Who is in charge here?

http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/060418.cfm
2 Peter 1:2-7
Mark 12:11-12

The persistent conflict between Jesus and the Jewish elders is confirmed multiple times in the Gospels; so, when the friction showed up again in today’s text, a question accompanied it: Why was this discord so important that the Gospel authors found it necessary to exemplify it so frequently? The existence of the discord was noted early in the Gospels. The reader could readily understand that the conflict persisted throughout Jesus’ ministry. Matthew, Mark and Luke all interject comments indicating the animosity of the Jewish leadership. They questioned him. They sought to test him. They set theological traps for him. I suppose that, for the Jews of Apostolic times, it was necessary to characterize the relationship so that what precipitated the crucifixion as well as what explained the on-going animosity could be better understood. We read the text today and thank God we are not like those intransigent Scribes and Pharisees. Nevertheless, the Gospels were written for people of all times, and such an explanation seems narrow at best. A little research seemed to be in order.

Mark probably had his own reasons for stating that the parable was addressed specifically to “the chief priests, the Scribes and the elders.”

Both Matthew and Luke tell a slightly different story. The parable is essentially the same; it is the designated audience which seems to vary.

Matthew is ambiguous. While he offers the parable as part of a lengthy encounter between Jesus and the chief priests, the Scribes and the elders, he never specifically states that the parable was addressed to them. (Matthew 21:33-46) Luke places the parable at the end of the same lengthy encounter as Matthew but says the parable was told to “the people.” The reader of Luke’s account might easily conclude that Jesus turned from his discussion with the leaders to resume his conversation with the people; and then proceeded to offer a parable about those opposed to him. (Luke 20:9-19)

No matter which of the three gospels we read, there is nothing which would explain the frequency with which the Jesus/elders conflict is mentioned. The basis of the parable, however, precedes Jesus by a few hundred years. So the next stop was the Old Testament where the image of the master with the vineyard was first presented, at that time by the prophet Isaiah.

Let me sing for my beloved a love song concerning his vineyard:

My beloved had a vineyard on a very fertile hill.
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;
and he looked for it to yield grapes,
but it yielded wild grapes.

And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge, I beg you, between me and my vineyard.
What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it? When I looked for it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes? (Isaiah 5:1-4)

For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are his pleasant planting; and he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, a cry! (Isaiah 5:7)

The original story, as Isaiah told it, was not about those tending the vineyard, but about the vineyard itself. Those receiving the message of the prophet were themselves envisioned as the vines for whom the land had been so carefully selected and prepared. It is the vines themselves who are accused: they have yielded only wild grapes, small and bitter. The results expected by the Lord were justice and righteousness. The results actually produced were bloodshed and the anguished cries that follow from evil works. But as Isaiah continues, his harshest words are directed at those in charge:

Therefore my people go into exile for want of knowledge; their honored men are dying of hunger, and their multitude is parched with thirst. (Isaiah 5:13)

Jesus extends the parable and it’s focus. The initial judgement now falls on those responsible both for tending the vineyard and for ensuring a positive end result. The wild grapes are still there; but the leadership is called to account for this sour produce.

We may take comfort in the fact that the assessment of the Lord shifted from the people to their officials. We may be encouraged to say: “I’m glad I wasn’t responsible.” If, however, we take that route, we will inadvertently be affirming the truth. “We weren’t responsible.” Since the coming of Christ, responsibility for justice and righteousness is no longer contingent upon the proper behavior of those designated as leaders. The Spirit resides in each of us, not just those few in official positions.

In the end, it no longer matters if the parable is directed specifically to the chief priests, the Scribes and the elders as Mark writes; or to the ambiguous group of leaders and people as Matthew records; or to the people, themselves, as Luke has written. The closing of the issue is addressed to all who fail to work for the justice and righteousness of Isaiah’s text:

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it. (Matthew 21:43)