-20)

“You remember our labor and toil, brothers and sisters,” says Paul; “we worked night and day, so that we might not burden any of you while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God” (v. 9). Again, we may compare a report from Acts that, upon his arrival in Corinth, Paul plied his trade as a tentmaker, working with Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:3) and of his not accepting wages for preaching the gospel in Corinth (cited above, 1 Cor. 9:15). Krentz says, “Like many contemporary philosophers, Paul worked to support himself; see Acts 18:3; 1 Cor. 9:6-18; 2 Thess. 3:7-10)” (ibid., on v. 9). The Thessalonian believers “are witnesses,” says Paul, “and God also, how pure, upright, and blameless our conduct was toward you believers” (1 Thess. 2:10). He describes his ministry: “As you know, we dealt with each one of you like a father with his children, urging and encouraging you and pleading that you lead a life worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory” (vv. 11-12). “This self-description distances from Paul from charlatans,” says Abraham Smith (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Thess. 2:1-12). According to Krentz, “Urging and encouraging . . . and pleading are the opposite of making demands (v. 7)” (op. cit., on v. 12).

Luke 20:9-18 (+ v. 19)

The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mt 21.33-46; Mk 12.1-12)

9 He began to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, and leased it to tenants, and went to another country for a long time. 10 When the season came, he sent a slave to the tenants in order that they might give him his share of the produce of the vineyard; but the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 11 Next he sent another slave; that one also they beat and insulted and sent away empty-handed. 12 And he sent still a third; this one also they wounded and threw out. 13 Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; perhaps they will respect him.’ 14 But when the tenants saw him, they discussed it among themselves and said, ‘This is the heir; let us kill him so that the inheritance may be ours.’ 15 So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When they heard this, they said, “Heaven forbid!” 17 But he looked at them and said, “What then does this text mean:

‘The stone that the builders rejected

has become the cornerstone’?

18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls.” 19 When the scribes and chief priests realized that he had told this parable against them, they wanted to lay hands on him at that very hour, but they feared the people. (Luke 20:9-19, NRSV).

The following comments are based on relevant comments from those on Luke 20:9-19 of June 15, 2009 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year One), when comments were repeated from December 2, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year One), when comments were repeated from June 18, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year One), when comments were repeated from December 5, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year One), when they were combined with revision and supplement from November 30, 2004 (Tuesday of the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year One), and from June 13, 2005 (Monday of the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year One).

Today’s reading is Luke’s version of Jesus’ Parable of the Vineyard, sometimes called the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mt. 21:33-46; Mk. 12:1-12; Lk. 20:9-19). The three parallel accounts are in a separate file, The Parable of the Wicked Tenants. (For an extensive treatment of Matthew’s version of this parable, see the comments in the Archive for June 30, 2010 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two). Comments on Mark’s version may be found in the Archive for March 31, 2010 (Wednesday of Holy Week, Year Two).

In each of the Synoptic Gospels, this parable comes early in Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, immediately after the Question about Authority in Mark (11:27-33) and Luke (20:1-8). Matthew includes the Parable of the Two Sons (Mt. 21:28-32), which stresses obedience in deed, not merely in word,, before reporting the Parable of the Wicked Tenants. Today’s parable clearly represents the rejection of Jesus (the “beloved son,” Mk. 12:6; Lk. 20:13; cf. “his son,” Mt. 21:37) and the rejection of his claims by a few leaders of Israel, who are clearly distinguished from the “crowds” (Mt. 21:46; “crowd,” Mk. 12:12; “people,” Lk. 20:19). According to Luke, Jesus “began to tell the people this parable: ‘A man planted a vineyard (ejfuvteusen ajmpelw:na, ephyteusen ampelōna) and leased it to tenants, and went to another country for a long time” (Lk20:9). While the reference to the vineyard echoes the one in Isaiah’s Song of the Vineyard (Mr,K,, kerem, LXX ajmpelwvn, ampelōn, Isa. 5:1), Luke omits some details that Mark included: “A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the winepress, and built a watchtower” (Mk. 12:1b; cf Mt. 21:33b, citing Isa. 5:1-2). “When the season came,” says Luke, “he [i.e. the vineyard owner] sent a slave (dou:loV, doulos, cf. ‘servant’ AV/KJV, TNIV) to the tenants in order that they might give him his share of the produce of the vineyard; but the tenants beat him and sent him away empty handed” (Lk 20:10; cf. Mk. 12:2-3). While each of the three Gospels indicate a series of sendings to collect his share, Matthew condenses somewhat. “When the harvest time had come, he sent his slaves (dou:loi, douloi) to the tenants to collect his produce” (Mt. 21:34). And Matthew introduces the violence to which the slaves were subjected immediately. “But the tenants seized his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned another” (Mt. 21:35). Luke reports the sending of three slaves, the one whom they “beat . . . and . . . sent away empty handed” (Lk. 20:10), another whom “they beat and insulted and sent away empty-handed” (Lk. 20:11), and “still a third [whom] they wounded and threw out” (Lk. 20:12). Mark gives the impression of a long series of slaves sent to collect the produce. “And again he sent another slave to them; this one they beat over the head and insulted. Then he sent another, and that one they killed. And so it was with many others; some they beat, and others they killed” (Mk. 12:4-5; cf. Mt. 21:35-36). Perhaps Luke limits his report of the preliminary emissaries in order to focus on the fate of the beloved son who was sent.

The meaning of the parable, was, of course transparent. The slaves (NRSV), or “servants” (AV/KJV, RSV, TNIV) sent by the owner to collect the produce represent the prophets sent to Israel. But in each Gospel the climax is the owner’s sending of his “beloved son” (Mk., Lk.), “his son” (Mt.), and the tenants’ murder of the son. “According to Luke, “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; perhaps they will respect him’ ” (Lk. 20:13; cf. Mk. 12:6; Mt. 21:37). “But when the tenants saw him,” says Jesus in Luke, “they discussed it among themselves and said, ‘This is the heir; let us kill him so that the inheritance may be ours’ ” (Lk. 20:14; cf. Mk. 12:7; Mt. 21:38). And each Gospel reports that the tenants followed through with this murderous plan. “So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him” (Lk. 20:15a; cf. Mk. 12:8; Mt. 21:39). And Jesus’ question hardly needs an answer. “What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them” (Lk. 20:15b; cf. Mk. 12:9a; Mt. 21:40). But Jesus states the obvious answer. “He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others” (Lk. 20:16; cf. Mk. 12:9b). In Matthew, the listeners—presumably still “the chief priests and the elders” (Mt. 21:23; cf. Mk. 11:27; though Luke refers to “the people,” Lk. 20:9)—provide the answer. “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” (Mt. 21:41).

Each Gospel reports Jesus’ reference to “the stone that the builders rejected”: In Luke, we are told, “he looked at them and said, ‘What then does this text mean: The stone that the builders rejected / has become the cornerstone’?” (Lk. 20:17; cf. Mk. 12:10; Mt. 21:42a, b, citing Ps. 118:22). In Mark, Jesus also quotes the following verse: “this was the Lord’s doing, / and it is amazing in our eyes” (Mk. 12:11; cf. Mt. 21:42c, citing Ps. 118:23). John S. Kselman has called the 118^th Psalm a “thanksgiving for victory in battle” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible [NOAB], 3rd. edition, augmented 2007, on Ps. 118), and he calls the reference to the stone becoming “the chief cornerstone” (v. 22) “a metaphor of reversal of expectations (cf. Ps. 113:7-9)f” (ibid., on v. 22). Such a reversal fits Jesus application of the saying. The killing of the son by the tenants represents the crucifixion of Jesus. Caiaphas and his immediate supporters owed their positions to the Romans, and their complicity with the Romans in the crucifixion is represented by the actions of the tenants. The representation of Israel by a vineyard (Mt. 21:33; Mk. 12:1; Lk. 20:9) invokes a common image, as noted, in Isaiah’s Song of the Unfruitful Vineyard (Isa. 5:1-7).

Matthew and Mark refer to God’s provisions for protection and production, the “fence,” “wine press” and “watchtower” (Mt. 21:33; Mk. 12:1; cf. “watchtower,” “wine vat,” Isa. 5:2, “hedge” and “wall,” Isa. 5:5). Isaiah foresees a restored “pleasant vineyard” (Isa. 27:2-6) that will “blossom and put forth shoots, / and fill the whole world with fruit” (v. 6). Luke lacks the specific references to the “hedge” set “around it” for protection (cf. Mk. 12:1; Mt. 21:33), but the point remains the charge that the religious leaders of Israel, God’s vineyard, failed to render what was due, but instead planned to “kill” the owner’s “beloved son” (Lk. 20:13-14). Matthew stresses the “miserable death” to which the owner will put “those wretches,” and the leasing of the vineyard to other tenants, though this is mentioned in the other Gospels (Mt. 21:41; cf. Mk. 12:9; Lk. 20:16). All use the quotation about “the stone which the builders rejected” (Ps. 118:22-23; cited by Mt. 21:42; Mk. 12:10b, 11), though Luke cites only Psalm 118:22 (Lk. 20:17b). Matthew emphasizes the transfer of the kingdom of God to “a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom” (Mt. 21:43). His warning that “the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls”(v. 44), is emphasized by Luke, who begins with “Everyone who falls on that stone . . .” (Lk. 20:18). All report that the leaders got the point. Luke begins, “When the scribes and chief priests realized that he had told this parable against them” (Lk. 20:19a), where Mark simply refers to “they” (Mk. 12:12a) and Matthew identifies “the chief priests and the Pharisees” (Mt. 21:45a). Within the parable itself and the interpretive remarks, this is the only point at which these leaders are identified, but it was already clear in the larger context who was meant by the wicked tenants. The point was not lost on them, for “The scribes and the chief priests tried to lay hands on him at that very hour, but they feared the people” (Lk. 20:19; cf. Mk. 12:12; Mt. 21:5-6). Marion Lloyd Soards’s comment that “The murder of the son outside the vineyard may reflect Jesus’ crucifixion outside the city of Jerusalem” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., on Lk. 20:15) seems rather timid. It does. But we should also remind ourselves that the opposition of a few Jewish leaders then does not render all Jews then or later guilty in the matter.

In Isaiah, the promise is that the vineyard that produced “wild grapes” (Isa. 5:4) would later “fill the whole world with fruit” (Isa. 27:6). Benjamin D. Sommer comments on the later “song of the vineyard”: Israel is compared to a vineyard belonging to God, who will tend and protect it at the end of days. This text is based on [Isa.] 5:1-7, whose negative thrust it systematically reverses. The earlier text is a song of judgment against Israel, and this text is a song of restoration” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Isa. 27:2-6).

In the light of this vineyard analogy, the bearing of fruit (spiritual fruit) is the mark of genuine Christianity (Jn. 15:1-8; Gal. 5:22-23).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net