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!