HE WENT ON to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. 10At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 11He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. 12He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out.
13“Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.’
14“But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 15So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
“What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.”
When the people heard this, they said, “May this never be!”
17Jesus looked directly at them and asked, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written:
“‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone’?
18Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”
19The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.
Original Meaning
THIS SIGNIFICANT PARABLE summarizes the history of God’s activity with Israel.1 Its placement here provides the answer for the questions of the origin of Jesus’ authority raised in 20:1–8. He is the only Son, sent from God. Relying on basic Old Testament themes and altering them, Jesus warns the nation about their perilous position. The image of the vineyard echoes Isaiah 5:1–7, where Israel is the vineyard. In Jesus’ parable the imagery is more complex. The vineyard is probably “the promise,” while the tenants refers to Israel, especially as represented by the leadership.2
The other Old Testament image in the passage comes from Psalm 118:22, a psalm that already appeared in Luke 13:35 and 19:38. Here the point is that the rejected stone has become the stone God has exalted (see also Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:7). Jesus confidently states through the Old Testament quotation that rejecting him will not result in his defeat, though it will negatively impact the nation.3
The picture in this parable is a common one. It was not unusual in Palestine, as in many parts of the world today, for land to be owned by one person and farmed by others. When a man plants a vineyard and rents it out to tenants, he expects to collect proceeds from the profit on the crops. Even if his absence is long, he expects the land to remain profitable.
When harvest time comes, the owner sends servants to collect the proceeds from the vineyard. The first one is sent away after being beaten. A second servant is also beaten and treated shamefully. A third is wounded. All the owner’s efforts to collect his share are rebuffed with impunity. The detail portrays the persistent unfaithfulness of the nation in their lack of response to the prophets. The Old Testament is full of such failure (1 Kings 18:13; 22:24–27; 2 Kings 6:31; 21:16; 2 Chron. 24:19–22; 36:15–16; Neh. 9:26; Jer. 37:15; 44:4). As Luke 13:6–9 notes, the nation has no fruit to give God.
The owner decides to send “my son, whom I love.” This expression may well be a way of describing him as an only son, since the tenants expect his death to lead to their being given the land. The owner assumes the tenants will treat him with respect. But when they see the son arrive, they see an opportunity. Barring any breach of relationship, it was not unusual for land to pass to tenants if no heirs existed.4 But the logic of these tenants is skewed: “If we kill the heir, we will become the heirs!” How will killing the heir reap benefits for them? How twisted sinful thinking can be. Blindness can see strange things in the dark. The allusion here is to their approaching execution of Jesus, which is the parable’s key point. Jesus knows exactly what they are about, even though it makes no logical sense.
Jesus asks the people how the owner will respond to the execution of the son. The pattern of previous behavior made finding the culprit for the crime easy. The owner will come, kill the tenants, and lease the land to others. This alludes to the coming involvement of the nations in the promise, as Acts shows, though it also includes a reference to the Twelve, who form the base of the new community Jesus is forming. The crowd gets the point about the shift in who gets to tend the vineyard and exclaims, “May this never be!” Surely Israel and her leadership could never be guilty of such reckless disobedience.
Jesus cites Scripture and a popular proverb to drive home his point. Psalm 118 teaches that the righteous one rejected by others is exalted by God as the key figure. This text is probably about the king who leads the procession into the temple. Old Testament Jews would have thought of their king in these terms, and Jews contemporary to Jesus would expect the nations to be in the place of blessing. The rejectors would have been the nations. Jesus turns the image upside down, noting that now the king is rejected by his own people (cf. Isa. 53). If God then exalts the stone into the key foundational role, it is risky business to stand opposed to the foundation.5 Everyone who falls on the stone is broken, and those on whom the stone falls are crushed. This proverbial remark is much like the later Jewish Midrash on Esther 3:6: “If the stone falls on the pot, alas for the pot; if the pot falls on the stone, alas for the pot!” Either way it is a problem to oppose the precious stone whom God has exalted—his Son Jesus.
Opposition to Jesus grows more intense, for they know Jesus is challenging them, just as he did earlier at the temple. He accuses them of being in the exact opposite place of where they see themselves. They want to arrest him, but the people remain an obstacle. Jesus is still too popular with them. He will have to be discredited first. So to this effort they turn their attention.
Bridging Contexts
THE PARABLE OF the tenants explains why God has broadened the scope of his blessing. Israel no longer sits at the center of blessing because she has persistently and stubbornly rejected any attempt by God to lead her into righteousness. They have asked to do without God’s way, so that is what they get.
The major features of this parable revolve around the basic role of Israel in God’s plan. The promise, now that the nation is set aside, is placed in the care of “others,” that is, the Gentiles. The commentary on this passage is Romans 11, where Paul uses a similar imagery of a vine to discuss where God’s plan is headed. His discussion differs, however, in looking to the future of the nation, not to its involvement with Jesus. That is, Paul picks up where Jesus’ image leaves off. He makes the point that though the original branches (Israel) have been cut out, they can and will be grafted in again in the future (Rom. 11:12, 14–15, 26–27, 29–32). In other words, a day is coming when Israel will again have a major role in God’s plan. In the meantime, the grafted-in branches of Gentiles must serve faithfully, for if God can cut off unfaithful original branches, he can do the same with unfaithful grafted-in branches. Proximity to blessing is not a cause for pride but for humility.
This historical overview is focused on Israel. Still, these events contain a warning to the church, similar to Paul’s exposition in Romans 11. Furthermore, this parable indicates that what was about to happen to Jesus as God’s Son was no surprise. History operates within the boundaries God sets. And God’s plan was marching forward, even though it looked as if it were not moving. Everything about Israel’s response suggests that it would undercut that plan. However, it did not. Resurrection and God’s power to bring life meant that others would be found who would respond to God’s saving message.
Finally, this passage warns us about not presuming on God’s promise. In effect, the tenants thought that the vineyard was theirs forever, but they were mistaken. God came to the vineyard looking for produce, and all he got was hostility and grief. Presuming on God brings judgment (see 19:41–44). Those who are in the vineyard must build up the body and honor God with the fruit he seeks.
Contemporary Significance
THOUGH THIS TEXT seems harsh in portraying God’s casting aside of Israel for a time, it is important to look at how patient and long-suffering God was. He had sent numerous servants to his people, and finally he sent his Son. They had been given every opportunity to respond. But their blindness had become stronger and stronger as their hostility continued. That is often the way sin works. Once present, it becomes more deeply ingrained (Rom. 1:18–32). God’s judgment is not capricious; it is rather the culmination of a long process. He rejects people only after a long effort to try and gain a response from them. Jesus wept as he entered Jerusalem because judgment is not what God desires to bring on humankind (2 Peter 3:9). Judgment comes only because we fail to respond to God’s compassion.
The text again highlights the centrality of Jesus. He is the cornerstone, and to oppose him is to face rejection by God. That stone breaks those who remain opposed to him. The message is clear in various places in this Gospel that opposing Jesus means facing rejection from God. It also shows that nothing will frustrate his plan. As the center of that plan, Jesus through the resurrection becomes the base of a new community, a fresh temple where God’s presence dwells. In fact, the Spirit in us is what gives this new living temple its life (1 Cor. 3:17–18). That temple is sacred to God and functions under his protection. If anyone attacks it, as the Jewish leadership did the Son, and does not repent, judgment will fall on them. God seeks honor from the community in whom he lives, as well as from those who refuse to give it. One day all will acknowledge him. It is better to do so willingly now than to be forced to acknowledge him later.