vs 1
Sets the scene. Vineyard built, owner moved.
vs 2
Sure, probably part of the rental agreement - a barter system.
vs 3
This is fairly unbelievable, but not totally crazy. I imagine back then the idea of claiming land would be "We live here, you take it back".
vs 4
After the first servant, it is less believable he'd send a second. But hey, perhaps he is merciful.
vs 5
At this point you should know that the story is about Israel, and the servants being sent are prophets. No Jew would argue - they treated all their prophets badly.
vs 6
Now, see, this is just crazy. You would not send your beloved son to do something dangerous like this, knowing they had already killed your servants. Or would you? Remember, Jacob sent Joseph off to go to his brothers. Still, if he's not at the head of an army, you seriously have to think sending your son is a big deal. Obviously Jesus.
vs 7
About this time, I would be feeling pretty hot under the collar if I were a temple priest or whatever.
vs 8
Eep.
vs 9
Yikes. Seriously, you think that Jesus is preaching peace and love. He just dropped an OT bomb on Israel - I will strip you of your vineyard (common OT picture of Israel) and give it to others (ie non-Israelites). Sound reminiscent of the exile?
vs 10
I love it when Jesus says thinks like, "Haven't you read the scripture" to people whose job it is to do just that. The piece of scripture itself points out that the rejected messengers become the most important part of the thing - that is, it turns out their message is really important, which is probably why they didn't want to listen to it.
vs 11
It must be remembered that many times in history, God has done this same thing - taken someone or something that is seen as nothing, and transformed that into his awesome tool for his own glory.
vs 12
See, the priests and leaders knew what he was talking about. The stupid thing is, of course, that by wanting to arrest him and have him killed, they are really playing right into the parable. That's what Jesus said they'd do. Now they're going to do it. How does that parable end for them again?
vs 13
This will work, for sure. Jesus isn't a good public speaker and debater, let's attack him with questions.
vs 14
Long verse! Very flattering. The question is still cut in half between 14 and 15 though! Stupid verse numbers.
The question is an important religo-political question. The Romans are 'in charge' - if you don't pay taxes to them, they will hurt you. But the Jews have their strong feeling about this being 'their land', and they don't feel they should pay. So what does Jesus say? Does he get the Jews offside, or the Romans?
vs 15
Jesus of course knows they're hypocritical bastards. I know some people try and stand up for them, but we have been told they are trying to trap him, and want him dead. So they're bastards.
vs 16
And so he uses an object lesson. The currency in use, of course, is Roman currency, and so it's got a little image of Caesar on it.
vs 17
So Jesus says, "Sure, pay the tax. But the important thing is that if you are made in the image of God, you should be worried about giving yourself up to God." Which they weren't. So bam.
vs 18
I for one love this question. It's far more theological. It's also one of those classic straw man arguments put up by people who don't actually believe in the thing they're arguing about. Yes, atheists, I'm looking at you.
vs 19
So, they set their argument up in Law. Moses said this, so we're talking about someone who is Law-abiding.
vs 20
This happens fairly regularly in those days, remember.
vs 21
It gets a little silly, but sure, it could happen.
vs 22
The thing about children is, of course, that if any one of them had fathered a child with her, that person might have a 'bigger' claim to being her husband. So it's got to be a childless set of marriages.
Just take a step back from this - how much pressure does the Law put on women! Imagine having to do this today. Crazy.
vs 23
And the question is who will she be married to at the resurrection. You will note, of course, that since polygamy is allowed under the Law, if it had been a man with seven wives, there would be no issue. But polyandry, oh no, can't have that. That's crazy talk.
What's Jesus' answer? Find out tomorrow!
No comments:
Post a Comment