Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 21:33
Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
33. planted a vineyard ] Cp. the parable in Isa 5:1-7, where the description is very similar to this. See also Psa 80:8-16; Jer 2:21; Eze 15:1-6. The vine was adopted as a national emblem on the Maccabean coins.
hedged it round about ] with a stone wall or with a fence of prickly pears. St Luke makes no mention of the separating hedge. Israel was separated throughout her history politically, and even physically, by the natural position of Palestine.
digged a winepress ] The winepress was often dug or hewn out of the limestone rock in Palestine. There were two receptacles or vats. The upper one was strictly the press or (Matthew), the lower one the winefat or (Mark) into which the expressed juice of the grape passed. The two vats are mentioned together only in Joe 3:13, “The press ( gath) is full, the fats ( yekabim) overflow” (quoted in Bibl. Dict., see art. “Winepress”).
built a tower ] Probably a wooden booth raised on a high platform, in which a watcher was stationed to guard the grapes.
Neither the winepress nor the tower seems to have any special significance in the interpretation of the parable.
let it out to husbandmen ] This kind of tenancy prevails in many parts of Europe. It is known as the metayer system, the arrangement being that the occupier of the land should pay to the landlord a portion originally half of the produce. The system existed in England for about sixty years at the end of the fourteenth century. Before the Revolution of 1790 nearly the whole of the land of France was rented by metayers. At the time of our Lord’s ministry it was customary for the Romans to restore conquered lands on condition of receiving a moiety of the produce. Fawcett’s Manual of Political Economy, p. 223; Rogers’ Political Economy, p. 168.
went into a far country ] Translate, left his home. The words “went into a far country” are not in the original text.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
33 42. The Wicked Husbandmen
Mar 12:1-11; Luk 20:9-18.
No parable interprets itself more clearly than this. Israel is represented by an image which the prophets had made familiar and unmistakeable the Vineyard of the Lord. The householder who planted the Vineyard and fenced it round signifies God the Father, Who created the nation for Himself a peculiar and separate people. The husbandmen are the Jews, and especially the Pharisees, the spiritual leaders of the Jews. The servants are the prophets of God, the Son is the Lord Jesus Christ.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The parable of the vineyard – This is also recorded in Mar 12:1-12; Luk 20:9-19.
Mat 21:33
Hear another parable – See the notes at Mat 13:3.
A certain householder – See the notes at Mat 20:1.
Planted a vineyard – A place for the cultivation of grapes. It is often used to represent the church of God. as a place cultivated and valuable. Judea was favorable to vines, and the figure is frequently used, therefore, in the sacred writers. See Mat 20:1. It is used here to represent the Jewish people – the people chosen of the Lord, cultivated with care, and signally favored; or perhaps more definitely, the city of Jerusalem.
Hedged it round about – This means he enclosed it, either with a fence of wood or stone, or more probably with thorns, thick set and growing – a common way of enclosing fields in Judea, as it is in England,
And digged a wine-press in it – Mark says, digged a place for the wine-fat. This should have been so rendered in Matthew. The original word does not mean the press in which the grapes were trodden, but the vat or large cistern into which the wine ran. This was commonly made by digging into the side of a hill. The wine-press was made of two receptacles. The upper one, in Persia at present, is about 8 feet square and 4 feet high. In this the grapes are thrown and trodden by men, and the juice runs into the large receptacle or cistern below. See the notes at Isa 63:2-3.
And built a tower – See also the notes at Isa 5:2. In Eastern countries at present, these towers are often 80 feet high and 30 feet square. They were for the keepers, who defended the vineyards from thieves and animals, especially from foxes, Son 1:6; Son 2:15. Professor Hackett (Illustrations of Scripture, pp. 171, 172) says of such towers:
They caught my attention first as I was approaching Bethlehem from the southeast. They appeared in almost every field within sight from that direction. They were circular in shape, 15 or 20 feet high, and, being built of stones, looked, at a distance, like a little forest of obelisks. I was perplexed for some time to decide what they were; my traveling companions were equally at fault. Suddenly, in a lucky moment, the words crossed my mind, A certain man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country, Mar 12:1. This recollection cleared up the mystery. There, before my eyes, stood the towers of which I had so often read and thought; such as stood there when David led forth his flocks to the neighboring pastures; such as furnished to the sacred writers and the Saviour himself so many illustrations for enforcing what they taught.
These towers are said to be sometimes square in form as well as round, and as high as 40 or 50 feet. Those which I examined had a small door near the ground, and a level space on the top, where a man could sit and command a view of the plantation. I afterward saw a great many of these structures near Hebron, where the vine still flourishes in its ancient home; for there, probably, was Eshcol, whence the Hebrew spies returned to Joshua with the clusters of grapes which they had gathered as evidence of the fertility of the land. Some of the towers here are so built as to serve as houses: and during the vintage, it is said that the inhabitants of Hebron take up their abode in them in such numbers as to leave the town almost deserted.
And let it out … – This was not an uncommon thing. Vineyards were often planted to be let out for profit.
Into a far country – This means, in the original, only that he departed from them. It does not mean that he went out of the land. Luke adds, for a long time. That is, as appears, until the time of the fruit; perhaps for a year. This vineyard denotes, doubtless, the Jewish people, or Jerusalem. But these circumstances are not to be particularly explained. They serve to keep up the story. They denote in general that God had taken proper care of his vineyard – that is, of his people; but beyond that we cannot affirm that these circumstances of building the tower, etc., mean any particular thing, for he has not told us that they do, and where he has not explained them we have no right to attempt it.
Mat 21:34
And when the time of the fruit drew near … – The time of gathering the fruit.
The vineyard was let out, probably, for a part of the fruit, and the owner sent to receive the part that was his.
Sent his servants – These, doubtless, represent the prophets sent to the Jewish people.
Mat 21:35
And beat one – The word translated here as beat properly means to flay or to take off the skin; hence to beat or to whip so that the skin in many places is taken off.
And killed another – Isaiah is said to have been put to death by sawing him asunder.
Many other of the prophets were also put to death. See Luk 13:34; Heb 11:37; 1Sa 22:18; 1Ki 19:10.
And stoned another – This was among the Jews a common mode of punishment, Deu 13:10; Deu 17:7; Jos 7:25. Especially was this the case in times of popular tumult, and of sudden indignation among the people, Act 7:58; Act 14:19; Joh 8:59; Joh 10:31. This does not I imply, of necessity, that those who were stoned died, but they might be only severely wounded. Mark says, At him they cast stones and wounded him in the head, and sent him away, etc.
There is a little variation in the circumstances as mentioned by Matthew, and by Mark and Luke, but the substance is the same. Mark and Luke are more particular, and state the order in which the servants were sent one after another. They all denote the dealing of the people of Israel toward the prophets. All these things had been done to them. See Heb 11:37; Jer 44:4-6; 2Ch 36:16; Neh 9:26; 2Ch 24:20-21.
Mat 21:37
Last of all … – Mark adds that this was an only son, greatly beloved.
This beautifully and most tenderly exhibits the love of God in sending his only Son, Jesus Christ, into the world to die for people. Long had he sent the prophets, and they had been persecuted and slain. There was no use in sending any more prophets to the people. They had done all that they could do. God had one only-begotten and well-beloved Son, whom he might send, and whom the world ought to reverence even as they should the Father, Joh 5:23. God is often represented in the Bible as giving his Son, his only-begotten and wellbeloved Son, for a lost world, Joh 3:16-17; 1Jo 4:9, 1Jo 4:14; Rom 8:3, Rom 8:32; Gal 4:4.
Saying, They will reverence my son – To reverence means to honor, to esteem, to show deference to. It is that feeling which we have in the presence of one who is greatly our superior. It means to give to such a person, in our feelings and our deportment, the honor which is due to his rank and character.
Mat 21:38
But when the husbandmen … – They determined to kill him, and as he was the only son, they supposed they could easily seize on the property It was rented to them; was in their possession; and they resolved to keep it.
This circumstance has probably no reference to any particular conduct of the Jews, but is thrown in to keep up the story and fill up the narrative. An heir is one who succeeds to an estate, commonly a son; an inheritance is what an heir receives.
Mat 21:39
And they caught him … – This refers to the conduct of the Jews in putting the Saviour to death.
So they understood it, Mat 21:45. The Jews put him to death after they had persecuted and slain the prophets. This was done by giving him into the hands of the Romans and seeking his crucifixion, Mat 27:20-25; Act 2:23; Act 7:51-52.
And cast him out of the vineyard – The vineyard in this parable may represent Jerusalem. Jesus was crucified out of Jerusalem, on Mount Calvary, Luk 23:23. See the notes at Heb 13:12.
Mat 21:40
When the lord, therefore … – Jesus then asked them a question about the proper way of dealing with those people.
The design of asking them this question was that they might condemn themselves, and admit the justice of the punishment that was soon to come upon them.
Mat 21:41
They say … – They answered according as they knew people would act, and would act justly in doing it.
He would take away their privileges and confer them on others. This was the answer which Jesus wished. The case was so clear that they could not answer otherwise. He wished to show them the justice of taking away their national privileges, and punishing them in the destruction of their city and nation. Had he stated this at first they would not have heard him. He, however, by a parable, led them along to state themselves the very truth which he wished to communicate, and they had then nothing to answer. They did not, however, yet see the bearing of what they had admitted.
Mat 21:42, Mat 21:43
Jesus saith … – Jesus, having led them to admit the justice of the great principle on which God was about to act toward them proceeds to apply it by a text of Scripture, declaring that this very thing which they admitted to be proper in the case of the husbandmen had been predicted respecting themselves.
This passage is found in Psa 118:22-23. It was first applicable to David, but no less to Jesus.
The stone – The figure is taken from building a house. The principal stone for size and beauty is that commonly laid as the cornerstone.
Which the builders rejected – On account of its want of beauty or size it was laid aside, or deemed unfit to be a cornerstone. This represents the Lord Jesus, proposed to the Jews as the foundation or cornerstone on which to build the church, but rejected by them – the builders – on account of his lack of comeliness or beauty; that is, of what they esteemed to be comely or desirable, Isa 53:2-3.
The same is become … – Though rejected by them, yet God chose him, and made him the foundation of the church. Christ is often compared to a stone, a cornerstone, a tried, that is, a sure, firm foundation – all in allusion to the custom of building, Act 4:11; Rom 9:33; Eph 2:20; 1Pe 2:7.
Lords doing – The appointment of Jesus of Nazareth to be the foundation of the church is proved by miracle and prophecy to be the work of God.
Marvellous in our eyes – Wonderful in the sight of his people. That he should select his only Son – that he should stoop so low, be despised, rejected, and put to death – that God should raise him up, and build a church on this foundation, embracing the Gentile as well as the Jew, and spreading through all the world, is a subject of wonder and praise to all the redeemed.
Mat 21:43
The kingdom of God … – Jesus applies the parable to them – the Jews.
They had been the children of the kingdom, or under the reign of God; having his law and acknowledging him as King. They had been his chosen and special people, but he says that now this privilege would be taken away; that they would cease to be the special people of God, and that the blessing would be given to a nation who would bring forth the fruits thereof, or be righteous that is, to the Gentiles, Act 28:28.
Mat 21:44
Whosoever shall fall … – There is a reference here, doubtless, to Isa 8:14-15. Having made an allusion to himself as a stone, or a rock Mat 21:42, he proceeds to state the consequences of coming in contact with it. He that falls upon it shall be broken; he that runs against it – a cornerstone, standing out from the other parts of the foundation shall be injured, or broken in his limbs or body. He that is offended with my being the foundation, or that opposes me, shall by the act injure himself, or make himself miserable by so doing, even were there nothing further. But there is something further.
On whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder – That is, in the original, will reduce him to dust, so that it may be scattered by the winds. There is an allusion here, doubtless, to the custom of stoning as a punishment among the Jews. A scaffold was erected twice the height of the man to be stoned. Standing on its edge, he was violently struck off by one of the witnesses: if he died by the blow and the fall, nothing further was done; if not, a heavy stone was thrown down on him, which at once killed him. So the Saviour speaks of the falling of the stone on his enemies. They who oppose him, who reject him, and who continue impenitent, shall be crushed by him in the day of judgment, and perish forever.
Mat 21:45, Mat 21:46
At last, they perceived that he spoke of them, and would have gratified their malice at once but they feared the people.
Remarks On Matthew 21
1. Jesus is omniscient, and sees and knows all things, Mat 21:2.
2. It is our duty to obey the Lord Jesus, and to do it at once, Mat 21:3. When He commands there should be no delay. What he orders is right, and we should not hesitate or deliberate about it.
3. Especially is this the case where He is to be honored, as he was on this occasion, Mat 21:3, Mat 21:8. If it was for our interest or honor only that we obeyed him, it would be of less consequence; but our obedience will honor Him, and we should seek that honor by any sacrifice or self-denial.
4. We should be willing to give up our property to honor the Lord Jesus, Mat 21:3. He has a right to it. If given to spread the gospel, it goes, as this did, to increase the triumphs of our King. We should be willing to give our wealth that he might gird on his sword, and ride prosperously among the heathen. Everyone who is saved among the pagan by sending the gospel to them will be for the honor of Jesus. They will go to swell his train when he shall enter triumphantly into his kingdom at the day of judgment.
5. It is our duty to honor him, Mat 21:7-9. He is King of Zion. He is Lord of all. He reigns, and shall always reign.
Sinners! Whose love can neer forget
The wormwood and the gall,
Go spread your trophies at his feet,
And crown him Lord of all.
Ye chosen seed of Israels race;
Ye ransomed from the fall;
Hail him who saves you by his grace,
And crown him Lord of all.
Let every kindred, every tribe,
On this terrestrial ball,
To him all majesty ascribe,
And crown him Lord of all.
6. Children should also honor him and shout hosanna to him, Mat 21:15. The chief priests and scribes, in the time of our Saviour, were displeased that they did it; and many of the great, and many formal professors since, have been displeased that children should profess to love and honor Jesus. They have opposed Sunday schools, and opposed the praying of children, and opposed their singing to his praise, and opposed their giving their money to spread his gospel; but Jesus loves such praise and such service. The mouths of babes and sucklings should be taught to speak his name; and whatever the world may say, whatever the proud, the rich, or the formal may say, children should seek him early and give their first years to him. He loves their praises. Perhaps few of all the songs of thanksgiving are so pleasant to his ears as the hosannas of a Sunday school.
7. We have here a view of the glory of Jesus, Mat 21:9-11. Though humble yet he was King. Though most of his life unhonored, yet once he had the honors of his station rendered to him, and entered the city of his father David as a triumphant King of Zion. He will be yet more honored. He will come with all his saints, with the glory of his Father, and with the holy angels. There we shall be; and we should be prepared to join with the vast host in shouting hosanna to the returning King of Zion.
8. Yet, amid all these honors, he was meek and lowly, Mat 21:5. Others would have been proud and lifted up, but he was always meek; his heart was not proud. He is the only one of kings that could bear triumph and honors without being lifted up by it and made proud.
9. Yet amid all his triumphs he wept over Jerusalem (Luke). No king, no conqueror, ever before showed compassion like this. People weep when they are afflicted, or are poor and needy; but what prince has ever, in the moment of his triumph, wept over the miseries and dangers of his subjects? Not an instance can be found in all history where an earthly conqueror ever showed compassion like this. So Jesus has still compassion over blind, ruined, wretched man. Amid all the triumphs of the gospel, he does not forget those I who are yet in their sins, but stretches out his arms to welcome them to his embrace.
10. Prophecy will be certainly and exactly fulfilled (Luke). That respecting Jerusalem was literally accomplished; and in like manner will all that is predicted of all sinners assuredly come to pass. If Jerusalem had repented it would have been saved; so if sinners repent they will be saved. If not, like Jerusalem, in due time they will perish.
11. Jesus purified the temple, Mat 21:12. It was the house of God. So our hearts should be the dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit; so, also, they should be pure. All worldly cares, and traffic, and business, that would interfere with the dwelling of the Spirit there, and all wickedness, oppression, extortion, cheating, and pollution should be banished. God dwells not in such polluted temples; and unless we are pure in heart, he will not be with us, and we shall not see his face in peace. Compare the notes at 1Co 3:16-17.
12. Jesus only can purify our hearts. He does it by his blood and Spirit. Over all our sins he holds the same power as he did over the traffickers in the temple. At his command they will flee, and we shall be pure. If our hearts are ever purified, therefore, it will be by the power of Jesus. Nor should we wait in sin for him to do it. We should come to him, and beseech him to have mercy, and to save us from our pollutions.
13. Envy and hatred will take hold of very small matters, to show itself against the good and even the prudent, Mat 21:15. When the enemies of Jesus could find nothing else to blame, they chose to find fault with the shouting of children. So always in a revival of religion, or any great work of the Lord, it is some small matter that is seized upon something not exactly to the view of wicked objectors – that is made the occasion of reproach and opposition.
14. We must produce fruit in our lives as well as flowers, Mat 21:19. A profession of religion is like the flowers of spring. A revival is like fragrant blossoms. They are beautiful, and promise much fruit; but how many wither, and droop, and fall useless to the ground! How few of all the blossoms of the spring produce ripe and mellow fruit in autumn! So, alas! it is often with those who appear well in revivals of religion.
15. If we make a profession and do not produce fruit, Jesus will curse us, and we shall soon wither away, Mat 21:19-20. He will suffer none to enter into his kingdom on the ground of profession only. If we bear fruit and live lives of piety, we are Christians; if not, all our professions are like the blossoms of spring or the leaves of the tree. They will not save us from the withering frown of Jesus.
16. People will do almost anything right or wrong, and as often wrong as right – to court popularity, Mat 21:24. It is generally not asked by such people what is right or what is true, but what will secure popularity. If they have that, they are satisfied.
17. People often tell a direct falsehood rather than acknowledge the truth, Mat 21:27. Especially is this the case when the truth makes against them.
18. Double-dealing and an attempt to evade the truth commonly lead into difficulty. If these people had been honest, they would have had far less trouble, Mat 21:27.
19. A state of gross and open sin is often more hopeful than one of hypocrisy, pride, and self-conceit, together with external conformity to religion, Mat 21:28. Multitudes of profane and licentious people may be saved, while the proud and self-righteous will be cut off. The reasons are,
- That the wicked, the gross, have no righteousness on which they can pretend to rely.
(2)Nothing so effectually prevents religion as pride and self-confidence.
- There is often really more ingenuousness and candor, and less of malignity against the gospel, among the openly wicked, than among those who are outwardly righteous, but who are inwardly like whited sepulchres, full of dead mens bones and all uncleanness.
20. Multitudes of people profess to go, and go not, Mat 21:30. They profess to love God, and love themselves better. They profess to obey him, and yet obey their lusts. They are hypocrites, and destruction must come upon them.
21. Sinners, when they see the effect of truth on others, should repent, Mat 21:32. It is proof of the truth of religion, and they, as much as others, need it.
22. We see the goodness of God in sending his messengers to a lost world, Mat 21:33-38. His prophets he sent one after another, and they were put to death. His well-beloved Son he sent, and He also was put to death. Nor is his mercy yet stayed. He still sends his message to sinners. Thousands have died, as his Son did, in attempting to spread the gospel, but still he sends it. We have often, often rejected it, yet still he sends it. What earthly monarch would be treated in this manner? What earthly parent would be so patient and so kind?
23. If we improve not our privileges they will be taken away from us, Mat 21:43. The gospel will be sent to many of the pagan, and they will be saved, but woe to those who have had it all their lives and are not saved.
24. All who reject the Saviour must perish, Mat 21:44.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Mat 21:33-41
There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard.
The wicked husbandmen
I. A representation of the jewish church as regards its privileges and obligations. There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, etc.
1. The comparison employed. Palestine abounded in vineyards. This was planted; there was not one on the spot previously. He had to expend capital to bring it under cultivation.
2. The engagement entered into-Let it out to husbandmen.
3. The returns anticipated-Receive the fruits of it.
II. Their unprincipled disposition and the monstrous brutality they manifested.
1. The messengers sent to them, and the manner in which they were treated.
2. The crowning act of clemency on the one hand, and of cruelty on the other.
III. The awful retribution with which their abominable conduct was at length visited.
1. A striking prediction quoted-Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures, etc.
2. The important inference declared-Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, etc.
3. A solemn warning uttered-And whosoever shall fall on this stone, etc. (Expository Outlines.)
The wicked husbandmen
1. The greatest privilege a man can enjoy is to have the kingdom of God entrusted to him.
2. The greatest sin a man can commit is to reject Christ.
3. The darkest doom is that of those who are guilty of this greatest sin. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
The wicked husbandmen
I. Their mercies.
1. They were in the vineyard-Israel-and in no heathen land. No small mercy that we live in a Christian country.
2. They were husbandmen-men of office and influence, entrusted with an honourable work under a wise and good master. A great mercy to be not only in the vineyard, but called to work for God there.
3. They were paid for their work.
4. Though unfaithful, they had been long borne with. Divine forbearance a great mercy.
5. Special messengers were sent to them from time to time to stimulate and encourage them, etc.
II. Their conduct.
1. They neglected their work.
2. They missed the purport of their office, which was spiritual.
3. They had killed the messengers.
4. At last they filled up the measure of their iniquity by killing the heir. Being servants, they had come to regard themselves as the owners and lords of Gods heritage. Under their husbandry the vineyard had become a scene of moral ruin.
III. Their punishment.
1. God, though merciful, was not unobservant of their conduct.
2. He had often inflicted minor and temporal punishments on themselves and the nation.
3. Now they were to be wholly extinguished.
4. The punishment was unexpected; they despised its cause.
5. It was complete. They lost their place and nation, and were scattered abroad.
Learn-
1. To consider and value Gods mercies (Psa 106:12-14; Rom 12:1).
2. To study our reception and use of them.
3. To reflect specially on the greatest of all (2Co 9:15).
4. To remember that we too must give account. (J. C. Gray.)
The Son of God must be reverenced
What is said of Israel may be said of men in all ages-It might have been presumed that they would treat kindly the Son of God. From
(1) the divinity and glory of His nature;
(2) the perfect excellence of His character as a man;
(3) the reasonableness of His claims;
(4) the condescending kindness of His intentions;
(5) His known ability to save;
(6) His ability to destroy as well as to save;
(7) their necessities.
Conclusion-
1. The sinners final ruin is unnecessary.
2. His ruin will be self-induced.
3. Wanton. (D. A. Clark, A. M.)
The figure of letting out the vineyard
I. Show what letting out doth imply or denote.
1. Negatively. This letting the vineyard doth not denote that any people have a lease sealed to them of their church state, church ordinances, and church privileges: no, all are but tenants at will. We hold all our spiritual privileges at the will and pleasure of the Lord of hosts, who may give us warning and turn us out of all when He pleaseth. And it doth not imply that any people buy and pay for any spiritual blessings and good things which they possess; no, we have all freely, church and church privileges, the gospel, ordinances, and promises, without money and without price. We have no rent, no tribute to pay, but the tribute of praise, thanksgiving, and fruitfulness unto God.
2. Negatively.
a. Letting denotes Gods entrusting a people with the great blessing of the legal Church.
b. Letting implies that a Church, the Word of God, and ordinances, are not mans own proper or natural right or inheritance. We are but stewards entrusted with these things,
c. Letting out to husbandmen signifies a mighty trust is committed to such.
d. Letting out implies that if men do not bring forth unto God that holy fruit which He expecteth, they must be called to an account for it.
II. To whom may the Church or vineyard of Christ be said to be let?
1. Principally to the pastors, teachers, and such who are, or ought to be, helps of government.
2. In some sense it may be said to be let also to every member; for every member is a hired servant of Christ, and all have their proper work appointed by Him.
3. In a remote sense it is let to all that accept the invitations of the gospel.
III. What fruit is it that God expecteth?
1. The fruit of faith and conversion.
2. The fruit of good works.
3. Fruits good in quality anal quantity.
4. Fruit according to the cost and pains God hath been at.
5. Fruit according to the time of the vineyard being planted.
6. Fruit in due season.
7. Fruit according to gifts and grace received.
8. Fruit according to the places and stations wherein God hath set us. (Benj. Keach.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 33. There was a certain householder] Let us endeavour to find out a general and practical meaning for this parable. A householder – the Supreme Being. The family – the Jewish nation. The vineyard – the city of Jerusalem. The fence – the Divine protection. The wine-press – the law and sacrificial rites. The tower – the temple, in which the Divine presence was manifested. The husbandmen – the priests and doctors of the law. Went from home – entrusted the cultivation of the vineyard to the priests, c., with the utmost confidence as a man would do who had the most trusty servants, and was obliged to absent himself from home for a certain time. Our Lord takes this parable from Isa 5:1, c. but whether our blessed Redeemer quote from the law, the prophets, or the rabbins, he reserves the liberty to himself to beautify the whole, and render it more pertinent.
Some apply this parable also to Christianity, thus: – The master or father – our blessed Lord. The family – professing Christians in general. The vineyard – the true Church, or assembly of the faithful. The hedge – the true faith, which keeps the sacred assembly enclosed and defended from the errors of heathenism and false Christianity. The wine-press-the atonement made by the sacrifice of Christ, typified by the sacrifices under the law. The tower-the promises of the Divine presence and protection. The husbandmen – the apostles and all their successors in the ministry. The going from home-the ascension to heaven. But this parable cannot go on all fours in the Christian cause, as any one may see. In the case of the husbandmen, especially it is applicable; unless we suppose our Lord intended such as those inquisitorial Bonners, who always persecuted the true ministers of Christ, and consequently Christ himself in his members; and to these may be added the whole train of St. Bartholomew EJECTORS, and all the fire and faggot men of a certain Church, who think they do God service by murdering his saints. But let the persecuted take courage: Jesus Christ will come back shortly; and then he will miserably destroy those wicked men: indeed, he has done so already to several, and let out his vineyard to more faithful husbandmen.
Digged a wine-press] . St. Mark has , the pit under the press, into which the liquor ran, when squeezed out of the fruit by the press.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark hath this parable, Mar 12:1-9. Luke hath it, Luk 20:9-16. Who is here intended under the notion of a householder, or a man? We are told by the prophet Isaiah, Isa 5:1,2, it is the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: the house of Israel and the men of Judah are his vineyard, his pleasant plant, Isa 5:7 he hedged this people by his providence. God often compares his church to a vineyard, Deu 32:32; Psa 80:8; Jer 2:21. The other expressions, of making in it a winepress, or a winefat, signify no more than that God had provided for the Jews all things necessary for use or ornament. His letting of it out to husbandmen, and going into a far country, signifies that, being himself, as to his glorious residence, in heaven, he had entrusted the church of the Jews with a high priest, and other priests and Levites.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
33. Hear another parable: There wasa certain householder, which planted a vineyard(See on Lu13:6).
and hedged it round about,and digged a winepress in it, and built a towerThese detailsare taken, as is the basis of the parable itself, from that beautifulparable of Isa 5:1-7, inorder to fix down the application and sustain it by Old Testamentauthority.
and let it out tohusbandmenThese are just the ordinary spiritual guides of thepeople, under whose care and culture the fruits of righteousness areexpected to spring up.
and went into a farcountry“for a long time” (Lu20:9), leaving the vineyard to the laws of the spiritualhusbandry during the whole time of the Jewish economy. On thisphraseology, see on Mr 4:26.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Hear another parable,…. Which, though Luke says was spoken to the people, who, were gathered round about him, yet was directed to, and against the chief priests; who continued with him till it was delivered, and the application of it made; when they perceived it was spoken of them. The design of it is, to set forth the many favours and privileges bestowed on the Jewish nation; their unfruitfulness, and the ingratitude of the principal men among them; and their barbarous usage of the servants of the Lord, and particularly of the Son of God himself: the consequence of which would be, the removal of the Gospel from them, and the miserable destruction of them. So that this parable is partly a narrative, of some things past, and partly a prophecy of some things to come:
there was a certain householder: by whom the great God of heaven and earth is meant; who may be so called, either with respect to the whole world, which is an house of his building, and the inhabitants of it are his family, who live, are nourished, and supplied by him; or to the church, the house of the living God, the family in heaven and in earth, called the household of God, and of faith; or to the people of Israel, often called the house of Israel, the family, above all the families of the earth, God took notice of, highly favoured, and dwelt among.
Which planted a vineyard: of the form of a vineyard, the manner of planting it, and the size of it, the Jews say many things in their Misna f.
“He that plants a row of five vines, the school of Shammai say, “it is a vineyard”; but the school of Hillell say, it is not a vineyard, unless there are two rows–he that plants two vines over against two, and one at the tail or end, , “lo! this is a vineyard”; (it was a little vineyard;) but if two over against two, and one between the two, or two over against two, and one in the midst, it is no vineyard, unless there are two over against two, and one at the tail or end.”
Again g,
“a vineyard that is planted with less than four cubits (between every row), R. Simeon says, is no vineyard; but the wise men say it is a vineyard.”
And the decision is according to them. Now by this vineyard is meant, the house of Israel and the men of Judah, the nation of the Jews, as in Isa 5:7 from whence our Lord seems to have taken many of the ideas expressed in this parable; who were a people separated from the rest of the world, and set with valuable plants, from whom fruit might reasonably be expected: the planting of them designs the removing them out of Egypt, the driving out the natives before them, and settling them in the land of Canaan, where they were planted with choice vines, such as Joshua, Caleb, c. and where they soon became a flourishing people, though for their iniquities, often exposed to beasts of prey, the neighbouring nations, that were suffered at times to break in upon them. The Jews often speak h of the house of Israel, as the vineyard of the Lord of hosts, and even call their schools and universities vineyards: hence we read i of
, the vineyard in Jabneh, where the scholars were placed in rows, as in a vineyard.
And hedged it round about as it was usual to set a hedge, or make a wall round a vineyard, which according to the Jewish writers, was to be ten hands high, and four broad; for they ask k,
“rdg hz ya, “what is a hedge?” That which is ten hands, high.”
And elsewhere l,
“An hedge that encompasses a vineyard, which is less than ten hands high, or which is ten hands high, but not four hands broad, it has no circuit (or void place between that and the vines)–an hedge which is ten hands high, and so a ditch which is ten hands deep, and four broad, lo! this is lawful to plant a vineyard on one side of it, and herbs on the other; even a fence of reeds, if there is between the reeds the space of three hands, lo! this divides between the vineyard and the herbs, as an hedge.”
By this “hedge” is designed, either the law, not the oral law, or the traditions of the elders, which the Jews m call , “an hedge for the law”, which was none of God’s setting, but their own; but either the ceremonial law, which distinguished them from other people, was a middle wall of partition between them, and the nations of the world, and kept them from coming among them, and joining together; or the moral law, which taught them their duty to God and man, and was the means of keeping them within due bounds; or else the protection of them by the power of God, which was an hedge about them, is here intended; and which was very remarkable at the time of their three feasts of passover, pentecost, and tabernacles; when all their males went up to Jerusalem, and the whole country was, left an easy prey to the nations about them; but God preserved them, and, according to his promise, suffered not their neighbours to have any inclination or desire after their land.
And digged a winepress in it; which is not , “the ditch”, that went through a, vineyard; for this cannot be said of a winepress, and is Dr. Lightfoot’s mistake n; but , “the winefat”, in which they squeezed the grapes and made the wine, and this used to be in the vineyard: the rule about it is this,
“Mrkbv tgh, the winepress that is ten hands deep and four broad, R. Eliezer says, they may set in it; but the wise men do forbid it o.”
By this may be meant, the altar where the drink offerings of wine were poured forth; and so the Targumist p renders it by , “my altar I have given them, to atone for their sins”: though one of their commentators q, by it, understands the prophets, who taught Israel the law, that their works might be good before God and men; they urged and pressed them to the performance of them, as grapes are squeezed in the winepress:
and built a tower; the same the Jews call , “the watch house”; which was an high place, in which the watchman stood to keep r the vineyard, and which was built in the vineyard; of this they say,
“Mrkbv hrmwv, the “watch house which is in the vineyard”, that is ten hands high and four broad, they set in it s.”
By this is meant, either the city or Jerusalem, which stood in the midst, and on the highest part of the land of Israel; or the temple, which stood on the highest part of Jerusalem, where the priests and Levites kept their watch every night; and so the Targumist t interprets it, by , “my sanctuary I built among them”: that is, the temple:
and let it out to husbandmen; of which there were different sorts, as there were different methods of hiring and letting out fields and vineyards among the Jews: one sort was called , and such was he, who hired of his neighbour a field to sow in it, or a vineyard to eat of the fruit of it, for a certain sum of money yearly; see So 8:11 another sort was called , and this was one that hired a field, or a vineyard, and agreed to give the proprietor of it yearly, so many measures of the fruit thereof, whether it yielded more or less; and there was a third sort, called , or , and such was he, who agreed to give the owner half, or a third, or a fourth part of the increase of the field, or vineyard u. Now it is not of the former, but of the latter sort of letting out and farming, that this is to be understood; not of letting it out for money, but for fruit, as appears from Mt 21:34 and by the husbandmen are meant, the rulers of the Jews, civil and ecclesiastical, especially the latter; the priests, Levites, and Scribes, who were intrusted with the care of the Jewish people, to guide and instruct them, and cultivate the knowledge of divine things among them, that they might bring forth fruits of righteousness; and to offer their gifts and sacrifices, and the like, which are meant by letting out the vineyard to them: and went into afar country; which must be interpreted consistent with the omnipresence of God, who is every where, and cannot be said properly to move from place to place; but fills heaven and earth with his presence, and cannot be contained in either: but this phrase seems to design his taking up his residence in the thick darkness, in the tabernacle and temple, when the civil and ecclesiastical state of the Jews was settled, and God did not appear to them in that visible manner he had done before; but having fixed their order of government, worship, and duty, left them to themselves and their rulers; for many years; in which he expressed much longsuffering and patience towards them.
f Misna Kilaim, c. 4. sect. 5, 6. Maimon. Hilch. Kilaim, c. 7. sect. 7. g Ib. c. 5. sect. 2. Maimon ib. sect. 1. h Tzeror Hammor, fol. 148. 2. Zohar in Exod. fol. 2. 1. i T. Hieros. Beracot, fol. 7. 4. T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 42. 2. k Misn. Kilaim, c. 4. sect. 3. l Maimon. Hilch. Kilaim, c. 7. sect. 14, 15. m Pirke Abot. c. sect, 1. n Horae in Mark xii. 1. o Misn. Kilaim, c. 5. sect. 3. p Targum Jon. in Isa. v. 2. Vid. T. Hicros. Succa, fol. 54. 4. q R. David Kimchi in loc. r Maimon. in Misn. Kilaim, c. 5. sect. 3. Aben Ezra in Isa. v. 2. s Misn. Kilaim, c. 5. sect. 3. Maimon. Hilch. Kilaim, c. 7. sect. 22. t Targum Jon. in Isa. v. 2. u T. Hieros. Demai, fol. 25. 1. Gloss in T. Bab. Moed. Katon, fol. 11. 2. & in Bava Metzia, fol. 103. 1. in Avoda Zara, fol. 21. 2. Maimon. Hilch. Shecirut, c. 8. sect. 1, 2. Bartenora in Misn. Pea, c. 5. sect. 5. & in Demai, c. 6, sect. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. |
| |
33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. 40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. 42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. 45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. 46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.
This parable plainly sets forth the sin and ruin of the Jewish nation; they and their leaders are the husbandmen here; and what is spoken for conviction to them, is spoken for caution to all that enjoy the privileges of the visible church, not to be high-minded, but fear.
I. We have here the privileges of the Jewish church, represented by the letting out of a vineyard to the husbandmen; they were as tenants holding by, from, and under, God the great Householder. Observe,
1. How God established a church for himself in the world. The kingdom of God upon earth is here compared to a vineyard, furnished with all things requisite to an advantageous management and improvement of it. (1.) He planted this vineyard. The church is the planting of the Lord, Isa. lxi. 3. The forming of a church is a work by itself, like the planting of a vineyard, which requires a great deal of cost and care. It is the vineyard which his right hand has planted (Ps. lxxx. 15), planted with the choicest vine (Isa. v. 2), a noble vine, Jer. ii. 21. The earth of itself produces thorns and briars; but vines must be planted. The being of a church is owing to God’s distinguishing favour, and his manifesting himself to some, and not to others. (2.) He hedged it round about. Note, God’s church in the world is taken under his special protection. It is a hedge round about, like that about Job on every side (Job i. 10), a wall of fire, Zech. ii. 5. Wherever God has a church, it is, and will always be, his peculiar care. The covenant of circumcision and the ceremonial law were a hedge or a wall of partition about the Jewish church, which is taken down by Christ; who yet has appointed a gospel order and discipline to be the hedge of his church. He will not have his vineyard to lie in common, that those who are without, may thrust in at pleasure; not to lie at large, that those who are within, may lash out at pleasure; but care is taken to set bounds about this holy mountain. (3.) He digged a wine-press and built a tower. The altar of burnt-offerings was the wine-press, to which all the offerings were brought. God instituted ordinances in his church, for the due oversight of it, and for the promoting of its fruitfulness. What could have been done more to make it every way convenient?
2. How he entrusted these visible church-privileges with the nation and people of the Jews, especially their chief priests and elders; he let it out to them as husbandmen, not because he had need of them as landlords have of their tenants, but because he would try them, and be honoured by them. When in Judah God was known, and his name was great, when they were taken to be to God for a people, and for a name, and for a praise (Jer. xiii. 11), when he revealed his word unto Jacob (Ps. cxlvii. 19), when the covenant of life and peace was made with Levi (Mal 2:4; Mal 2:5), then this vineyard was let out. See an abstract of the lease, Son 8:11; Son 8:12. The Lord of the vineyard was to have a thousand pieces of silver (compare Isa. vii. 13); the main profit was to be his, but the keepers were to have two hundred, a competent and comfortable encouragement. And then he went into a far country. When God had in a visible appearance settled the Jewish church at mount Sinai, he did in a manner withdraw; they had no more such open vision, but were left to the written word. Or, they imagined that he was gone into a far country, as Israel, when they made the calf, fancied that Moses was gone. They put far from them the evil day.
II. God’s expectation of rent from these husbandmen, v. 34. It was a reasonable expectation; for who plants a vineyard, and eats not of the fruit thereof? Note, From those that enjoy church-privileges, both ministers and people, God looks for fruit accordingly. 1. His expectations were not hasty; he did not demand a fore-rent, though he had been at such expense upon it; but staid till the time of the fruit drew near, as it did now that John preached the kingdom of heaven is at hand. God waits to be gracious, that he may give us time. 2. They were not high; he did not require them to come at their peril, upon penalty of forfeiting their lease if they ran behind-hand; but he sent his servants to them, to remind them of their duty, and of the rent-day, and to help them in gathering in the fruit, and making return of it. These servants were the prophets of the Old Testament, who were sent, and sometimes directly, to the people of the Jews, to reprove and instruct them. 3. They were not hard; it was only to receive the fruits. He did not demand more than they could make of it, but some fruit of that which he himself planted–an observance of the laws and statutes he gave them. What could have been done more reasonable? Israel was an empty vine, nay it was become the degenerate plant of a strange vine, and brought forth wild grapes.
III. The husbandmen’s baseness in abusing the messengers that were sent to them.
1. When he sent them his servants, they abused them, though they represented the master himself, and spoke in his name. Note, The calls and reproofs of the word, if they do not engage, will but exasperate. See here what hath all along been the lot of God’s faithful messengers, more or less; (1.) To suffer; so persecuted they the prophets, who were hated with a cruel hatred. They not only despised and reproached them, but treated them as the worst of malefactors–they beat them, and killed them, and stoned them. They beat Jeremiah, killed Isaiah, stoned Zechariah the son of Jehoiada in the temple. If they that live godly in Christ Jesus themselves shall suffer persecution, much more they that press others to it. This was God’s old quarrel with the Jews, misusing his prophets, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 16. (2.) It has been their lot to suffer from their Master’s own tenants; they were the husbandmen that treated them thus, the chief priests and elders that sat in Moses’s chair, that professed religion and relation to God; these were the most bitter enemies of the Lord’s prophets, that cast them out, and killed them, and said, Let the Lord be glorified, Isa. lxvi. 5. See Jer 20:1; Jer 20:2; Jer 26:11.
Now see, [1.] How God persevered in his goodness to them. He sent other servants, more than the first; though the first sped not, but were abused. He had sent them John the Baptist, and him they had beheaded; and yet he sent them his disciples, to prepare his way. O the riches of the patience and forbearance of God, in keeping up in his church a despised, persecuted ministry! [2.] How they persisted in their wickedness. They did unto them likewise. One sin makes way for another of the same kind. They that are drunk with the blood of the saints, add drunkenness to thirst, and still cry, Give, give.
2. At length, he sent them his Son; we have seen God’s goodness in sending, and their badness in abusing, the servants; but in the latter instance both these exceed themselves.
(1.) Never did grace appear more gracious than in sending the Son. This was done last of all. Note, All the prophets were harbingers and forerunners to Christ. He was sent last; for if nothing else would work upon them, surely this would; it was therefore served for the ratio ultima–the last expedient. Surely they will reverence my Son, and therefore I will send him. Note, It might reasonably be expected that the Son of God, when he came to his own, should be reverenced; and reverence to Christ would be a powerful and effectual principle of fruitfulness and obedience, to the glory of God; if they will but reverence the Son, the point is gained. Surely they will reverence my Son, for he comes with more authority than the servants could; judgment is committed to him, that all men should honour him. There is greater danger in refusing him than in despising Moses’s law.
(2.) Never did sin appear more sinful than in the abusing of him, which was now to be done in two or three days. Observe,
[1.] How it was plotted (v. 38); When they saw the Son: when he came, whom the people owned and followed as the Messiah, who would either have the rent paid, or distrain for it; this touched their copyhold, and they were resolved to make one bold push for it, and to preserve their wealth and grandeur by taking him out of the way, who was the only hindrance to it, and rival with them. This is the heir, come, let us kill him. Pilate and Herod, the princes of this world, knew not; for if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory, 1 Cor. ii. 8. But the chief priests and elders knew that this was the heir, at least some of them; and therefore Come, let us kill him. Many are killed for what they have. The chief thing they envied him, and for which they hated and feared him, was his interest in the people, and their hosannas, which, if he was taken off, they hope to engross securely to themselves. They pretended that he must die, to save the people from the Romans (John xi. 50); but really he must die, to save their hypocrisy and tyranny from that reformation which the expected kingdom of the Messiah would certainly bring along with it. He drives the buyers and sellers out of the temple; and therefore let us kill him; and then, as if the premises must of course go to the occupant, let us seize on his inheritance. They thought, if they could but get rid of this Jesus, they should carry all before them in the church without control, might impose what traditions, and force the people to what submissions, they pleased. Thus they take counsel against the Lord and his Anointed; but he that sits in heaven, laughs to see them outshot in their own bow; for, while they thought to kill him, and so to seize on his inheritance, he went by his cross to his crown, and they were broken pieces with a rod of iron, and their inheritance seized. Psa 2:2; Psa 2:3; Psa 2:6; Psa 2:9.
[2.] How this plot was executed, v. 39. While they were so set upon killing him, in pursuance of their design to secure their own pomp and power, and while he was so set upon dying, in pursuance of his design to subdue Satan, and save his chosen, no wonder if they soon caught him, and slew him, when his hour was come. Though the Roman power condemned him, yet it is still charged upon the chief priests and elders; for they were not only the prosecutors, but the principal agents, and had the greater sin. Ye have taken, Acts ii. 23. Nay looking upon him to be as unworthy to live, as they were unwilling he should, they cast him out of the vineyard, out of the holy church, which they supposed themselves to have the key of, and out of the holy city for he was crucified without the gate, Heb. xiii. 12. As if He had been the shame and reproach, who was the greatest glory of his people Israel. Thus they who persecuted the servants, persecuted the Son; as men treat God’s ministers, they would treat Christ himself, if he were with them.
IV. Here is their doom read out of their own mouths, Mat 21:40; Mat 21:41. He puts it to them, When the Lord of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto these husbandmen? He puts it to themselves, for their stronger conviction, that knowing the judgment of God against them which do such things, they might be the more inexcusable. Note, God’s proceedings are so unexceptionable, that there needs but an appeal to sinners themselves concerning the equity of them. God will be justified when he speaks. They could readily answer, He will miserably destroy those wicked men. Note, Many can easily prognosticate the dismal consequences of other people’s sins, that see not what will be the end of their own.
1. Our Saviour, in his question, supposes that the lord of the vineyard will come, and reckon with them. God is the Lord of the vineyard; the property is his, and he will make them know it, who now lord it over his heritage, as if it were all their own. The Lord of the vineyard will come. Persecutors say in their hearts, He delays his coming, he doth not see, he will not require; but they shall find, though he bear long with them, he will not bear always. It is comfort to abused saints and ministers, that the Lord is at hand, the Judge stands before the door. When he comes, what will he do to carnal professors? What will he do to cruel persecutors? They must be called to account, they have their day now; but he sees that his day is coming.
2. They, in their answer, suppose that it will be a terrible reckoning; the crime appearing so very black, you may be sure,
(1.) That he will miserably destroy those wicked men; it is destruction that is their doom. Kakous kakos apolesei—Malos male perdet. Let men never expect to do ill, and fare well. This was fulfilled upon the Jews, in that miserable destruction which was brought upon them by the Romans, and was completed about forty years after this; and unparalleled ruin, attended with all the most dismal aggravating circumstances. It will be fulfilled upon all that tread in the steps of their wickedness; hell is everlasting destruction, and it will be the most miserable destruction to them of all others, that have enjoyed the greatest share of church privileges, and have not improved them. The hottest place in hell will be the portion of hypocrites and persecutors.
(2.) That he will let out his vineyard to other husbandmen. Note, God will have a church in the world, notwithstanding the unworthiness and opposition of many that abuse the privileges of it. The unbelief and frowardness of man shall not make the word of God of no effect. If one will not, another will. The Jews’ leavings were the Gentiles’ feast. Persecutors may destroy the ministers, but cannot destroy the church. The Jews imagined that no doubt they were the people, and wisdom and holiness must die with them; and if they were cut off, what would God do for a church in the world? But when God makes use of any to bear up his name, it is not because he needs them, nor is he at all beholden to them. If we were made a desolation and an astonishment, God could build a flourishing church upon our ruins; for he is never at a loss what to do for his great name, whatever becomes of us, and of our place and nation.
V. The further illustration and application of this by Christ himself, telling them, in effect, that they had rightly judged.
1. He illustrates it by referring to a scripture fulfilled in this (v. 42); Did ye never read in the scriptures? Yes, no doubt, they had often read and sung it, but had not considered it. We lose the benefit of what we read for want of meditation. The scripture he quotes is Psa 118:22; Psa 118:23, the same context out of which the children fetched their hosannas. The same word yields matter of praise and comfort to Christ’s friends and followers, which speaks conviction and terror to his enemies. Such a two-edged sword is the word of God. That scripture, the Stone which the builders refused is become the headstone of the corner, illustrates the preceding parable, especially that part of it which refers to Christ.
(1.) The builders’ rejecting of the stone is the same with the husbandmen’s abusing of the son that was sent to them. The chief priests and the elders were the builders, had the oversight of the Jewish church, which was God’s building: and they would not allow Christ a place in their building, would not admit his doctrine or laws into their constitution; they threw him aside as a despised broken vessel, a stone that would serve only for a stepping-stone, to be trampled upon.
(2.) The advancing of this stone to be the head of the corner is the same with letting out the vineyard to other husbandmen. He who was rejected by the Jews was embraced by the Gentiles; and to that church where there is no difference of circumcision or uncircumcision, Christ is all, and in all. His authority over the gospel church, and influence upon it, his ruling it as the Head, and uniting it as the Corner-stone, are the great tokens of his exhaltation. Thus, in spite of the malice of the priests and elders, he divided a portion with the great, and received his kingdom, though they would not have him to reign over them.
(3.) The hand of God was in all this; This is the Lord’s doing. Even the rejecting of him by the Jewish builders was by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God; he permitted and overruled it; much more was his advancement to the Head of the corner; his right hand and his holy arm brought it about; it was God himself that highly exalted him, and gave him a name above every name; and it is marvellous in our eyes. The wickedness of the Jews that rejected him is marvellous,; that men should be so prejudiced against their own interest! See Isa 29:9; Isa 29:10; Isa 29:14. The honour done him by the Gentile world, notwithstanding the abuses done him by his own people, is marvellous; that he whom men despised and abhorred, should be adored by kings! Isa. xlix. 7. But it is the Lord’s doing.
2. He applies it to them, and application is the life of preaching.
(1.) He applies the sentence which they had passed (v. 41), and turns it upon themselves; not the former part of it, concerning the miserable destruction of the husbandmen (he could not bear to speak of that), but the latter part, of letting out the vineyard to others; because though it looked black upon the Jews, it spoke good to the Gentiles. Know then,
[1.] That the Jews shall be unchurched; The kingdom of God shall be taken from you. This turning out of the husbandmen speaks the same doom with that of dismantling the vineyard, and laying it common. Isa. v. 5. To the Jews had long pertained the adoption and the glory (Rom. ix. 4); to them were committed the oracles of God (Rom. iii. 2), and the sacred trust of revealed religion, and bearing up of God’s name in the world (Psa 76:1; Psa 76:2); but now it shall be so no longer. They were not only unfruitful in the use of their privileges, but, under pretence of them, opposed the gospel of Christ, and so forfeited them, and it was not long ere the forfeiture was taken. Note, It is a righteous thing with God to remove church privileges from those that not only sin against them, but sin with them, Rev 2:4; Rev 2:5. The kingdom of God was taken from the Jews, not only by the temporal judgments that befel them, but by the spiritual judgments they lay under, their blindness of mind, hardness of heart, and indignation at the gospel, Rom 11:8-10; 1Th 2:15.
[2.] That the Gentiles shall be taken in. God needs not ask us leave whether he shall have a church in the world; though his vine be plucked up in one place, he will find another to plant it in. He will give it ethnei—to the Gentile world, that will bring forth the fruit of it. They who had been not a people, and had not obtained mercy, became favourites of Heaven. This is the mystery which blessed Paul was so much affected with (Rom 11:30; Rom 11:33), and which the Jews were so much affronted by, Act 22:21; Act 22:22. At the first planting of Israel in Canaan, the fall of the Gentiles was the riches of Israel (Psa 135:10; Psa 135:11), so, at their extirpation, the fall of Israel was the riches of the Gentiles, Rom. xi. 12. It shall go to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Note, Christ knows beforehand who will bring forth gospel fruits in the use of gospel means; because our fruitfulness is all the work of his own hands, and known unto God are all his works. They shall bring forth the fruits better than the Jews had done; God has had more glory from the New Testament church than from that of the Old Testament; for, when he changes, it shall not be to his loss.
(2.) He applies the scripture which he had quoted (v. 42), to their terror, v. 44. This Stone, which the builders refused, is set for the fall of many in Israel; and we have here the doom of two sorts of people, for whose fall it proves that Christ is set.
[1.] Some, through ignorance, stumble at Christ in his estate of humiliation; when this Stone lies on the earth, where the builders threw it, they, through their blindness and carelessness, fall on it, fall over it, and they shall be broken. The offence they take at Christ, will not hurt him, any more than he that stumbles, hurts the stone he stumbles at; but it will hurt themselves; they will fall, and be broken, and snared, Isa 8:14; 1Pe 2:7; 1Pe 2:8. The unbelief of sinners will be their ruin.
[2.] Others, through malice, oppose Christ, and bid defiance to him in his estate of exaltation, when this Stone is advanced to the head of the corner; and on them it shall fall, for they pull it on their own heads, as the Jews did by that challenge, His blood be upon us and upon our children, and it will grind them to powder. The former seems to bespeak the sin and ruin of all unbelievers; this is the greater sin, and sorer ruin, of persecutors, that kick against the pricks, and persist in it. Christ’s kingdom will be a burthensome stone to all those that attempt to overthrow it, or heave it out of its place; see Zech. xii. 3. This Stone cut out of the mountain without hands, will break in pieces all opposing power, Dan 2:34; Dan 2:35. Some make this an allusion to the manner of stoning to death among the Jews. The malefactors were first thrown down violently from a high scaffold upon a great stone, which would much bruise them; but then they threw another great stone upon them, which would crush them to pieces: one way or other, Christ will utterly destroy all those that fight against him. If they be so stout-hearted, that they are not destroyed by falling on this stone, yet it shall fall on them, and so destroy them. He will strike through kings, he will fill the places with dead bodies,Psa 110:5; Psa 110:6. None ever hardened his heart against God and prospered.
Lastly, The entertainment which this discourse of Christ met with among the chief priests and elders, that heard his parables.
1. They perceived that he spake of them (v. 45), and that in what they said (v. 41) they had but read their own doom. Note, A guilty conscience needs no accuser, and sometimes will save a minister the labour of saying, Thou art the man. Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur–Change but the name, the tale is told of the. So quick and powerful is the word of God, and such a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, that it is easy for bad men (if conscience be not quite seared) to perceive that it speaks of them.
2. They sought to lay hands on him. Note, When those who hear the reproofs of the word, perceive that it speaks of them, if it do not do them a great deal of good, it will certainly do them a great deal of hurt. If they be not pricked to the heart with conviction and contrition, as they were Acts ii. 37, they will be cut to the heart with rage and indignation, as they were Acts v. 33.
3. They durst not do it, for fear of the multitude, who took him for a prophet, though not for the Messiah; this served to keep the Pharisees in awe. The fear of the people restrained them from speaking ill of John (v. 26), and here from doing ill to Christ. Note, God has many ways of restraining the remainders of wrath, as he has of making that which breaks out redound to his praise, Ps. lxxvi. 10.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
A hedge (). Or fence as a protection against wild beasts.
Digged a winepress ( ). Out of the solid rock to hold the grapes and wine as they were crushed. Such wine-vats are to be seen today in Palestine.
Built a tower ( ). This for the vinedressers and watchmen (2Ch 26:10). Utmost care was thus taken. Note “a booth in a vineyard” (Isa 1:8). See also Isa 24:20; Job 27:18. Let it out (, the usual form). For hire, the terms not being given. The lease allowed three forms, money-rent, a proportion of the crop, or a definite amount of the produce whether it was a good or bad year. Probably the last form is that contemplated here.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Hedged it round about [ ] . Rev., more literally, set a hedge about it; possibly of the thorny wild aloe, common in the East.
Digged a wine – press [ ] . In Isa 5:1, 1, which this parable at once recalls, the Hebrew word rendered by the Septuagint and here digged, is hewed out, i e., from the solid rock. “Above the road on our left are the outlines of a wine – fat, one of the most complete and best preserved in the country. Here is the upper basin where the grapes were trodden and pressed. A narrow channel cut in the rock conveyed the juice into the lower basin, where it was allowed to settle; from there it was drawn off into a third and smaller basin. There is no mistaking the purpose for which those basin were excavated in the solid rock” (Thomson, ” Land and Book “).
A tower [] . For watchmen. Stanley (” Sinai and Palestine “) describes the ruins of vineyards in Judea as enclosures of loose stones, with the square gray tower at the corner of each. Allusions to these watching – places, temporary and permanent, are frequent in Scripture. Thus, “a booth in a vineyard” (Isa 1:8). “The earth moveth to and fro like a hammock” (so Cheyne on Isaiah; A. V., cottage; Rev., hut), a vineyard – watchman’s deserted hammock tossed to and fro by the storm (Isa 24:20). So Job speaks of a booth which the keeper of a vineyard runneth up (xxvii. 18), a hut made of sticks and hung with mats, erected only for the harvest season on the field or vineyard, for the watchman who spreads his rude bed upon its high platform, and mounts guard against the robber and the beast. In Spain, where, especially in the South, the Orient has left its mark, not only upon architecture but also upon agricultural implements and methods, Archbishop Trench says that he has observed similar temporary structures erected for watchmen in the vineyards. The tower alluded to in this passage would seem to have been of a more permanent character (see Stanley above), and some have thought that it was intended not only for watching, but as a storehouse for the wine and a lodging for the workmen.
Let it out [] . “There were three modes of dealing with land. According to one of these, the laborers employed received a certain portion of the fruits, say a third or a fourth of the produce. The other two modes were, either that the tenant paid a money – rent to the proprietor, or else that he agreed to give the owner a definite amount of the produce, whether the harvest had been good or bad. Such leases were given by the year or for life; sometimes the lease was even hereditary, passing from father to son. There can scarcely be a doubt that it is the latter kind of lease which is referred to in the parable : the lessees being bound to give the owner a certain amount of fruits in their season” (Edersheim, “Life and Times of Jesus “). Compare ver. 34, and Mr 12:2,” that he might receive of the fruits ” [ ] .
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
Mat 21:33
. Hear another parable. The words of Luke are somewhat different; for he says that Christ spoke to the people, while here the discourse is addressed to the priests and scribes. But the solution is easy; for, though Christ spoke against them, he exposed their baseness in the presence of all the people. Mark says that Christ began to speak by parables, but leaves out what was first in order, as also in other passages he gives only a part of the whole. The substance of this parable is, that it is no new thing, if the priests and the other rulers of the Church wickedly endeavor to defraud God of his right; for long ago they practiced the same kind of robbery towards the prophets, and now they are ready to slay his Son; but they will not go unpunished, for God will arise to defend his right. The object is two-fold; first, to reproach the priests with base and wicked ingratitude; and, secondly, to remove the offense which would be occasioned by his approaching death. For, by means of a false title, they had gained such influence over simple persons and the ignorant multitude, that the religion of the Jews depended on their will and decision. Christ therefore forewarns the weak, and shows that, as so many prophets, one after another, had formerly been slain by the priests, no one ought to be distressed, if a similar instance were exhibited in his own person. But let us now examine it in detail.
A man planted a vineyard. This comparison frequently occurs in Scripture. With respect to the present passage, Christ only means that, while God appoints pastors over his Church, he does not convey his right to others, but acts in the same manner as if a proprietor were to let a vineyard or field to a husbandman, who would labor in the cultivation of it, and make an annual return. As he complains by Isaiah (Isa 5:4) and Jeremiah, (Jer 2:21,) that he had received no fruit from the vine on the cultivation of which he had bestowed so much labor and expense; so in this passage he accuses the vine-dressers themselves, who, like base swindlers, appropriate to themselves the produce of the vineyard. Christ says that the vineyard was well furnished, and in excellent condition, when the husbandmen received it from the hands of the proprietor. By this statement he presents no slight aggravation of their crime; for the more generously he had acted toward them, the more detestable was their ingratitude. Paul employs the same argument, when he wishes to exhort pastors to be diligent in the discharge of their duty, that they are stewards, chosen to govern the house of God, which is the
pillar and round of truth, (1Ti 3:16.)
And properly; for the more honorable and illustrious their condition is, they lie under so much the deeper obligations to God, not to be indolent in their work. So much the more detestable (as we have already said) is the baseness of those who pour contempt on the great kindness of God, and on the great honor which they have already received from Him.
God planted a vineyard, (43) when, remembering his gratuitous adoption, he brought the people out of Egypt, separated them anew to be his inheritance, and called them to the hope of eternal salvation, promising to be their God and Father; for this is the planting of which Isaiah speaks, (Isa 60:21.) By the wine-press and the tower are meant the aids which were added for strengthening the faith of the people in the doctrine of the Law, such as, sacrifices and other ritual observances; for God, like a careful and provident head of a family, has left no means untried for granting to his Church all necessary protection.
And let it to husbandmen. God might indeed of himself, without the agency of men, preserve his Church in good order; but he takes men for his ministers, and makes use of their hands. Thus, of old, he appointed priests to be, as it were, cultivators of the vineyard. But the wonder is, that Christ compares the prophets to servants, who are sent, after the vintage, to demand the fruit; (44) for we know that they too were vine-dressers, and that they held a charge in common with the priests. I reply, it was not necessary for Christ to be careful or exact in describing the resemblance or contrariety between those two orders. The priests were certainly appointed at first on the condition of thoroughly cultivating the Church by sound doctrine; but as they neglected the work assigned them, either through carelessness or ignorance, the prophets were sent as an extraordinary supply, to clear the vine from weeds, to lop off the superfluous wood, and in other ways to make up for the neglect of the priests; and, at the same time, severely to reprove the people, to raise up decayed piety, to awaken drowsy souls, and to bring back the worship of God and a new life. And what else was this than to demand the revenue which was due to God from his vineyard? All this Christ applies justly and truly to his purpose; for the regular and permanent government of his Church was not in the hands of the prophets, but was always held by the priests; just as if lazy husbandman, while he neglected cultivation, claimed the place to which he had been once appointed, under the plea of possession.
(43) “ Son vigne;” — “His vineyard.”
(44) “ Le fruit de la vigne;” — “the fruit of the vine.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES
Mat. 21:33. A vineyard.Was regarded as the most valuable plantation, which yielded the largest harvest, but required also the most constant labour and care (Schaff). A winepress.The winepress was often dug or hewn out of the limestone rock in Palestine. There were two receptacles or vats. The upper one was strictly the press or (Matthew), the lower one the winefat or (Mark) into which the expressed juice of the grape passed. The two vats are mentioned together only in Joe. 3:13, The press (gath) is full, the fats (yekabim) overflow (Carr). A tower.Which would serve partly as a watch-tower, and partly as a storage for the wine, and partly, also, as a residence for the workmen, in the season when their attendance would be required (Morison). Let it out to husbandmen.This kind of tenancy prevails in many parts of Europe. It is known as the metayer system, the arrangement being that the occupier of the land should pay to the landlord a portionoriginally halfof the produce (Carr).
Mat. 21:38. Let us seize on his inheritance.This would be impossible in real life, but not more impossible than the thought of the Pharisees that by the death of Jesus they would gain the spiritual supremacy (ibid.).
Mat. 21:44. Grind him to powder.Scatter him as dust (R.V.). Literally, it will winnow him. The Saviours idea is compressed and pregnant. If the stone fall on anyone, it will pound him into atoms, and thus dissipate him as effectually as if he were the dust of the threshing-floor that needed to be driven away (Morison).
Mat. 21:46. When they sought to lay hands on Him.The Sanhedrin aimed at two things:
1. To seize Jesus quickly, for the Passover (during which no hostile measures could be taken) was close at hand; and because Jesus might be expected to quit Jerusalem after the feast.
2. To seize Him apart from the people; for the Galilans would suffer no one to lay hands on their King and Prophet. Treachery alone enabled the Jews to secure their end (Carr).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mat. 21:33-46
Further answers.It is one mark of a well-equipped teacher to exhibit variety in his teaching. So this Greatest of teachers had previously taught His disciples (Mat. 13:52). So He exemplifies here. In dealing further with those who had just questioned His authority (Mat. 21:23), He first tells them of that which is newhear another parable. In the prophecy which He afterwards quotes as being one with which His hearers ought long ago to have been acquainted (Mat. 21:42), He tells them of that which is old. But in both we shall find He refers to the same subject as that of which He had been previously speaking, viz., the character and destiny of that body of teachers and religious leaders of whom His present opponents were representatives and samples.
I. The parable.This, although here spoken of as another, was not fresh in every respect. In its general character, on the contrary, and in some of its leading features, there was much that was old. Long before, e.g. the church and people of Israel had been compared, as here, to a vino (Mat. 21:33; Psalms 80; Isa. 5:1; Isa. 5:7, etc.). Something had been said also before of the measures taken for their separation and protection under the figure of a hedge (Mat. 21:33; Isa. 5:2; Isa. 5:5). And something also, of an expectation on the owners part of finding fruit on this vine (Isa. 5:2; Isa. 5:4). On the other hand, in this version of the similitude, there was much that was new. Such was the idea of letting out this vineyard to certain of the owners servants and leaving it in their charge. Also, the idea of a certain proportion of its fruits being his clearly recognised due (end of Mat. 21:34, R.V.). Also, the refusal of those in charge to pay this, and their subsequent ill-treatment in various ways, and to the extremest lengths and that several times over, of those commissioned to ask it (Mat. 21:35-36). Also, and above all, the introduction of the owners son on the scene (Mat. 21:37), of the hopes that that introduction seemed fitted to encourage (ibid.), and of the robber-like conspiracy, with its murderous sequel, which it led to instead. Nor was there less, finally, of the previously unheard of in that which we may speak of as the verdict of this parable. In the quarter, first, from which it was elicited; those who heard the parable and of whom it was speaking, being just those, through the question asked of them, to declare its result. In the tone of certainty, next, with which they speak of it. To the question asked there is but one answer to give (Mat. 21:41). In the manifest equity, lastly, which they recognise in it. In was only right that such miserable men should be thus miserably destroyed (R.V.). It was only right that there should be others to render what had been withheld by themselves.
II. The prophecy quoted.How this is connected with what has gone before may be seen by considering, first, in what respects the prophecy tallies with the parable and its verdict. It does so, e.g. in the prominence given by it to the same persons as before, the builders and stone of the one corresponding closely with the husbandmen and the heir of the other. Also, in the kind of action attributed to the persons so named; the rejection of the stone in the one case corresponding exactly to the killing and casting out of the heir in the other. Also, once more, to a certain extent, in regard to the punishment inflicted, and the reason given for it, in the two cases referred to (cf. Mat. 21:41; Mat. 21:43). The connection in question may be seen next, by observing in what respects the teaching of the prophecy follows up that of the parable. How it tells, on the one side, of the wonderful subsequent glorification of that which had been rejected by the builders and cast out by the husbandmen, the once despised stone becoming nothing less, in the end, than the head of the corner, and that in so marvellous a way, as only to be accounted for by the direct operation of God (Mat. 21:42). How it tells on the other, of a singularly discriminating and so confirmatory fate as being reserved for these rejecters thereofthose who merely stumble at that Divine stone being broken thereby, but not necessarily (so it appears) in an irrecoverable manner, whilst those who go further and wilfully cause others besides to stumble at it, are broken thereby beyond hope (Mat. 21:44). And how this brings us, therefore, to that final catastrophe which the Lord then had in His mind, even the utter approaching destruction of those persons who were opposing Him then. Something of all this, indeed, with all their blindness, they appear to have understood at this time (Mat. 21:45).
The words thus addressed to them may teach us in our turn:
1. The true nature of the sin of the world.It is opposing Gods will. It is doing so, more especially, in regard to His Son. Casting out and killing the appointed Heir. Rejecting the chosen Stone. (See Psalms 2 passim; Joh. 16:9; Joh. 15:22-23; Joh. 6:29; 1Jn. 3:23, also Mat. 25:40; Mat. 25:45).
2. The true secret of the life of the church.Recognising the Only begotten as at once the foundation and consummation of all, the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending, the first and the last. Had these men known this they would not have crucified, the Lord of glory (1Co. 2:7-8; Act. 3:17; see also Joh. 17:3; Joh. 1:1, etc.; Heb. 1:1, etc.; Col. 2:3).
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Mat. 21:33-46. The vineyard and its keepers.This parable was apparently spoken on the Tuesday of the Passion week. It was a day of hand-to-hand conflict with the Jewish authorities and of exhausting toil, as the bare enumeration of its incidents shows. It included all that Matthew records between Mat. 21:20 of this chapter and the end of the twenty-fifth chapter. What a day! What a fountain of wisdom and love which poured out all this! The pungent severity of this parable, with its transparent veil of narrative, is only appreciated by keeping clearly in view the circumstances and the listeners. They had struck at Him with their question of His authority, and He parries the blow. Now it is His turn, and the sharp point goes home.
I. The first stage is the preparation of the vineyard, in which three steps are marked.
1. It is planted and furnished with all appliances needful for making wine, which is its great end. The direct Divine origin of the religious ideas and observances of Judaism is thus asserted by Christ. The only explanation of them is that God enclosed that bit of the wilderness, and, with His own hands, set growing there these exotics. Neither the theology nor the ritual is of mans establishing.
2. Thus furnished, the vineyard is next handed over to the husbandmen, who, in Matthew, are exclusively the rulers, while in Luke they are the people. No doubt it was like people, like priest.
3. Having installed the husbandmen, the owner goes into another country. Centuries of comparative Divine silence followed the planting of the vineyard. Having given us charge, God, as it were, steps aside to leave us room to work as we will, and so to display what we are made of. He is absent in so far as conspicuous oversight and retribution are concerned. He is present to help, love, and bless.
II. Then comes the habitual ill-treatment of the messengers.
1. These are, of course, the prophets, whose office was not only to foretell, but to plead for obedience and trust, the fruits sought by God. There is no more remarkable historical fact than that of the uniform hostility of the Jews to the prophets. That a nation of such a sort as always to hate, and generally to murder, them should have had them in long succession throughout its history, is surely inexplicable on any naturalistic hypothesis. Such men were not the natural product of the race, nor of its circumstances, as their fate shows. No philosophy of Jewish history explains the anomaly except the one stated here, he sent his servants.
2. The hostility of the husbandmen grows with indulgence. From beating they go on to killing, and stoning is a specially savage form of killing. The more God pleads with men, the more self-conscious and bitter becomes their hatred; and the more bitter their hatred, the more does He plead, sending other messengers, more, perhaps, in number, or possibly of more weight, with larger commission and clearer light. Thus the antagonistic forces both grow, and the worse men become, the louder and more beseeching the call of God to them. That is always true; and it is also ever true that he who begins with I go, sir, and goes not, is in a fair way to end with stoning the prophets.
3. Christ treats the whole long series of violent rejections as the acts of the same set of husbandmen. The class or nation was one, as the stream is one, though all its particles were different; and the Pharisees and scribes, who stood with frowning hatred before Him as He spoke, were the living embodiment of the spirit which had animated all the past.
III. The mission of the Son and its fatal issue (Mat. 21:37-39).Three things are here prominent.
1. The unique position which Christ claims.
2. The owners vain hope in sending his son. Christ knew Himself to be Gods last appeal, as He is to all men, as well as to that generation. He is the last arrow in Gods quiver. When He has shot that bolt, the resources even of Divine love are exhausted, and no more can be done for the vineyard than He has done for it.
3. The vain calculation of the husbandmen. Christ puts hidden motives into plain words, and reveals to these rulers what they scarcely knew of their own hearts. With what sad calmness does Jesus tell the fate of the son, so certain that it is already as good as done! It was done in their counsels, and yet He does not cease to plead, if perchance some hearts may be touched, and withdraw themselves from the confederacy of murder.
IV. The self-condemnation from unwilling lips.Our Lord turns to the rulers with startling and dramatic suddenness, which may have thrown them off their guard, so that their answer leaped out before they had time to think whom it hit.
V. Then comes the solemn application and naked truth of the parable.Who can venture to speak of the awful doom set forth in the last words here? It has two stages: one a lesser misery, which is the lot of him who stumbles against the stone, while it lies passive, to be built on; one more dreadful, when it has acquired motion and comes down with irresistible impetus.A. Maclaren, D.D.
Mat. 21:33-41. The efforts of mercy to redeem.
I. Abundant.Vineyard planted, fenced, guarded, tilled.
II. Outraged.Messengers despised, ill-treated, slain.
III. Persevering.One messenger after another, and last of all the greatest, wisest, bestHis Son.J. C. Gray.
Mat. 21:37.Christ the Messenger of His own gospel.
I. The dignity of the person whom God employed to preach the gospel. His Son.
1. A superior person to Moses, the prophets, and infinitely superior to every other messenger of God.
2. The sublimest titles are bestowed on this person both in the Old and New Testaments.
II. That this is the final interposition of God in our favour.Last of all.
1. As He is infinitely superior to all that were before Him, so it may well be presumed that none will come after Him; and that the message He brings seals and finishes Gods revelation to the children of men.
2. This is the reason why the predictions relating to the Messiah, refer His coming to the last days (Isa. 2:2).
III. Our duty in relation to this sacred Messenger of heaven.To reverence Him.
1. By attending to the proofs of His Divine mission. This He requires (Joh. 5:31-38).
2. By receiving Him in that capacity with gratitude, love, hope, joy.
3. By embracing the holy errand on which He was sent, and complying with the practical purposes of His mission: God raised up His Son to bless us. How? In turning us from our iniquities, and teaching us to deny ungodliness, etc. (Tit. 2:12).
4. By forming ourselves according to that sacred model He exhibited to mankind.
5. By receiving pardon and sanctification through that awful method which God has appointed, the blood of His Son (Col. 1:14; 1Jn. 1:7).
6. By daily acts of worship and adoration; honouring the Son as we honour the Father (Joh. 5:23; Rom. 14:11).Anon.
Mat. 21:42. Christ, rejected of men, exalted of God.Biblical scholars and critics are of opinion that the words in Psa. 118:22 refer to an historical event, a literal transaction. There is every presumption, says one of them, that the Psalmist here refers to a stone that was rejected by the builders of the temple, and which was afterwards made the chief stone of the corner. The presumption is supported by what is stated in the fifth and sixth chapters of the first Book of Kings. All the stones of the temple were prepared at a distance from the temple, and so prepared that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the building on Mount Moriah. Before the builders could say that their work was done they had to lift the stone which they had rejected and place it in the corner for which it had been designed. They then admitted that it was indeed the chief stone of the corner and the glory of their seven years labour. The truths suggested by the words of the text may be considered in at least four aspects:
I. The metaphorical aspect.A stone has a unity of substance, a solidity and durability of character, which give it incomparable renown as a foundation, or as a thing of strength and resistance. There are rocks and stones of which it may be said, Who hath declared their generation? Whatever mystery there may be connected with the stone which the builders rejected, it is most certain that Jesus Christ is the all-sufficient foundation of the church, the supreme reason of her continued existence and power in the world. He is to the church, past and present, visible and invisible, what the keystone is to the bridge, and the corner-stone to a building.
II. The doctrinal aspect.The doctrine of the text is that of might against right in a stern and continuous struggle. We see the tiny beginnings of might against right in the histories of Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, and we see evidences of it all through the ages. But what are all these but the faint glimmerings of the more awful conflict referred to in the text? That conflict was not the result of mere ignorance or mental inertia. It was the outcome of direct repugnance to the Holy One of Israel.
III. The historical aspect.There is nothing, perhaps, so remarkable in the history of nations as the difference made by the presence or the absence of Christianity. Where is that place, says a distinguished statesman (Russell Lowell), where age is revered, infancy respected, womanhood honoured, and human life held in due regard; where is that place, ten miles square in this globe, where the gospel of Christ has not gone and cleared the way and laid the foundation? We challenge the sceptical world to show us such a place. From the day that the Jews rejected Christ, Christianity has been to us Gentiles as life from the dead.
IV. The practical aspect of the text suggests the doctrine of mans responsibility to Christ. All men are builders. Every building must rest on some foundation, or have some reason, good or bad, for its existence. That Jesus Christ is the only and all-sufficient foundation of the church is beyond dispute. The rulers of a nation are also builders, and are equally responsible to Him by whom all things consist. Of church and state He is emphatically the chief corner-stone.Dr. J. Kerr Campbell.
Mat. 21:43. Privileges forfeited.
1. The gospel, or the means of grace in a visible face of a church, is Gods kingdom on earth, and the greatest benefit that can be bestowed on a land.
2. The nation which doth not bring forth the fruits of the gospel may justly be deprived of that privilege, as here is threatened, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you.
3. The church may be flitted from one nation to another, but shall not cease to be among some people; for, It shall be given to another, saith Christ. Thus, He foretelleth them of the rejection of the Jews and the in bringing of the Gentiles.David Dickson.
Mat. 21:44. Neglecting and opposing Christ.I. The first case is that in which Christ is a stone of stumbling to those to whom He is presented. God lays this stone everywhere in our way that we may build upon it or set it high in the place of honour, and we cannot simply walk on as if God had done no such thing. Whatever else Christ is, He is substantial, a reality as solid as the stone against which your foot is jarred. The gospel once heard is henceforward a perpetual element in the whole condition, character, and destiny of the hearer. No man who has heard can be as if he had not. Though he may wish to pass on as if he had not seen Christ at all, he is not the same man as he was before, his spiritual condition is altered, possibilities have dawned upon his mind, openings into regions which are new and otherwise inaccessible; he is haunted by unsettled perplexities, doubts, anxieties, thoughts. This attitude of mind must have been very common in Christs own time, many persons must have shrunk from the responsibility of determining for themselves what they ought to think of Him. Many now do the same. They wish to overlook Him and pass on into life as if He were not in their path. But how foolish if He be the one foundation on whom a life can safely be built. Those who thus overlook Christ and try to pass on into life as if He were not, damage their own character because they know He is there, and until they make up their minds about Him, life a mere make-believe. It is thus they are bruised on this stone of stumbling. This bruised condition, however, is remediable.
II. The second action of the stone on the builder is described as final.At once slain and buried, those who determinedly opposed Christ lie oppressed by that which might have been their joy. Their dwelling and refuge becomes their tomb. Every excellence of Christ they have leagued against themselves. It is their everlasting shame that they were ashamed of Him. The faithfulness, truth, and love of Christ, that is to say, the qualities whose existence is all that any saved man ever had to depend upon, the qualities in the knowledge and faith of which the weakest and most heartless sinner sets out boldly and hopefully to eternity, these all now torment with crushing remorse those who have despised them. Do not suppose this is an extravagant figure used by our Lord to awe His enemies, and that no man will ever suffer a doom which can be fairly represented in these terms. It is a statement of fact. Things are to move on eternally in fulfilment of the will of Christ. He is identified with all that is righteous, all that is wise, all that is ultimately successful. To oppose His course, to endeavour to defeat His object, to attempt to work out an eternal success apart from Him is as idle as to seek to stop the earth in its course, or to stand in the path of a stone avalanche in order to stem it.M. Dods, D.D.
Mat. 21:45-46. Understanding but not profiting.
1. Threatenings profit not, but rather do irritate desperately wicked men, as here they desire to lay hands on Him.
2. Christs most malicious adversaries, though they be set for blood, yet can do no more than God will suffer them to do.
3. As long as the body of the people do favour Christs cause, persecutors will not vent all their designs against Christ and His followers.
4. The least good opinion of Christ will serve for some use; albeit not to the parties salvation, yet to the advantage of Christs cause, as here it served for some use, that they took Him for a prophet.David Dickson.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
SECTION 57
JESUS MEETS CHALLENGES TO HIS AUTHORITY: THREE PARABLES OF WARNING
TEXT: 21:3346
C. The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen
33 Hear another parable: There was a man that was a householder, who planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country. 34 And when the season of the fruits drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, to receive his fruits. 35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them in like manner. 37 But afterward he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38 But the husbandmen, when they saw the son, said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and take his inheritance. 39 And they took him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him. 40 When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures,
The stone which the builders rejected,
the same was made the head of the corner;
This was from the Lord,
And it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44 And he that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces: but upon whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.
45 And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. 46 And when they sought to lay hold on him, they feared the multitudes, because they took him for a prophet.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS
a.
Is this story a parable in the modern sense of the word, or an allegory? What other parables of Jesus help you to decide?
b.
On the basis of what elements in Jesus story could the religious authorities in Israel have correctly concluded that Jesus had told this parable against them?
c.
Why did not Jesus launch His accusations directly at the authorities, instead of hiding His intentions under the form of a parable? What advantage is there in the use of a parable, as compared with an open declaration? Is this cowardice?
d.
In what way does this parable reveal the larger plan of God for the world? That is, who is the owner of the vineyard? Who or what is the vineyard? What were the owners preparations for the positive development of the vineyard? In what sense did the owner go away from his vineyard? Who are the tenant farmers? What is the significance of the fact that they are tenants? When is the season of the fruit of this vineyard? When, or in what way, would the wicked farmers be punished? Who are the other tenant farmers to whom this vineyard would be entrusted after the failure of the first?
e.
Why do you think Jesus chose this particular Psalm to convince His listeners of the rightness of what He was saying in the parable?
f.
Why should the meek and gentle Jesus predict the horrible, destructions of everyone who goes against Him? Does not this ruin His image?
g.
The religious leaders wanted to kill Jesus, but they could not capture Him, because they feared the people who considered Him a prophet. What does this say about the depth and quality of these leaders convictions?
h.
Notwithstanding the well-merited punishment of the wicked tenant farmers suggested in the story, what evidence is there in the story itself that testifies to the long-suffering mercy shown them by the vineyards owner?
i.
Can you give a plausible reason why Jesus would leave the owners son dead in His parable? After all, whom does that son represent?
j.
In what way does this parable furnish the answer to the leaders original challenge to Jesus authority? (By what authority do you do these things, and who gave you this authority?)
k.
Jesus pictures the owner of the vineyard as one who sincerely thinks that the tenant farmers could respect his son. On the basis of what factors could he hope this much, notwithstanding the ill-treatment suffered by all his previous agents? Although this element seems to be a weak point in Jesus story, it could be one of His most meaningful points. Can you see what Jesus was driving at?
1.
In what sense could the Kingdom be taken away from anyone to give it to others? To what phrase or expression of the Kingdom is Jesus referring here? (Hint: in what sense had the Hebrews already known the kingdom before the coming of Christ?)
m.
In your opinion, what is the fruit of the Kingdom of God that the Owner of the vineyard expects from its new tenant farmers? (Clue: what was it that God desired for so many centuries from the people of Israel, but so rarely received?)
n.
Do you think Jesus was moved to tell this story because of the hierarchys belligerent behavior on this occasion alone, or does it go deeper than that, i.e. does it spring from other situations also? Why do you think so?
o.
How many messengers of God have come to you to bring word from the owner of the universe? What did you do with them? How many more must come before
(1)
you turn over to God all the fruit of your life that He expects?
(2)
He comes to judge you for your handling of what He has intrusted to you?
(3)
or He takes away your administration and gives it to others who will produce what He desires?
PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY
Then Jesus began conversing with the other people in His audience, by narrating this illustration: Listen to another story, Once upon a time there was a man, head of his house, who planted a vineyard. He fenced it round with a hedge. In it he dug a pit in which to stomp grapes, and constructed a watch tower. After renting it out to tenant farmers, he took a trip into a distant country for a long time.
When the vintage time came around, he sent some of his slaves to the sharecroppers to collect from them his share of the grape harvest. But those farm workers attacked his men and beat up one and sent him off empty-handed. They murdered another and drove a third with stones. Nevertheless, he kept it up. In fact, he sent other slaves, more numerous than the first group, but they treated them the same way. One they beat up, wounding him on the head, grossly insulted him and ran him off without collecting. Another they wounded, then killed him and heaved his body over the wall. Although the landowner persevered in sending them many others, they abused them all in the same way.
As a last resort the owner of the vineyard had one man left, his own dear son. So the thought, What am I to do now? I will send my own son: surely they will at least respect him! So, last of all, he sent his beloved son to them.
But when those tenant farmers sighted the son coming, they plotted among themselves, This fellow is the future owner. Come on, lets kill him, so that what he inherits will be ours! So they seized him, threw him out of the vineyard and murdered him. Now, when the vineyards owner comes, how do you think he will deal with those sharecroppers?
Some of Jesus listeners responded, He will come and give those wicked men a punishment their behavior deserves! Then he will lease his vineyard to other farm workers who will give him what he expects promptlywhen they are supposed to!
But other listeners, when they heard this, cried, May that never happen!
Nonetheless, Jesus looked them right in the face and demanded, What does the Bible text (Psa. 118:22 f.) mean when it says,
The very stone which the builders threw away
has become the keystone.
This cornerstone came from the Lord
and it is wonderful to see?
Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but when it falls on anyone, it will grind him to powder. This is the reason why I can tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and awarded to a people that will really produce the fruits of the kingdom.
When the theologians, the hierarchy and the Traditionalists heard His stories, they rightly understood that He was referring to them. They kept trying to get their hands on Him right then, but they feared the crowds, because the people considered Jesus to be a prophet.
SUMMARY
Jesus next story concerned a vineyard (= the Kingdom of God in Israel) for which its owner (= God) made every possible provision, hedge, wine press and tower. He turned it over to tenant farmers ( = the Jewish leadership) to care for it and give him the returns he required (= righteousness), But at the harvest season (= the reckoning), when he sent his servants (= the prophets) to get his share, they were mistreated and murdered by the tenants (= the leadership). Last of all, the owner (= God) sent his own son (= Jesus), but he too, like the servants, was rejected and murdered, because the sharecroppers hoped thereby to guarantee his property for themselves. Jesus called for a judgment: what will this owner (= God) do to the tenants (= the Jewish leadership)? Some answered, Hell give them the horrible death they deserve and turn the vineyard ( = the Kingdom of God) over to another people (= Christians). Others baLk. Never! Jesus insisted that Psa. 118:22 f. is going to come true: Through Gods efforts the Rejected Stone will be exalted to great glory, but it will be the Stone that crushes all who attack it. The cowardly leadership recognized His meaning, but was impotent to muzzle Him, because they feared popular reprisals.
NOTES
IV. JESUS REVEALS GODS PROGRAM
A. Bountiful Mercy (v. 33)
Mat. 21:33 Hear another parable: were Jesus attackers even that moment slithering toward the exit? If so, this invitation to hear another story blocks their escape by boldly announcing that the session is not over. Luke (Luk. 20:9) informs us that, while not completely ignoring the sweaty-handed authorities, Jesus turned His direct attention specifically to the people. By eliciting a clear judgment from commoners concerning the criminal conduct of the vicious sharecroppers (v. 41), He showed that ANYONE could correctly evaluate and vindicate Gods justice in punishing Israels leaders, as He eventually would. By shifting His attention to the people, Jesus is not attacking the nation as a whole rather than its rulers. Rather, He lays bare the rulers primary guilt and responsibility, and, by reflection, that of anyone else who agreed, in thought and behavior, with the nations leaders. Sadly, of these there were many (Joh. 1:11). In this sense, then, the whole nation is addressed in the person of its representative leadership (Hos. 4:6-9).
Another parable means that the story of the Two Sons is clearly a parable, even if Matthew does not so label it. But it is more than just another, since it carries forward the germ-ideas of the foregoing story and leads directly into the third. Compare them, noting the progression and intensity of thought as Jesus proceeds:
PARABLE OF THE TWO SONS
PARABLE OF WICKED HUSBANDMEN
PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE FEAST
Mat. 21:28-32 OBEDIENCE
Mat. 21:33-46 RESPONSIBILITY
Mat. 22:1-14 PRIVILEGE
1.
Work in the Fathers Vineyard is offered to two classes of individuals.
1.
Care of the Owners Vineyard is the basis of this story.
1.
Gracious opportunity to enjoy the Kings bounty is the basis of this story.
2.
Stress is laid upon the leaderships rejection of John the Baptist despite good reasons to submit to him.
2.
Stress is laid upon Jewish rejection of all of Gods prophets culminating in their assassination of His Son.
2.
Stress is laid upon majority Jewish rejection of all of Gods invitations given through His prophets, culminating in their killing them.
3.
Rejection of John the Baptist will cost rebels their entrance into Gods Kingdom.
3.
Rejection of Gods prophets and assassination of His Son will cost its perpetrators their lives and privileged position in Gods Kingdom.
3.
Rejection of Gods offers will cost impenitents their lives and the destruction of their city, while non-Hebrews will be admitted to the Kingdoms privileges.
4.
Gods permission to enter His Kingdom is not based on mens unfulfilled pious promises, but on obedience. This threatens all Jewish complacency grounded solely on empty pietism or carnal descent from Abraham.
4.
Gods dealing with Israel (Mat. 21:33-41 a).
a.
Gods gracious provision for Israels blessing (Mat. 21:33 f).
b.
Israels ingratitude and rejection (Mat. 21:35-39).
4.
Gods dealing with Israel (Mat. 22:2-7).
a.
Gods gracious provision for Israels blessing (24)
b.
Israels ingratitude and rejection (5, 6).
5.
Gods dealings are based on actual performance, not on empty promises. This could potentially justify Gentile participation in Kingdom.
5.
Gods dealing with the Gentiles (Mat. 21:41 b Mat. 21:43).
a.
Punishment of Jews (Mat. 21:40 f)
b.
Blessing of Gentiles (Mat. 21:41 b Mat. 21:43)
5.
Gods dealings with the Gentiles (Mat. 22:8-10).
a.
Punishment of Jews (7)
b.
Blessing of Gentiles (810)
6.
Gods dealings are with individuals as evidenced in different treatment accorded the two sons of the same father.
6.
Gods dealings with other peoples are always based on producing the fruits of the Kingdom, something of which, in the final analysis, only individuals are capable. Gods dealing with individuals is especially evident in this: Everyone who falls . . . it falls on any one. (vv. 44; Luk. 20:18)
6.
Gods dealings with individual Christians (Mat. 22:11-14) is always based on eachs doing what God expected of him, i.e. wearing the wedding garment.
Study this parable from three points of view: what it reveals about (1) God, (2) Man and (3) Jesus. This story borders on the apocalyptic in that it telescopes into one pithy illustration past, present and (then) future events in the history of the people of God, all expressed in symbols. We see their past rebelliousness and ingratitude, their (then) present unfaithfulness in refusing Gods Christ and their punishment, if not also their final destruction.
There was a man that was a householder, who planted a vineyard. This introduction was well-calculated to stir interest, because, as A.B. Bruce (P.H.C., XXIII, 434) recognized,
At most this parable is but an old theme worked up with new variations. Every one who heard it knew what the vineyard with its hedge, winepress and tower signified, and who the vinedressers were, and who the servants, sent for the fruits. These phrases belonged to the established religious dialect of Israel, as much as pastor, flock, lambs of the flock, Zion, etc. do to ours, used by us all without consciousness that we are speaking in figures.
Making use of this language, then, the Lord is not so much hiding His meaning under obscure allusions, as taking an old, well-known and well-loved story and giving it new meaning. In fact, His words quite closely echo the Septuagint version of Isaiahs celebrated allegory. (Isa. 5:1-7; cf. other parallel figures: Isa. 27:1-7; Psa. 80:7-19; Jer. 2:21; Eze. 15:1-6; Eze. 17:1-15; Eze. 19:10-14; Hos. 10:1.) Whereas the prophets Son of the Vineyard emphasizes the quality of the vineyards yield, Jesus version gives importance to the sharecroppers conduct. The pedagogical value of this procedure is unmistakable:
1.
A well-known story with a new twist sparks the curiosity of the listener: I have already heard a story similar to this, but where is He taking it?
2.
Further, Jesus assured Himself a sympathetic hearing, similar to that which Stephen enjoyed while he recounted significant points of Hebrew history (Acts 7).
3.
While Jesus detractors were even now accusing Him of standing outside the pale of Old Testament religion, He paints a canvas of Old Testament history showing His proper place in all that had occurred before His coming. At the same time, He left it beyond doubt that His appearance in Israel was the last, decisive act of Gods patient graciousness and the beginning of His punitive justice.
4.
By using the recognized authority of ancient Scripture against those opponents who questioned His personal authority, Jesus defended His own. That is, His story, even while not directly re-evoking Isaiahs, assumes as true the evidences of Gods original creation of Israels nation and religion. A true prophet must speak within the prophetic context of already well-authenticated divine revelations. (Cf. How to Avoid Becoming a Pharisee in my Vol. III, 375ff.) While Jesus does give a new twist to Isaiahs old parable, He does not contradict it. Rather, He extends it and grounds His own appearance in all that had preceded Him in the history of Jewish religion.
Jesus had already used a householder to represent God (Mat. 20:1). There, as here, His purpose is to portray the goodness and patience of God toward self-righteous, highly privileged ingrates. Israel had forgotten that GOD OWNED THE VINEYARD. To appreciate the abundance of attentive effort God had expended upon the nation, note each specific step the vineyards owner took to insure the success of his operation and guarantee fruit production. (Cf. Pauls list of Jewish distinctives: Rom. 3:2; Rom. 9:4 f.) However, all these preparations produced the additional result of freeing the owner from blame in the event of controversy with the sharecroppers.
1.
He planted a vineyard is tantamount to saying, God created His people on earth, Israel. (Cf. Deu. 32:12-14; Eze. 16:9-14; Isa. 27:2-6.)
a.
And yet, since the vineyard is what is stripped from the unworthy tenants and given to others, it represents the Kingdom of God operative in Israels national existence (Mat. 21:43). It is that element that is common to both Jews and Christians, all that is involved in being Gods private, personal, covenant people with the precious religious advantages and unique opportunities each is offered as a result of their election by God and because of His revelations to them.
b.
Nevertheless, because the Kingdom of God must be subjectively realized in real people, if it is not to remain a purely theoretical idea on Gods drawing board, Jesus is talking primarily about its historical actualization among the Jewish people. (See below on husbandmen.)
2.
He set a hedge around it for its protection from being trampled or destroyed by stray animals (cf. Num. 22:24; S. of Son. 2:15; Psa. 80:12 f.; Isa. 5:5), not unlikely made of thorns (cf. Hos. 2:6) surrounding a stone wall (cf. Pro. 24:30 f.). God had furnished every safeguard to assure Israels national security. (Cf. Zec. 2:5; Isa. 4:5 f; Isa. 26:1; Isa. 60:18.) God had provided good laws, leaders and institutions to guarantee internal order and maintain Israels separation from the paganizing influences of other nations (Num. 23:9; cf. Eph. 2:14).
3.
He dug a wine press in it, i.e. carved out of natural rock a large vat-like hollow where fresh-picked clusters of grapes are stomped by workers. (Cf. Neh. 13:15; Isa. 16:8-10; Isa. 63:2 f.; Jer. 25:30; Jer. 48:33; Lam. 1:15; Jdg. 9:27.) because the winevat is the place where the true value and maturity of the vintage is expressed, allusion may be made here to Gods provision to use the fruits of the nation: justice and righteousness, love, mercy and faithfulness. Not merely the altar of sacrifice in the temple is meant, but that service to God in every point in life where the strength and life-blood of Gods people is poured out as an offering to Him.
4.
He built a tower, probably a flat-topped farmhouse or farm building of any kind which could serve the double purpose of dwelling for the sharecroppers as well as a watchtower from which to guard the winery against theft or trespassing. (Cf. Job. 27:18; Isa. 1:8.) Jerusalem with its temple was established in Israel as Gods dwelling-place from which He could superintend and protect His vineyard. Its immediate care and control was in the hands of the priesthood and national leaders.
5.
He let it out to husbandmen, i.e. farmers (georgoi), in this case vinedressers to cultivate and prune the grapevines, enriching the vines production. (Cf. Son. 8:11 f.; Isa. 7:23.) These were only tenant farmers, because the householder remains owner of the vineyard (Mat. 21:40) and merely let it out to vinedressers in exchange for his part of the fruit (v. 34; Mar. 12:2; Luk. 20:10) and because the sharecroppers later made their play to seize the only heirs inheritance to make it their own (Mat. 21:38). God did not leave Israel to its own devices, but established a clear chain of command for national leadership (Eze. 34:2; Mal. 2:7). The husbandmen represent also the nation to the extent that it blindly followed its leaders (Jer. 5:31).
Maclaren (P.H.C., XXIV, 521) preached that, although the Sanhedrin was doubtless the principle target of Jesus story, it merely reflected the national spirit. After all, who acquiesced to the influence of these leaders and conceded them freedom to rule? Further, if the share-croppers to be dispossessed are only the leaders of the nation, then those who replace them would naturally be only the leaders of the Christian church, a conclusion that would militate against the better view that both Jews and Gentiles, irrespective of their official ecclesiastical position, will be united in one new nation, a new Israel in the new theocracy.
6.
Even the fact that he went into another country reveals that God intended to follow a hands-off policy with Israel, not constantly intervening in the everyday affairs of the nation, as if He were personally directing them (cf. Mat. 25:14 f.; Luk. 19:12). Rather, He chose to send prophets, agents through whom He would act. By so doing, He left Israel and its leaders relatively free to act, responding freely to His gracious love and blessing. Their choices, therefore, were their own. Historically, God had not communicated directly with Israel by speaking from heaven since the giving of the law during the birth of the nation. In fact, His establishing of the prophetic office grew out of that incident (Deu. 18:16 f.).
B. Mercys Rights (21:34)
Mat. 21:34 The season of the fruits would occur during the fifth vintage, since Mosaic legislation (Lev. 19:23 ff.) forbade its use any sooner. In Palestine the big grape harvest usually occurs in late summer or early fall, although grapes in favored localities ripen also much earlier (I.S.B.E., 3086b). Reasonably, the owner did not expect fruit nor demand payment before the season of the fruits drew near. This season does not refer to any definite period in Jewish history, because the very nature of the fruits involved required that Israel always be fruitful by sincere holiness and glad obedience, loving sacrifice and righteousness. (Study Mic. 6:8; Deu. 10:12-22; Psa. 40:6-8; Psa. 50:7-23; Psa. 51:16-19; Psa. 69:30 f.; Isa. 1:11-17; Jer. 7:21 ff.; Hos. 4:1; Hos. 6:6; Amo. 5:21-24; 1Sa. 15:22 f.) If Jesus intends some specific deadline, He might mean that EACH TIME the vintage came round, the owner of the vineyard sent servants. The repeated missions of the servants is harmonious with this theory, in which case reference is made to the numerous, special missions of the prophets, special calls to repentance, new or particular guidance for Israels moral development.
In Isaiahs parable, the owner looked for a crop of good grapes, but it yielded only bad fruit . . . he looked for justice, but saw bloodshed; for righteousness, but heard cries of distress (Isa. 5:2; Isa. 5:7). Although in both Jesus and Isaiahs parables the owner expected the good fruit for which the vineyard had been created, the reason he is frustrated differs only superficially. In fact, if Isaiah pictures his receiving bad grapes and Jesus implies he received none at all, the cause is essentially the same: the vineyard had become what the caretakers had made it (Isa. 3:14; Isa. 1:23). But Gods concept of authority delegated to men requires that all superiors be responsible for creating the conditions in which their inferiors can succeed at the God-given tasks for which they were created. At every point the leadership of Israel is pictured as husbandmen: they have no inherent right or title to the nation. They are simply stewards under God, just caretakers, not lords. (Study Isa. 44:28; Isa. 56:10-12; Jer. 23:1-4; Jer. 6:3; Jer. 25:34-38; Ezekiel 34; Mic. 5:4 f.; Nah. 3:18; Zec. 10:3; Zec. 11:3-17.) Their acting the part of absolute owners accurately measures the depth and heinousness of their rebellion against God. So, the result is the same in both parables: the owner was not adequately repaid for his investment of time, effort and expense.
He rightly expected fruit, so he sent his servants, the last of whom was John the Baptist demanding the fruit of repentance and righteousness (Mat. 3:1-12). The various intervals between their missions are clearly indicated by Mark and Luke. This transparent reference to the prophets has apologetic significance, as Maclaren (P.H.C., XXII, 504) shows. On a purely naturalistic basis there is no explaining why a people, so uniformly hostile towards the prophets, should have had prophets in almost continuous succession in every part of their long history. Courageous spokesmen such as these could not have been produced by this people nor by their sociological habitat, as their persecution and death at the hands of these very people proved. There can be no philosophy of Hebrew religion to account for this phenomenon, except Jesus word: he sent his servants.
C. Mercy Outraged (21:35)
Mat. 21:35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Perhaps they took this gentleman for just another absentee landlord too occupied with pursuits elsewhere to be seriously concerned with the affairs of the vineyard. God too is treated with the same nonchalance, as a Supreme Being out there somewhere, too busy with cosmic business to disturb Himself greatly about what occurs on this infinitesimal speck of dust lost in space, leaving its occupants free to act in any way their caprice suggests.
These sharecroppers were motivated to commit these bloody atrocities by the desire to keep all the vineyards production and advantages for themselves. They apparently had no intention of ever paying the owner his part, that practical purpose for which the vineyard had originally been created and committed to their keeping. In the hands of the spiritual leaders of the nation had been placed a priceless heritage: a nation specially chosen by God and outfitted with excellent legislation, and destined to bring God praise through loving service. And yet these moral masters of Israel yielded to the upper-class temptation to consider only their private privileges and to trifle with duty. They commonly ignored the true, final purpose of Israels high vocation and made little effort to prepare the nation to achieve it. They were habitually preoccupied with feathering their own nest, augmenting their own prestige and influence and their ability to manipulate others. No wonder the prophets, who goaded them to personal repentance and social justice, were considered troublemakers, tolerated where possible or ruthlessly eliminated.
Although the nation reacted to God and His messengers in a manner consonant with its training by the leaders, the brutality characteristic of the treatment accorded Gods prophets came from the leadership, especially from the sacerdotal aristocracy that claimed a monopoly on Gods flock. (Study Mat. 5:12; Jer. 20:1 f; Jer. 26:11; Jer. 26:20-23; Jer. 37:15; Mat. 23:29-37 and parallels; Luk. 13:33 f.; 1Th. 2:15.)
Is killed another and stoned another a needless redundancy?
1.
No, because not all stoning succeed in killing the victim. (Cf. Act. 14:19 f.; 2Co. 11:25.)
2.
No, by killed Jesus may have meant assassinated; by stoned, judicially murdered. (Cf. 2Ch. 24:20 f.)
3.
No, by killed Jesus may mean with a sword (cf. 1Ki. 19:10) or some other weapon; by stoned He indicates the means in the verb.
Here is further explanation why the righteous suffer apparently endless torment by the wicked: it is in Gods mercifully patient planning to furnish the wicked apparently endless opportunities to repent before the final crisis.
D. Increased Guilt Vs. Incredible Patience (21:36)
Mat. 21:36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first. (Jer. 25:4; Jer. 44:4-6; 1Ki. 22:24-28; 2Ki. 6:31; 2Ch. 36:15 f.; Neh. 9:26-34; Act. 7:51 f.) Because each successive generation of Jewish leadership similarly outraged Gods messengers, Jesus is justified in picturing the same group of sharecroppers as uniformly hostile. (See Jesus argumentation in Mat. 23:29-32.) But a long-suffering God was patiently pleading with Israel to repent. God had no intention to indulge the nations irresponsibility. His requirements were just, so they must meet them. Rather than close an eye to their slackness, their ignoring contracts, their claiming what belonged to Him and shedding innocent blood so as to retain their control, He constantly reminded them of a day of reckoning. They imagined they were getting away with their reprehensible behavior. But they had no sooner assassinated one of the prophets than another stood before them to warn that Israel would be answerable to the living God for it. Judgment would come: let the wicked forsake his way!
Incredibly, God sent prophet after prophet, but the wicked ran Elijah out of the country. One story has it that they sawed Isaiah in two. They dropped Jeremiah down into a muddy cistern. They murdered Zechariah in the temple near the altar, They chopped off the head of John the Baptist. Unquestionably, the patience shown by the parabolic landowner is practically unequalled in all human history. (If some of us had been God, we would have finished those wicked men the day they laid bloody hands on any one of these great and holy men!) So, in order to picture the Almightys unbelievable long-suffering toward Israel, Jesus had to make up an incredible story to do it!
E. Mercy Resolute (21:37)
Mat. 21:37 But afterward emphasizes the owners last great attempt to bring the tenant farmers around to reason. This same point is vividly expressed by Lukes version: Then the owner of the vineyard said, What shall I do? because it depicts the final decision as the well-pondered, deliberate choice of the owner. Mark brings this into relief by noting: He had still one other, a beloved son; finally he sent him. . . . This all serves to underscore the finality of Jesus revelation of the Father who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up for us all (Heb. 1:1 ff.; Rom. 8:32). He sent unto them his son, not merely one more in a long line of faithful servants (Heb. 3:1-6; Heb. 1:1 f.).
1.
The readers of this Gospel would instantly recognize in Jesus Himself the allusion intended by the beloved son of the vineyards owner, as the same language is used both at Jesus baptism (Mat. 3:17 = Mar. 1:11 = Luk. 3:22) and at His transfiguration (Mat. 17:5 = Mar. 9:7).
2.
For those who remember Jesus claims to unique Sonship and can see Gods prophets pictured in the owners servants, Jesus is setting Himself above all of Gods greatest spokesmen. He is claiming in the name of His Father the authority and title of Owner of everything in Gods Kingdom! What an answer to the clergys opening challenge to His authority! If they could but see it, they now have their answer: He is Gods Son, empowered with all the authority of the Almighty.
3.
And yet what better way could God plead with Israels administrators than by picturing Himself as this father whose loving mercy reached an unbeatable high, when he placed his own beloved son at those who had brutalized his other agents?
The son stood in the place of the father, represented his authority and rights of ownership like no lesser servant could do. It should have been unthinkable not to give him the honor due his position (Joh. 5:23). This touching but climactic move should have brought the vineyards administrators back to their senses.
They will reverence my son, at first glance, would appear to be a gross blunder on the part of any human owner who had already lost many good men to the malice of his sharecroppers. He seemingly foresees only these two possible reactions: either they would actually submit to the Sons authority and produce the goods, or, if not personally submitting, they might at least hesitate to abuse him as they had the previous servants. But how could anyone in his right mind expect preferential treatment from such proven criminals? Some would conclude that, because this detail seems to deny the foreknowledge of God, we must not interpret it at all, leaving it as merely part of the vivid scenery of the story, picturing what a human landowner would do. But what landowner in real life would have shown such resolute mercy? It just may be that this fact, precisely because it is so strikingly UNLIKE normal human conduct, is intended to draw attention to itself. In fact, Jesus is not talking about what men normally do, but about what GOD does. Parabolically, He pictures the history of Gods dealings with an ungrateful people. They will reverence my son, then, expresses the last, longing hope of a longsuffering God. God is not ignorant of the final results of His plan to redeem man, yet He can still sincerely hope that everyone come to repentance toward Christ who would die for everyone, whether many of them appreciate it or not (2Pe. 3:9; 1Ti. 2:4; Rom. 11:32).
F. Mercy Mistaken for Weakness (21:38)
Mat. 21:38 But the husbandmen, when they saw the son, said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and take his inheritance. Because the heir would be the future owner, the present owner would have no one to whom to confer the vineyard as an inheritance. So the husbandmen assume that to kill the heir would open the way for the owner to consider simply abandoning to them that vineyard which had caused him so much grief. Their supposition is grossly unfounded for these reasons:
1.
They suppose that the owner has no one else to whom to give the inheritance, no brother, no distant, long-lost kinsman whom he should prefer over them. This is the heir: they are confident there is no other who could arise to vindicate the sons death or question their seizure of the inheritance. The heir is therefore the owners only begotten son. Again, Jesus uniqueness and finality receives emphasis in His teaching.
2.
They suppose the owner cannot see through their duplicity or cannot know of their treachery. If only one of his servants returned to the owner bearing news of the treatment he suffered from them, they should have had every reason to fear and none for the confident talk they show here.
3.
If they supposed they could merely take his inheritance by force, would they not have to reckon with the owner himself? Do they presume to think that HE could ignore that final affront, however patient he had shown himself previously with regard to his servants? Would he, too, simply and meekly lie down and die without ever once acting against them? They mistake his incredible patience for ineptness and indifference.
4.
They suppose that if the present owner died heirless, their remaining in possession of the vineyard would guarantee their permanent ownership. Possession is 9/10 of the law!
5.
They not unlikely suppose that the vineyard had already been deeded to the heir long before the fathers death (cf. Luk. 15:12). Since the owner had not appeared in a long time, perhaps he was dead too!
Come let us kill him and take his inheritance. For citizens of western countries endowed with excellent laws, good court systems and law enforcement, that anyone should dream by such monstrous rapacity to grab this choice real estate, would appear unthinkable. But this harsh reality is the status quo for any country plagued by bad rulers, greedy judges, apathetic citizenry and ineffective law enforcement. Come let us kill him is the decision already taken by the Sanhedrin (Joh. 11:47-53; Joh. 11:57). Even if this murderous intent had not been widely advertised, it was indisputably an open secret. (Cf. Joh. 5:18; Joh. 7:1; Joh. 7:19; Joh. 7:25; Joh. 10:31-33.) His death is to be judicial murder, not the result of enflamed passions run amok. His inheritance is the Kingdom of God (see on vineyard, Mat. 21:33; Mat. 21:43). By killing Gods Son, the theologians and clergy hoped to make permanent their possession and control of Gods Kingdom with its attendant privileges. Ironically, the inheritance already belonged to them, but by murdering Gods Son, they lost it forever! They could have had a heavenly inheritance, had they but properly honored the Son (Joh. 5:23). But the deadly influence of this earths power, wealth and show appeared far more real and desirable. So they forfeited Gods wealth by haughtily disdaining and savagely despising Gods last, best offer, His Son. Whereas the Sanhedrists themselves would never have admitted Jesus were the true heir, hence, Son of God, because they denied His claims, they certainly plotted to silence Him, precisely because they saw Him as a prime menace to their political acquisitions (Joh. 11:47-53).
Worse, they were so engrossed in a national religious system of externals that, when Jesus came insisting on a religion of the heart potentially open to every man willing to pay this price, they correctly understood that, if He won, they lost. Their stupidity lay in supposing that they could remain in power forever over Gods people, even after the Mosaic system found its perfection and consequent end in the Messiah and His rule. Somehow, this was an option they had never considered. Sadly, they had no taste for what they could not control, nor for any system in which they commanded no special privileges. Jesus menaced their monopoly on God. In this very parable He preached a faith for all men (v. 43) and in so doing, strips them of that national monopoly on which their religious, political and economic power was based.
One can be an enemy of God, while being in charge of the very heritage of God! (Cf. Eze. 34:1-10; Zec. 11:3-17.) Their murderous conspiracy in the name of God (cf. Joh. 16:1 ff.) was animated, in the final analysis, by hatred for God (Joh. 15:23). But the sin of the crucifixion began by refusal to pay God what they owed Him, it was cultivated by abusing His prophets and was matured in the murder of His Son.
Are the commentaries right in deciding that Jesus hereby implies that the rulers really knew His true nature and official dignity? Does their condemnation lie in the fact that, though they knew Him to be the Christ, they crucified Him anyway?
1.
They may have only had a haunting suspicion that He merited more courteous treatment than they were giving Him, but simply would not let this doubt take root and blossom into fuller recognition of Him as Gods Son. To what extent these hidden misgivings existed and persisted, creating inner self-contradictions, none but God knows.
2.
But is it credible that these representatives of God CONSCIOUSLY fought against God? While resisting evidence that Jesus truly came from God, they still maintained their facade of shallow excuses they considered to be wisdom and sound policy.
3.
To what extent did Nicodemus speak for himself or for his colleagues in the Sanhedrin (Joh. 3:2, we know)? Undoubtedly, as on every other issue, that council was divided, so a latent consciousness of Jesus true identity as the heir of God may have nagged the conscience of some, but not necessarily all.
G. Mercy Rejected (21:39)
Mat. 21:39 And they took him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him. Commentators, noting that Mark reverses the order: They took him and killed him and cast him out of the vineyard, whereas Matthew and Luke place the killing outside the vineyard, conclude that the latter two have rewritten Jesus original version of the story (Marks) to suit their editorial needs. Accordingly, Luke, because of his theology of Jerusalem, and Matthew, because he remembered where the crucifixion actually occurred, supposedly rearranged Jesus words. To this two answers are possible:
1.
This detail has no significance beyond the general fact that the heir was murdered. Whether in or out of the vineyard is immaterial.
2.
Hendriksen (Matthew, 784, note 742) suggested a better treatment of Marks reversed order, by arguing that Matthew and Luke provide the proper historical sequence, whereas the second Gospel editorializes to show the climax: They killed him, and this in the most shameful manner, casting him out of the vineyard as an accursed one. He rightly affirms that the difference of treatment could not easily have been produced by posterior theological treatment, because each Gospel writer testifies to the Lords crucifixion on Calvary outside the Jerusalem city wall. (Mat. 27:31 ff.; = Mar. 15:20 ff.; = Luk. 23:26 ff.)
If the authorities have been following Jesus story up to this point, applying it to Israel and its leadership, they can discern His implication that God would send His Son. They could also remember Jesus claims to be that Son (cf. Joh. 5:17 f; Joh. 10:22-39). In effect, Jesus illustration serves notice to the clergy that He understands their conspiracy to eliminate Him. Even while addressing the very men whose vote in the Hebrew Senate would seal His death warrant, He strangely declines any interest in resisting them to save Himself. Rather, He presents the case before the crowds whose common sense pronounces the condemnation of the Passover plotters. No pathetic fool or hesitant martyr Jesus! He fully understood what He was getting into when He deliberately walked into the clutches of these lawyers. Better than anyone else, He sensed that there could be only one conclusion to His final showdown in the final inquisition: DEATH.
They cast him forth out of the vineyard and killed him is said to prove that the vineyard could not be Israel, since this would mean that Jesus was pictured as being crucified outside Israel. However, the picture is theologically correct, since, when Israel in the Old Testament was encamped together, to slay someone or something outside the camp was equal to slaying them outside of Israel. This is the sense of Pauls language in Heb. 13:12 outside the gate and Heb. 13:13 outside the camp where the two phrases are rendered practically equivalent. If the vineyard stands for the Kingdom (Mat. 21:43), Jesus rejection and His crucifixion as a common criminal is in line with the clergys authorized view of Israel and the Kingdom. So, from their point of view, He should have been excommunicated from Israel and the Kingdom,
If it be objected that the behavior affirmed of the vinedressers is highly improbable or contrary to all probability, is it any less natural or more unreasonable than the unbelief it is intended to depict?
H. Mercy Finally Ended (21:40)
Mat. 21:40 When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen? In Isaiahs parable, too, God called Israel to judge whether the vineyard owners efforts were adequately compensated by the results obtained therefrom (Isa. 5:3 f.). But Jesus emphasis is not now on the merciful provision for the vineyards successful production, as in Isaiah. He assumes that ANYONE COULD KNOW that the lord of the vineyard must do something about the husbandmen. There can be no question whether he should, because common justice would require that he act decisively in this deteriorated situation. And when this moment of truth occurs, he who comes will not be another servant, but the lord of the vineyard. (Cf. Mat. 20:8 where the same high title is used.) The only question for His audience is what will he do? Now the erudite scholars of the nation are under double pressure both from the battering of Jesus questions and logic as well as from the common judgment of ordinary people. They had avoided Jesus first question, claiming not to be able to return an answer (Mat. 21:27). They could not continue to affirm: We do not know.
As in Mat. 21:31, so also here is another situation where the listeners unconsciously indict themselves by giving their verdict on the conduct of a storys characters. (Cf. 1Ki. 20:39 ff.; 2Sa. 12:1 ff.; Isa. 5:3.) With quiet mastery the Lord drew them into judgment and led them unwittingly to confess their guilt and state their punishment by an angry God. Mans own sense of justice amply establishes the rightness of Gods procedure and sentence. It is one of the ironies of our mind that we can easily and accurately foresee the horrible end of others maliciousness, without, at the same time, discerning the terrible punishment deserved by our own identical sins.
If the leadership followed Jesus story closely up to this point, as it parallels Isaiahs famous song, they could begin to feel the smashing impact of this question. However, it is also true that precise identification of every element in His illustration may have been much easier in retrospect than at the moment of His punch-line question.
I. Mercy Offered to Others (21:41)
Mat. 21:41 They say unto him: just who answered is not clear, whether crowd or leaders. (Cf. Luk. 20:9.) Mark and Luke bypass Jesus waiting for an answer and quote these words at His own. In fact, the Lord may have solemnly repeated their words, syllable, for maximum moral and emotional impact on the leaders. Even if they foresaw His point, there was no escape, because, unless they were to be deliberately capricious and risk losing further credibility with the crowds, they must now answer according to justice in the vain hope that Jesus application would not damage their cause further. Either way, by a brilliant story He had led them personally to declare that conclusion to which He wanted them to arrive: their own self-condemnation.
He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Conscious or not, their sentence not only damns themselves, but becomes a completely unintended, but true, prophecy of the wrath of God rained upon Jerusalem, a prediction of the beginning of Gentile Christianity and of the satisfying effectiveness of the church of Christ. For all their pretended right to rule Israel, these sham overlords stood weaponless before a justly angry God whose infinite patience had guaranteed them every fair opportunity for self-condemnation and atonement. In fact, the very multiplicity of their opportunities to know and do better rendered absolute the certainty of this death sentence they pronounce. (Cf. Luk. 12:47 f.) None can complain that he was not provided sufficient motive or occasion for repentance. In fact, their innate sense of justice, evident in the tone of certainty with which they pronounce judgment, compels them to confess their verdict of punishment perfectly just.
Because Jesus accepted this answer, we learn that the coming of the Lord of the vineyard would mean the destruction of the wicked tenants. His coming would also signal the beginning of a new lease on the vineyard by other husbandmen. This parable does not picture the end of the world, because it refers to a striking turning point in the affairs of the vineyard, hence the (then) future affairs of the Kingdom the vineyard represents. If so, then, we must search in the history of Israel for that tragic turning point in the affairs of the Jewish people when their unique possession of the oracles of God and their unique place as the people of God came to an abrupt, horrible end. It must also be a period of history when it becomes abundantly clear that another group of people has inherited that responsibility that had belonged to the Jews, i.e. the task of representing and revealing God to the world, the responsibility of being a people for God in the world. (Cf. fuller notes on The Coming of the Son of Man in my Vol. II, pp. 439441.)
He will . . . let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits. Barclay (Matthew, II, 291) notes eloquently that
Gods sternest judgment is when He takes out of our hands the task which He meant us to do. A man has sunk to his lowest level when he has become useless to God.
Gentile Christianity, however, has now become a distinct possibility, if Jesus pursues this to its logical conclusion. (See special study at the end of this volume: The Participation of Gentiles in the Messianic Kingdom.) Even if each arrives thereat by slightly differing routes, Jesus point is essentially the same as Isaiahs: those unique privileges enjoyed by Israel pre-eminently above all other people, God would strip from them, leaving Israel at the level of their neighbors, the Gentiles (Isa. 5:5 f.).
J. Mercys Victory (21:42)
To the shocked listeners, stunned by the inevitable but equally inconceivable conclusion (Mat. 21:41), Jesus now addresses Himself directly, looking them square in the eye (Luk. 20:17). Was it a look of compassion and grief at their stupidity? Or was He searching for some evidence that they were softening? Or was He simply facing them down? Now they must have not only the inexorable logic of their own righteous sentence just pronounced by themselves, but also the Biblical justification of its rightness. Did you never read in the Scriptures? Jesus intends to demonstrate not only that the nations chiefs were guilty of obstinacy toward God by turning a deaf ear to John the Baptist, but also that they were inexplicably insensitive to the very Bible of which they were the official expositors and which they claimed to protect by opposing Him.
Why, however, did Jesus quote Psa. 118:22 f. as support? Any or all of the following suggestions may explain His intention. (Study how Peter made use of this same Psalm before the gathered council of Israel, Act. 4:11, and in his own writing, 1Pe. 2:7.)
1.
He used this Psalm because it was fresh in peoples mind, since the crowds had sung its Hosannas in His honor just two days before. (Mat. 21:9 = Mar. 11:9 f.; Mat. 21:15.) Further, this Psalms cryptic passage about the Rejected Cornerstone required an explanation that pointed out its fulfilment. In fact, the nations leaderships proud refusal of Gods Anointed and the common peoples praise for Him is strikingly described in five CONSECUTIVE verses (Psa. 118:22-26).
2.
Jesus cited this Psalm because it emphasizes once again Gods flair for utilizing despised, unimpressive instruments to produce the most marvelous results. (See notes on Mat. 21:16.) Is Jesus despicable and unimpressive in the hierarchys judgment? And yet can anyone do the miracles He does, unless God be with Him? Is His message spectacularly unmilitaristic and unsupportive of nationalistic Zealotism? Is His love for children, social outcasts and others without prestige in the social pyramid reminiscent of Gods tenderness toward them? Are there ANY Messianic prophecies that point to this kind of Christ, even if other predictions seem to justify militaristic or materialistic expectations? If so, reconsider His claims!
3.
He cited this Psalm to answer whatever mental reservations anyone entertained about the unquestionable rightness of the punitive justice meted out upon the vineyards former caretakers. His citation completely refutes the astonished May it never happen! of those who considered it inconceivable (Luk. 20:16). The Psalm endorsed the just sentence handed down by Jesus listeners.
4.
He cited this Psalm to show that God had known all along about Messiahs rejection by Israels rabbinate, and that human blindness and perversity could not sidetrack Gods program. Rather, by citing it, Jesus furnished a basis for unshaken confidence in Him even at the critical hours of His passion, since Gods Word had foretold it and Jesus proved He personally foresaw and approved it. His suffering would be no accidental martyrdom, but a deliberate act carefully orchestrated by God.
5.
He cited this Psalm, because, if the situation was as He described it, they had no suitable alternative interpretation of its words (Luk. 20:17). What then is this that is written? He could and must say.
6.
He cited this Psalm in order to change the figure of the vineyard and the murdered son of the owner, because this figure does not tell the whole story, Admittedly, He might have narrated the sons resurrection, but it would have perhaps seemed to do violence to the story. However, a Rejected Cornerstone can be exalted to a glorious position. So, in essence, Jesus desired to imply the permanent victory of the slain son. In fact, how could the stone which the builders rejected (the slain son) be made head of the corner, if its function in the divine plan could somehow be thwarted by the permanent defeat of death? So, resurrection is implied.
Although this Psalm changes the figure from the responsible care of a vineyard to the constructing of a building, the central thought is the same: those responsible for the leadership of Israel would reject Gods Messiah. (Paul, too, used both metaphors together: 1Co. 3:9.) Further, the Psalm has the added advantage of being parabolic:
1.
The stone . . . rejected is the suffering Servant of Jahweh, the Messiah. Even if the Psalms early singers could not discern all this, meditation on its meaning should have caused them to reflect on their sensitivity to ANYTHING God would do that would be missed or rejected through dullness, insensitivity or neglect. They had better have unassailable reasons for refusing anything or anyone claiming to be sent by God! They might commit the unpardonable mistake of rejecting the Stone laid by the Lord! The stone rejected finds its parallel in the rejected Son.
2.
The builders are Israels leaders, responsible to build up Gods true Temple, Gods Kingdom. Their rejecting the cornerstone implies that they were ignoring the architects master plan. Otherwise, would they not have seen its proper place in the blueprint? Consequently, the Psalmist foresaw that Israels administrators would be attempting to build Gods Kingdom according to their own concepts which had no place for that one odd-shaped stone, so they rejected it. The construction crew in this second figure is as unskilled as the tenants were short-sighted and wicked in that, even though the constructors claim to know how to build, they are nonetheless unable to discern the proper place for the most important Stone in this edifice! The hierarchys blundering theories about how Gods temple and Kingdom had to be, showed no place for Gods Son! These incompetents did not recognize the very Stone essential to their construction when they were standing there looking at it! So far were they from Gods plans (Mat. 15:3-9 = Mar. 7:6-9; Mar. 7:13).
3.
The stone . . . was made the head of the corner where two major parts of the construction came together and to which the cornerstone, or keystone, gives solidity and permanence. Thus, what had seemed an odd, badly-cut, untrued stone was discovered to be not only most properly fitted but unquestionably essential to give stability, permanence and glory to the structure, to the embarrassment of the expert builders who had so confidently excluded it. Its importance and place in the building was gloriously vindicated. In fact, a cornerstone, to be one, must possess characteristics different from those common stones used elsewhere. And should not the Messiah, the Keystone in Gods edifice, be different from the run-of-the-mill, politico-military chiefs at the head of the worlds typical governments (Eph. 2:19-22)? The total vindication of the Stones importance by its elevation to a position of honor finds its parallel in the swift and complete vindication of the vineyard owners claims by his eviction and execution of the share-croppers, and by their replacement by more trustworthy tenants. In both cases this surprising reversal brings shame to those who refused the owners plans. Jesus death and dismissal by the nations governors did not get rid of Him. Ironically, it fashioned Him for the very function He was to serve in Gods plan, as perfect sacrifice and self-sacrificing High Priest. (Cf. Heb. 4:14 to Heb. 5:10; Heb. 7:15-28; Heb. 9:11-28.)
4.
This was from the Lord after all. Who else but the Lord God could turn human rejection into the very means to arrive at His stated goals?! The Almighty God will not be hindered by apparent defeat due to the dullness of the human instruments with which He has chosen to work. In fact, when God would later succeed in elevating the Rejected Stone to its proper place in the construction, it would prove that He was still on His throne. This was from the Lord God who exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name (Php. 2:9 f.).
5.
And it is marvelous in our eyes. Here is the stupendous surprise and pleasure of the godly observers who exult over the unexpected, but nevertheless magnificent, final result of the Lords course of action and workmanship, and they glorify Him for it. To the redeemed. . . .
a.
It is marvelous that the Father should have singled out His only Son to be crushed in the incarnation, or that He should give Him victory out of death, or that He should establish His Kingdom on this basis so as to include former pagans and Hebrews, or that He should bless us with marvelous progress throughout human society everywhere by world evangelism.
b.
It is marvelous that the manger-born, crucified Nazarene, whom men despised, should, in reality, turn out to be none other than the reflection of the Fathers brilliance, the Owner of the worlds, the Lord of angels, Maker of men and adored by kings (cf. Isa. 52:14 f.).
c.
It is marvelous that our Lord should choose such unlikely methods to reach His goals and that ONLY THESE achieve them! Who would have thought that, by ordinary, patient teaching of concepts foreign to peoples habitual tendencies, political methods and social doctrines, He could have accomplished so much?
d.
Our marveling is no less great when, by contrast to Gods glorious results, we must also marvel at human stupidity that would have so long rejected the Stone or that should continue to be so biased against its own highest good.
But the degree of marveling by the saints is the degree of shock and embarrassment these theologians must have felt when, at the final siege of Jerusalem, it became abundantly clear that God had abandoned them. It measures the depth of their ignorance of the will and ways of God and underscores their gross lack of qualification to represent Him. (Cf. Act. 13:27; 1Co. 2:6-8.)
K. The Reading of the Sentence (21:43)
Mat. 21:43 Therefore I say unto you: Jesus hurled their own sentence back in their face with terrific force. It must be asked in what sense the Israelites possessed the Kingdom of God, and in what sense it shall be taken away from (them) and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
1.
The kingdom of God is the vineyard of Jesus story, Gods provision for carrying out His will on earth through a well-defined group of people, in the first case, Israel. All His revelations and providence were calculated to prepare this people for the climax of His great self-revelation in Christ, the King who would establish the Kingdom of God (cf. Col. 1:13 f.). The Lord means kingdom of God in the sense of the privilege to be the unique people of God on earth, acknowledging His dominion and enjoying His special revelations, protection and care. This privilege, with the first Pentecost after Jesus resurrection and ascension, was offered to you and your children and to all who are far offfor all whom the Lord our God will call (Act. 2:39). Later Peter documented the fulfilment of Jesus prediction by depicting Israels former rights and obligations as now the possession and responsibility of Christs Church (1Pe. 2:4-10, cf. Rev. 5:9-10).
2.
The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you. Nevertheless, Jesus does not mean that no Jew could be saved. Rather, their exclusive, national right to Gods privileged blessings has ended and now they must enter into Gods Kingdom just as anyone else would through trusting obedience to Christ. They never had an automatic right to permanence in Gods Kingdom merely because they were born in Abrahams family (Mat. 3:8-10; cf. Joh. 8:33; Joh. 8:37; Joh. 8:39; Rom. 2:28 f; Rom. 4:12; Rom. 4:16). But, because they thought otherwise, they suffer the natural result, the intellectual blindness and emotional hardness toward the Gospel, which, as a people, they continue to harbor yet today. (Cf. Rom. 11:8-10; Rom. 11:25; 1Th. 2:15 f.) While this is a judgment against the nation as a whole, it can never be valid for single individuals who, like all the early Christians prior to Cornelius conversion, are Hebrews who believe in Gods Messiah and so are saved. (Cf. Rom. 11:1; Act. 21:20.)
3.
The kingdom of God . . . shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Even if stated in a minor key, that Israel should lose its privileged position means that the good tidings will be addressed to everyone! (Act. 13:46; Act. 28:28; Gal. 3:26 ff.; Eph. 2:11-22).
This total destruction of the Jewish monopoly on God, at which time the period of special grace for the Hebrews as a people would come to an end, and in which a new people of God would be clearly distinguished from that nation, could be no other moment than the disastrous Jewish war which ended in the massacre of thousands of Jews, the destruction of Jerusalem and the permanent devastation of the temple, the end of the Levitical worship as formerly known. At this same time it became increasingly apparent to the world that, whereas the Church of Christ had inherited the true foundations of Old Testament religion and grown up within the national framework of the Israelitish people, it was nevertheless a quite different spiritual force to be dealt with. But this new nation of which Jesus here speaks was not merely a new political entity, a new world government, similar to the Roman empire (cf. Revelation 13), but an international community, a Kingdom made up of spiritual Israel, Jewish and Gentile Christians all dedicated to the will of God and each other, producing the results God had always longed for: love for God and man, faithful obedience and sincere righteousness. (Cf. 1Pe. 2:9 f.; contrast Exo. 19:5 f.; Cf. Gal. 3:26 ff.; Eph. 2:11-22; Col. 3:10 f.)
No darker heresy could be imagined than Jesus shocking assertion that Israel as such could no longer be considered the sole depository of divine truth nor the prime (if not unique) object of divine attention, or that any other nation could satisfy Gods requirements quite as well as that people He had always considered His private jewel. But if Jesus can deal such a deadly body-blow to Jewish provincialism, what would He say to American civil religion that claims to see in American national history the embodiment of Gods unique blessing, but fails to recognize American blindness to many of Gods most fundamental claims on life? Or what if the new people of God, the Church, fail to bring forth the fruits thereof? Is God obligated to maintain dead timber (Mat. 3:10)? Has not His procedure always been to remove an unbelieving generation and raise up a people that would obey (Exo. 32:9 f., Exo. 32:14; Num. 20:12; Num. 14:11-35; Rev. 2:4 f.)?
L. Double Punishment Inflicted (21:44)
Although important manuscripts of Matthew do not contain this verse and even if the Apostle did not record it, still Jesus made this threat (Luk. 20:18). While it appears to have been inserted by a scribe from Luke, three reasons suggest that Matthew actually could have written it, as the other manuscripts testify:
1.
Two words are changed: Luke adds Everyone and has that stone instead of this stone. Were this verse a direct transcription from Luke, these variations at least indict the scribe of carelessness. The simpler hypothesis is that Matthew himself simply recorded the words differently.
2.
Had a scribe inserted it from Luke, the better place to insert it would have been immediately after verse 42, i.e. after Jesus citation of Psa. 118:22 where the allusion to the rejected cornerstone would have been clearer because more direct, as Luke actually has it (Luk. 20:17 f.).
3.
The textual tradition is significantly divided, i.e. not all the best manuscripts are against considering verse 44 as belonging to Matthew. However, the United Bible Societies Editorial Committee enclose the verse in double square brackets to indicate their opinion that it is an accretion to the text, yet because of the antiquity of the reading and its importance in the textual tradition, the Committee decided to retain it in the text (A Textual Commentary, 58).
Mat. 21:44 And he that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust. Is Jesus talking about two kinds of punishment for the wicked, i.e. remedial and final? Or is He referring to two distinct time factors, i.e. an early stumbling and a later judgment? In what sense are we to interpret what seems to be a mixed metaphor, i.e., how can a stone lying in the path of the incautious over which they stumble become something that, in turn, falls upon them?
The answer to these queries may be found, not in the attempt to decipher Jesus metaphors, but in asking a better question: where did He get His language? In fact, both Isaiah and Daniel had used similar expressions. Did Jesus borrow from them?
JESUS (Mat. 21:44; Luk. 20:18)
Isa. 8:13-15
He that falls on this stone shall be broken to pieces.
The Lord Almighty . . . will be a sanctuary; but for both houses of Israel he will be a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall. And for the people of Jerusalem he will be a trap and a snare.
Many of them will stumble;
they will fall and be broken
they will be snared and captured.
Dan. 2:44; Dan. 2:34 f.
but on whomsoever it shall fall,
it will scatter him as dust.
In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. . . . a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were broken to pieces at the same time and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a truce. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.
This impression is even more convincing when seen in combination with Jesus citation of the other Rejected Stone passage, Psa. 118:22 f. Since the Lord was already quoting Scripture, it should not be thought strange that, after casting Isaiahs Vineyard Song in a new form, He continue to weave these three great Messianic texts together into one great revelation. (Study Peters combination of Psa. 118:22 and Isa. 8:14 f. adding Isa. 28:16 in 1Pe. 2:4-8.) If the Lord is indeed combining these great prophecies, the final effect of the combination is breathtaking!
1.
He that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces, interpreted in the Isaianic context, means that Israel in general would break itself on the Lord Almighty. However, hope was held out for anyone who would regard Him as holy and fear Him. While the nation would break itself, He would be a sanctuary for individuals. If Isaiahs later revelation (Mat. 28:15 f.) bears on our understanding, we see that God placed this precious stone on mans path so he could build upon it as upon a solid foundation. Consequently, he who falls upon this stone has deliberately tried to ignore its presence in his path and so suffers the consequence by breaking himself upon its solid reality. But Jesus applies to Himself this Old Testament language! He does so with propriety, because He is God in the flesh. This means that, after our contact with Christ, it is quite impossible to swagger on as if His massive presence had not staggered us, or as if He were not the only basis upon which our lives must finally be grounded. Christ, in the days of His humiliation, had none of the worlds usual attributes to qualify Him for prestige, position and power (Isa. 52:14; Isa. 53:2 f.). Rather, He was a cause of stumbling (Mat. 11:6), a great Stone set in place to cause the fall of many in Israel (Luk. 2:34). Consequently, there was nothing remedial in this punishment, since he that falls on this stone shall be broken to pieces. Even if this fall is wholly accidental, it is nonetheless real and fatal.
2.
On whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust. This vigorous language expresses Jesus view of the sweeping, inexorable omnipotence of His Kingdom. If we have correctly surmised that our Lord is utilizing catch phrases from Daniel, then His words glow with new splendor. In fact, in Dan. 2:44 the great Stone that smashed four mighty ancient empires into oblivion and became itself a perpetual power on earth is the Kingdom of the Son of Man. (Cf. Daniel 2 with Daniel 7.) Originally, Jewish readers would have assumed that Daniels revelations described Messiahs total victory over Gentile nations only. But, as they were to learn at Jerusalem in 70 A.D., even the unbelievers in Israel were also meant. God had revealed His Sons total victory over ALL unbelieving nations (Rev. 13:7 f., Rev. 13:12 ff., Rev. 13:16; Rev. 19:18)! Even if whomsoever may well include every tribe, people, tongue and nation, even all who dwell on the earth that stumble over Christ, it is also intensely individual. This theme of individual responsibility will be developed further in the following parable (Mat. 22:11-14). Although God had worked with nations before, His present dealings regard individuals far more than before, even if they were never excluded from His earlier concerns. (Cf. Ezr. 8:18; Jer. 31:30; Deu. 24:16.) Nothingno nation nor individual-can stop Gods Son from completing His appointed mission.
Upon reflection, then, we see that the great Stone of stumbling in Isa. 8:14 f. and the mighty Crushing Stone unhewn by human hands of Dan. 2:34 f., Dan. 2:44 both stand behind Jesus terminology. Further, in synopsis with Psa. 118:22 f. and by His insistent repetition of the key word Stone, the Lord shows that the Rejected Stone, the Crushing Stone and the Stumbling Stone are to be identified with God and His Kingdom. If so, then because these figures are to be thought of as literary parallels of the Rejected Son of the Vineyard Owner, He means that this Rejected Son is somehow deity and ruler of Gods Kingdom!
In this way Jesus has accomplished two ends:
1.
He conclusively answered the authorities original test of His right to teach: He is Himself the Rejected Son, the Rejected Stone, the Stone of Stumbling and the Crushing Stone, i.e. the Ruler of Gods Kingdom, therefore God incarnate and fully possessed of all necessary authority. But He had not answered their challenge in such a way as to furnish them merely more material to criticize. His method left them unable instantly to debate His terms. Rather,and this explains why His connections may seem less clear to the logic of westerners less familiar with that Old Testament language in which His original audience was steepedHe gave them an answer to ponder. By using familiar Biblical language, He led these exponents of Old Testament studies to reflect on His meaning and perhaps to be induced to grasp the hope expressed in Isa. 28:16 : See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed.
2.
His illuminating combination of Old Testament prophecies should open the eyes of all His enemies to the awful consequences of attempting to eliminate Him. Gods Word, in short, had already vividly pictured their destruction. Sadly, however, history has now completely vindicated Jesus applications of these texts, since the Jewish nation was broken in pieces precisely because of its lack of cohesive unity behind the Messiah of God, its misunderstanding of its own role in Gods plan and its materialistic nationalism and its consequent failure to appreciate the spiritual character of the Kingdom. These led it to disaster in the Jewish War and the destruction of Jerusalem. Thus, Jesus winnowed this chaff (Mat. 3:12; see my Coming of the Son of Man, Matthew, II after Matthew 10). Nevertheless, His meaning does not deadend here, since ALL His enemies must fail and all forms of opposition shall taste defeat! (1Co. 15:24 f.; Mat. 22:44 = Psa. 110:1; Luk. 19:27; 2Th. 1:5-10 and the total message of Revelation.)
So, double punishment awaits those who presume to reject Jesus: they break themselves upon Him and He gives them their just deserts both now and in eternity. No empire however great can withstand the power of our Lord Jesus Christ! What a gloriously comforting word for embattled saints!
M. Jesus Story Hit Home (21:45)
Mat. 21:45 For chief priests and Pharisees see notes on Mat. 21:23. When (they) heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. It is not impossible that they had already begun to feel the impact of His stories earlier. In fact, when the justice of terrible vengeance upon the tenant farmers came to light, someone had recoiled in horror, May it never happen! (Luk. 20:16). By this time, says Matthew, the blast waves of his parables had begun to hit home with terrific force, convincing them that, psychologically, at least, they had been unseated. Because particularly they had sneered at John the Baptist, by the Parable of the Two Sons they stood accused of flagrant disobedience toward God (Mat. 21:28-32). Further, since they had inherited the duly authorized leadership of Israel, unquestionably they were responsible for the care of Gods vineyard, Israel, so they now saw themselves depicted as the murderous husbandmen of Jesus story (Mat. 21:33-41). The collective message of His illustrations, therefore, had just indicted them of stubborn, continued rebellion against God. How could they be anything but infuriated?
They perceived that he spake of them. How much of what we understand of Jesus meaning did they grasp? Was their perception prompted by the accusations of a guilty conscience? Was it not rather born of a wily, political instinct of self-preservation? Anyone so thoroughly skewered by so clear a story alluding to the well-known history of their own people could not but get the point. But since they rejected the premises on which His argument was based, i.e. that He is Gods Son and final revelation, what would His scarcely veiled warnings have meant to them? Would they have admitted to rebelling against Him whom they considered to be their own God? We too must beware lest we assume that understanding the Lords words is equal to submission to His instruction.
N. The Clergy Fumbles Its Responsibility (21:46)
Mat. 21:46 And when they sought to lay hold on him, they feared the multitudes, because they took him for a prophet. Despite their fury, they struggle helplessly with fear. The same indecisiveness that blocked any firm commitment regarding the ministry of John the Baptist also frustrates any determined, open action against Jesus now (cf. Mat. 14:5). Here is written their intellectual and moral damnation. In fact, if they grieved for the perversion of true religion, if they burned within for the scattering of Israels flock, if they were angered at the deep injustice of the deception they were convinced Jesus practiced upon innocent followers, there could be no halting, no hesitation; only decisive action, regardless of immediate, personal consequences.
Ironically, they began instantly to feel the truth of His prediction! (Luk. 20:18). They could not even touch Him right then without serious self-damage. Foolishly, they postponed their daylight attack in favor of a secret night arrest in the vain hope to avoid stumbling over the Stone in His story.
They took him for a prophet. (See notes on Mat. 21:11.) This, then, is the measure of the crowds responsibility to trust Jesus totally and render Him joyful obedience and loyalty. While this is a good opinion of Christ and one that could induce them to confess His true Messiahship, and while it held His enemies at bay for awhile, thus stalling any opposition until His purpose was served, this opinion would not lead to salvation unless Israel surrendered to Him. In fact, for far too many the phrase, they took him for a prophet, meant nothing more than Jesus was a popular preacher. Once against Matthew closes a major event by underlining Jesus prophetic office.(Cf. Mat. 13:57 notes; Mat. 21:11.)
Bested at their own game of Hard Questions, hemmed in by their own ineptness and embarrassed by Jesus precise scoring, they see no exit where they may gracefully bow out. Purple with rage but completely helpless, they must endure another of His fascinating, but lethal, stories.
FACT QUESTIONS
1.
In what general context is the parable of the wicked vine-growers told? Tell the immediate background or circumstance in which Jesus told this story. Indicate:
a.
the facts that took place just before this parable; then tell
b.
the broad historical background which furnished Jesus material for His story.
2.
According to Luke, to whom did Jesus address this parable?
3.
List the five things the vineyards owner did to assure himself that everything would go well for his vineyard. Tell why each detail was important.
4.
Who in the Old Testament had already used these same symbols adapted here by Jesus? To what did the original author(s) of these symbols refer? Where may a closely similar version of this parable be found? In what respects does Jesus version differ from it?
5.
What did the owner of the vineyard do after doing everything he could for the positive development of his vineyard? How is this significant for the parables meaning?
6.
Everything in the parable leads us to believe that the owner of the vineyard expected only one thing from his vineyard. What is it?
7.
When was it that the owner began to send his representatives to the vineyard? That is, in what season?
8.
How many agents were sent by the owner to the vine-growers?
9.
How were the owners agents treated once they arrived at the vineyard?
10.
Who was the last agent sent by the owner?
11.
What was the owners hope that caused him to send this latter agent?
12.
What was the reaction of the vine-growers when they became aware of the arrival of the owners last agent? (a) What was their reasoning? (b) What did they do?
13.
With what question does Jesus terminate the parable and point to its moral?
14.
What was the answer Jesus listeners gave?
a.
What would happen to the murderous vine-growers?
b.
What would happen to the vineyard?
c.
What would happen in regard to the fruit of the vineyard?
15.
What Psalm is cited by Jesus in support of His position? When had this same Psalm been cited earlier in this same Last Week of Jesus?
16.
What is the correct application of the Psalm quoted by Jesus?
a.
What is the stone rejected?
b.
Who are the builders who rejected it?
c.
What does it mean to become the head of the corner?
d.
What importance does this expression have: this was the Lords doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?
e.
In what way is Jesus resurrection implied by His citing this Psalm?
17.
What terrible prophecies does Jesus make at the conclusion of this parable? Have they been fulfilled yet? If so, when and where?
18.
Where in the Old Testament had these prophecies already been suggested, if not stated outright?
19.
Explain the remark about the great stone of stumbling and crushing.
20.
How did the authorities react to Jesus words?
21.
What was the peoples attitude toward Jesus? How did this attitude block the rulers?
22.
Show how this parable is further amplified and explained by the parable of the slighted wedding invitation, which follows it. Show what features are common to both parables.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(33) Which planted a vineyard.The frequent recurrence of this imagery at this period of our Lords ministry is significant. (Comp. Mat. 20:1; Mat. 21:28; Luk. 13:6.) The parable that now meets us points in the very form of its opening to the great example of the use of that image in Isa. 5:1. Taking the thought there suggested as the key to the parable, the vineyard is the house of Israel; the fence finds its counterpart in the institutions which made Israel a separate and peculiar people; the wine-press (better, wine-vati.e., the reservoir underneath the press), in the Temple, as that into which the wine of devotion, and thanksgiving, and charity was to flow; the tower (used in vineyards as a place of observation and defence against the attacks of plunderers; comp. Isa. 1:8), in Jerusalem and the outward polity connected with it. So, in like manner, the letting out to husbandmen and the going into a far country answers historically to the conquest by which the Israelites became possessors of Canaan, and were left, as it were, to themselves to make what use they chose of their opportunities.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
33. Hear another parable You have felt the effect of one, now hear another. Householder The head of a family.
A vineyard A symbol of the field of duty and service of God, customarily used in both the Old Testament and the New. See Deu 32:32, Isa 5:1-7, and Mat 20:1. Hedged it round about A hedge is a row of perfectly dense thorn bushes, (often in Judea the prickly pear,) planted around a field, to fence it in and exclude all intruders.
A winepress Including the wine vat, which was a square or round vat or pit excavated in the earth, mortared and plastered so as to make it tight like a modern cistern. Over this vat was the wine-press, into which the grapes were heaped, and when the juice was trodden out it flowed into the vat.
Built a tower A tower or observatory in the garden, having a view in all directions, in which a watchman is stationed to guard against robbers. The vineyard represents the Church or fold of God’s service. This must be girt as with a hedge; it must have its ordinances for receiving the flow of the divine nourishment; it must have its towers and watchmen against the assaults of the profane or the incursions of hypocrites. Let it out Leased or rented it, with rent to be paid from the produce. Went into a far country God leaves men in their state of probation to work out their destiny.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“Hear another parable. There was a man who was an estate owner, who planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and dug a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to vineyard workers, and went into another place.”
The description here is partially based on Isa 5:2, although the background is different. In Isaiah 5 the vineyard was not let out. But the likeness confirms that, as there, the vineyard is a picture of Israel. Even the Jewish leaders recognised that here He was speaking about them (Mat 21:45), for they did see themselves as having the responsibility for God’s vineyard. And this is further substantiated by other references in the Old Testament to Israel as a vineyard (compare Psa 80:8-16; Isa 27:2-5; Jer 2:21-22; Hos 9:10, where again the vineyard is Israel/Judah). It is also confirmed by the previous parable in Mat 21:28-32, which was also about a vineyard. But here the emphasis will not be on the fruitfulness of the vineyard, but the behaviour of those who rent the vineyard from its Owner.
The vineyard described, with its surrounding thorn hedge, would be a common sight in Palestine. Its winepress would consist of two small ditches, one set below the other at a lower level, and both either cut in the rock, or lined with stones and plastered. The grapes would be trodden in the higher one and the juice would seep through to the lower one, where it could be collected. Its tower would be about three metres (ten feet) high, with living accommodation below, and a top level surrounded by a low wall from which the whole vineyard could be surveyed. Note the emphasis placed on the effort put in by the owner. What more could He have done for His vineyard that He had not done? He therefore deserved every consideration.
The parable is based on real life. In Palestine at that time there were many farms and vineyards tenanted by tenant farmers, with absent landlords who expected to receive their rents in the form of an agreed portion of the produce, and who had to ensure that they made their claim for rental at the proper time in order to reinforce their rights of ownership. Costs would be shared. And we can be sure that with regard to some of those farms and vineyards there was much skulduggery, for tenants left without being approached for three years could claim formal ownership of the land.
So here the vineyard is planted and put under the control of others who are made responsible for ensuring that a fair rental in terms of produce is paid to the owner. The owner, Who is clearly the God of Israel, then leaves it in their hands. It would take four years for the vineyard to become fruitful in such a way that rents (paid in produce) could be expected (see Lev 19:23-25), but other subsidiary items might be grown, and full and regular accounting would be required from the start.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Parable Of The Faithless Tenants (21:33-41). .
The final build up of Jesus, and of what He has come to do, continues. He has entered Jerusalem as its King (Mat 21:1-11). He has taken over the Temple, casting out all that is commercial and to do with Mammon, and making it a place of the healing of the lame and the blind, turning it from a robber’s den into a house of prayer (Mat 21:12-14). He has been declared in the Temple to be the Son of David by those from whose mouths, according to Scripture, proceeds God’s truth (Mat 21:15-17). He has portrayed by a miraculous sign the final demise of the old unbelieving and unfruitful Israel (Mat 21:18-22). He has reinforced the authority of John before the people and reminded them that he came from God (Mat 21:23-27). He has demonstrated that all men stand judged on the basis of how they have responded to John’s ministry, exposing by that the inconsistency of the Jewish leaders (Mat 21:28-32). Now He will make clear His ultimate claim. That He is the only Son, that He too has come from God, and that they will do to Him whatever they will. And that because they are so possessive of Israel, and so determined to fashion it in their own image, that they are unable to see their own folly. Here is the ultimate prophecy. The declaration beforehand of what they are going to do to Him (as in their hearts they well knew, but He was not supposed to know) because they have come to look on Israel as theirs.
Thus He wants them to know that having rejected John and the prophets, He is aware that they are now behaving towards Him in a spirit of enmity and malice that will result in His death. And he wants them to realise that they will be judged accordingly, because all that the prophets have pointed to is now here. It is a final plea to their consciences and to their hearts. And He will then indicate that the end of the old nation is approaching and that it will issue in the new (Mat 21:43). The new age is in process of beginning.
In the section chiasmus this parable is in parallel to the parable of the labourers in the vineyard. There we were given the picture of the true labourers of the future, here we have described those who have had charge of the vineyard in the past, with the final indication that they will be replaced.
It should be noted also that this is the middle parable of three in succession. The first contrasted how people had responded towards His Forerunner, bringing out how even the riffraff responded because they accepted that John’s authority came from God, while the religious leaders did not. This one will describe how the leaders of Israel will behave towards Him as the only Son of the owner of the vineyard, just as they did towards John, and what the consequences will be for them and for the old Israel. The third parable will reinforce and underline His position as the King’s Son, and will bring out again that it is the poor and the needy who respond who will enjoy the future time of blessing, while those who should have done so will be rejected because they refuse to respond to His invitation, or wear His insignia and thus bear His Name.
Any who for some strange reason have decided for themselves that Jesus could not have used allegory (partly because some have misused it) try to ‘simplify’ the parable and thereby can make it whatever they want it to mean. However, we have already argued with regard to the parable of the sower that Jesus undoubtedly did demonstrably use allegory to a certain extent so that there are no real grounds for denying allegory here. Nor, except for those who against all the evidence deny that Jesus saw Himself as uniquely the Son and different from all others, are there any theological grounds for denying this to Jesus. Indeed if it had been an allegory invented by the later church we would have expected to find some indication of the son’s resurrection, instead of just a handing over of the vineyard to others, (especially in view of the illustration of the stone which follows) and also the introduction of the idea that the son had come to make atonement. Such ideas could hardly have been resisted. But there is no hint of them in the parable. Furthermore having emphasised John’s work in the previous parable we would actually expect Him to turn attention to Himself as a greater than John (a son as compared with a prophet – Mat 3:11; Mat 3:14-17) as He has constantly made clear earlier (Mat 11:2-6; Mat 11:11-14; Joh 5:33-37), and does in the next parable which also introduces the further idea of royalty.
Analysis.
a
b “And when the season of the fruits drew near, he sent his servants to the vineyard workers, to receive his fruits” (Mat 21:34).
c “And the vineyard workers took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another” (Mat 21:35).
d “Again, he sent other servants more than at first, and they treated them in the same way” (Mat 21:36).
e “But afterward he sent to them his son, saying, ‘They will reverence my son’.” (Mat 21:37).
d “But the vineyard workers, when they saw the son, said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and take his inheritance.’ ” (Mat 21:38).
c “And they took him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him” (Mat 21:39).
b “When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do to those vineyard workers?” (Mat 21:40).
a “They say to him, ‘He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard to other vineyard workers, who will render him the fruits in their seasons” (Mat 21:41).
Note than in ‘a’ the owner lets his vineyard out to vineyard workers, and in the parallel he destroys them and lets it out to other vineyard workers because the first ones have failed. In ‘b’ he sent to receive the fruits due to him, and in the parallel he comes himself to bring them to account. In ‘c’ we have the behaviour of the vineyard workers towards the servants, and in the parallel their behaviour towards the son. In ‘d’ he continued to send servants, and they treated them badly, and in the parallel the son arrives and they determine to treat him badly. Centrally in ‘e’ was the wish and hope of the father, that they would reverence his son.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers ( Mar 12:1-12 , Luk 20:9-19 ) Mat 21:33-46 records the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers. Within the context of this parable, John the Baptist and his predecessors represent the servants whom the vine-dressers slew. The son of the landowner represents Jesus, whom the Jews will also kill. Jesus applies this parable to the fulfillment of Scripture (Mat 21:42-44). Despite these testimonies, the Jewish leaders reject message of John the Baptist (Mat 21:45-46)
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. v. 33. Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a wine-press in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.
v. 34. And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen that they might receive the fruits of it.
v. 35. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
v. 36. Again, he sent other servants, more than the first; and they did unto them likewise. Without giving the Jews an opportunity to remonstrate, Jesus, with great emotion, and with the deliberate intention of making them see their malice and wickedness, introduces another lesson. The picture He draws was one with which His hearers were very familiar, and He knew that they could also see the meaning at once, since the Old Testament speaks so often of the vineyard of the Church. Christ gives a detailed description of the pains taken by the ruler, the owner of the estate. See Isa 5:1-7; Psa 80:9-11. His object was to obtain not merely fruitfulness, but fruit of the very best kind. He planted a hedge round about to keep out the wild beasts that might root up and tear down the vines. He built a wine-press, where the grapes could be trodden out, and a vat, where the juice could be stored. He erected a watch-tower against thieves among man and beast. In short, he did all that could be expected of the careful owner of a vineyard. He now rented out the vineyard on shares, since he was obliged to make a long journey. But the renters were wicked. Instead of paying the share of the fruit which belonged to the lord, they despitefully entreated and even killed the servants that were sent to bring the rent to the lord. Christ purposely pictures the wickedness with dramatic intensity.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 21:33. Hear another parable Not satisfied with shewing the rulers the heinousness of their sin, in rejecting the Baptist, Jesus judged it proper likewise publicly to represent the crime of the nation, in rejecting all the messengers of God, from first to last; and among the rest his only-begotten Son: at the same time he warned them plainly of their danger, byreason of the punishment which they incurred onaccountofsuch a continued course of rebellion. The outward oeconomy of religion in which they gloried, was to be taken from them; their relation to God, as his people, cancelled; and their national constitution destroyed: but, because these were topics extremelydisagreeable, he couched them under the veil of a parable, which he formed upon one made use of long before by the prophet Isaiah, Isa 5:1, &c. where see the notes. This vineyard, with its appurtenances, represents the Mosaical dispensation, a dispensation attended with great present advantages, and many promises of future blessings: the other circumstances of the parable are extremely clear. St. Matthew uses the word for a wine-press, and St. Mark, ; the former signifies the wine-press, the other the cavity under it, wherein the vessel was fixed which received the liquor pressed from the grapes. The one of these naturally implies the other; but our Lord chose to mention both.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 21:33 ff. Comp. Mar 12:1 ff, Luk 20:9 ff. Jesus, in Mat 21:28 ff., having shown His adversaries how base they are, now proceeds to do this yet more circumstantially in another parable (founded, no doubt, upon Isa 5:1 ff.), in which, with a lofty and solemn earnestness, He lays bare to them the full measure of their sin against God (even to the killing of His Son), and announces to them the punishment that awaits them.
] dug a wine-vat in it . Comp. Xen. Oec . xix. 2 : . This was a trough dug in the earth for the purpose of receiving the juice of the grape as it flowed down from the press through an aperture covered with a grating. See Winer, Realw . I. p. 653 f.
] a tower , for watching the vineyard. Such tower-shaped structures were then, and are still, in common use for this purpose (Tobler, Denkbl . p. 113.
] he let it out (Pollux, i. 75; Herod, i. 68; Plat. Parm , p. 127 A; Dem. 268, 9), namely, to be cultivated. Seeing that the proprietor himself collects the produce (Mat 21:34 ; Mat 21:41 ), we must assume that the vineyard was let for a money rent, and not, as is generally supposed, for a share of the fruit. For nothing is said in this passage about payment in kind to the proprietor, including only part of the produce. Otherwise in Mar 12:2 ; Luk 20:10 ; comp. Weiss’ note on Mark.
] is often taken as referring to the vineyard ; but without reason, for there is nothing to prevent its being referred to the subject last mentioned. It was his own fruit that the master wished to have brought to him. The fruit of the vineyard, and the whole of it too, belongs to him .
] they stoned him (Mat 23:37 ; Joh 8:5 ; Act 7:58 f., Mat 14:5 ; Heb 12:20 ), forms a climax to ., as being a “species atrox” (Bengel) of this latter.
.] a reasonable expectation.
] they said one to another .
. ] and let us obtain possession of his inheritance , namely, the vineyard to which he is the heir. In these words they state not the result of the murder (as in Mark), but what step they propose to take next . After the death of the son, who is therefore to be regarded as an only one, they intend to lay claim to the property.
. .] differently in Mar 12:8 , hence also the transposition in D, codd. of It. This passage contains no allusion to the previous excommunication (Grotius), or to the crucifixion of Christ because it took place outside of Jerusalem (comp. Heb 13:12 f.; so Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Olshausen), but simply describes the scene in which the son on his arrival is thrust out of the vineyard and murdered .
The parable illustrates the hostile treatment experienced time after time by God’s prophets (the ) at the hands of the leaders (the husbandmen) of the Jewish theocracy (the vineyard), an institution expressly designed for the production of moral fruit, and also shows how their self-seeking and love of power would lead them to put to death even Jesus, the Son, the last and greatest of the messengers from God. Comp. Act 7:51 f. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, likewise find a meaning in the hedge (the law), the wine-vat (the altar), and the tower (the temple). So also Bengel, who sees in an allusion to the “ tempus divinae taciturnitatis ;” while Origen takes it as referring to the time when God ceased to manifest Himself in a visible shape.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
Ver. 33. Planted a vineyard, and hedged it ] Of all possessions, saith Cato, Nulla maiorem operam requirit, none requires more pains than that of a vineyard. Grain comes up and grows alone, Mar 4:28 . Iniussa virescunt gramina, saith the poet; but vines must be dressed, supported, pruned, sheltered every day almost, Joh 15:2 . The Church is God’s continual care, , , Amputat, putat, &c., Isa 27:3 , and he looks for an answerable return of fruits,Act 12:20Act 12:20 . Regnum Anglia, regnum Dei, said Polydore Virgil long since. The kingdom of England is the kingdom of God. It may well be said so, since the Reformation especially; neither is there anything more threateneth us than our hateful unfruitfulness. The cypress tree, the more it is watered, the less fruitful; so many of us, the more taught, the more untoward.
And went into a far country ] As the impious husbandmen imagined, who put far away the evil day. But God shall shoot at such “with an arrow, suddenly shall they be wounded,” Psa 64:7 ; as a bird is stricken with the bolt, while he gazeth at the bow. Morae dispendium faeneris duplo pensatur, God pays men at length for the new and the old. (Jerome.)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
33 46. ] PARABLE OF THE VINEYARD LET OUT TO HUSBANDMEN. Mar 12:1-12 .Luk 20:9-19Luk 20:9-19 . This parable is in intimate connexion with Isa 5:1 ff., and was certainly intended by our Lord as an express application of that passage to the Jews of His time. Both Mark and Luke open it with an , as a fresh beginning, by our Lord, of a series of parables. Luke adds, that it was spoken . Its subject is, of course, the continued rejection of God’s prophets by the people of Israel, till at last they rejected and killed His only Son . The : i.e. ‘ selected it out of all His world, and fenced it in , and dug a receptacle for the juice (in the rock or ground, to keep it cool, into which it flowed from the press above, through a grated opening), and built a tower (of recreation or observation to watch the crops).’ This exactly coincides with the state of the Jewish nation, under covenant with God as His people. All these expressions are in Isa 5:1-30 . The letting out to husbandmen was probably that kind of letting where the tenant pays his rent in kind , although the may be understood of money. God began about 430 years after the Exodus to send His prophets to the people of Israel, and continued even till John the Baptist; but all was in vain; they “persecuted the prophets,” casting them out, and putting them to death. (See Neh 9:26 ; Mat 23:31 ; Mat 23:37 ; Heb 11:36-38 .)
The different sendings must not be pressed; they probably imply the fulness and sufficiency of warnings given , and set forth the longsuffering of the householder; and the increasing rebellion of the husbandmen is shewn by their increasing ill-treatment of the messengers. Meyer understands after , Mat 21:34 , to mean His fruits; i.e. in money .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 21:33-46 . Parable of the rebellious vine-dressers (Mar 12:1-12 , Luk 20:9-19 ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mat 21:33 . . ., hear another parable; spoken at the same time, and of kindred import. The abrupt introduction betrays emotion. Jesus is aware that He has given mortal offence, and here shows His knowledge by foreshadowing His own doom. The former parable has exposed the insincerity of the leaders of Israel, this exposes their open revolt against even divine authority. : it is another vineyard parable. They were both probably extemporised, the one suggesting the other, the picture of non doing calling up the companion picture of mis doing. . , etc.: detailed description of the pains taken by the landlord in the construction of the vineyard, based on Isaiah’s song of the vineyard (chap. Mat 5:2 ), all with a view to fruitfulness, and to fruit of the best kind; for the owner, at least, is very much in earnest: a hedge to protect against wild beasts, a press and vat that the grapes may be squeezed and the juice preserved, a tower that the ripe fruit may not be stolen. , let it out on hire; on what terms whether for a rent in money or on the metayer system, produce divided between owner and workers does not here appear. The latter seems to be implied in the parallels (Mar 12:2 , , Luk 20:10 , ). , went abroad, to leave them freedom, and also to give them time; for the newly planted vines would not bear fruit for two or three years. No unreasonableness in this landlord.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Matthew
THE VINEYARD AND ITS KEEPERS
Mat 21:33 – Mat 21:46
This parable was apparently spoken on the Tuesday of the Passion Week. It was a day of hand-to-hand conflict with the Jewish authorities and of exhausting toil, as the bare enumeration of its incidents shows. It included all that Matthew records between Mat 21:20 of this chapter and the end of the twenty-fifth chapter-the answer to the deputation from the Sanhedrin; the three parables occasioned by it, namely, those of the two sons, this one, and that of the marriage of the king’s son; the three answers to the traps of the Pharisees and Herodians about the tribute, of the Sadducees about the resurrection, and of the ruler about the chief commandment; Christ’s question to His questioners about the Son and Lord of David; the stern woes hurled at the unmasked hypocrites; to which must be added, from other gospels, the sweet eulogium on the widow’s mite, and the deep saying to the Greeks about the corn of wheat, with, possibly, the incident of the woman taken in adultery; and then, following all these, the solemn prophecies of the end contained in Mat 24:1 – Mat 24:51 and Mat 25:1 – Mat 25:46 , spoken on the way to Bethany, as the evening shadows were falling. What a day! What a fountain of wisdom and love which poured out such streams! The pungent severity of this parable, with its transparent veil of narrative, is only appreciated by keeping clearly in view the circumstances and the listeners. They had struck at Jesus with their question as to His authority, and He parries the blow. Now it is His turn, and the sharp point goes home.
I. The first stage is the preparation of the vineyard, in which three steps are marked.
‘Guv’ment ain’t to answer for it,
God will send the bill to you.’
Having installed the husbandmen, the owner goes into another country. The cluster of miracles which inaugurate an epoch of revelation are not continued beyond its beginning. Centuries of comparative divine silence followed the planting of the vineyard. Having given us our charge, God, as it were, steps aside to leave us room to work as we will, and so to display what we are made of. He is absent in so far as conspicuous oversight and retribution are concerned. He is present to help, love, and bless. The faithful husbandman has Him always near, a joy and a strength, else no fruit would grow; but the sin and misery of the unfaithful are that they think of Him as far off.
II. Then comes the habitual ill-treatment of the messengers.
The hostility of the husbandmen grows with indulgence. From beating they go on to killing, and stoning is a specially savage form of killing. The opposition which began, as the former parable tells us, with polite hypocrisy and lip obedience, changed, under the stimulus of prophetic appeals, to honest refusal, and from that to violence which did not hesitate to slay. The more God pleads with men, the more self-conscious and bitter becomes their hatred; and the more bitter their hatred, the more does He plead, sending other messengers, more perhaps in number, or possibly of more weight, with larger commission and clearer light. Thus both the antagonistic forces grow, and the worse men become, the louder and more beseeching is the call of God to them. That is always true; and it is also ever true that he who begins with ‘I go, sir, and goes not, is in a fair way to end with stoning the prophets.
Christ treats the whole long series of violent rejections as the acts of the same set of husbandmen. The class or nation was one, as a stream is one, though all its particles are different; and the Pharisees and scribes, who stood with frowning hatred before Him as He spoke, were the living embodiment of the spirit which had animated all the past. In so far as they inherited their taint, and repeated their conduct, the guilt of all the former generations was laid at their door. They declared themselves their predecessors’ heirs; and as they reproduced their actions, they would have to bear the accumulated weight of the consequences.
III. Mat 21:37 – Mat 21:39 tell of the mission of the Son and of its fatal issue.
The next point marked is the owner’s vain hope, in sending his Son. He thought that He would be welcomed, and He was disappointed. It was His last attempt. Christ knew Himself to be God’s last appeal, as He is to all men, as well as to that generation. He is the last arrow in God’s quiver. When it has shot that bolt, the resources even of divine love are exhausted, and no more can be done for the vineyard than He has done for it. We need not wonder at unfulfilled hopes being here ascribed to God. The startling thought only puts into language the great mystery which besets all His pleadings with men, which are carried on, though they often fail, and which must, therefore, in view of His foreknowledge, be regarded as carried on with the knowledge that they will fail. That is the long-suffering patience of God. The difficulty is common to the words of the parable and to the facts of God’s unwearied pleading with impenitent men. Its surface is a difficulty, its heart is an abyss of all-hoping charity.
The last point is the vain calculation of the husbandmen. Christ puts hidden motives into plain words, and reveals to these rulers what they scarcely knew of their own hearts. Did they, in their secret conclaves, look each other in the face, and confess that He was the Heir? Did He not Himself ground His prayer for their pardon on their ignorance? But their ignorance was not entire, else they had had no sin; neither was their knowledge complete, else they had had no pardon. Beneath many an obstinate denial of Him lies a secret confession, or misgiving, which more truly speaks the man than does the loud negation. And such strange contradictions are men, that the secret conviction is often the very thing which gives bitterness and eagerness to the hostility. So it was with some of those whose hidden suspicions are here set in the light. How was the rulers’ or the people’s wish to ‘seize on His inheritance’ their motive for killing Jesus? Their great sin was their desire to have their national prerogatives, and yet to give no true obedience. The ruling class clung to their privileges and forgot their responsibilities, while the people were proud of their standing as Jews, and careless of God’s service. Neither wished to be reminded of their debt to the Lord of the vineyard, and their hostility to Jesus was mainly because He would call on them for fruits. If they could get this unwelcome and persistent voice silenced, they could go on in the comfortable old fashion of lip-service and real selfishness. It is an account, in vividly parabolic language, not only of their hostility, but of that of many men who are against Him. They wish to possess life and its good, without being for ever pestered with reminders of the terms on which they hold it, and of God’s desire for their love and obedience. They have a secret feeling that Christ has the right to ask for their hearts, and so they often turn from Him angrily, and sometimes hate Him.
With what sad calmness does Jesus tell the fate of the son, so certain that it is already as good as done! It was done in their counsels, and yet He does not cease to plead, if perchance some hearts may be touched and withdraw themselves from the confederacy of murder.
IV. We have next the self-condemnation from unwilling lips.
V. Then come the solemn application and naked truth of the parable.
Christ confirms the sentence just spoken by the rulers on themselves, but with the inversion of its clauses. All disguise is at an end. The fatal ‘you’ is pronounced. The husbandmen’s calculation had been that killing the heir would make them lords of the vineyard; the grim fact was that they cast themselves out when they cast him out. He is the heir. If we desire the inheritance, we must get it through Him, and not kill or reject, but trust and obey Him. The sentence declares the two truths, that possession of the vineyard depends on honouring the Son, and on bringing forth the fruits. The kingdom has been taken from the churches of Asia Minor, Africa, and Syria, because they bore no fruit. It is not held by us on other conditions. Who can venture to speak of the awful doom set forth in the last words here? It has two stages: one a lesser misery, which is the lot of him who stumbles against the stone, while it lies passive to be built on; one more dreadful, when it has acquired motion and comes down with irresistible impetus. To stumble at Christ, or to refuse His grace, and not to base our lives and hopes on Him is maiming and damage, in many ways, here and now. But suppose the stone endowed with motion, what can stand against it? And suppose that the Christ, who is now offered for the rock on which we may pile our hopes and never be confounded, comes to judge, will He not crush the mightiest opponent as the dust of the summer threshing-floor?
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 21:33-41
33″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. 34When the harvest time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine-growers to receive his produce. 35The vine-growers took his slaves and beat one, and killed another, and stoned a third. 36Again he sent another group of slaves larger than the first; and they did the same thing to them. 37But afterward he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’38But when the vine-growers saw the son. they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’39They took him, and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40Therefore when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?” 41They 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.”
Mat 21:33 “listen to another parable” The parable is paralleled in Mar 12:1-12; Luk 20:9-19. This is the strongest parable on God’s rejection of Israel and her leaders!
“who planted a vineyard” This has an obvious connection to Isaiah 5. The vineyard has always been a symbol for the nation of Israel. This parable is the most allegorical of the three. The slaves represent the prophets. The son represents the Messiah (notice there is a son in each of the parables in this chapter, but used in different senses). The tenants represent the nation of Israel or at least her leaders.
In the immediate context the new tenants refer to the common people of the land, but in the larger context it referred to the Gentiles (cf. Mat 28:18-20; Luk 24:46; Act 1:8).
Mat 21:41 The crowd answers the question and seals their own doom. There is a word play which is translated “those wretches (kakous) to a wretched (kaks) end.”
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
another. Greek. alios. App-124.: i.e. a similar. The second parable spoken in the Temple.
householder = master of a house.
hedged it round about = placed about it a fence.
winepress. Septuagint for Hebrew. gath, the press, not the vat. Isa 5:2.
tower. For the watchmen. See Isa 1:8; Isa 5:2; Isa 24:20. Job 27:18.
let it out. There were three kinds of leases: (1) where the labourers received a proportion of the produce for their payment; (2) where full rent was paid; (3) where a definite part of the produce was to be given by the lessees, whatever the harvest was. Such leases were given by the year, or for life, or were even hereditary. From Mat 21:34 and Mar 12:2 the word “of” shows that the latter kind of lease is referred to in this parable.
went into a far country = went abroad, or journeyed. As in Mat 25:14, Mat 25:15. Mar 12:1; Mar 13:34. Luk 15:13; Luk 20:9.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
33-46.] PARABLE OF THE VINEYARD LET OUT TO HUSBANDMEN. Mar 12:1-12. Luk 20:9-19. This parable is in intimate connexion with Isa 5:1 ff., and was certainly intended by our Lord as an express application of that passage to the Jews of His time. Both Mark and Luke open it with an , as a fresh beginning, by our Lord, of a series of parables. Luke adds, that it was spoken . Its subject is, of course, the continued rejection of Gods prophets by the people of Israel, till at last they rejected and killed His only Son. The : i.e. selected it out of all His world, and fenced it in, and dug a receptacle for the juice (in the rock or ground, to keep it cool, into which it flowed from the press above, through a grated opening), and built a tower (of recreation-or observation to watch the crops). This exactly coincides with the state of the Jewish nation, under covenant with God as His people. All these expressions are in Isa 5:1-30. The letting out to husbandmen was probably that kind of letting where the tenant pays his rent in kind, although the may be understood of money. God began about 430 years after the Exodus to send His prophets to the people of Israel, and continued even till John the Baptist; but all was in vain; they persecuted the prophets, casting them out, and putting them to death. (See Neh 9:26; Mat 23:31; Mat 23:37; Heb 11:36-38.)
The different sendings must not be pressed; they probably imply the fulness and sufficiency of warnings given, and set forth the longsuffering of the householder; and the increasing rebellion of the husbandmen is shewn by their increasing ill-treatment of the messengers. Meyer understands after , Mat 21:34, to mean His fruits; i.e. in money.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 21:33. , a householder) who had a large family [sc. of servants, labourers, etc.]-, a vineyard) i.e. the Jewish Church.-, a hedge) i.e. the law.[934]-, a winepress) i.e. Jerusalem.-, a tower) i.e. the temple; see Mat 21:23.[935]-, went into a far country) The time of Divine silence is meant, when men act according to their own will and pleasure [pro arbitrio]: cf. ch. Mat 25:14, and Mar 13:34.
[934] In the note in the Germ. Vers., Bengel interprets the Hedge, with a slight change of the figure, of the separation of the people of Israel from all the nations of the earth, including at the same time the idea of the divine protection afforded to the former against the latter: the Winepress, the order of the priesthood: the Tower, the Kingdom (Theocracy). We should not, however, on account of this difference between his former and his latter views in this instance, conclude that such details in Parables are mere empty flowers of ornament. The parts of an enigma, however abstruse, are not idle. Comp. what is said below in Gnomon on ch. Mat 22:11.-E. B.
[935] , let it out) This is the ground on which rests the power of the Church. The vineyard was let out to husbandmen. They who preside in either political or ecclesiastical offices, can indeed act according to their own pleasure, and, like the holders of the vineyard, consult only their own private interests: they can maltreat the servants of the Lord: they can wantonly wrest aside the laws of the Church according to their caprice: and can in this way, though not now as then kill the Heir Himself, yet thrust Him out fur some time from His own proper place. But-the time of Visitation is coming at last.-V. g.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Mat 21:33-46
3. PARABLE OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN
Mat 21:33-46
33-41 Hear another parable.-A record of this will be found in Mar 12:1-12 and Luk 20:9-19. This parable has as its chief point the future act of God in taking from the Jews their privileges and giving them to the Gentiles; this act of God was made necessary by the sins and ingratitude of the Jews. “A householder” is one who had possession or owned a vineyard. (Matthew 21.) “A vineyard” was a plot of ground planted with grapevines which were common in Palestine. (Deu 32:32; Isa 5:1-7.) The grape was the most important fruit of Judea. A very minute description is given here of the preparation and protection of the vineyard. The householder had planted his vineyard “and set a hedge about it, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country.” They built hedges of wild aloe and other thorny shrubs to keep out the foxes and wild hogs and human intruders. The wall which enclosed it guarded it from intruders. (Exo 23:22; Num 23:9; Eph. 2 14.) “A winepress” was a vat which was prepared to hold the wine when pressed out; these vats were hollow places dug in the earth and lined with stone, or sometimes cut out of the solid rock. The grapes were placed on an open floor above and trodden by the feet of men, when the juice ran through and was collected in the vat. (Jdg 9:27; Neh 13:5.) “A tower” was usually built in the middle of the vineyard in which the keepers were to watch the vineyard in the season of vintage. “Husbandmen” were those who leased the vineyard and cultivated it for a certain per cent of its yield. The owner of the vineyard went into a far country, presumably to live there, and “when the season of the fruits drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, to receive his fruits”; that is, he sent to collect his part of the wine and other products of the vine. It was common to let vineyards out in this manner, and after the fruit was ripe or the wine made, the owner sent for his rent which was a part of the products. (Luk 16:6-7.) “The servants” here represent those special messengers and prophets who were sent to the Israelites from time to time to recall them to the service of God. (2Ki 17:13.) The husbandmen killed the servants and cruelly treated them. The prophets were, many of them, martyrs , Jeremiah was stoned, Isaiah sawn asunder. (1Ki 19:10 , 2 Chron. 24 20, 21; 36:16; Heb 11:36-37.) Stoning was the legal punishment for blasphemy and impiety. (Lev 20:2; Lev 24:16; Deu 13:10.) It was sometimes resorted to by a mob without any particular idea of its meaning; it was strange that the crime which the prophets came to prevent should have been falsely laid to their charge. (Joh 8:59;Act 7:58.)
Finally, after the owner had repeatedly sent his servants to collect the rent from his vineyard, and they had been rejected and some of them killed, the owner sent his son, “a beloved son” and an only son (Mar 12:6) , he said that surely they will “reverence my son.” This was his last resource to collect his rent and to see if any gratitude was left. Some have said that no one would act as did these wicked husbandmen, but such evil deeds have been practiced all down through the ages. However when the husbandmen “saw the son,” they began to reason among themselves, and said, “This is the heir”; they decided if they should kill him that they would receive his inheritance. So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and “killed him.” The chief point of the parable is here made; those wicked husbandmen, conspiring against the innocent heir, were a picture of the deep treachery which these, who were standing before Jesus, were at that very time plotting. (Joh 11:47-53.) They were at that time desiring his destruction, in order that they might not be disturbed in their own evil ways and doctrines. Mark and Luke are both particular to mention this incident. Jesus “suffered without the gate.” (Joh 19:17; Heb 13:12-13.) There is an illustration of this feature of the parable of one dying for his vineyard in the case of Naboth. (1Ki 21:13.) After relating the parable Jesus then asked another direct question of them, “What will he do unto those husbandmen?” That is, what will the owner of the vineyard do to those wicked husbandmen who killed his servants, and had now reached the climax of wickedness by killing his only and beloved son? Jesus asked this question to make them condemn themselves. The chief priests saw the application of the parable (verse 45) and were angry, but were too shrewd to let the people know their intense anger. So eventually they have answered their own question when they asked Jesus by what authority he did “these things.” Jesus appeared before them as the Son of God and the heir of all things, against whom they were seeking a charge, when they asked a question. The parable has a close connection with the events of the succeeding days of the Passion Week. They sought to draw from Jesus a claim to be the Son of God, so that they could condemn him for blasphemy. They condemned themselves when they answered Jesus’ question by saying, “He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen.”
42-46 Jesus saith unto them.-Jesus confused and condemned his adversaries with the scriptures. The parable which he had given them about the wicked husbandmen was so simple and clear that they could not misunderstand his meaning , it pictured their wicked thoughts and plots to them even better than they could have done it themselves. In the parable the son is killed, and cannot punish the husbandmen himself; but, as the Son of God, he is to be raised from the dead and will inflict the punishment. The “rejecting the stone,” or “the stone which the builders rejected,” was done in casting out the Son and killing him;now the same Son, under the similitude of a stone, becomes the destruction of his enemies. “The stone” in this quotation refers to Christ. (Psa 118:22-25.) It is a figure taken from the choosing of stones for a building. (Dan 2:45; Act 4:11; Eph 2:20; 1Pe 2:7.) The husbandmen have become the builders of the spiritual temple; they refuse to lay a foundation on faith in Christ , they reject him, and hope to go on in their work without them. “The head of the corner,” the cornerstone, is the principal one in the foundation. It has been supposed by many that it here means the keystone of an arch, which holds up the arch; but it is more simple in the common sense of the chief stone at the angle of the building and is a part of the foundation of the building. Christ is called the foundation because on him rests and in him unites the old and the new covenants. “This was from the Lord”; that is, it was not the wish of the builders; they had no idea that in killing the Son of God they were actually carrying out the divine pattern, and making him by the very cross upon which he suffered the foundation of the kingdom or church. (Act 2:22-24; Act 3:17-18.) It was beyond all human expectations and was a mystery which they did not understand.
43-44 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you.-This is one of the clearest prophecies of the change of covenant to be found in any of the records of the gospel. The kingdom of God, the church, the vineyard, the cornerstone, all these represent the idea of the gospel economy. It should be taken from the Jews, who so persistently rejected Jesus and was to be given to the Gentiles who would bring “forth the fruits thereof.” The Jews were God’s chosen people because they had all the advantages and rejected them, these advantages are to be given to the Gentiles. Hence, the Gentiles become the chosen people of God. (1Pe 2:4-10.) There is a double action and solemn warning given here. “And he that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces”; this represents one action; those who stumble at this cornerstone, who stumble at the humility of Christ, “shall be broken to pieces,” but not utterly destroyed. On the other hand, the second action is that “on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.” This allows no escape. Those who stumble at Christ “shall be broken to pieces,” but those upon whom the judgment of Christ shall fall shall be utterly destroyed. His judgment fell on the Jewish nation at the fall of Jerusalem and caused a ruin deplorable beyond all other similar events, and his judgment will ultimately and finally rest upon the wicked at the judgment.
45-46 And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.-They had no trouble in understanding that Jesus referred to them. They were incensed, angry, and revengeful, but “they feared the multitudes, because they took him for a prophet.” They saw not only the impilication of these parables; namely, that they were spoken against themselves. It is important to note that though they can not have fully comprehended the import of either parable, they saw and heard enough to enrage them. If it were not for the people, they would have laid their hands upon Him.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Rejecters Themselves Rejected
Mat 21:33-46
This parable is based on Isa 5:1-7. The husbandmen are the religious leaders of the people. The vineyard is of course the Hebrew nation. The servants sent for the produce refer to the prophets and others raised up from time to time to speak for God and to demand fruits meet for repentance. Notice that when He speaks of the mission of the Son, our Lord severs Himself, by the sharpest possible line, from all merely human messengers and claims sonship in the most intimate and lofty sense of the word.
It is said that in the building of Solomons Temple, a curiously shaped stone, sent from the quarry, was left to lie for many months in the entangled undergrowth, till suddenly its fitness was discovered for a place in the Temple walls. Then it was put into its right position, which it occupied thenceforward. This incident may be referred to in Psa 118:22. How truly it portrays mens treatment of our Lord! Is He your corner-stone?
The questions on Section 36-74, to be found on pp. 73-75, will serve as a review at this point.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Chapter 62
The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen
Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.
(Mat 21:33-46)
The parable contained in these verses was spoken by our Savior to the Jews and applies directly to that nation upon which the judgment of God has fallen. They are the husbandmen described in the parable. Their sins are set before us in plain words. They persecuted Gods prophets. They killed other prophets. And, at last, they murdered Gods darling Son! There can be no doubt that the parable was directly intended to be a word of condemnation against the Jewish nation. When the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parable, they perceived that he spake of them (Mat 21:45). But it is a serious mistake for anyone to read these words and say, That applies to the Jews. It has no reference to me.
A godly man, wrote John Trapp, reads the Scriptures as he doth the statute-book. He holds himself concerned in all that he reads. He finds his name written in every passage and lays it to heart, as spoken to him. The wicked, on the other side, put off all they like not, and dispose of it to others. Let us not be so foolish. The parable of the wicked husbandmen is a parable by which the Son of God speaks to us. He that hath an ear, let him hear. The Jews who heard this parable fall from the lips of the Son of God refused to heed its lessons. Therefore that nation is to this day under the curse of Gods holy wrath and just judgment. When they had the light, they refused to walk in the light. Therefore God has sent blindness and darkness upon them. Let us beware lest the same thing happen to us. If God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee (Rom 11:21).
The message of this parable is obvious. It warns us of the danger of despising gospel privileges. Those who despise the privileges of the gospel court the wrath of God.
A Word of Warning
The nation of Israel, and the blindness God has sent upon that reprobate nation that was once so greatly blessed of God, stands as a beacon to warn all who despise his goodness. God almighty sovereignly and graciously bestows upon some very great opportunities and privileges, and withholds them from others, as he sees fit (Mat 11:20-26; Act 16:6-7). He chose Israel alone to be a peculiar people unto himself. He separated Israel from all other nations. He counted the Jews alone to be his vineyard. He built a tower in it. That is to say, God established his worship in Israel alone. To Israel alone he gave his law, his ordinances, his tabernacle, his altar, his priesthood, his sacrifices, and his prophets. The great privileges the nation of Israel once enjoyed, as well as the judgment of God described in this parable, were the subjects of Isaiahs song…
Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down: And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it. For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry (Isa 5:1-7).
The greatest blessing and privilege God can bestow upon any people is to establish his Word and his worship in their midst. How thankful men and women ought to be for the privilege and blessing of a gospel church and a regularly established gospel ministry (Amo 8:11-12). After attending one of the annual Bible conferences hosted by our assembly, a friend in New Jersey who had no gospel church near his family wrote, If the people of Danville only knew what an opportunity and privilege God has given them, that little hillside would be covered with people, seeking to hear the Word of God.
It our privilege and responsibility to avail ourselves of the blessing God has given us. I wonder how we would react if we knew we were in danger of having the Word of God removed from us. If we knew that God had threatened to remove his candlestick from its place among us, so that neither we, nor our neighbors, nor our children, nor our grandchildren could ever again hear the gospel of his grace, would such a warning be of real concern to us. Well, he has given us warning. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent (Rev 2:5).
God says, Thou hast despised mine holy things (Eze 22:8). It is a well-deserved word of reproof. It is impossible for me to understand how men and women who claim to love the gospel of Christ can willingly absent themselves from the ministry of the Word. It is one thing to despise the labors of a pastor who faithfully seeks a message from God and diligently preaches the gospel. But a willing neglect of the gospel is much, much more than despising the labors of a man. It is despising Gods holy things: his Word, his ordinances, his praise, and his people. The Lord Jesus promised that wherever and whenever two or three gather together in his name he will be with them. To neglect that assembly is to neglect Christs company!
I know many people who have no place of public worship and no one to minister to their souls. They get excited when a gospel preacher comes within a hundred miles. They gladly drive the distance to hear him. They plan their vacations around Bible conferences, special meetings, or places of worship. They listen to tapes every day. When they get a chance to meet with Gods saints and hear his Word, they are the first to arrive and the last to leave. They simply cannot get enough of the gospel. They soak it up like a dry sponge soaks up water. When the message is over, they talk about it enthusiastically.
I know others, many others, who have faithful pastors and regular places of worship, who act as though they could care less. If they attend the worship of God once a week and give a little money to pay the light bill, they are more than content. In many places where people claim to love the gospel, it goes begging for a hearing. The evening services and mid-weak services could be held in a closet without being very crowded. If you are too busy to attend the worship of God, you are too busy! If you are too tired, then you need to give up something else, but not this! If you despise Gods holy things, he will take them away from you and give them to someone else (Rom 11:21).
It is a sad fact that multitudes, like the Jews in our text, despise the privileges God gives them. God gave Israel his word; but they mingled with the heathen, and learned their works (Psa 106:35). God sent them his prophets; but they chose darkness rather than light. God showed them the path of righteousness and life; but they hardened their hearts in unbelief and sin. God revealed himself to them; but they turned aside after idols. At last, God sent them his Son, even the Lord Jesus Christ; and they crucified him!
What are you doing with the privileges God has given you? You have his Word. Do you read it, study it, and seek to know its message? If you have a gospel church and a regularly established, faithful gospel ministry, do you avail yourself of Gods ordinance? Do you value Gods people, his family? Do you cherish their company, or despise it? It is either one or the other. There is no middle ground.
J. C. Ryle wrote, Nothing offends God like the neglect of privileges. I cannot adequately warn you of the danger of despising the worship of God. It is the first step toward apostasy (Heb 3:10-14; Heb 10:25-26). If you despise the kingdom of God, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you (Mat 21:43). The time came when the cup of Israels iniquity was full and God would tolerate them no more. In 70AD, just 40 years after this parable was uttered, God sent Titus and the armies of Rome into Jerusalem to destroy the holy city, the temple, and the nation. From that day to this, the Jews have been scattered over the face of the whole earth, and grope about in spiritual darkness, as blind men, but as blind men who are completely confident that they alone have light and see.
The churches of Asia Minor, once so strong, are now gone. Africa, once the cradle of light, is now the house of darkness. England, once so full of light and life, is now a graveyard of religious relics and memories. The same is true of the United States. Much, much has been given to us, and much shall be required of us! As John Trapp put it, The gospel is that inheritance we received from our forefathers. It must be our care to transmit the same to our posterity.
They Perceived
When our Lord spoke, even these proud priests and Pharisees could not help understanding that he spoke of them (Mat 21:45). Even in wicked men, the conscience is strong to condemn. But it takes something more than a guilty, condemning conscience to produce repentance and faith in the heart. That is the gift of Gods saving goodness and grace (Rom 2:4; Eph 2:8-9).
Recently, I read an article in which a man stated, Mental assent itself is equal to faith. When I read those words, I was shocked. The mere perception of truth is not saving faith. Saving faith is more than understanding and agreeing with gospel truths. Saving faith involves love for him who is the Truth. Anyone who is well taught by another man can be persuaded of doctrinal, gospel truth. But it takes more than the teaching of a man, and more than personal study for a lost sinner, dead in trespasses and in sins, to become a living saint, savingly united to Christ by faith. Saving faith is the supernatural gift of God the Holy Spirit, the operation of his grace in us (Col 2:12). It is not something we arrive at by natural reason, something we merely perceive and agree to, or something we can be persuaded to perform by a slick soul-winner. Faith in Christ is that which springs up in the heaven born soul by the mighty operation of Gods free grace (Eph 2:1-10).
Marvellous in Our Eyes
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? (Mat 21:42) Here, speaking of himself, our Savior quotes Psa 118:22-23, pointedly applying Davids words to the chief priests and Pharisees standing before him. Those who were supposed to be the builders of Gods house had rejected the Foundation Stone, Christ Jesus, whom God has made the Headstone of the corner.
Throughout the Scriptures our Lord Jesus Christ is compared to a stone. He is called the Stone of Israel (Gen 49:24). He is the Foundation Stone God has laid in Zion (Isa 28:16). He is the One Stone laid before Gods elect in conversion, upon which we are built (Zec 3:9). Christ is the Stone cut out of the mountain without hands (Dan 2:45), that will fall upon his enemies in judgment. To the unbelieving, he is a Stone of stumbling and rock of offense (Isa 8:14; Rom 9:32; 1Pe 2:8). But, to all who trust him, the Lord Jesus is a living Stone, and the chief Corner Stone, elect and precious (Isa 28:16; 1Pe 2:4; 1Pe 2:6).
Christ is the Foundation on which we are built and upon which we build. All who build upon him are safe and secure. All who build upon anything else build upon sand; and every house built upon sand will fall. Yet, there are multitudes, like the chief priests and Pharisees mentioned here, who reject the Foundation God has laid and build upon another. Rejecting his eternal deity, his sin-atoning sacrifice, his perfect righteousness, his effectual intercession, and omnipotent grace, they build upon a the false foundation of another Jesus. Rejecting his work, they build upon their own works and religious ceremonies. Worse yet, they build their house of hope upon their own, imaginary freewill; and great will be the fall of it!
Faith in Christ is compared to the building of a house of refuge (Mat 7:24). Sooner or later our house will be tested by earthly trials, spiritual trials, rains of trouble, floods of sorrow, and winds of adversity (Mat 7:25). If your house is built on Christ the Rock, it will endure the trial and stand the tests of time. If your house is built on the sand, anything other than Christ, sooner or later the rains and floods and winds will bring it crumbling down around you.
Thanks be unto God forever, mans rejection of Christ can never disannul the purpose and work of God! The Stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the Head of the corner! Though men reject him, God has accepted him and made him the Head of all things and the Head Stone of the Corner. This Stone, cut out of the mountain without hands, is the Stone by which antichrist shall be destroyed (Dan 2:34-35; Dan 2:45).
Zechariah describes our Saviors exaltation as the Chief Corner Stone with exultation (Zec 4:6-10). He is the chief corner stone; he is higher than the kings of the earth. He is infinitely superior to angels, and the chief among ten thousands of his saints. He is exalted above all creatures, angels, and men. Like the corner stone in a building, Christ knits and cements his building, his church together. Chosen angels and chosen men, chosen Jews and chosen Gentiles, Old Testament saints and New Testament saints, saints above and saints below, all are joined together in him. It is Christ, the Chief Corner Stone, who strengthens and supports the building and holds it together.
This is the Lords doing (Php 2:9-11), and it is marvellous in our eyes. It is marvellous in the eyes of all who believe; for the exaltation of Christ as our Mediator and Redeemer is a marvellous and wonderful display of the wisdom, goodness, justice, grace, mercy, truth, power, and faithfulness of God (Rom 3:24-26; Rom 4:25 to Rom 5:1; 1Jn 1:9; 1Jn 2:1-2). Christ is Head of the corner. Christ is the Heir of all things, Ruler of all things, and Disposer of all things; and in him we have all things.
Salvation by A Fall
Whosoever shall fall on this Stone shall be broken (Mat 21:44). Salvation is obtained by a fall. You must fall upon Christ, the Stone, and be broken upon him. If you do not fall upon him, this Stone will fall upon you and grind you to powder. Falling upon him, sinners are broken. Our Lord did not say, Be broken and fall, but, Fall and be broken. Faith is falling on him. It is a long, hard fall. We must fall from our loftiness and self-righteousness upon Christ alone as our hope before God. Trusting his blood alone for atonement, his righteousness alone for acceptance with God, his grace alone to save us, trusting Christ alone as our Savior (1Co 1:30). Falling on this Rock, sinners are broken. And to the broken Gods Word gives this assurance. A broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise (Psa 51:17).
Just Judgment
But on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them (Mat 21:44-45). If you refuse to trust Christ, if you will not fall on him for mercy, he will fall on you in wrath. Gods judgment is always just.
Judgment and wrath are always presented in Scripture as Gods response to mans sin. The wages of sin is death. Judgment is something you earn. But the gift of God is eternal life. If you go to hell, it will be your fault, the result of what you have done. If you go to heaven, it will be Gods fault, the result of what he has done. If a person walks in the light God gives him, God will give him more light. The Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8), Cornelius (Acts 10), and Lydia (Acts 16), are three great examples of that fact. If you despise the light God gives you, the light will be turned into darkness; and when light becomes darkness, how great is that darkness! There is no darkness like spiritual darkness; and there is no spiritual darkness like the darkness of reprobation (Hos 4:17; Rom 11:8-10; Rom 11:21-22). Yet, mans unbelief will not thwart, but shall only serve the purpose of God (Rom 3:3-4; Rom 11:33-36).
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
The King makes his Enemies Judge themselves
Mat 21:33. Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into afar country.
In this parable a certain householder did all that could be done for his vineyard: it was well planted, and hedged round about, provided with a winepress digged in the rock, and guarded by a tower built for the purpose. Even so the Jewish Church had been created, trained, guarded, and fully furnished by the Lord: “For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant” (Isa 5:7). Everything was in good order for the production of fruit, so that the Lord was able to say, “What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? “(Isa 5:4.)
The owner went into a far country, and committed the estate to husbandmen, who were to take care of it for him, and yield to him a certain share of the produce as the rent. Thus the great Lord of Israel left the nation under the care of priests, and kings, and men of learning, who should have cultivated this heritage of Jehovah for him, and yielded up to him the fruit of this choice vineyard. God for a while seemed gone from his chosen people, for miracles had ceased; but this should have made the scribes and priests the more watchful, even as good servants are the more awake to guard the estate of their master when he is away.
Mat 21:34. And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
The householder waited till near the full time in which he could expect a return. The time of the fruit drew near; and as the husbandmen sent him none of the produce of the vineyard, he sent his servants to receive the fruits of it, and bring them to him. These servants, as the lord’s representatives, ought to have been received with due honour; but they were not. The leaders of the Jewish nation for a long time rendered to the Lord no homage, love, or service. Prophets were sent of God to Israel, but their message was refused by the rulers of the people.
Mat 21:35. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
The husbandmen; the persons in charge and authority, kings, priests, and teachers; these united in doing evil to the owner’s servants. They were not themselves his “servants”; they deserved not so honourable a title. Beating, killing, and stoning, are put for various forms of maltreatment, which the Lord’s prophets received at the hands of Israel’s husbandmen, the religious rulers of the nation. Those to whom the vineyard was leased were traitors to the chief landlord, and did violence to his messengers; for in heart they desired to keep the vineyard to themselves.
Mat 21:36. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
The lord of the vineyard was patient, and gave them further opportunities to mend their ways: Again, he sent other servants. Failure to bring back the fruit was not the fault of the first messengers, for other servants were rejected even as they had been. The householder was very anxious to win the husbandmen to a better state of mind, for he increased the number of his representatives, sending more than the first, trusting that the evil men would yield to repeated calls. No good came of this effort of kindness; for the badly-disposed husbandmen only continued their murderous cruelty: they did unto them likewise. It was evidently a bad case. The Jewish people would not hearken to the voices of the Lord’s servants, and their rulers set them the example of persecuting the men whom God had sent to them.
Mat 21:37. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
The sending of his son was the householder’s last resort. Luke represents him as saying, “What shall I do?” He might have resolved at once to punish the evildoers; but his action proved that mercy had triumphed over wrath: Last of all he sent unto them his son. The sending of Jesus to Jerusalem was God’s ultimatum. If he should be rejected, judgment must fall upon the guilty city. It seemed impossible that his mission could fail. In sending his beloved Son, the Father seemed to say, “Surely, ‘they will reverence my son? Can they go the length of doing despite to the Heir of all things? Will not his own beauty and majesty overawe them? Heaven adores him; hell trembles at him; surely, they will reverence my Son.”
Mat 21:38. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and, let us seize on his inheritance.
Things turned not out as a loving heart might have hoped. Evil worked itself to its consummation. When the husbandmen saw the son; that is to say, as soon as the chief priests and Pharisees perceived that the true Messiah was come, they said among themselves what they dared not say openly. The very sight of the Heir of all things fired them with malice. In their hearts they hated Jesus, because they knew that he really was the Messiah. They feared that he would dismiss them, and assume possession of his own inheritance, and therefore they would make an end of him: “This is the heir; come, let us kill him.” Once get him out of the way, they hoped to keep the nation in their own hands, and use it for their own purposes: therefore they inwardly said, “Let us seize on his inheritance.” They knew that he was “the heir”, and that it was “his inheritance”; but their knowledge did not prevent them from seeking to snatch the vineyard away from its rightful owner. Our Lord pictured to the life what was passing in the minds of the proud ecclesiastics around him, and he did not hesitate to do this to their faces. No names were mentioned, but this was personal preaching of the best kind.
Mat 21:39. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
The Lord Jesus becomes prophetic, as by the parable he foretells the success of their malice. The husbandmen were hasty in carrying out their wicked plot. No sooner said than done. Three acts were in that drama, and they followed quickly upon each other. We will drop the figures, and unveil the facts. They caught him in the garden of Gethsemane; they cast him out in their Council in the hall of Caiaphas, and when he was led without the gate of Jerusalem; they slew him at Calvary; for theirs was the crime, though the Romans did the deed. Thus the Heir was slain, but the murderers did not long retain the vineyard; swift justice overtook them.
Mat 21:40. When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
Jesus puts the matter before them. Out of their own mouths shall the verdict proceed. There is a time when the lord of the vineyard cometh. To those chief priests that hour was drawing very near: the question for them to think of was, “What will he do unto those husbandmen?” As a class, the religious leaders of the Jews were guilty of the blood of a long line of prophets, and they were about to crown their long career of crime by the murder of the Son of God himself: in the destruction of Jerusalem the God of heaven visited them, and dealt out just punishment to them. The siege of the city and the massacre of the inhabitants was a terrible avenging of the innocent blood which the people and their rulers had shed.
Mat 21:41. They say unto him, He will miser-ally destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
Their reply was probably made complete, and full of details, that they might hide their own shame by a parade of justice in a case which they would have men think was no concern of theirs. In very deed, they pronounced upon themselves the sentence of being wicked men, to be miserably destroyed, and to have their offices given to better men: “he will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen.” They could not or would not give an opinion as to the mission of John the Baptist; but it seems that they could form a judgment as to themselves. The Lord’s vineyard passed over to other husbandmen; and the apostles and the first preachers of the gospel were found faithful to their trust.
Just now there are many professed ministers of Christ who are quitting the truth which he has committed to his stewards, as a sacred trust, and setting up a doctrine of their own. Oh, that the Lord may raise up a race of men “who shall render him the fruits in their seasons! “The hall-mark of a faithful minister is his giving to God all the glory of any work that he is enabled to do. That which does not magnify the Lord will not bless men.
Mat 21:42-43. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Our Lord reminds them of David’s language in Psa 118:22-23. They were professedly the builders, and they had rejected him who was the chief corner-stone. Yet the Lord God had made the despised one to be the head of the corner. He was the most conspicuous and honoured stone in Israel’s building. Against the will of scribe and priest this had been accomplished: for it was the Lord’s doing. They might rage, but holy minds adored, and said, “It is marvellous in our eyes” The sufferings and glory of Christ are the wonder of the universe: “which things the angels desire to look into “(1Pe 1:12). All that relates to him is marvellous in the eyes of his people.
The doom of the unfaithful religious builders was the result of their sin: “Therefore say I unto you.” They were to lose the blessings of the gospel: “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you.” All share in the honours and offices of that kingdom would be refused them. That loss would be aggravated by their seeing it “given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” What a warning is this to our own country! We, too, are seeing the sacrifice and deity of our Lord questioned, and his sacred Word assailed by those who should have been its advocates. Unless there is a speedy amendment, the Lord may take away the candlestick out of its place, and find another race which will prove more faithful to him and to his gospel than our own has been.
Mat 21:44. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Those who stumble over Christ, the chief corner-stone of the Church, are injured: they suffer grievous bruising and breaking, but ho remains unhurt. Opposition to Jesus is injury to ourselves. Those upon whom he falls in wrath are ground to powder; for the results of his anger are overwhelming, fatal, irretrievable. Oppose him, and you suffer; but when he arises in his might, and opposes you, destruction has already come to you.
Fuente: Spurgeon’s The Gospel of the Kingdom
Hear: In this parable, in its primary sense, the householder denotes the Supreme Being; the family, the Jewish nation; the vineyard, Jerusalem; the fence, the Divine protection; the wine-press, the law and sacrificial rites; the tower, the temple; and the husbandmen, the priests and doctors of the law. Mat 13:18, 1Ki 22:19, Isa 1:10, Jer 19:3, Hos 4:1
There: Psa 80:8-16, Son 8:11, Son 8:12, Isa 5:1-4, Jer 2:21, Mar 12:1, Luk 20:9-18, Joh 15:1
husbandmen: Mat 23:2, Deu 1:15-17, Deu 16:18, Deu 17:9-12, Deu 33:8-10, Mal 2:4-9
went: Mat 25:14, Mat 25:15, Mar 13:34, Luk 19:12
Reciprocal: 2Sa 12:1 – There were 2Ch 36:16 – misused Psa 147:20 – not dealt so Son 5:7 – the keepers Isa 3:14 – ye have eaten Isa 7:23 – a thousand vines Isa 27:2 – A vineyard Eze 15:2 – What Eze 19:10 – like Mic 4:8 – O tower Mat 13:24 – put Mat 20:1 – a man Mar 11:14 – No Mar 12:8 – cast Rom 9:4 – the service Rom 10:21 – All day long 2Ti 2:6 – husbandman
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1:33
Unlike the preceding parable, this one has to do with the Jews and the Gentiles. The Jews were God’s exclusive people for 15 centuries but did not appreciate their good fortune and even mistreated the righteous prophets and other teachers who were sent among them. Finally the Gentiles were admitted into the family of God on an equal basis with the Jews. The story of the householder was told in detail to bring out these truths, some of which were still future when Jesus spoke. God was the householder and the services and benefits of the Mosaic system were “hedged” about with the Lord’s oversight (Isa 5:1-7).
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
[Planted a vineyard.] Concerning vines and their husbandry see Kilaim, where there is a large discourse of the beds of a vineyard, the orders of the vines, of the measure of the winepress, of the hedge, of the trenches, of the void space, of the places within the hedge which were free from vines, whether they were to be sown or not to be sown, etc.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
THE parable contained in these verses was spoken with special reference to the Jews. They are the husbandmen here described. Their sins are set before us here as in a picture. Of this there can be no doubt. It is written, that “He spake of them.”
But we must not flatter ourselves that this parable contains nothing for the Gentiles. There are lessons laid down for us, as well as for the Jew. Let us see what they are.
We see, in the first place, what distinguishing privileges God is pleased to bestow on some nations.
He chose Israel to be a peculiar people to Himself. He separated them from the other nations of the earth, and bestowed on them countless blessings. He gave them revelations of Himself, while all the rest of the earth was in darkness. He gave them the law, and the covenants, and the oracles of God, while all the world beside was let alone. In short, God dealt with the Jews as a man deals with a piece of land which he fences out and cultivates, while all the fields around are left untilled and waste. The vineyard of the Lord was the house of Israel. (Isa 5:7.)
And have we no privileges? Beyond doubt we have many. We have the Bible, and liberty for every one to read it. We have the Gospel, and permission to every one to hear it. We have spiritual mercies in abundance, of which five hundred millions of our fellow men know nothing at all. How thankful we ought to be! The poorest man in England may say every morning, “There are five hundred millions of immortal souls worse off than I am. Who am I, that I should differ? Bless the LORD, O my soul.”
We see, in the next place, what a bad use nations sometimes make of their privileges.
When the Lord separated the Jews from other people, He had a right to expect that they would serve Him, and obey His laws. When a man has taken pains with a vineyard, he has a right to expect fruit. But Israel rendered not a due return for all God’s mercies. They mingled with the heathen, and learned their works. They hardened themselves in sin and unbelief. They turned aside after idols. They kept not God’s ordinances. They despised God’s temple. They refused to listen to His prophets. They ill-used those whom he sent to call them to repentance. And finally they brought their wickedness to a height, by killing the Son of God Himself, even Christ the Lord.
And what are we doing ourselves with our privileges? Truly that is a serious question, and one that ought to make us think. It may well be feared, that we are not, as a nation, living up to our light, or walking worthy of our many mercies. Must we not confess with shame, that millions amongst us seem utterly without God in the world? Must we not acknowledge, that in many a town, and in many a village, Christ seems hardly to have any disciple, and the Bible seems hardly to be believed? It is vain to shut our eyes to these facts. The fruit that the Lord receives from His vineyard in Great Britain, compared with what it ought to be, is disgracefully small. It may well be doubted whether we are not as provoking to Him as the Jews.
We see, in the next place, what an awful reckoning God sometimes has with nations and churches, which make a bad use of their privileges.
A time came when the longsuffering of God towards the Jews had an end. Forty years after our Lord’s death, the cup of their iniquity was at length full, and they received a heavy chastisement for their many sins. Their holy city, Jerusalem, was destroyed. Their temple was burned. They themselves were scattered over the face of the earth. “The kingdom of God was taken from them, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”
And will the same thing ever happen to us? Will the judgments of God ever come down on this nation of England, because of her unfruitfulness under so many mercies? Who can tell? We may well cry with the prophet, “Lord God, thou knowest.” We only know that judgments have come on many a church and nation in the last 1800 years. The kingdom of God has been taken from the African churches. The Mohometan power has overwhelmed most of the churches of the East. At all events it becomes all believers to intercede much on behalf of our country. Nothing offends God so much as neglect of privileges. Much has been given to us, and much will be required.
We see, in the last place, the power of conscience even in wicked men.
The chief priests and elders at last discovered that our Lord’s parable was specially meant for themselves. The point of its closing words was too sharp to be escaped. “They perceived that he spake of them.”
There are many hearers of the Gospel in every congregation, who are exactly in the condition of these unhappy men. They know that what they hear Sunday after Sunday is all true. They know that they are wrong themselves, and that every sermon condemns them. But they have neither will nor courage to acknowledge this. They are too proud and too fond of the world to confess their past mistakes, and to take up the cross and follow Christ. Let us all beware of this awful state of mind. The last day will prove that there was more going on in the consciences of hearers than was at all known to preachers. Thousands and ten thousands will be found, like the chief priests, to have been convicted by their own conscience, and yet to have died unconverted.
Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels
Mat 21:33. Hear another parable. Spoken to the chief priests and elders, so embittered by the result of their attack. This parable points out the crime to which their enmity was leading them, though still spoken in love. I have not done with you yet; I have still another word of warning and rebuke (Trench).
There was a man that was a householder, or as in chap. Mat 20:1 : a human householder.
Planted a vineyard; the most valuable plantation but requiring the most constant labor and care; an apt figure of the theocracy (Isa 5:1-7; Isa 3:14; Son 2:15,) here representing the Jewish people, as the Old Testament kingdom of God. A secondary application to the external Church in later times is required by Mat 21:43, where the vineyard (the kingdom of God) is represented as passing over to others.
Set a hedge about it. Probably a hedge of thorns, possibly a wall. God had separated His people from other nations, and guarded them from heathen influences, by the law (comp. Eph 2:14) and by external marks of distinction. Gods special proprietorship and care are plainly emphasized.
Digged a wine-press. Mark: digged a pit for the wine-press. The former was a receptacle into which the juice flowed, and where it was kept cool; the latter, the place where the grapes were trodden out. This seems to be added to complete the description. Some suppose it represents the altar of the Old Testament economy, others the prophetic institution.
Built a tower. For the watchman who guarded the vineyard against depredations. In the time of the vintage, used for recreation, no doubt, as in European countries. Such towers are still common in the East, and are of considerable height. A shed or scaffold sometimes served the same purpose. This represents the provision made by Goa for the protection and prosperity of His people, especially the Old Testament Church.
Let it out to husbandmen; probably for a part of the fruit, as is indicated by comparing Mat 21:34 (his fruits) with Luk 20:10 (of the fruit of the vineyard). The parable of the laborers also (chap. Mat 20:1-16) introduces the idea of reward. It has pleased God that in His kingdom of grace laborers should receive a reward, of grace (comp. 1Co 3:8; 2Ti 2:6). The husbandmen represent the rulers of the Jews (Mat 21:45), but the people as individuals are included (Mat 21:43). The vineyard is the people as a chosen nation.
And went into another country, not far country, there being no reference to distance. The peculiar presence of God, necessary at the institution of the Theocracy (Mount Sinai, etc.), ceased, though His spiritual care did not. A period of human development followed. The same is true, in a secondary application, of the Church since the Apostolic times. Luke adds: for a long time, and these developments require time.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
In this parable, God compares the Jewish church to a vineyard; himself to an house holder: his planting, pruning and fencing his vineyard, denotes his care to furnish his church with all needful helps and means to make it spiritually fruitful. His letting it out to husbandmen, signifies his commitiing the care of his church to the priests and levites, the public pastors and governors of the church.
His servants are the prophets and apostles, whom he sent from time to time to admonish them to bring forth fruit answerable to the cost which God had expended on them. His son is Jesus Christ, whom the rulers of the Jewish chuch slew and murdered. The scope of the parable is to discover to the Jews, particularly to the Pharisees, their obstinate impenitency under all means, their bloody cruelty to the prophets of God, their tremendous guilt in crucifying the Son of God; for all which, God would unchurch them finally, and ruin their nation, and set up a church among the Gentiles, that should bring forth better fruit than the Jewish church ever did.
From the whole, Note, 1. That the church is God’s vineyard, exceeding dear and precious to the planter and the owner of it.
2. As dear as God’s vineyard is unto him, in case of barrenness and unfruitfulness, it is in great danger of being destroyed and laid waste by him.
3. That the only way and course to engage God’s care over his vineyard, and to prevent his giving it to other husbandmen, is to give him the fruits of it. It is but a vineyard that God lets out, it is no ingeritance; no people ever had so many promises of God’s favour as the Jews had, nor ever enjoyed so many privileges, whilst they stood in his favour, as they did; yet though they were the first, and the natural branches they are broken off, and we Gentiles stand by faith; let us not be highminded but fear, Rom 11:20.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mat 21:33. Hear another parable In which you are very nearly concerned, as your own consciences must quickly tell you. In the preceding parable of the two sons, our Lord convicted the Pharisees, the chief priests, and elders, of absolute disobedience to God, their heavenly Father, notwithstanding all their fair speeches and smooth promises: here he rises upon them, and shows them, as in a glass, the high privileges they enjoyed; and their exceeding great ingratitude, that, if possible, he might awaken their souls, and disarm them of the horrid purpose they had already conceived of murdering him, the true heir of the vineyard whereof they were such unfaithful husbandmen. And indeed they must have proceeded to great lengths in iniquity, and have hardened their hearts above measure, who could go on in their black design of destroying Jesus, after he had thus plainly shown them his knowledge of their design, and laid open their devices, and the dreadful consequences thereof to themselves, to the justice of which they had subscribed with their own lips. There was a certain householder Or, master of a family, representing God, the proprietor of all; which planted a vineyard The Jewish Church planted in Canaan, represented also as a vineyard, Isa 5:1-4, in a parable on which this of our Lord seems to be founded; see the notes there. There could not be a more natural emblem of the church, or one more familiar and obvious for the prophets and our Lord to use in Judea, than that of a vineyard; as that country abounded with vineyards, and so gave the people constant occasion, by having them always before their eyes, to recollect and apply the spiritual instructions drawn from them. And the comparison was not only obvious, but natural: and the particulars, whereof our Lord and the prophets speak, as they are essential to a vineyard, so do they beautifully correspond to the essential blessings vouchsafed of God to the Jewish Church. 1st, It is necessary that a vineyard should be planted, for vines are not anywhere the natural produce of the soil. Our Lord, therefore, mentions this particular first. 2d, Vines being tender plants, and vineyards subject to the incursions of beasts and enemies, it is necessary they should be enclosed. Therefore it is here observed that this vineyard was hedged round about; namely, by the divine protection, which was as a wall of fire round the Jewish Church and people, whereby he enclosed and defended them from all their enemies. But a hedge is not only for defence, but for the distinction and separation of property; and so God distinguished and separated his church by the fence of circumcision, and the ceremonial law, which were what St. Paul calls the partition wall, which was broken down and taken away in Christ, who yet has appointed a gospel order and discipline to be the hedge round about his church. 3d, A vineyard, being thus planted and fenced, must be provided with a place for the cultivators reception and dwelling; and for the gathering in and receiving of the fruit. Accordingly this householder built a tower for the former purpose, and prepared a wine-press for the latter. So God provided for his ancient church a tabernacle first, and then a temple, wherein the cultivators of his vineyard might dwell and watch continually, (for the priests are the Lords watchmen,) where also he himself promised to dwell, and give them the tokens of his presence among them, and pleasure in them: and in this temple he set up his holy altar, which, as the wine-press flowed with the blood of the grape, was to flow continually with the blood of the sacrifices, the fruits of their obedience, the testimonies of their faith, and then truly acceptable when offered up in faith of the great Sacrifice, whose blood all the blood shed in sacrifices prefigured, and who was himself trodden in the wine-press of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. The next clause, And let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country, signifies no more than that God, having established and provided his vineyard with all things necessary to render it fruitful to his praise, committed the care and cultivation of it to the priests and elders, the ecclesiastical and civil rulers, by whose ministry the people were to be instructed and governed, without expecting such extraordinary marks of Gods constant presence and immediate direction as appeared at his forming them into a church.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
CVIII.
IN REPLY TO THE QUESTIONS AS TO HIS AUTHORITY,
JESUS GIVES THE THIRD GREAT GROUP OF PARABLES.
(In the Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)
Subdivision C.
PARABLE OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN.
aMATT. XXI. 33-46; bMARK XII. 1-12; cLUKE XX. 9-19.
b1 And he began to speak unto them cthe people [not the rulers] bin parables. {cthis parable:} a33 Hear another parable: There was a man that was a householder [this party represents God], who planted a vineyard [this represents the Hebrew nationality], and set a hedge about it, and digged a bpit for the awinepress in it [The winepress consisted of two tub-shaped cavities dug in the rock at different levels, the upper being connected with the lower by an orifice cut through from its bottom. Grapes were placed in the upper cavity, or trough, and were trodden by foot. The juice thus squeezed from them ran through the orifice to the trough below, from which it was taken and stored in leather bottles until it fermented and formed wine], and built a tower [a place where watchmen could be stationed to protect the vineyard from thieves as the grapes ripened for the vintage], and let it out to husbandmen [the rulers are here [590] represented; and the rental was, as usual, a part of the fruits], and went into another country. cfor a long time. [Jesus frequently refers to this withdrawal of the visible presence of God from the world, always bringing out the point that the withdrawal tests faithfulness. God had come down upon Mt. Sinai, given the law and established the Hebrew nation, after which he had withdrawn. That had indeed been a long time ago; and for four hundred years before the appearance of John the Baptist, God had not even sent a messenger to demand fruit. Some think the hedge refers to the manner in which Palestine was protected by sea and desert and mountain, but the hedge and the winepress and the tower are mere parabolic drapery, for every man who planted a vineyard did all three.] a34 And when {cat} the season aof the fruits drew near, che sent unto the husbandmen a servant, {ahis servants} i. e., the prophets] cthat they should give him {bthat he might receive ato receive from the husbandmen} of the {ahis} bfruits of the vineyard. [ Luk 3:8–He expected the children of Israel to bring forth joy, love, peace, and all the other goodly fruit of a godly life. And he looked to those in authority to bring forth such results, and the prophets were sent to the rulers to encourage them to do this.] 3 And {cbut} the husbandmen btook him, and beat him, and sent him away empty, 4 And again he sent unto them cyet another servant: him also they beat, bwounded in his head, and handled shamefully. cand sent him away empty. b5 And he sent cyet banother; ca third: and him also they wounded, band him they killed: cand cast him forth. band many others; beating some, and killing some. a35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them in like manner. [For the treatment of the prophets, see such passages as 1Ki 18:13, 1Ki 22:24-27, 2Ki 6:31, 2Ch 24:19-22, 2Ch 36:15, 2Ch 36:16. For a summary of the treatment of the prophets or messengers of God, [591] see Heb 11:35-38.] 37 But b6 He had yet one, a beloved son: aafterward bhe sent him last unto them, c13 And the lord of the vineyard said, {bsaying,} cWhat shall I do? [ Isa 5:4.] I will send my beloved son; it may be they will reverence him. bThey will reverence my son. [The lord of the vineyard was thoroughly perplexed. The conduct of his husbandmen was outrageous beyond all expectation. He had no better servants to send them unless his only son should take upon him the form of a servant and visit them ( Phi 2:5-8). Being tender and forgiving, and unwilling to resort to extreme measures, the lord of the vineyard resolved to thus send his son, feeling sure that the son would represent the person, authority and rights of the father so much better than any other messenger ( Heb 1:1-5, Heb 2:1-3), that it would be well-nigh impossible for the husbandmen to fail of reverence towards him. In striking contrast, however, with this expectation of the Father, the rulers, or the husbandmen, had just now harshly demanded of the Son that he tell by what authority he did anything in the vineyard.] a38 But the {bthose} ahusbandmen, when they saw {chim} athe son, cthey reasoned one with another, asaid among themselves, {csaying,} aThis is the heir; come, let us kill him, and take his inheritance. cthat the inheritance may be ours. band the inheritance shall be ours. [In thus bringing the story down to the immediate present, and stating a counsel which his enemies had just spoken privately in each other’s ears, Jesus must have startled them greatly. He showed them, too, that those things which made them deem it necessary to kill him were the very things which proved his heirship. They regarded the Jewish nation as their property, and they were plotting to kill Jesus that they might withhold it from him ( Joh 12:19, Joh 11:47-50). That men might hope by such high-handed lawlessness to obtain a title to a vineyard seems incredible to us who have always been familiar with the even-balanced justice of constitutional government; but in the East the looseness of governments, the selfish apathy and lack [592] of public spirit among the people, and the corrupt bribe-receiving habits of the judges makes our Lord’s picture even to this day, though rather exceptional, still true to life. At this point Jesus turns from history to prophecy.] 8 And they took him, c15 And they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him. [After two intervening days the Jews would fulfill this detail by thrusting Jesus outside the walls of Jerusalem and crucifying him there.] a40 When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons. c16 [Jesus said] He will come and destroy these {bthe} husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. cAnd when they heard it, they said, God forbid. [Part of the multitude, hearing only the story, pronounced unhesitatingly the judgment which ought to be inflicted upon such evil-doers, and Jesus confirmed their judgment. But others, perceiving the meaning underlying the parable, shrank from accepting what would otherwise have been to them a very proper ending, and said, Mee genoito, which means literally, Be it not so, and which might properly be paraphrased by our emphatic “Never!” but which the revisers in translating have, with small warrant, seen fit to paraphrase by using the semi-profane expression, “God forbid.” There are fourteen such mistranslations in the epistles of Paul according to the King James version and only one of them ( Gal 6:14) is corrected in the Revised version. In defense of these translations it is asserted that the phrase is an idiomatic invocation of the Deity, but the case can not be made out, since the Deity is not addressed.] 17 But he looked upon them [Thus emphasizing the fact that they had repudiated a most just decree. His look, doubtless, resembled that of a parent surprised at the outspoken rebellion of his children], and a42 Jesus saith {csaid,} aunto them, cWhat then is this that is written, b10 Have ye not read even this scripture: aDid ye never [593] read in the scriptures, cThe stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner? aThis was from the Lord, And it is marvellous in our eyes? [The quotation is from Psa 118:22, Psa 118:23, which is here by Jesus applied as a prophecy to the Pharisees, who, in their treatment of him, were like unskilled builders who reject the very corner-stone of the building which they seek to erect. The Pharisees were eager enough in their desire to set up a Messianic kingdom, but were so blindly foolish that they did not see that this kingdom could not be set up unless it rested upon Christ Jesus, its corner-stone. They blundered in constructing their theory of the coming kingdom, and could find no room for one such as Jesus in it.] 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44 And he {c18 Every one} athat falleth on this {cthat} astone shall be broken to pieces: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust. [The stone, of course, represents Jesus, and the two fallings set forth his passive and active state. In the day when he passively submitted to be judged, those who condemned him were broken ( Mat 27:3-5, Luk 23:48, Act 2:37); but in the great day when he himself becomes the acting party and calls his enemies to judgment, they shall prefer, and pray, that a mountain fall upon them– Rev 6:15-17.] 45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees, c19 And the scribes aheard his parables, they csought to lay hands on him in that very hour, bfor they perceived that he aspake of them. bspake the {cthis} parable against them. a46 And when they sought to lay hands on him, cthey feared the people: {bmultitude; amultitudes,} because they took him for a prophet. band they left him, and went away. [Despite the warning which Jesus gave them that they were killing the Son and would reap the consequences, and despite the fact that he showed that the Psalm which the people had used so recently with regard to him foretold a great rejection which would prove to be a [594] mistake, yet the rulers persisted in their evil intention to take his life, and were only restrained by fear of the people, many of whom were Galilans, men of rugged courage, ready to draw swords on Jesus’ behalf. Since they could neither arrest nor answer him, they withdrew as a committee, but returned again in the person of their spies.]
[FFG 590-595]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
THE WICKED HUSBANDMAN
Mat 21:33-46; Mar 12:1-12; Luk 20:9-19. Matthew: Hear another parable: A man who is a landlord planted a vineyard, and placed a hedge round it, and dug a wine-trough in it, and built a tower. The dense thorn-hedge was to protect it from the intrusion of animals as well as thieves. The wine-trough was located deep down beneath the press, in order to catch the sweet juice of the delicious grapes expressed and running into it. The tower was for rest and recreation, and especially for vigilance against thieves, who might stealthily intrude into the vineyard and spoliate the fruit. It is difficult for Occidentals to conceive the paradoxical abundance of grapes produced by a Palestinian vineyard. I have seen the whole earth burdened with the great clusters of grapes, almost sweet as honey. I could not forbear making myself sick eating them. American grapes, with the exception of California, have no such flavor and sweetness. Truly, the land abounds in corn and wine.
He gave it out to husbandmen, and went away. But when the time of the fruits drew nigh, he sent his servants to the husbandman to receive his fruits; and the husbandmen, taking his servants, beat one, slew one, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did unto them likewise. These servants were the prophets. Isaiah was cut in two with a cruel saw; Jeremiah, imprisoned in a deep well to starve to death; King Ahab ordered the imprisonment and starvation of the prophet Micaiah; John the Baptist, the greatest of the prophets, was beheaded by King Herod.
And afterward he sent unto them his own son, saying, They will reverence my son. But those farmers, seeing the son, said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and take possession of his inheritance. This is precisely what they did. The leading preachers and official laymen regarded him as a competitor, who, if successful, would deprive them of their fat offices. Consequently they conspired against him, and slew him, thus taking possession of the Church, to conduct it in their own way, and receive the emoluments of office. Having taken him, they cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. They actually arrested Him at midnight of the ensuing day, and on the following morning cast Him out of the city, and nailed Him to the cross on Calvary.
Then, when the lord of the vineyard may come, what will he do to those farmers? They say to Him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and give out the vineyard to other farmers, who will render to him the fruits in their seasons. This was literally done very quickly. God the Father has no incarnation, and is consequently invisible to mortal eyes. He actually came in those vast and formidable Roman armies, who slew a million of Jews with sword, pestilence, and famine, doubtless every one who had been guilty of the above crimes falling in the awful death-harvest that rolled over the city. Then, you see, the Church was turned over to the Gentiles the new people becoming the cultivators of the vineyard during the time of their fidelity to the Proprietor. Otherwise, the same awful calamity awaits them. Here you see clearly that the gospel Church is not a de novo institution, but substantially identical with the Church organized in the house of Abraham, and perpetuated nearly two thousand years under the prophetical and Mosaic economy. You see that the vineyard was not destroyed, but, surviving, was given into the hands of other husbandmen; showing clearly and demonstratively that the identical Church of the patriarchs and prophets, in which Jesus lived and died, was perpetuated and given to the Gentiles. Precisely as those wicked farmers, who met the awful fate, were not the vineyard, so the carnal, self-righteous priests, elders, and Pharisees who killed the prophets and Jesus were not the Church. God has had a holy people in all ages, who have eaten the delicious grapes and drunk the sweet wine of His spiritual kingdom.
Jesus says unto them, Have you not read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the head of the corner: this was wonderful with the Lord, and was marvelous in our eves? Therefore I say unto you, that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given unto a nation bringing forth the fruit of the same. The one falling on this rock shall be dashed to pieces; and on whomsoever it may fall, it will grind him to powder. [Psa 118:22; Isa 8:14; Zec 12:3; Dan 2:34-44] And the chief priests and Pharisees hearing His parables, knew that He was speaking concerning them. And seeking to arrest Him, they were afraid of the multitudes, since they had Him as a prophet. The impression that the Jewish people killed Jesus is a slander on them which they do not deserve. You see here, the leading preachers and Church officers were anxious to arrest Him, and were only restrained through fear of the people. Jesus was an exceedingly popular preacher with the common people, but awfully unpopular with the higher clergy and ruling elders, because they looked upon Him as an official rival, feeling satisfied that if He succeeded, deposing all of them, He would promote His friends to office. You see in the above Scriptures that Jesus is that Chief Corner-stone rejected by the builders i.e., the Jewish officials rebut by the power of the Holy Ghost becoming the Head of the corner. All houses in that country are stone. At the corner a great, solid, and elegantly-dressed stone is laid, with both walls built on it, and thus held together: as they both rest on this one corner-stone, and consolidate the house, since the wonderfully tenacious calcareous cement of that country actually unifies the different stones of the wall into one grand conglomeration. Thus Jesus, the Chief Corner-stone of the gospel Church, not only unites Jews and Gentiles, but all sects, races, and nationalities. How momentous the awful responsibility of dealing with this Stone, since if you fall on it, you are dashed to pieces; and if it falls on you, you are ground to powder! People may be saved, if sincere and true, despite multitudes of heresies. Meanwhile heresy on the Christhood of Jesus, as here you see, is necessarily fatal. O the infinite importance of preaching Christ, as all are necessarily lost who have the misfortune, through Satanic intrigue, to assume position either antagonistical to Him or depreciative of Him. Let us take the alarm. Unitarianism is rapidly, though occultly, everywhere stealing into the Protestant Churches. It bears blight and desolation in its wake.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Mat 21:33-46. The Parable of the Vineyard (Mar 12:1-12*, Luk 20:9-18).The chief peculiarities of Mt.s version are (Mat 21:39) the slaying of the heir outside the vineyard (perhaps a recollection of Jesus suffering without the gate), (Mat 21:41) the opponents of Jesus pronouncing sentence on themselves and their class, and Mat 21:43, where the word nation need not exclude Jews. Note that Mt. here (as in Mat 12:38) has kingdom of God. His usual expression, kingdom of heaven, denotes the eschatological realm to be inaugurated at the Second Advent. This Kingdom had never been in the possession of the Jews, and so could not be taken from them. Mt. therefore uses kingdom of God in the theocratic sense familiar to the Jews of the time. Its use here may have led to its introduction in Mat 21:31.
Mat 21:46. Cf. Mat 21:26, also Mat 14:5, and in another light Mat 21:11.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
21:33 {8} Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a {r} tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
(8) Those men are often the cruellest enemies of the Church, to whose faithfulness it is committed: But the vocation of God is neither tied to time, place, nor person.
(r) Made the place strong: for a tower is the strongest place of a wall.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The parable of the wicked tenant farmers 21:33-46
Jesus proceeded immediately to tell another parable. Luke wrote that Jesus addressed it to the crowds in the temple courtyard (Luk 20:9). The chief priests and elders continued to listen (Mat 21:45-46).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Jesus alluded to Isa 5:1-7 and Psa 80:8-16 where the vineyard is Israel and the landowner God. The care the landowner took with his vineyard shows God’s concern for Israel. He had a right to expect that it would be a fruitful vineyard and yield much fruit. The tenants to whom the landowner entrusted his vineyard represent Israel’s leaders. The harvest time (lit. the season of the fruits) stands for the time when God could expect to obtain some reward for His investment in Israel. The slaves (Gr. douloi) are God’s faithful servants the prophets. In Jesus’ society slaves were not necessarily on a low social level; many of them held important positions in their owners’ households. [Note: France, The Gospel . . ., p. 812.]