The Setting of the Parable Both the placement of the parable in the Bible and when the parable took place in Jesus’ life are important in understanding the meaning of the parable. While Mark’s version of the Parable of the Wicked Tenants is regarded as the closest to the synoptic traditions source (De Moor 63), it is Matthew’s placement of the parable that is most significant. The parable is sandwiched by two other parables: the Parable of the Two sons and the Parable of the Marriage Feast. All three parables deal with judgement against those who reject God’s message. The parables of the Two Sons and the Wicked Tenants share a similar message, and the Marriage Feast and Wicked Tenants share a similar structure (Snodgrass 73). Aside from this,
…show more content…
Dodd. In Dodd’s interpretation, the parable is intended to be understood without the need for a special allegorical code by either Judean or Galilean audiences (Kloppenborg 51). While the original audience likely instantly associated the vineyard as representing Israel and kept that interpretation in mind while listening to the rest of the parable, it has also been thought that Jesus wasn’t in fact referencing Israel at all. Jesus could’ve expected that exact correlation, so intentionally spoke in the manner he did to force listeners to think deeper about the parable. If they managed to listen carefully enough, the audience members could have realized that Jesus was trying to teach them “Israel and the kingdom of God are not synonymous terms” (Jackson). Horne finds that the wealthy landowners and leaders in the Sanhedrin would identified with the landowner in the parable after hearing the parable without the pairing interpretive comments. The irony of this, however, is evident because the audience would have still known that the parable compared the wealthy landowners and leaders to the tenants …show more content…
Overall, I do believe the humans in the parable parallels important humans during the time the parable was told. The owner seems to foreshadow God, the tenants the Jewish leaders, the servant are those God sent to tell His message, and the son is Jesus. By substituting in the intended people for the symbols in the parable, it becomes much easier to understand. God built an important land to provide him with loyal followers. He entrusted the teaching and producing of these followers to the Jewish leaders, whom He gave control of the land to. When He returned to collect His followers, God was not pleased. He sent in his prophets to teach and collect his followers; but each time, the leaders humiliated, beat, and/or killed the prophets. God, not willing to give up on the leaders he chose, continued to send prophets, one after another, until there were none left. As a last resort, God decided to send his son, Jesus Christ. The leaders felt by killing the son of God, he will give up and allow them complete control of the
Dodd. In Dodd’s interpretation, the parable is intended to be understood without the need for a special allegorical code by either Judean or Galilean audiences (Kloppenborg 51). While the original audience likely instantly associated the vineyard as representing Israel and kept that interpretation in mind while listening to the rest of the parable, it has also been thought that Jesus wasn’t in fact referencing Israel at all. Jesus could’ve expected that exact correlation, so intentionally spoke in the manner he did to force listeners to think deeper about the parable. If they managed to listen carefully enough, the audience members could have realized that Jesus was trying to teach them “Israel and the kingdom of God are not synonymous terms” (Jackson). Horne finds that the wealthy landowners and leaders in the Sanhedrin would identified with the landowner in the parable after hearing the parable without the pairing interpretive comments. The irony of this, however, is evident because the audience would have still known that the parable compared the wealthy landowners and leaders to the tenants …show more content…
Overall, I do believe the humans in the parable parallels important humans during the time the parable was told. The owner seems to foreshadow God, the tenants the Jewish leaders, the servant are those God sent to tell His message, and the son is Jesus. By substituting in the intended people for the symbols in the parable, it becomes much easier to understand. God built an important land to provide him with loyal followers. He entrusted the teaching and producing of these followers to the Jewish leaders, whom He gave control of the land to. When He returned to collect His followers, God was not pleased. He sent in his prophets to teach and collect his followers; but each time, the leaders humiliated, beat, and/or killed the prophets. God, not willing to give up on the leaders he chose, continued to send prophets, one after another, until there were none left. As a last resort, God decided to send his son, Jesus Christ. The leaders felt by killing the son of God, he will give up and allow them complete control of the