TEXT [Commentary]

4. Parable of the evil tenants (12:1-12; cf. Matt 21:33-46; Luke 20:9-19)

1 Then Jesus began teaching them with stories: “A man planted a vineyard. He built a wall around it, dug a pit for pressing out the grape juice, and built a lookout tower. Then he leased the vineyard to tenant farmers and moved to another country. 2 At the time of the grape harvest, he sent one of his servants to collect his share of the crop. 3 But the farmers grabbed the servant, beat him up, and sent him back empty-handed. 4 The owner then sent another servant, but they insulted him and beat him over the head. 5 The next servant he sent was killed. Others he sent were either beaten or killed, 6 until there was only one left—his son whom he loved dearly. The owner finally sent him, thinking, ‘Surely they will respect my son.’

7 “But the tenant farmers said to one another, ‘Here comes the heir to this estate. Let’s kill him and get the estate for ourselves!’ 8 So they grabbed him and murdered him and threw his body out of the vineyard.

9 “What do you suppose the owner of the vineyard will do?” Jesus asked. “I’ll tell you—he will come and kill those farmers and lease the vineyard to others. 10 Didn’t you ever read this in the Scriptures?

‘The stone that the builders rejected

has now become the cornerstone.

11 This is the LORD’s doing,

and it is wonderful to see.’[*]”

12 The religious leaders[*] wanted to arrest Jesus because they realized he was telling the story against them—they were the wicked farmers. But they were afraid of the crowd, so they left him and went away.

NOTES

12:1 vineyard. This is a traditional way to refer to Israel, as Isa 5:1-7 makes clear. The vineyard wall provided protection, and the tower made it possible to watch for danger. God planted this vineyard.

tenant farmers. These were the Jewish leaders (see 12:12). The backdrop is the common first-century Galilean and Judean pattern of an owner’s renting out a farm to tenant farmers (Hurtado 1989:197). France (2002:459) notes that perhaps the leaders in Jerusalem were themselves land owners, thereby creating an ironic contrast.

12:2 sent one of his servants to collect his share of the crop. The image now shifts to a portrayal of the prophets who sought spiritual fruit in Israel. Prophets were often called servants in the OT (Jer 7:25; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6).

12:3 beat him up. The prophets were persecuted and rejected. No fruit was given over to God, and his messenger was rejected.

12:4 they insulted him and beat him over the head. This rejection of a prophet was not an isolated incident. Other prophets had been sent and rejected. This fits the teaching of the OT (2 Sam 10:2-5 speaks of David’s servants being treated in a similar way; 2 Kgs 17:7-20; 2 Chr 24:20-22; 36:15-16; Jer 25:3-7; 26:20-23; cf. France 2002:460). The next servants were beaten or killed. The treatment experienced by John the Baptist and what the leaders were about to do to Jesus had been going on for a long time; the resistance had grown stronger with time.

12:6 his son whom he loved dearly. Finally, the owner sent his beloved son (agapētos [TG27, ZG28]) as his last and most important representative. This represents Jesus and recalls how God addressed him at his baptism and transfiguration (Mark 1:11; 9:7).

12:10 The stone that the builders rejected has now become the cornerstone. There is debate as to whether a cornerstone or a capstone is intended, but a cornerstone is likely, especially given the application of the image in Eph 2:20-22 and 1 Pet 2:6-7, and the fact that it is linked with Isa 28:16 and the idea that one can stumble over the stone, as Luke 20:18 suggests (so the NLT rendering and NIDNTT 3.388-390). See Evans 2001:238 for the view that a capstone is meant. The psalm also appears in Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 7; Rom 9:32-33.

12:12 The religious leaders wanted to arrest Jesus. They were seeking to arrest him; the Gr. uses an imperfect tense, so their effort to apprehend Jesus was ongoing.

they realized he was telling the story against them. The Gr. is slightly more ambiguous as to who knew that the parable was told against the leaders (either the leaders or the crowd are “they”), but it is likely that the leaders were intended, since the verse then gives their reactions (France 2002:464).

But they were afraid of the crowd. For the second time in just a few verses, their fear of the crowd is noted (11:31). If they grabbed him, a riot might result, so they waited.

COMMENTARY [Text]

Jesus’ parable makes it clear that the Judean leaders were part of the historical pattern of the nation. God had long sought fruit from them without finding it. The prophets he sent were consistently abused and persecuted. One servant after another was mistreated. The rejection remained intense and repetitive, so God finally sent his Son. Logic suggests that the son would meet with respect, not abuse, and the owner sent his son with the expectation that they would identify him and treat him accordingly.

But the land tenants said, “Here comes the heir. . . . Let’s kill him and get the estate for ourselves!” The statement is revealing. The tenants identified the Son but decided to remove him, expecting that they would then get the farm since they had worked it. The premise was that if owned land lacked an heir, those who worked the land would get it (Lane 1974:416-419). This, of course, presupposes that the lack of an heir is not due to the murderous actions of the tenants! The lack of logic shows the blindness of sin. Their action shows no respect for the Father or the Son. They did not respect God’s messenger, so they did not respect God.

The text says, “They grabbed him and murdered him and threw his body out of the vineyard” (12:8). Thus, the parable anticipates Jesus’ rejection and execution by the leaders. The Son’s being cast outside looks to Jesus’ suffering “outside the city gates” (Heb 13:12). In the story, the Son was even dishonored by being left unburied. Of course, from the way that the story is told, a listener would wonder how anyone could do all that to the son. Jesus’ point was that the leaders would do this to him.

But God, the Lord and master, would judge the tenant farmers for their wickedness. The owner of the vineyard is called the Lord (kurios [TG2962, ZG3261]), a common title for God. As 12:9 says, “he will come and kill those farmers and lease the vineyard to others.” As Jesus predicted, the farmers would be destroyed and others would thereby have a chance to make the vineyard fruitful. In context, the remarks mean that the Jewish leaders would be judged, and the community led by the Twelve and Jesus’ other disciples would be given the opportunity to bring forth fruit.

After telling the story, Jesus cited Psalm 118:22, which describes builders who rejected a stone that would become the key to what God was constructing. In the original Psalm, the stone, the king and leader of the nation, was rejected by others. The Jewish leaders would have seen themselves as supporting such a king, but Jesus’ reading subverted their understanding, showing them to be enemies of the king because they did not recognize the one God had sent. By focusing on the tenants as enemies, Jesus made it clear that his complaint was not about Israel as a whole, but about the Jewish leaders. This part of the story stands in contrast to Isaiah 5:5-6.

Jesus then quoted Psalm 118:23 “This is the Lord’s doing, and it is wonderful to see.” This declaration about God’s will emphasizes that although rejection was part of the situation, this had not caught God by surprise. Rather, it was part of God’s amazing design.

Ironically, the leaders who heard the parable and knew that it was about them determined to arrest Jesus and kill him, thereby fulfilling the parable. Their question about Jesus’ authority from the previous passage was not turned against them. The leaders had abused their authority, and God would take it from them. The dominant question of who was speaking for God continues in scene after scene of this chapter.