Rejecting Jesus


All three of the synoptic gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—recount the parable Jesus told about the landowner who rented out some property to a group of vine-growers. At harvest time he sent a servant to collect what was due him—likely a percentage of the proceeds.

Instead of paying up, the renters beat the servant and sent him away empty handed. The landowner sent another servant and another and more. Some, those vine-growers beat, some they even killed. At last the owner decided to send his son in hopes that the tenants would respect the son.

They didn’t.

Instead they thought they saw an opportunity. If they killed the son, they reasoned, the inheritance would be theirs.

The key points here are these: the people listening to Jesus tell this story, recognized themselves as the bad guys who killed the son; they also missed the part about what happened to the tenants after they killed the son.

First, those corrupt religious leaders who wanted to kill Jesus, and who finally succeeded in manipulating Pilate into declaring the death sentence upon a man he had determined to be innocent, knew they were the vine-growers in the story, making Jesus either a servant or the son they were planning to kill. In other words, they knew Jesus had come from God, and they didn’t care!

That’s the ultimate rejection.

In dealing with Jesus, people can respond in a variety of ways”

  • Jesus? Who’s Jesus?
  • I’ve heard of Jesus, and he’s a good man, but I follow _____.
  • Jesus is not a real person.
  • Jesus is the Son of God, and God is a tyrant. What does that make Jesus?
  • Jesus is the Son of God, and I bow before Him in humble submission and repentance.

Likely there are others, but only the latter is the response of the follower, the person who wants to be brought into relationship with God. The others, if they go nowhere else, are simply forms of rejecting Jesus.

The thing is, there’s no reason for the person who asks, Who is Jesus? to stay in a place of ignorance. There’s no reason for the person who thinks Jesus is a myth not to learn the truth about Him instead. In reality, it’s the person who has his eyes wide open, who hears the truth, who understands the truth, and then who denies the truth, that is digging himself a hole he may never be able to climb out of.

That position is the same as those wicked religious leaders of Jesus’s day. Not only did they not want to respect the Son or give Him what was due, they did what they could to prevent others from believing in Him and following Him. That’s why they plotted against Him and had Him killed. They mistakenly thought that would bring an end to their problem.

But it didn’t. Rejecting Jesus was just the beginning of their real problem.

“When the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ They took him, and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?”

They said to Him, “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons.” (Matt. 21:38-41)

The crowd listening to Jesus tell this story actually supplied the ending. Jesus simply confirmed what they said, tying it with Scripture:

” ‘THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone;
THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD,
AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES’?
“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.” (Matt. 21:42b-44)

This story reminds me of Adam. He knew that God had told Him not to eat of the fruit from the special tree, but he ignored God and did what he wanted instead. He rejected Him just as surely as those religious leaders rejected Jesus knowing that He was in fact the messiah.

In fact, what did they tell Pilate during Jesus’s final public trial? We have no king but Caesar. In other words, Messiah who is to come and reign is not over us; God is not over us. That was their way of taking the Son out and killing Him in the hope that they’d get the prize—they’d get to keep the power and authority they had taken for themselves.

Today people reject Jesus so they can keep their own rule and authority over their little lives. They don’t want God to tell them what to do, so they reject the Son in hopes that the kingdom of their heart will be all their own.

News flash: It won’t be.

Published in: on June 26, 2018 at 5:44 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , ,

Fables, Fairy Tales, And Parables – CSFF Blog Tour, The Wolf Of Tebron, Day 2


Who knew fairy tales are controversial? The question, of course, arises because the CSFF Blog Tour feature this week is a book touted as a modern fairy tale. I’m referring to The Wolf of Tebron, first in the Gates of Heaven series by C. S. Lakin (Living Ink Books). Precisely, the back cover says “The Gates of Heaven series celebrates the reinvention of the fairy tale in the tradition of C. S. Lewis’s The Chronicles of Narnia.”

That statement caught me off guard because I’ve never thought of Narnia as a fairy tale. So what exactly is a fairy tale?

Perhaps we should start with what it is not. First, it is not a parable. All reliable definitions (Oxford Dictionary, Columbia Encyclopedia, and others) agree that a parable is a story that illustrates a lesson or moral. However, these are stories that take the every day—setting, characters, action—and create from them a metaphor to illustrate some moral or supernatural truth.

At first glance, those who have already read The Wolf of Tebron may think this definition of parable fits the story. However, parables are unique because they do not employ magic; animals and inanimate objects are not characters in a parable.

Does this mean the book is indeed a fairy tale? Is Narnia a fairy tale?

Here’s where the controversy begins. Some scholars claim that fairy tales are stories written primarily for children while others describe the progression of stories written for adults who believed in fairies, to the for-children happily-ever-after tales we have today.

One component seems to be a constant in all the definitions: fairy tales must include some form of magic. A minority clings to the idea that the stories must involve fairies. Another group of scholars claim that “transformation” is a necessary element in fairy tales (think of Cinderella’s pumpkin changing into a coach or the queen/witch turning into an old woman to give Snow White an apple). A third view is that these stories must involve the fantastic. Oxford explains this type of literature in this way:

a mode of fiction in which the possible and the impossible are confounded so as to leave the reader (and often the narrator and/or central character) with no consistent explanation for the story’s strange events.
http://www.answers.com/topic/fantastic

Using these components, I conclude that Narnia is not a fairy tale.

While The Wolf of Tebron includes most of these elements (no fairies), I wonder if a more accurate categorization might not be the fable.

From the Oxford American Dictionaries:

fable – a short story, typically with animals as characters, conveying a moral.
• a story, typically a supernatural one incorporating elements of myth and legend.

Then this from Wordiq

In its strict sense a fable is a short story or folk tale embodying a moral, which may be expressed explicitly at the end as a maxim.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Fable

Here’s a short example:

The Bear Who Let It Alone
“In the woods of the Far West there once lived a brown bear who could take it or let it alone. He would go into a bar where they sold mead, a fermented drink made of honey, and he would have just two drinks. Then he would put some money on the bar and say, ‘See what the bears in the back room will have,’ and he would go home. But finally he took to drinking by himself most of the day. He would reel home at night, kick over the umbrella stand, knock down the bridge lamps, and ram his elbows through the windows. Then he would collapse on the floor and lie there until he went to sleep. His wife was greatly distressed and his children were very frightened.

“At length the bear saw the error of his ways and began to reform. In the end he became a famous teetotaler and a persistent temperance lecturer. He would tell everybody that came to his house about the awful effects of drink, and he would boast about how strong and well he had become since he gave up touching the stuff. To demonstrate this, he would stand on his head and on his hands and he would turn cartwheels in the house, kicking over the umbrella stand, knocking down the bridge lamps, and ramming his elbows through the windows. Then he would lie down on the floor, tired by his healthful exercise, and go to sleep. His wife was greatly distressed and his children were very frightened.

“Moral: You might as well fall flat on your face as lean over too far backward.”

(James Thurber, “The Bear Who Let It Alone,” from Fables for Our Time)

Does The Wolf of Tebron end in such a statement of general truth? Not structurally, to be certain, but without giving away the ending, I’ll say, I think a good case can be made for the story being more fable than fairy tale.

Published in: on January 4, 2011 at 7:14 pm  Comments (8)  
Tags: , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: