Luke 20:9-19

Last evening we took a look at the second of five ‘controversies’ with Israel’s leadership after entering Jerusalem. The first controversy was over the authority of Jesus (vv. 1-8). The third is paying taxes (vv. 20-26). The fourth is resurrection and marriage (vv. 27-39). The fifth controversy is the interpretation over Psalm 110 (vv. 41-44), and this, the second, is Israel’s rejection of God’s messengers and its consequences (vv. 9-19).

This parable is definitely an allegorical parable.(1) Allegory has been used and abused in the history of Christian interpretation; indeed, it was so abused perhaps we could say that the Reformation was as much a hermeneutical revolution as it was a doctrinal revolution. Luther was blunt and adamant (not that he was always consistent), and incisive when he said, “What is theology, but grammar applied to the text?” By that, of course, Luther meant that the correct way of understanding Scripture is in its plain, literal, and historic sense, not in some fanciful deeper mystery. And while that emphasis was much needed during Luther’s time, it was a ‘corrective’(2) against abuse; allegory is undeniably present in many texts, including this one. But what is allegory? Some say it is an “extended metaphor.” A metaphor, as its etymology states, is a “transference” of meaning from one thing to another. When we say “God is my rock,” we do not mean that God is literally a rock, but rather the solidity of ‘rockness’ brings out God’s strength and dependability; likewise, an allegory functions in a similar, yet extended manner. We could say that a metaphor functions implicitly in its transference of meaning whereas allegory functions explicitly. Perhaps an oxymoron is needed. Dare we say that an allegory is more concretely symbolic in its representation?!

One word of caution: Don’t over-interpret the symbolism. Such interpretive activity can easily get fanciful, e.g., perhaps the most famous parable, The Prodigal Son, the ring given to the prodigal by the father was said to possibly ‘represent’ Christian baptism and the banquet, the Lord’s Supper (Tertullian). So again, we must exercise caution. One sound principle reflecting Christian humility is that - if there are a variety of interpretations as to the symbolism of a given item, then we should be cautious in affirming its significance.

Having cleared that all up :), what are the concrete transfers within our text, and what do they mean? Most who acknowledge allegory see at least three principle players: 1) vineyard owner = God, 2) original tenants = Israel’s leadership, and 3) new tenants = a new leadership, i.e., within or without Israel. Others see more: 4) the son is Jesus, 5) the servants are the prophets, and 6) the vineyard is people of Israel, or the kingdom.

vineyard owner

servants?
son?
vineyard?
new tenants original tenants

(1) For an excellent summary of all the issues, applied to Jesus’ parables, see: Interpreting the Parables, by Craig Blomberg
(2) Corrective measures often over-reach. In our text, the story so matches God’s relationship with Israel (Is 5:1-7), and therefore its allegorical intent is almost undeniable, that many modern scholars deny that Jesus spoke it, and some even go so far as to say that the presence of allegory ‘means’ someone, i.e., most often the Christian church, added these as a way of ‘re-writing history’.


Nate