Jesus an Open Theist? A Look at the Parable of the Wicked Tenants and Mt. 23:39/Lk. 13:35b.

Preamble:
I argue here that the parable of the Wicked Tenants and Mt. 23:39/Lk. 13:35b provide strong evidence that God can change his plans contingent on human obedience/disobedience.  This is an ax worth grinding because I am convinced that the belief that everything happens according to a fixed "blueprint" is both unbiblical and leads to disastrous theology.

The Problem:
It is notoriously difficult to put all the Gospel events in chronological order but both Mark (1:15) and Matthew (4:17) summarize Jesus' initial preaching with the claim that the Kingdom of God/Heaven (in all its full glory) was imminent (Mk. 9:1, 13:30; Mt. 10:23; Jn. 8:51-52).  The problem is that the Kingdom did not come (in all its full glory).  Echoes of this problem can be seen in the rest of the New Testament where the "Kingdom of God" is relatively rarely used.

A Solution:
Ben F. Meyer, in his The Aims of Jesus, wrestles with this problem but he dismisses a solution which I take to be the correct one.  Meyer entertains a solution given by Romano Guardini that "God subsequently changed the scheme of things which Jesus had proclaimed" but he says that this "can hardly be anything other than a deus ex machina."

The reason I think why Meyer dismissed Guardini's solution is that Meyer just did not reckon with Open Theism as a live theological option and that God does change his plans contingent on human obedience/disobedience.  I will argue for this solution by looking at a couple of passages in which Jesus' teachings are in line with Open Theism.     

The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mk. 12:1-11/Mt. 21:33-43/Lk. 20:9-18):
If the parable of the wicked tenants is an allegory, then a case can be made that Jesus envisions a case in which God made plans which were foiled by human disobedience.  A common identification is as follows:

• landowner/man = God
• vineyard = Kingdom of God or some such
• tenants = Jewish leaders
• servants = prophets and messengers
• the son = Jesus

That the parable is eschatological can be argued using Matthew 21:34: "when came near the time of the harvest" contains language/concepts that appear elsewhere in Matthew in eschatological contexts:

• "near" in reference to the Kingdom of God--Mt. 3:2, 4:17, 10:7; and in reference to the end times--Mt. 24:33.
• "time" in reference to the end times--Mt. 8:28.
• "harvest" in reference to end times--Mt. 13:30.

The important point for my purposes is the sending of the servants to the tenants.  There is no indication in the parable itself that the owner expected the missions of the slaves to be sham exercises of non-collection.  [At least this is true of Mark and Matthew; I will treat Luke below.]  It is even stated in reference to the son (again only in Mark and Matthew) that "they will respect my son".  This is a problem if the landowner is suppose to represent God unless one has recourse to Open Theism.  

Scholars have even conjectured that Luke was aware of this problem and that he glossed Jesus' parable in ways to lessen the problem.  For example, in 20:10 the landowner says that he sent a slave to the tenants in order that he might get his share of the produce.  Also, in 20:13, the landowner reasons that the tenants will perhaps respect his son.  Even if Luke added these they do not really resolve the problem because the landowner still does not know for sure the outcomes of the sendings.

I understand that one can can only prove so much from a parable given its literary peculiarities but it does give an indication how Jesus conceived of salvation history.  A related passage is Matthew 23:39/Luke 13:35b.

Matthew 23:39/Luke 13:35b as a Conditional Prophecy

Dale C. Allison has argued that the following is a conditional prophecy: "For I say to you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.'"  He considers two common ways of taking this passage:

1. John Calvin, T.W. Manson, J.C. Fenton: the passage is a declaration of unqualified judgment.  Against this, Allison notes that the word "Blessed" is not used by those expecting only destruction.
2. The passage is a promise of salvation.  Against this, Allison argues that this would create a very discontinuous situation with the judgment passages immediately preceding (Mt. 23:38, Luke 13:35a).
3. This leaves the conditional option.  "The text then means not, when the Messiah comes, his people will bless him, but rather, when his people bless him, the Messiah will come."  This conditional interpretation accords with Acts 3:19-21.  God's plans do seem contingent on human obedience/disobedience. 

Theological Upshot

One of the crucial theological points that the "Blueprint" view of God gets wrong is God's loving response to human disobedience.  This is ironically enshrined in Romans 11, a chapter often viewed as a citadel for the Blueprint view!


 

A defense against a criticism of "Faithfulness of Jesus"

Preamble:  A growing number of scholars are interpreting Paul's quotation of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17 Christologically, that is, Romans 1:17 should be glossed something like:

For the righteousness of God is revealed in it from [Christ's] faith[fulness] to [our] faith[fulness], as it has been written, "but the righteous one [i.e. Jesus] by faith[fulness] will live [i.e. have resurrected life]".

Criticism of Christological interpretation:  One criticism of the Christological interpretation is that it turns Romans 1:16-18 on its head [see Charles Quarles].  If Christ achieved eschatological life by his faithfulness then given that Paul says that Christ was born under the law it would seem to follow that the righteous are those who observe the law and this runs counter to Paul's sustained argument in Romans 3:19-4:25.

Answer to criticism: I intend to show that this criticism is weak by giving an account that actually reinforces the Christological interpretation.

Without argument I claim that Paul held to some such argument:

• Those who embrace the works of the law are identifying with Israel-as-a-whole.
• The law promises the curse (ending in death) for Israel-as-a-whole, if they do not observe the entire law.
• Israel-as-a-whole have failed to observe the entire law.
• Therefore, Israel is under the curse (ending in death).
• Therefore Gentiles ought not to embrace the works of the law.

The problem with the law is that it sentences disobedience with death. This is particularly clear in 2 Corinthians 3:

• Verse 6: the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life
• Verse 7: the law is a ministry of death
• Verse 9: the law is a ministry of condemnation 

Whatever Paul thinks of the Christ event, he clearly thinks that it is "apart from the law" (Romans 3:21).  If this is Quarles' quarrel then I think his beef is with Paul for Paul has detached faithfulness or fidelity from law observance in the cases of both Abraham and Jesus.  In the case of Abraham the point can be made temporally: Abraham evidenced fidelity before he observed any work of law.  In the case of Jesus Paul seems to think that Jesus' chief act of fidelity (death on the cross) was outside the law in that the law curses anyone "hanging on a tree".  Better, the law as an entity had run its course with the advent of Jesus (see Romans 10:4).  Paul's main point is that the Christ event (but not the law) inaugurated the new covenant which brings obedience (law written on heart) and with it life.  Therefore, it makes perfect sense to argue that Romans 1:17 ought to be interpreted Christologically.  Jesus' faithfulness on the cross did lead to his resurrection and to all his faithful followers' eschatological resurrection!