“God’s ‘What shall I do?’ is a cry filled with the tears of His longsuffering (patience). Rather than immediately pouring out His wrath upon sinners, it expresses His earnest desire to save them and bring them to repentance, no matter what.”

“God’s ‘What shall I do?’ is a cry filled with the tears of His longsuffering (patience). Rather than immediately pouring out His wrath upon sinners, it expresses His earnest desire to save them and bring them to repentance, no matter what.”

 

 

 

 

“Then He began to tell the people this parable: ‘A man planted a vineyard, leased it to vine-growers, and went away on a journey for a long time. At the proper time he sent a servant to the vine-growers so that they would give him some of the produce of the vineyard. But the vine-growers beat him and sent him away empty-handed. He proceeded to send another servant; they beat him also, treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed. And he proceeded to send a third; this one also they wounded and cast out. Then the owner of the vineyard said, “What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; perhaps they will respect him.” But when the vine-growers saw him, they reasoned with one another, saying, “This is the heir. Let us kill him, so that the inheritance may become ours.” So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore, what will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those vine-growers and will give the vineyard to others.’ When they heard it, they said, ‘Surely not!’ But He looked at them and said, ‘What then is this that is written: “The stone which the builders rejected, this became the chief cornerstone”?’ Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomever it falls, it will crush him to powder” (Luke 20:9–18).

(1)   As I meditated on Jesus' Parable of the Wicked Tenants in today's passage, Luke 20:9–18, I first wanted to compare it with its parallel passages in Matthew 21:33–46 and Mark 12:1–12, and then summarize the parable.

 

(a)    This parable is a warning of the judgment that would come upon the wicked tenants (the religious leaders), who rejected the grace of the owner of the vineyard (God) and even killed His Son (Jesus), as well as a declaration that the history of salvation would be entrusted to others. Based on the central message of the three Synoptic Gospel accounts, the summary is as follows (Internet):

 

1.      The Main Plot of the Parable

 

The Establishment and Entrusting of the Vineyard: A landowner carefully plants and prepares a vineyard, leases it to tenants, and departs to a distant country.

 

The Sending of the Servants and Their Rejection: When harvest time arrives, the owner sends servants to collect some of the fruit from the vineyard.  However, the tenants beat the servants, insult them, and send them away empty-handed.

 

The Sending and Murder of the Son: Finally, the owner sends his beloved only son, expecting that they will respect him. Instead, the tenants identify him as the heir, throw him out of the vineyard, and kill him in order to seize the inheritance for themselves.

 

The Owner's Judgment and the Outcome: The enraged owner comes personally, destroys the wicked tenants, and entrusts the vineyard to others.

 

2.      The Spiritual Meaning of the Parable

 

The Owner of the Vineyard: God the Father.

 

The Wicked Tenants: The Jewish religious leaders (the chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, and others) who betrayed God's grace in order to preserve their own power and privileges.

 

The Servants Who Were Sent: God's prophets throughout the Old Testament, who were repeatedly rejected, persecuted, and martyred.

 

The Owner's Son: Jesus Christ, who came as the Savior of humanity but would be put to death on the cross.

 

Those Who Would Receive the Vineyard: A new people of the Kingdom of God—including the Gentiles and all who receive the gospel and bear its proper fruit—the Church.

 

3.      The Emphases and Distinctives of the Three Synoptic Gospels

 

Matthew (21:33–46): Matthew provides the most detailed description of the vineyard, mentioning the hedge, the winepress, and the watchtower.  Most significantly, he records Jesus' declaration: "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits."  This clearly emphasizes that the privilege of God's saving grace would pass from the Jewish religious leaders to the fruit-bearing people of God, including the Gentiles and the Church.

 

Mark (12:1–12): Mark's account is the most concise and dynamic.  He progressively portrays the suffering of the servants sent by the owner and climaxes the story by emphasizing that the final messenger was the owner's "one beloved son," thereby highlighting both Jesus' unique identity as the only Son of God and the tragic significance of His death on the cross.

 

Luke (20:9–18): Luke uniquely records the owner's inner deliberation before sending his son: "What shall I do?"  This reveals the owner's compassionate heart.  At the conclusion of the parable, when the religious leaders hear the announcement of judgment and respond, "Surely not!"  Jesus quotes Psalm 118, declaring that the rejected stone has become the chief cornerstone.  He then adds the solemn warning that whoever falls on this stone will be broken, and whoever has the stone fall upon him will be crushed to powder, underscoring the certainty and severity of God's judgment (Internet).

 

(2)   Second, I became curious about why the Jewish religious leaders (the chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, and others)—represented by the wicked tenants—who betrayed God's grace, rejected, brutally beat, humiliated, and even killed God's prophets (the servants who were sent) throughout the Old Testament era.  What were the specific reasons for this?

 

(a)    The specific reasons why the wicked tenants (the Jewish religious leaders) so cruelly rejected and killed God's servants (the prophets) can be summarized under three major points (Internet):

 

1.      Preserving Their Economic and Political Privileges

 

The Vast Temple-Centered System of Interests: The families of the chief priests and the religious leaders enjoyed enormous wealth and power through the temple sacrificial system, temple taxes, and currency exchange.

 

The Illusion of Ownership: Just as the tenants in the parable mistakenly regarded the vineyard as their own property, these leaders treated God's people and His temple—which had merely been entrusted to them—as though they were their personal possessions.

 

The Desire to Preserve the Status Quo: The prophets' calls for repentance and reform threatened to dismantle the religious and economic system that the leaders had carefully built and from which they greatly benefited.

 

2.      Refusing the Exposure of Their Spiritual Blindness and Hypocrisy

 

Resisting the Rebuke of Their Sin: The Old Testament prophets consistently confronted the injustice, greed, and idolatry of those in power.  Rather than repenting, the leaders chose to silence the prophets who exposed their sins.

 

Religious Self-Righteousness: They believed themselves to be the righteous ones who kept the Law better than anyone else.  Therefore, they could not accept the prophets' message declaring that they themselves were the objects of God's judgment.

 

3.      A Fundamental Rejection of God's Sovereignty

 

Wanting a Vineyard Without Its Owner: The tenants killed the son because they reasoned, "Then the inheritance will be ours" (Lk. 20:14).

Rejecting God's Rule: Although they exercised authority in God's name, they did not want to submit to God's actual rule or intervention.  By eliminating both the servants and the son, who represented the owner's full authority, they sought to become the permanent masters of the vineyard themselves (Internet).

 

(i)      At this point, another question came to mind: How did the prophets' calls for repentance and reform threaten to destroy the religious and economic system that the Jewish religious leaders had established?

 

·        The prophets' message threatened the leaders' system because it struck at the very foundations of the economic structure that had privatized religion and their control over the people. This can be understood from both the economic and the religious perspectives (Internet).

 

a.    The Threat to Their Economic System (Exposing the "Temple Mafia" Structure)

 

At that time, the chief priests and religious leaders had established a vast economic cartel centered around the Jerusalem Temple.

 

Undermining Their Monopoly on Sacrificial Animals: According to the Law, only unblemished animals could be offered in the temple sacrifices.  The religious leaders routinely rejected the animals that ordinary worshipers had brought from distant places by claiming that they were defective.  They then compelled the people to purchase the much more expensive animals that had been inspected and approved by the temple authorities.  The prophets' reform message—that God desired broken hearts and justice rather than mere ritual sacrifice—completely undermined the legitimacy of this sacrificial marketplace.

 

Threatening the Income from Temple Taxes and Currency Exchange: The temple tax could be paid only with the official temple currency (Tyrian silver coins).  During the exchange of ordinary currency into temple currency, the leaders collected exorbitant exchange fees.  When Jesus cleansed the temple and declared, "You have made My house a den of robbers," He was directly confronting this entire system of economic exploitation.  To the religious leaders, this represented an enormous financial threat.

 

b.   The Threat to Their Religious and Political System (The Loss of Their Legitimate Authority)

 

The authority of the Jewish religious leaders depended upon the people recognizing them as God's representatives and the legitimate spiritual authorities.

 

Removing the Mask of False Righteousness: The Pharisees and the scribes outwardly appeared to observe the Law meticulously, thereby preserving their religious privilege and influence.  However, the prophets publicly exposed that their hearts were actually filled with greed and hypocrisy.  The moment the people recognized the leaders' hypocrisy, the religious control and social prestige they had accumulated over generations could collapse almost overnight.

 

Proclaiming God's Direct Rule: The religious leaders had established a system in which people believed they could approach God only through them as intermediaries.  In contrast, the prophets called every individual to genuine repentance and to the restoration of a direct relationship with God.  This reform effectively denied the necessity of the leaders' role as intermediaries and threatened the very foundation of their authority.

 

Ultimately, the prophets' message of reform was not merely religious advice in the eyes of these leaders.  They regarded it as a deadly attack that threatened both their source of income and the legitimacy of their authority.  Consequently, they were willing to kill the prophets in order to silence their voices (Internet).

 

(ii)       At this point, it was stated that whenever the Old Testament prophets boldly rebuked the injustice, greed, and idolatry of those in power, the Jewish religious leaders chose to silence the prophets who exposed their sins rather than repent.  As I reflected on this, I wondered whether even today there are cases in which, like those Jewish religious leaders, people choose to silence Christian newspaper reporters who expose their sins instead of responding with repentance when they are confronted with rebuke.

·        Unfortunately, there are indeed instances in today's Christian community and religious organizations where the same hypocrisy and determination to preserve vested interests displayed by the Jewish religious leaders are repeated.  The characteristics of the "wicked tenants" in Jesus' parable are not confined to a particular period of history.  Rather, they represent a universal tendency of sinful human nature that can emerge whenever people possess power and privileged positions.  Some of the specific ways in which attempts are allegedly made within contemporary Christianity to silence the press (journalists), in a manner similar to the Jewish religious leaders, include the following (Internet):

 

a.    Controlling the Press Through Economic Pressure

 

Withdrawing Advertising and Financial Support: Large churches or denominations may discontinue advertising or financial sponsorship for media organizations that report on internal corruption or financial irregularities, thereby placing economic pressure on those news organizations.

 

Subscription Boycotts: Church members may be encouraged to boycott or cancel subscriptions to newspapers that publish articles contrary to the leaders' position, with the goal of diminishing the influence of those media outlets.

 

b.    Silencing Critics Through Legal and Administrative Means

 

Excessive Use of Lawsuits: Regardless of whether the published reports are factually accurate, lawsuits alleging defamation or interference with ministry may be filed repeatedly.  Such legal actions can place significant financial and emotional burdens on smaller Christian media organizations or individual journalists, discouraging them from continuing their investigative reporting.

 

Banning Access and Refusing Interviews: Critical journalists may be denied access to denominational assemblies or major church events and refused official interviews, thereby restricting their access to information.

 

c.    Spiritual and Emotional Framing (Group Mentality)

Labeling Them as "Enemies of the Church": Journalists who expose the moral failures or financial misconduct of religious leaders may be portrayed as "Satan's instruments seeking to destroy God's church" or as "traitors who bring shame upon the church before unbelievers."

 

Treating Criticism as Rebellion Against Spiritual Authority: By appealing to distorted interpretations of Scripture—such as claiming that "those who oppose the Lord's servant will be cursed"—legitimate criticism and the exposure of wrongdoing may be portrayed as sinful acts of rebellion, thereby discouraging believers from listening to such reports.

 

Just as the Old Testament prophets risked their lives to expose the sins of kings and priests, a healthy Christian press today may likewise be understood as carrying out a prophetic responsibility to hold religious authority accountable and to safeguard the true nature of the church.  Conversely, efforts to suppress such work tragically resemble the conduct of the wicked tenants against whom Jesus warned in His parable (Internet).

 

-     Then what is the biblical way for believers to exercise discernment and respond when they encounter abuses of power within the church?

 

n  The biblical response to abuses of power within the church is neither blind loyalty nor emotional condemnation, but the protection of Christ's church according to the standard of God's Word.  Scripture provides the following practical guidelines (Internet):

 

1.      Biblical Standards for Discernment (Rejecting Blind Obedience)

 

Discern by Their Fruit: Jesus taught that false prophets are recognized "by their fruits" (Mt. 7:16).  The proper standard is not a leader's office, spiritual gifts, or the size of the church, but whether the fruit of the Spirit and genuine righteousness are evident in that leader's life and stewardship.

 

The Example of the Berean Believers: Even the Bereans examined Paul's teaching "daily, to see whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11).  Likewise, believers should continually test the teachings and conduct of church leaders against the truth and justice of Scripture.  Covering up wrongdoing and offering unquestioning obedience simply because someone is "the Lord's servant" is not a biblical attitude.

 

2.       Biblical Steps for Addressing Sin (The Principle of Matthew 18)

 

Jesus established a step-by-step process for dealing with sin within the covenant community (Mt. 18:15–17).  These same principles should be applied fairly and transparently when addressing abuses of authority.

 

Step One: Private Admonition: After carefully confirming the facts, quietly approach the individual involved—or, where appropriate, through a trusted representative—and lovingly call for repentance.

 

Step Two: Bring One or Two Witnesses: If the private admonition is rejected, return with one or two trustworthy witnesses (such as church officers or other impartial believers) to establish the facts and offer further exhortation.

 

Step Three: Bring the Matter Before the Church: If repentance is still refused, the matter should be presented to the church body (such as the session or congregational meeting) or to the appropriate higher ecclesiastical court (such as the presbytery or general assembly) so that it may be addressed openly and justly.  Paul likewise instructed, "Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning" (1 Tim. 5:20).

 

3.      Structural and Practical Responses

 

Establish Healthy Accountability and Oversight: Church constitutions and governing structures should prevent financial and administrative authority from being concentrated in a single individual, and transparent systems of financial accountability should be maintained.  Even the early Jerusalem church, when faced with disputes concerning financial distribution, appointed deacons to oversee those responsibilities, thereby distributing authority rather than concentrating it in the apostles alone (Acts 6:1–6).

 

The Courage Not to Remain Silent: To remain silent in the face of injustice under the pretense of extending "grace" is, in effect, to cooperate with evil. Like the prophets of Scripture, believers are called to practice a loving yet resolute holy resistance against sin that destroys the holiness of Christ's church.

 

Pray for Justice and Care for the Vulnerable: The church should diligently protect, comfort, and restore those weaker believers who have been wounded or driven away because of systems of corruption.

 

Unconditionally covering up a leader's sin is not the path to preserving the church.  Rather, like the wicked tenants in Jesus' parable, it leads toward even greater judgment—the loss of the vineyard.  The true goal of biblical confrontation is not the destruction of leaders, but the removal of sin so that both the church and its leaders may be restored (Internet).

 

(3)   Third, I became deeply interested in the scene where the owner of the vineyard struggles with the question, “What shall I do?” [Τί ποιήσω (Ti poiēsō)] (Lk. 20:13).  The conclusion that came after this inner struggle was to send His one and only “beloved son” (Mk. 12:6).  Here, I would like to reflect more deeply on the inner struggle of the Father expressed in His words, “What shall I do?”

 

(a)    The vineyard owner’s anguish in saying “What shall I do?” is the most profoundly human expression of God’s emotions and the spiritual climax of the entire parable.  In contrast to the hardness of the religious leaders, we can meditate deeply on the Father’s inner struggle and His mysterious love from three perspectives (Internet):

 

1.      The Intense Struggle Between Justice and Mercy

“What shall I do?” from a human perspective: After the servants sent by the owner had repeatedly been mistreated, humiliated, and driven away, it would have been reasonable, according to the owner’s authority and justice, to immediately send an army and destroy the wicked tenants.

 

The Father’s anguish: However, the Father does not immediately take up the sword of judgment.  His struggle is expressed in the question: “Should I judge them immediately (justice), or should I give them one more opportunity (mercy)?”  God’s “What shall I do?” is a cry filled with the tears of His longsuffering (patience), because He does not immediately pour out His wrath upon sinners but seeks, in every possible way, to save them and bring them back to Himself.

 

2.      The Father’s Pain in Foreseeing the Death of His Son

 

The Gospel of Mark emphasizes that this son was not merely a son, but “the beloved son, the only one”.

 

The Father’s heart in sending Him: The Father already knew the cruelty and greed of the tenants.  Therefore, sending His Son meant facing the suffering and the danger of death that His Son would experience.

 

The cost of giving His only Son: The weight of the Father’s question, “What shall I do?”, was ultimately the decision: “Will I give the life of My most precious Son for these wicked people?”  The Father chose the cosmic pain of sending His Son into the place of death in order to save the wicked tenants.

 

3.      “Perhaps They Will Respect My Son” Was Not a Failed Expectation, but the Final Expression of Love

 

The Father’s expectation: The Father sent His Son hoping, “They will respect My son.” The omniscient God could not have been unaware that the tenants would kill His Son.

 

The final opportunity: Nevertheless, this expression was used because sending the Son was God’s final and greatest possible offer to humanity.  Knowing that if they rejected even the Son, there would be no further opportunity for salvation, the Father poured out His last remaining and greatest love completely.

 

In Isaiah 5 of the Old Testament, God also laments over His vineyard, saying, “What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it?”

 

The Jewish religious leaders plotted “What shall we do?” in order to kill the Son and protect their privileges, but God the Father wrestled with “What shall I do?” in order to save us and offered His Son as a sacrifice (Internet).

 

(i)     Here, I believe that not only ourselves but also the children whom God has given us as gifts of grace should be entrusted to the Lord.  Like God’s own “What shall I do?” for the salvation of one soul, we parents must also ask “What shall I do?” concerning our children and raise them to live for Jesus Christ and the gospel.

 

a.      The Transfer of Ownership: The Decision to Surrender the Vineyard

 

The greatest sin of the wicked tenants in the parable was that they mistakenly considered the owner’s vineyard and the inheritance rights of the son as their own possession.

 

Children belong to God: Today, many parents regard their children as tools for personal achievement or as their own possessions.  However, Scripture says, “Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Ps. 127:3).

 

Gospel-centered parenting: Offering our children to the Lord means completely surrendering the future, career, and authority over their lives to God.  It is the decision to raise them not for worldly success, but so that they may be used for the Kingdom of God and for the salvation of souls.

 

b.      The Parents’ “What Shall I Do?”: The Struggle Between Comfort and Calling

 

The process of offering our children to live for the gospel and the church involves a genuine parental struggle—the question, “What shall I do?”

 

Worldly concerns: It is natural for parents to worry: “What if my child walks the narrow road and suffers?” or “What if my child experiences financial hardship?”

 

A holy decision: However, just as the Father knew the suffering of the cross that His Son would endure and yet gave Him for our salvation, believing parents must also make the mature decision expressed in the question “What shall I do?”—encouraging their children not to settle for worldly comfort but to live a valuable life of suffering for the sake of the gospel.

 

c.      Biblical Example: Hannah’s Confession and Dedication

 

The biblical figure who best reflects this meditation is Hannah, the mother of Samuel.

 

The fulfillment of her vow: After receiving Samuel through desperate prayer, Hannah did not keep him in her own arms and raise him only for herself.  As soon as he was weaned, she dedicated him to the temple of God, confessing, “Therefore I also have lent him to the LORD; as long as he lives he shall be lent to the LORD” (1 Sam. 1:28).

 

The result of blessing: When Hannah surrendered her claim and ownership over her child, Samuel grew into a great spiritual leader of Israel who brought an end to the spiritually dark period of the judges and opened the way for the Davidic kingdom.  When parents entrust their children to the Lord, God Himself takes responsibility for their lives and uses them for His greatest glory.

 

As in the previous meditation, “we gain by losing,” when parents try to hold onto their children tightly within their own arms, they may ultimately lose them to the values of the world.  But when they willingly offer them for the Lord and the gospel, those children are gained as eternal participants in the Kingdom of God (Internet).

 

(4)   Fourth, as I meditated on the parable’s statement that the reason the Jewish religious leaders (the chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, and others), represented by the wicked tenants who betrayed God’s grace and sought to preserve their privileges, killed the owner’s son was because they thought, “This is the heir; let us kill him so that the inheritance will be ours” (Lk. 20:14), I wanted to understand more deeply the specific reasons why those Jewish religious leaders killed Jesus Christ, the only Son of God.

 

(a)    The specific reasons why the Jewish religious leaders crucified Jesus Christ, the Son of God, perfectly correspond to the tenants’ intention in the parable: “This is the heir; let us kill him and the inheritance will be ours.”  By removing Jesus, they sought to permanently monopolize the religious, political, and economic territory they had enjoyed.  Based on historical and biblical backgrounds, the specific reasons are as follows (Internet):

 

1.      The Charge of Blasphemy: “How Dare a Man Make Himself Equal with God?”

 

For the religious leaders, Jesus’ greatest crime was blasphemy.

 

Claiming to be the Son of God: When Jesus called Himself “the Son of God” and referred to God as “My Father,” the Jewish leaders regarded this as blasphemy and a serious offense worthy of condemnation (Jn. 5:18).

 

Claiming authority to forgive sins: When Jesus said to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven,” the leaders became angry and said, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mk. 2:7).  They were furious because Jesus directly undermined their religious monopoly over the temple sacrificial system.

 

The Sabbath controversy: Jesus challenged the strict Sabbath regulations created by the religious leaders to control the people and declared, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Mt. 12:8).  This was a direct challenge to their spiritual authority.

 

2.      Political and Military Fear: Concern Over a Breakdown of Their Relationship with Rome

 

At that time, Judea was a colony of the Roman Empire, and the religious leaders—especially the Sadducees and the families of the high priests—maintained their power within the framework permitted by Rome.

 

Fear of rebellion: When Jesus performed signs, including raising Lazarus from the dead, many people began following Him as the Messiah (King).  The leaders feared that Rome would interpret this as a popular uprising and destroy both their authority and the Jerusalem Temple.

 

The political calculation of Caiaphas the high priest: In John 11:48–50, Caiaphas declared, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” He established the political justification for killing Jesus.  In order to preserve their privileges, they made Jesus the sacrifice.

 

3.      The Transfer of Popular Support and Jealousy

 

The loss of their privileges: After witnessing Jesus’ authoritative teaching and miraculous healings, the people turned away from the scribes and Pharisees and gathered around Jesus.  The Gospel of Mark records that even Pilate understood that they had handed Jesus over because of jealousy (Mk. 15:10).

 

The threat of overturning the system: When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the people shouted, “Hosanna!  Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord—the King of Israel!”  To the religious leaders, Jesus was the most dangerous person because He threatened to completely overturn the religious power system they had built.

 

Ultimately, although the Jewish religious leaders witnessed countless signs that Jesus might truly be the promised Messiah of the Old Testament—the rightful heir—they became blinded by their greed, thinking, “If we acknowledge Him, we will lose everything we possess.”  Therefore, they cast the heir out of the vineyard (outside the gates of Jerusalem, to the hill of Golgotha) and killed Him (Internet).

 

(i)      Here, I began to wonder: What are the things that church or Christian ministry leaders, blinded by greed, are so desperately unwilling to lose? I was also led to think about the principle that “one must lose in order to gain.”

 

·        Just as the farmers in Jesus’ parable lost everything because they tried to monopolize the vineyard, today leaders who have become power-oriented and who are blinded by greed often cling desperately to things that ultimately belong only to this temporary world.  Connecting this with the core Christian truth (paradox) that “one must lose in order to gain,” the following is a summary, prepared by artificial intelligence, of what they are obsessed with and the biblical principle of true gain (Internet):

 

a.   The things leaders “are so unwilling to lose” because of greed

 

Privatized religious power and control: This is the desire for power to move and control people according to one’s own will.  They do not want to give up the position of ruling as a “king” in the religious kingdom they have built for themselves.

 

Material wealth and financial privileges: Like the Jewish leaders who gained enormous wealth through temple commerce, even today there can be economic interests in which church finances are not transparently disclosed but are privatized or passed down through succession.

 

Public reputation and honor (the mask of being righteous): This refers to the honor of being respected before people as a holy and righteous person.  They hate more than death the possibility that their sins and shameful realities will be exposed and that this reputation will be damaged.

 

A sense of being indispensable: This is spiritual pride that says, “It cannot function without me.”  They think that the church will collapse if they leave and therefore cling to power rather than transferring authority to successors or the community.

 

b.    The paradox of the cross: “One must lose in order to gain”

 

Jesus repeatedly emphasized this principle throughout the Gospels: “For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it” (Mt. 16:25).

 

We must lose our privileges in order to gain the Kingdom of God: When we release the human resources and power that we hold in our hands and allow ourselves to lose them, only then can God’s sovereignty and reign truly come into our lives and churches.

 

We must lose false righteousness in order to gain true righteousness: When we acknowledge that we are sinners and let go of religious hypocrisy and the mask of honor, only then do we receive the true righteousness that is clothed in the blood of Jesus Christ.

 

The death of a grain of wheat: A single grain of wheat must fall to the ground, die, and lose itself in order to produce much fruit (Jn. 12:24).  When a leader gives up personal rights and humbles himself, the work of life that restores and revives the community can finally begin.

 

Ultimately, the evil farmers killed the son because they did not want to lose the vineyard, but as a result they were destroyed by the owner and lost the entire vineyard.  In trying to preserve their privileges, they lost both eternal life and the Kingdom of God.  In contrast, Jesus gained the glory of saving all humanity by willingly losing His own life on the cross (Internet).

 

-       There are examples in Scripture and throughout history of great leaders who, unlike the Jewish religious leaders who tried to hold onto their privileges, completely surrendered their own rights and positions of privilege and thereby brought life to the community and the church.  The following are three representative biblical examples introduced by artificial intelligence (Internet):

 

1.      John the Baptist: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (Jn. 3:30)

 

Before Jesus began His ministry, John the Baptist was the greatest spiritual leader of his time, receiving the respect and following of countless crowds in the wilderness of Judea.

 

The privilege he surrendered (popularity and spiritual authority): When Jesus appeared, John’s disciples and the crowds who had followed John began going to Jesus. This was a crisis in which John could have lost his influence and authority as a leader.

 

His biblical response and the result: John did not become jealous or attempt to protect his position of privilege.  Instead, he declared: “He must increase, but I must decrease.”  He recognized himself only as the friend of the bridegroom who rejoices when he hears the bridegroom’s voice, and he completely surrendered the central position to Jesus.  Because of his complete humility and surrender, his disciples were able to follow Jesus as the Messiah without confusion, and the transition of leadership in God’s kingdom took place beautifully.

 

2.      The Apostle Paul: “I count all things but loss” (Phil. 3:7-8)

 

Paul (Saul) was among the most privileged elites in Jewish society from birth. He was a Pharisee of Pharisees, a student of Gamaliel, and a Roman citizen.

 

The privilege he surrendered (religious status and guaranteed future): He possessed every social and religious advantage that would have allowed him to walk an easy path toward becoming one of the highest authorities in Jewish society, possibly even a member of the Sanhedrin.

 

His biblical response and the result: After encountering Jesus Christ, Paul considered all those privileges as “rubbish” (Phil. 3:8).  He gave up every privilege and security he could have enjoyed and became an apostle to the Gentiles, willingly accepting a life of beatings, hunger, suffering, and imprisonment.

 

When Paul threw away his privileges as if they were worthless, Christianity, which had remained a small community centered in Jerusalem, spread throughout the world, and the miracle occurred that churches among the nations came alive.

 

3.      Nehemiah: “I did not take the governor’s provisions” (Neh. 5:14-19)

Nehemiah was a high-ranking official in the Persian Empire, serving as the king’s cupbearer and enjoying tremendous wealth and authority.  He came to Judah as governor in order to rebuild the destroyed walls of Jerusalem.

 

The privilege he surrendered (his legitimate economic rights and privileges): As governor, he had the legal right to collect taxes from the people and receive a generous salary and provisions as governor.  Previous governors had naturally enjoyed these benefits and had oppressed the people.

 

His biblical response and the result: Seeing the suffering of the people who were experiencing famine and hardship, Nehemiah did not receive the governor’s provisions for twelve years.  Instead, he used his own resources to provide meals for more than 150 people every day and participated personally in rebuilding the wall.  When the leader voluntarily gave up his economic privileges and shared in the suffering of the people, the discouraged hearts of the people were united.  Despite opposition from enemies, they completed the rebuilding of the wall in only 52 days and experienced spiritual renewal. 

 

These leaders all demonstrated through their lives the truth that: “When I become low and disappear, God’s church lives and God’s name is exalted.”  They were truly great leaders who embodied this principle (Internet).

 

(5)   Fifth and last, Finally, fifth, I would like to meditate on Jesus’ words: “Then what is the meaning of that which is written: ‘The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone’?  Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him” (Lk. 20:17-18).  What is the meaning of this statement?

 

(a)    The words Jesus quoted are based on the prophecy of Psalm 118:22.  They are a solemn conclusion declaring that the conspiracy of the religious leaders will fail and that Jesus Christ will become the absolute standard of salvation and judgment.  Artificial intelligence has explained the central meaning of this passage in three ways (Internet):

 

1.      The stone rejected by the builders becomes the cornerstone (The cross and resurrection)

The rejected stone (the death of Jesus): The “builders” refer to the Jewish religious leaders.  They judged Jesus to be useless for their religious system and discarded Him like a worthless stone from a construction site, casting Him outside the city gates and crucifying Him.

 

The cornerstone (the resurrection and victory of Jesus): However, God raised up the rejected stone and made Him the most important “cornerstone” — the foundation stone that supports and connects the entire building.  Human evil plotted and killed Jesus, but God’s sovereignty used that very event to accomplish the great reversal of establishing the foundation of salvation for humanity, which is the church.

 

2.      Whoever falls on this stone will be broken (Present spiritual judgment)

 

Stumbling over the gospel: Falling upon the stone of Jesus and being broken means the spiritual destruction faced by those who reject Jesus Christ and refuse to believe in Him.

 

The collapse of pride: The religious leaders, who considered themselves experts in the Law, relied on their own righteousness.  However, they stumbled over Jesus Christ, who came in humility and lowliness, and their spiritual privilege and false faith were shattered.  Those who reject the gospel ultimately stumble over the very stone of judgment through their own rejection.

 

3.      When the stone falls on anyone, it will crush him (Future final judgment)

 

The unavoidable eschatological judgment: This expression reminds us of the vision in Daniel 2, where the stone “cut out without hands” strikes the statue representing worldly powers and crushes it into pieces.

 

Complete destruction: Jesus at His first coming came in a humble form that people could stumble over and reject.  But Jesus at His second coming will return as the Judge who rules the universe — like a massive stone falling from above.  The evil farmers who opposed the Son and refused to repent, along with the powers of this world, will face a tragic and complete judgment on the last day, being crushed and scattered like dust without leaving any trace.  Historically, the Jewish religious establishment experienced a foretaste of this when the Jerusalem temple was destroyed in AD 70, with not one stone left upon another, exactly as Jesus had warned.

 

Ultimately, this passage is a solemn declaration: “Even if you reject Me in order to protect your privileges, I will become the center of God’s work of salvation and the cornerstone.  But those who ultimately reject Me will not escape eternal judgment.”  This shows that no matter how desperately the evil farmers in the parable struggled, they could never overcome the sovereignty of the owner of the vineyard (Internet).