College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

Matthew 21:33-46

SECTION 57
JESUS MEETS CHALLENGES TO HIS AUTHORITY: THREE PARABLES OF WARNING

TEXT: 21:33-46

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

Is this story a parable in the modern sense of the word, or an allegory? What other parables of Jesus help you to decide?

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?

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?

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 owner's 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?

Why do you think Jesus chose this particular Psalm to convince His listeners of the rightness of what He was saying in the parable?

Why should the meek and gentle Jesus predict the horrible, destructions of everyone who goes against Him? Does not this ruin His image?

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?

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 vineyard's owner?

Can you give a plausible reason why Jesus would leave the owner's son dead in His parable? After all, whom does that son represent?

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?)

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?

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?)

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?)

Do you think Jesus was moved to tell this story because of the hierarchy's 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?

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, let's 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 vineyard's 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 (Psalms 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, He-'ll 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 Psalms 118:22 f. is going to come true: Through God's 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 GOD'S PROGRAM
A. Bountiful Mercy (v. 33)

Matthew 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 (Luke 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 God's justice in punishing Israel's 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 ruler's primary guilt and responsibility, and, by reflection, that of anyone else who agreed, in thought and behavior, with the nation's leaders. Sadly, of these there were many (John 1:11). In this sense, then, the whole nation is addressed in the person of its representative leadership (Hosea 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

Matthew 21:28-32 OBEDIENCE

Matthew 21:33-46 RESPONSIBILITY

Matthew 22:1-14 PRIVILEGE

Work in the Father's Vineyard is offered to two classes of individuals.

Care of the Owner's Vineyard is the basis of this story.

Gracious opportunity to enjoy the King's bounty is the basis of this story.

Stress is laid upon the leadership's rejection of John the Baptist despite good reasons to submit to him.

Stress is laid upon Jewish rejection of all of God's prophets culminating in their assassination of His Son.

Stress is laid upon majority Jewish rejection of all of God's invitations given through His prophets, culminating in their killing them.

Rejection of John the Baptist will cost rebels their entrance into God's Kingdom.

Rejection of God's prophets and assassination of His Son will cost its perpetrators their lives and privileged position in God's Kingdom.

Rejection of God's offers will cost impenitents their lives and the destruction of their city, while non-Hebrews will be admitted to the Kingdom's privileges.

God's permission to enter His Kingdom is not based on men's unfulfilled pious promises, but on obedience. This threatens all Jewish complacency grounded solely on empty pietism or carnal descent from Abraham.

God's dealing with Israel (Matthew 21:33-41 a).

God's gracious provision for Israel's blessing (Matthew 21:33 f).

Israel's ingratitude and rejection (Matthew 21:35-39).

God's dealing with Israel (Matthew 22:2-7).

God's gracious provision for Israel's blessing (2-4)

Israel's ingratitude and rejection (5, 6).

God's dealings are based on actual performance, not on empty promises. This could potentially justify Gentile participation in Kingdom.

God's dealing with the Gentiles (Matthew 21:41 b - Matthew 21:43).

Punishment of Jews (Matthew 21:40 f)

Blessing of Gentiles (Matthew 21:41 b - Matthew 21:43)

God's dealings with the Gentiles (Matthew 22:8-10).

Punishment of Jews (7)

Blessing of Gentiles (8-10)

God's dealings are with individuals as evidenced in different treatment accorded the two sons of the same father.

God's 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. God's dealing with individuals is especially evident in this: Everyone who falls. it falls on any one. (vv. 44; Luke 20:18)

God's dealings with individual Christians (Matthew 22:11-14) is always based on each's 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 God's 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 Isaiah's celebrated allegory. (Isaiah 5:1-7; cf. other parallel figures: Isaiah 27:1-7; Psalms 80:7-19; Jeremiah 2:21; Ezekiel 15:1-6; Ezekiel 17:1-15; Ezekiel 19:10-14; Hosea 10:1.) Whereas the prophet's Son of the Vineyard emphasizes the quality of the vineyard's yield, Jesus-' version gives importance to the sharecroppers-' conduct. The pedagogical value of this procedure is unmistakable:

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?

Further, Jesus assured Himself a sympathetic hearing, similar to that which Stephen enjoyed while he recounted significant points of Hebrew history (Acts 7).

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 God's patient graciousness and the beginning of His punitive justice.

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 Isaiah'S, assumes as true the evidences of God's original creation of Israel's 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 Isaiah's 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 (Matthew 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 vineyard's owner took to insure the success of his operation and guarantee fruit production. (Cf. Paul's list of Jewish distinctives: Romans 3:2; Romans 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.

He planted a vineyard is tantamount to saying, God created His people on earth, Israel. (Cf. Deuteronomy 32:12-14; Ezekiel 16:9-14; Isaiah 27:2-6.)

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 Israel's national existence (Matthew 21:43). It is that element that is common to both Jews and Christians, all that is involved in being God's 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.

Nevertheless, because the Kingdom of God must be subjectively realized in real people, if it is not to remain a purely theoretical idea on God's drawing board, Jesus is talking primarily about its historical actualization among the Jewish people. (See below on husbandmen.)

He set a hedge around it for its protection from being trampled or destroyed by stray animals (cf. Numbers 22:24; S. of Song of Solomon 2:15; Psalms 80:12 f.; Isaiah 5:5), not unlikely made of thorns (cf. Hosea 2:6) surrounding a stone wall (cf. Proverbs 24:30 f.). God had furnished every safeguard to assure Israel's national security. (Cf. Zechariah 2:5; Isaiah 4:5 f; Isaiah 26:1; Isaiah 60:18.) God had provided good laws, leaders and institutions to guarantee internal order and maintain Israel's separation from the paganizing influences of other nations (Numbers 23:9; cf. Ephesians 2:14).

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. Nehemiah 13:15; Isaiah 16:8-10; Isaiah 63:2 f.; Jeremiah 25:30; Jeremiah 48:33; Lamentations 1:15; Judges 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 God's 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 God's people is poured out as an offering to Him.

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; Isaiah 1:8.) Jerusalem with its temple was established in Israel as God's 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.

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. Song of Solomon 8:11 f.; Isaiah 7:23.) These were only tenant farmers, because the householder remains owner of the vineyard (Matthew 21:40) and merely let it out to vinedressers in exchange for his part of the fruit (v. 34; Mark 12:2; Luke 20:10) and because the sharecroppers later made their play to seize the only heir's inheritance to make it their own (Matthew 21:38). God did not leave Israel to its own devices, but established a clear chain of command for national leadership (Ezekiel 34:2; Malachi 2:7). The husbandmen represent also the nation to the extent that it blindly followed its leaders (Jeremiah 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.

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. Matthew 25:14 f.; Luke 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 (Deuteronomy 18:16 f.).

B. Mercy's Rights (21:34)

Matthew 21:34 The season of the fruits would occur during the fifth vintage, since Mosaic legislation (Leviticus 19:23 ff.) forbade its use anysooner. 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 Micah 6:8; Deuteronomy 10:12-22; Psalms 40:6-8; Psalms 50:7-23; Psalms 51:16-19; Psalms 69:30 f.; Isaiah 1:11-17; Jeremiah 7:21 ff.; Hosea 4:1; Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21-24; 1 Samuel 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 Israel's moral development.

In Isaiah's 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 (Isaiah 5:2; Isaiah 5:7). Although in both Jesus-' and Isaiah's 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 (Isaiah 3:14; Isaiah 1:23). But God's 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 Isaiah 44:28; Isaiah 56:10-12; Jeremiah 23:1-4; Jeremiah 6:3; Jeremiah 25:34-38; Ezekiel 34; Micah 5:4 f.; Nahum 3:18; Zechariah 10:3; Zechariah 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 (Matthew 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)

Matthew 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 vineyard's 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 Israel's 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 God's prophets came from the leadership, especially from the sacerdotal aristocracy that claimed a monopoly on God's flock. (Study Matthew 5:12; Jeremiah 20:1 f; Jeremiah 26:11; Jeremiah 26:20-23; Jeremiah 37:15; Matthew 23:29-37 and parallels; Luke 13:33 f.; 1 Thessalonians 2:15.)

Is killed another and stoned another a needless redundancy?

No, because not all stoning succeed in killing the victim. (Cf. Acts 14:19 f.; 2 Corinthians 11:25.)

No, by killed Jesus may have meant assassinated; by stoned, judicially murdered. (Cf. 2 Chronicles 24:20 f.)

No, by killed Jesus may mean with a sword (cf. 1 Kings 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 God's mercifully patient planning to furnish the wicked apparently endless opportunities to repent before the final crisis.

D. Increased Guilt Vs. Incredible Patience (21:36)

Matthew 21:36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first. (Jeremiah 25:4; Jeremiah 44:4-6; 1 Kings 22:24-28; 2 Kings 6:31; 2 Chronicles 36:15 f.; Nehemiah 9:26-34; Acts 7:51 f.) Because each successive generation of Jewish leadership similarly outraged God's messengers, Jesus is justified in picturing the same group of sharecroppers as uniformly hostile. (See Jesus-' argumentation in Matthew 23:29-32.) But a long-suffering God was patiently pleading with Israel to repent. God had no intention to indulge the nation's 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 Almighty's unbelievable long-suffering toward Israel, Jesus had to make up an incredible story to do it!

E. Mercy Resolute (21:37)

Matthew 21:37 But afterward emphasizes the owner's last great attempt to bring the tenant farmers around to reason. This same point is vividly expressed by Luke's 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 (Hebrews 1:1 ff.; Romans 8:32). He sent unto them his son, not merely one more in a long line of faithful servants (Hebrews 3:1-6; Hebrews 1:1 f.).

The readers of this Gospel would instantly recognize in Jesus Himself the allusion intended by the beloved son of the vineyard's owner, as the same language is used both at Jesus-' baptism (Matthew 3:17 = Mark 1:11 = Luke 3:22) and at His transfiguration (Matthew 17:5 = Mark 9:7).

For those who remember Jesus-' claims to unique Sonship and can see God's prophets pictured in the owner's servants, Jesus is setting Himself above all of God's greatest spokesmen. He is claiming in the name of His Father the authority and title of Owner of everything in God's Kingdom! What an answer to the clergy's opening challenge to His authority! If they could but see it, they now have their answer: He is God's Son, empowered with all the authority of the Almighty.

And yet what better way could God plead with Israel's 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 (John 5:23). This touching but climactic move should have brought the vineyard's 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 Son's 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 God's 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 (2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:4; Romans 11:32).

F. Mercy Mistaken for Weakness (21:38)

Matthew 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:

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 son's death or question their seizure of the inheritance. The heir is therefore the owner's only begotten son. Again, Jesus-' uniqueness and finality receives emphasis in His teaching.

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.

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.

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!

They not unlikely suppose that the vineyard had already been deeded to the heir long before the father's death (cf. Luke 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 (John 11:47-53; John 11:57). Even if this murderous intent had not been widely advertised, it was indisputably an open secret. (Cf. John 5:18; John 7:1; John 7:19; John 7:25; John 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, Matthew 21:33; Matthew 21:43). By killing God's Son, the theologians and clergy hoped to make permanent their possession and control of God's Kingdom with its attendant privileges. Ironically, the inheritance already belonged to them, but by murdering God's Son, they lost it forever! They could have had a heavenly inheritance, had they but properly honored the Son (John 5:23). But the deadly influence of this earth's power, wealth and show appeared far more real and desirable. So they forfeited God's wealth by haughtily disdaining and savagely despising God's 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 (John 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 God's 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. Ezekiel 34:1-10; Zechariah 11:3-17.) Their murderous conspiracy in the name of God (cf. John 16:1 ff.) was animated, in the final analysis, by hatred for God (John 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?

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 God's Son. To what extent these hidden misgivings existed and persisted, creating inner self-contradictions, none but God knows.

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.

To what extent did Nicodemus speak for himself or for his colleagues in the Sanhedrin (John 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)

Matthew 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 (Mark'S) 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:

This detail has no significance beyond the general fact that the heir was murdered. Whether in or out of the vineyard is immaterial.

Hendriksen (Matthew, 784, note 742) suggested a better treatment of Mark's 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 Lord's crucifixion on Calvary outside the Jerusalem city wall. (Matthew 27:31 ff.; = Mark 15:20 ff.; = Luke 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. John 5:17 f; John 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 Paul's language in Hebrews 13:12 outside the gate and Hebrews 13:13 outside the camp where the two phrases are rendered practically equivalent. If the vineyard stands for the Kingdom (Matthew 21:43), Jesus-' rejection and His crucifixion as a common criminal is in line with the clergy's 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)

Matthew 21:40 When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen? In Isaiah's parable, too, God called Israel to judge whether the vineyard owner's efforts were adequately compensated by the results obtained therefrom (Isaiah 5:3 f.). But Jesus-' emphasis is not now on the merciful provision for the vineyard's 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. Matthew 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 (Matthew 21:27). They could not continue to affirm: We do not know.

As in Matthew 21:31, so also here is another situation where the listeners unconsciously indict themselves by giving their verdict on the conduct of a story's characters. (Cf. 1 Kings 20:39 ff.; 2 Samuel 12:1 ff.; Isaiah 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. Man's own sense of justice amply establishes the rightness of God's 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 Isaiah's 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)

Matthew 21:41 They say unto him: just who answered is not clear, whether crowd or leaders. (Cf. Luke 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. Luke 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. 439-441.)

He will. let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits. Barclay (Matthew, II, 291) notes eloquently that

God's 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 Isaiah'S: 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 (Isaiah 5:5 f.).

J. Mercy's Victory (21:42)

To the shocked listeners, stunned by the inevitable but equally inconceivable conclusion (Matthew 21:41), Jesus now addresses Himself directly, looking them square in the eye (Luke 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 nation's 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 Psalms 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, Acts 4:11, and in his own writing, 1 Peter 2:7.)

He used this Psalm because it was fresh in people's mind, since the crowds had sung its Hosannas in His honor just two days before. (Matthew 21:9 = Mark 11:9 f.; Matthew 21:15.) Further, this Psalm's cryptic passage about the Rejected Cornerstone required an explanation that pointed out its fulfilment. In fact, the nation's leadership's proud refusal of God's Anointed and the common people's praise for Him is strikingly described in five CONSECUTIVE verses (Psalms 118:22-26).

Jesus cited this Psalm because it emphasizes once again God's flair for utilizing despised, unimpressive instruments to produce the most marvelous results. (See notes on Matthew 21:16.) Is Jesus despicable and unimpressive in the hierarchy's 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 God's 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!

He cited this Psalm to answer whatever mental reservations anyone entertained about the unquestionable rightness of the punitive justice meted out upon the vineyard's former caretakers. His citation completely refutes the astonished May it never happen! of those who considered it inconceivable (Luke 20:16). The Psalm endorsed the just sentence handed down by Jesus-' listeners.

He cited this Psalm to show that God had known all along about Messiah's rejection by Israel's rabbinate, and that human blindness and perversity could not sidetrack God's program. Rather, by citing it, Jesus furnished a basis for unshaken confidence in Him even at the critical hours of His passion, since God's 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.

He cited this Psalm, because, if the situation was as He described it, they had no suitable alternative interpretation of its words (Luke 20:17). What then is this that is written? He could and must say.

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 son's 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 God's Messiah. (Paul, too, used both metaphors together: 1 Corinthians 3:9.) Further, the Psalm has the added advantage of being parabolic:

The stone ... rejected is the suffering Servant of Jahweh, the Messiah. Even if the Psalm's 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.

The builders are Israel's leaders, responsible to build up God's true Temple, God's Kingdom. Their rejecting the cornerstone implies that they were ignoring the architect's master plan. Otherwise, would they not have seen its proper place in the blueprint? Consequently, the Psalmist foresaw that Israel's administrators would be attempting to build God's 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 hierarchy's blundering theories about how God's temple and Kingdom had to be, showed no place for God's 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 God's plans (Matthew 15:3-9 = Mark 7:6-9; Mark 7:13).

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 God's edifice, be different from the run-of-the-mill, politico-military chiefs at the head of the world's typical governments (Ephesians 2:19-22)? The total vindication of the Stone's importance by its elevation to a position of honor finds its parallel in the swift and complete vindication of the vineyard owner's 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 owner's plans. Jesus-' death and dismissal by the nation's governors did not get rid of Him. Ironically, it fashioned Him for the very function He was to serve in God's plan, as perfect sacrifice and self-sacrificing High Priest. (Cf. Hebrews 4:14 to Hebrews 5:10; Hebrews 7:15-28; Hebrews 9:11-28.)

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 (Philippians 2:9 f.).

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 Lord's course of action and workmanship, and they glorify Him for it. To the redeemed..

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.

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 Father's brilliance, the Owner of the worlds, the Lord of angels, Maker of men and adored by kings (cf. Isaiah 52:14 f.).

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 people's habitual tendencies, political methods and social doctrines, He could have accomplished so much?

Our marveling is no less great when, by contrast to God's 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. Acts 13:27; 1 Corinthians 2:6-8.)

K. The Reading of the Sentence (21:43)

Matthew 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.

The kingdom of God is the vineyard of Jesus-' story, God's 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. Colossians 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 (Acts 2:39). Later Peter documented the fulfilment of Jesus-' prediction by depicting Israel's former rights and obligations as now the possession and responsibility of Christ's Church (1 Peter 2:4-10, cf. Revelation 5:9-10).

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 God's privileged blessings has ended and now they must enter into God's Kingdom just as anyone else would through trusting obedience to Christ. They never had an automatic right to permanence in God's Kingdom merely because they were born in Abraham's family (Matthew 3:8-10; cf. John 8:33; John 8:37; John 8:39; Romans 2:28 f; Romans 4:12; Romans 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. Romans 11:8-10; Romans 11:25; 1 Thessalonians 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 God's Messiah and so are saved. (Cf. Romans 11:1; Acts 21:20.)

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! (Acts 13:46; Acts 28:28; Galatians 3:26 ff.; Ephesians 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. 1 Peter 2:9 f.; contrast Exodus 19:5 f.; Cf. Galatians 3:26 ff.; Ephesians 2:11-22; Colossians 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 God's 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 God's unique blessing, but fails to recognize American blindness to many of God's 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 (Matthew 3:10)? Has not His procedure always been to remove an unbelieving generation and raise up a people that would obey (Exodus 32:9 f., Exodus 32:14; Numbers 20:12; Numbers 14:11-35; Revelation 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 (Luke 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:

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.

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 Psalms 118:22 where the allusion to the rejected cornerstone would have been clearer because more direct, as Luke actually has it (Luke 20:17 f.).

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).

Matthew 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 (Matthew 21:44; Luke 20:18)

Isaiah 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.

Daniel 2:44; Daniel 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, Psalms 118:22 f. Since the Lord was already quoting Scripture, it should not be thought strange that, after casting Isaiah's Vineyard Song in a new form, He continue to weave these three great Messianic texts together into one great revelation. (Study Peter's combination of Psalms 118:22 and Isaiah 8:14 f. adding Isaiah 28:16 in 1 Peter 2:4-8.) If the Lord is indeed combining these great prophecies, the final effect of the combination is breathtaking!

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 Isaiah's later revelation (Matthew 28:15 f.) bears on our understanding, we see that God placed this precious stone on man's 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 world's usual attributes to qualify Him for prestige, position and power (Isaiah 52:14; Isaiah 53:2 f.). Rather, He was a cause of stumbling (Matthew 11:6), a great Stone set in place to cause the fall of many in Israel (Luke 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.

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 Daniel 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 Daniel's revelations described Messiah's 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 Son's total victory over ALL unbelieving nations (Revelation 13:7 f., Revelation 13:12 ff., Revelation 13:16; Revelation 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 (Matthew 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. Ezra 8:18; Jeremiah 31:30; Deuteronomy 24:16.) Nothingno nation nor individual-can stop God's Son from completing His appointed mission.

Upon reflection, then, we see that the great Stone of stumbling in Isaiah 8:14 f. and the mighty Crushing Stone unhewn by human hands of Daniel 2:34 f., Daniel 2:44 both stand behind Jesus-' terminology. Further, in synopsis with Psalms 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 God's Kingdom!

In this way Jesus has accomplished two ends:

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 God's 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 Isaiah 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.

His illuminating combination of Old Testament prophecies should open the eyes of all His enemies to the awful consequences of attempting to eliminate Him. God's 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 God's 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 (Matthew 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! (1 Corinthians 15:24 f.; Matthew 22:44 = Psalms 110:1; Luke 19:27; 2 Thessalonians 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)

Matthew 21:45 For chief priests and Pharisees see notes on Matthew 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! (Luke 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 (Matthew 21:28-32). Further, since they had inherited the duly authorized leadership of Israel, unquestionably they were responsible for the care of God's vineyard, Israel, so they now saw themselves depicted as the murderous husbandmen of Jesus-' story (Matthew 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 God's 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 Lord's words is equal to submission to His instruction.

N. The Clergy Fumbles Its Responsibility (21:46)

Matthew 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. Matthew 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 Israel's 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! (Luke 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 Matthew 21:11.) This, then, is the measure of the crowd's 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. Matthew 13:57 notes; Matthew 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

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:

the facts that took place just before this parable; then tell

the broad historical background which furnished Jesus material for His story.

According to Luke, to whom did Jesus address this parable?

List the five things the vineyard's owner did to assure himself that everything would go well for his vineyard. Tell why each detail was important.

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?

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 parable's meaning?

Everything in the parable leads us to believe that the owner of the vineyard expected only one thing from his vineyard. What is it?

When was it that the owner began to send his representatives to the vineyard? That is, in what season?

How many agents were sent by the owner to the vine-growers?

How were the owner's agents treated once they arrived at the vineyard?

10.

Who was the last agent sent by the owner?

11.

What was the owner's 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 owner's 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?

What would happen to the murderous vine-growers?

What would happen to the vineyard?

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?

What is the stone rejected?

Who are the builders who rejected it?

What does it mean to become the head of the corner?

What importance does this expression have: this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?

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 people's 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.

Continues after advertising

BibliaPlus

College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

Matthew 21:33-46

Old Testament

New Testament