The Parable of the Vine-growers

Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard and put a wall around it and dug a wine press in it, and built a tower, and rented it out to vine-growers and went on a journey.

—Matthew 21:33

Reading Parables in Context

In the Introduction to the Parables, we have pointed out the importance of reading parables in context. This is true of all of Scripture as of all of literature in general. In our introduction to Hermeneutics (B6), that is, biblical interpretation, we elorbate more on the importance of context, as well as understanding the different literary types of Scripture and interpreting them properly. This is crucially important for the parable of the vine-growers, as it contains allusions and quotations that underline the conclusion. In what context did Jesus relate this striking parable that provoked a hostile reaction? What was the meaning of the words from Psalm 118 in the context of explaining the parable?

The setting of the parable was Jesus teaching the crowds in the Temple in Jerusalem, where 'the chief priests and the elders of the people' challenged His authority (Matthew 21:23). This was the day following the cleansing of the Temple by Jesus of all the traders (vv 12-13), who turned 'the House of prayer' (Isaiah 56:7) into a 'Robbers' Den' (Jeremiah 7:11). These striking quotations by Jesus, elegantly combined in midrashic style (Matthew 21:13), of two of the most important prophets in Israel's history, echoed the dramatic consequences of what followed their judgment prophecies on an unrepentant Israel: destruction and exile of Northern Israel by the Assyrians (722 BC) in Isaiah's time, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple followed by exile at the hands of the Babylonians (586 BC) in Jeremiah's time. Jesus challenged the seat of power of the religious elite, claiming Scripture as His authority. The barren fig tree was evidence of the fruitlessness of a corrupt religious system (Matthew 21:18-19; see P12). When Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21:1-10), fulfilling Zechariah's prophecy (Zechariah 9:9), the people called out with Messianic overtones to the Son of David (Matthew 21:8-9). In the Temple, Jesus healed the blind and lame who gave Him praise and honour as 'children' (cf., Psalm 8:2), vindicating His presence and teaching by divine wisdom (Mathew 21:12-17), much to the upset of the religious elite (v 15). But the Messianic prophecies had predicted that Messiah would make the lame walk and the blind see (cf., Matthew 11; Isaiah 35).

Jesus put these same leaders to shame when He challenged their attitude towards John the Baptist after they had challenged His authority to teach and heal (Matthew 21:23-27), followed by a simple but striking parable about the importance of obedience over against empty confession without action (vv 28-31), which was a direct illustration of how repenting sinners would enter the Kingdom of God for responding to John in repentance (v 32), who the crowds considered to be a true prophet (v 26), yet whom the leaders rejected by not repenting. Needless to say, the atmosphere was tense.

Following all of that, Jesus related yet 'another parable' (v 33). It is clear that this next parable comes after the previous one (vv 28-32; see P13) that followed the previous events described above. The 'two sons' in the parable represent the two groups in the audience of Jesus' words. The parable of the vine-growers brings this tense situation in the context of Jesus' triumphant entry to Jerusalem and the dramatic Temple-cleaning with its disputes and explanations to a close, or at least until He got challenged again not soon afterwards (Matthew 22:15). The warning of who will and who will not enter God's heavenly kingdom (Matthew 21:31-32), expressed with the parable of the two sons (vv 28-31), that is, who were truly God's children and, by implication, the rightful leaders of God's people, was further illustrated with the parable of the Vine-growers.

The Parable of the Vine-growers Explained

The parable of the vine-growers is straightforward; it didn't need explaining to the original audience of Jesus as the hearers themselves gave the conclusion to it (Matthew 21:41) and the target audience understood that Jesus 'was speaking about them' (v 45), which caused a hostile reaction (v 46). For the modern reader, here a few thoughts with some background and explanation.

A landowner prepared a piece of land, rented it out to tenants and then went on a journey. He placed these vine-growing tenants in trust and expected a return on investment; after all, he was the owner and investor. After some time, the landowner sent servants to get 'his produce' of his land and the infrastructure he build for a flourishing business (Matthew 21:33-34). Such a scenario simply reflects a healthy and fair business arrangement. One would have expected the tenants to pay their fair share and get their fair share for their labour. However, the story in the parable takes a shocking twist. But before we go into it, some background to the parable is necessary.

Isaiah's Song of God's Vineyard

The reference to the 'vineyard' that was planted, with its wall, tower and wine press (Matthew 21:33), is an allusion to Isaiah 5. Over 700 hundred years earlier, the Hebrew prophet spoke the following words in a song:

Let me sing now for my well-beloved a song of my beloved concerning His vineyard. My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill. He dug it all around, removed its stones, and planted it with the choicest vine. And He built a tower in the middle of it and also hewed out a wine vat in it; then He expected it to produce good grapes, but it produced only worthless ones.

—Isaiah 5:1-2

The opening words of Jesus to this parable allude to this ancient Hebrew song, that turned out to be the opening of a stern judgment prophecy. Jesus' original audience would've been familiar with this passage from Isaiah and the historical consequences of what followed these words. Israel is God's beloved and He had, firguratively speaking, preapred a vineyard for them. Israel is God's 'delightful plant' (Isaiah 5:1, 7). There was nothing He could've done more for them (v 4). God had led them out of Egyptian slavery into the Promised Land where they would be at peace and bring forth 'good fruit' for God's glory. He awaited only a good result for what He had done for His people. However, the shocking reality in the time of Isaiah was that instead of bringing forth good fruit of 'justice and righteousness' in the conduct of God's people in line with God's Law, the Torah, the people bore the worthless fruits of 'bloodshed and a cry of distress.' The prophet poetically uses a play on words in the original Hebrew.

For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel and the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus He looked for justice [Hebrew: mishpat], but behold, bloodshed [Hebrew: mishpakh]; for righteousness [Hebrew: tsedaqa], but behold, a cry of distress [Hebrew: tseaqa].

—Isaiah 5:7

The vineyard, planted by God, was to produce a righteous people who were a light of morality in the midst of the corruption of moral decay by following God's Word. But instead of justice and righteousness, God's people decayed into bloodshed and outcry. They had become corrupt. Instead of the good grapes, God got worthless grapes. The similarity of words chosen by the prophet in Hebrew are striking: God got mishpakh instead of mishpat; and tseaqa instead of tsedaqa. Just as a landowner who made an investment in a vineyward would expect good fruits, so God would except good behaviour from His people. The 'worthless' fruits in the song speak of Israel's lawless deeds.

The vineyard in Isaiah's song referred to the people of God (Isaiah 5:3, 7) who would receive the consequences for their sinful deeds and refusal to repent and amend their ways in line with the Torah (vv 3-6). The people would be exiled (v 13), but God would be exalted in judgment and show Himself in righteousness as the holy God He was (v 17). The people's lack of knowledge was the cause of the tragic events that would follow in 722 BC at the hands of the Assyrian invaders. The Northern tribes of Israel would be destroyed and exiled, and vanish in history. Only Southern Israel would remain. The people substituted good with evil, light with darkness and sweet for bitter (v 20). It was a moral perversion. Even today, people substitute what is good with what is evil. Immoral behaviour is celebrated; evil is being legalised and normalised. Without God's moral standard in Scripture, people will become corrupt and go from bad to worse.

Jesus' Parable

With that background in mind, the stage for Jesus' parable was set. As the shocking twist of events in Isaiah's song, so Jesus' parable must have left the audience in shock: the vine-growing tenants, instead of paying their due to the landlord (and keep their due), refused to pay the landowner when he sent his servants to collect 'his produce': they beat some and even killed others (Matthew 21:35-36). The landowner decided to send 'his son,' the very 'heir' to the estate, to collect what was rightfully his, concluding (wrongly as we shall see) that they would 'respect' his son (v 37). He was of a higher order than the servants, although mistreating the servants was already outrageous! The vine-growers now conspire to kill the heir and seize the estate, concluding (wrongly as we shall see) that they will get control and ownership over it (vv 38-39).

Having executed this evil scheme, Jesus then asked the crowd about the appropriate action of the landowner towards these tenants. The answer was obvious: he would hold them accountable and replace them with faithful stewards of his vineyard (v 41). This is common sense and justice. Those 'wretches' would get the 'wretched end' they deserve. After all, they could've acted righteously.

Jesus' Conclusion

Jesus did not need to conclude the parable or given an explanation; the crowd did it for Him. Jesus asked what the landowner would do (Matthew 21:40); the crowd answered (v 41). But Jesus took the conclusion a step further. He quoted words from Psalm 118 and asked if they (the religious leaders, presumably) never read these verses of Scripture (knowing that they knew the Scriptures very well):

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.

—Matthew 21:24 quoting Psalm 118:22-23

The words of Psalm 118 were traditionally applied to king David, who had been rejected by Saul and his establishment (a corrupt elite, as it turned out), but who had been chosen by God and eventually exalted to inherit the throne of Israel (Joseph is another biblical figure who was rejected but rose to power. Both David and Joseph had jealous brothers who caused them harm, yet God's purpose was fulfilled). David (like Jospeh) was at first rejected, yet chosen by God to be king and heir of God's purpose. Jesus applied these verses from Psalm 118 in the traditional understanding to Himself, drawing a parallel of the servants in the parable who were sent and killed to the Hebrew prophets who were sent by God to His people, some of whom were mistreated and killed, and the 'son' and 'heir' in the parable to Himself.

Jesus, too, would be killed by those who rejected the message of God. In the build-up of His entry on the donkey into Jerusalem, followed by these dramatic events and disputes, Jesus had predicted His impending death (Matthew 20:17-19). The time was fast approaching. But despite the rejection by the 'builders,' the religious leaders at the time, God's plan would stand: the rejected 'stone' would become the 'chief corner stone,' the main building block, i.e., central aspect to God's plan. Mistreating the prophets was evil; killing the Son and Heir was wretched. Those leaders who acted in wretched ways would come to their wretched end. It was a striking parable against the 'chief priests and the Pharisees' who all too well understood that Jesus spoke these words about them (Matthew 21:45), which triggered a hostile reaction (v 46) and more controversy soon thereafter (22:15-45). Jesus is the 'Stone' who was rejected by men yet chosen by God (1 Peter 2:4-8; see Q24). Jesus is the cornerstone, the central aspect of the apostolic-prophetic proclamation (Ephesians 2:20-22) and the irreplaceable foundation of the church (1 Corinthians 3:11).

The powerful of this world often think they are invincible, and rejecting certain people will further consolidate their power. Corrupt leaders seem to be untouchable, and by crushing their oppositon they advance their rule of power further. Certainly, as one historian said, absolute power can corrupt absolutely—except, of course, if one comes to serve rather than to be served (see Mark 10:45). In God's purpose, only the Almighty is invincible, and those whom He chooses will, eventually, triumph—no matter who rejects them or plots against them. Jesus was crucified in weakness, yet He rose in power. Jesus was humiliated and rejected, yet was given the Name above all names. But the names of wicked rulers vanished in history.

Jesus' words of judgment (Matthew 21:43) were directed at a corrupt leadership (and who ever followed them), not at the whole of the people of Israel. It was about those who, as in Isaiah's day, produced worthless grapes instead of good ones. It would be wrong to use this passage to supported the so-called 'replacement theology,' that is, the theory that the Church has replaced Israel as the people of God. This was an issue of addressing the corrupt leaders of Israel at the time who, in no uncertain terms, were rebuked by Jesus for their hypocrisy and failures (Matthew 23). God did not reject Israel; some of the leaders rejected God by rejecting Jesus, His Son. As in the time of the Hebrew prophets, so in the time of Jesus, those who bear bad fruit will reap the consequences of their actions. John called us to bear fruit worthy of repentance (Matthew 3:8). Jesus calls us to bear fruit by abiding in Him, the true Vine, as branches who bear fruit (John 15).

Conclusion

The Parable of the Vine-growers is a judgment parable on those leaders ('builders') who rejected, first the prophets ('servants'), and then the Son of God ('son'/'heir') sent by God ('landowner') asking for what was rightfully His ('his produce'). The wicked tenants thought they could become owners of the estate, yet would be punished for their wretched plans and reach their 'wretched end.' This is justice. Everyone will reap what they sow. Jesus spoke this parable with the background of Isaiah's song of God's beloved vineyard (Israel) who brought forth worthless grapes instead of good grapes. Instead of amending their ways, silencing the messengers of God was the way they thought they could get away with such wickedness. Yet the very One ('Stone') they rejected became the main One ('chief corner stone') in God's plan and purpose.

If you are going through rejection, trust God to turn your circumstances around and work out His purpose for your life. Don't become bitter, become better!

P15 >