The parable of the wicked tenants in the vineyard is the second parable that Jesus offers the religious leaders who ask about his authority. While the parable of the two sons brings to light the attitude of these leaders to the ministry of John the Baptist, this second parable gives them a veiled insight into what willl happen if they continue to reject even Jesus who comes with the authority of the son of the vineyard's owner. We have written on this same section of Matthew in two different occassions, links to which are found below.
Related Links
Psalm 118:22-23
The Parable of the Tenants in the Vineyard
The Tenants of the Vineyard
The parable can be divided into three main parts: the main parable (vv.33-39) and second, the lesson of the parable (vv.40-43), and third the reaction of the hearers (vv. 45-46). Some old editions of the Bible have verse 44, which says "And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder" The reference to "this stone" is in verse 42, "the stone rejected by the builders". This is rather a harmonization from Luke 20:19, where the same phrase follows immediately after the quotation from Psalm 118:22-23. For this reason, it has been taken out from modern translations.
The parable is found in all three synoptic gospels; both Luke and Matthew follow Mark's gospel here, with Matthew, as well as Luke, making a few changes to suit their own presentation. Between the discussion initiated by the chief priests and elders regarding Jesus authority and this parable, Matthew inserted the parable of the two sons. This latter parable indicts Jesus' interlocutors vis-a-vis their attitude towards John the Baptist whom they did not believe. The present parable seals their condemnation because of the way they will deal with Jesus. The interlocutors of Jesus in this second parable are no longer the chief priests and elders but the "chief priests and the Pharisees". Matthew is here preparing for the episode with the Pharisees in 22:15.
Matthew immediately introduces something new in the parable by using the word oikodespotes (Luke follows Mark in using "man", anthropos). It literally means either owner or steward of the household, but it can also mean a native ruler (as opposed to a foreign ruler) [Liddel and Scott]. These nuances of for the word oikodespotes should resonate throughout the reading of the parable; it also changes the way Matthew's readers regard the owner of the vineyard. The faint allussion to Isaiah's Song of the Vineyard is already in Mark and carried over in Matthew (Luke suppresses it.)
He digged it and cleared it of stones,
and planted it with choice vines;
he built a watchtower in the midst of it,
and hewed out a wine vat in it; (Isaiah 5:2)
This passage from Isaiah introduces the rib discourse that follows regarding the unfruitfulness of Yahweh's people. The allussion to Isaiah's song of the vineyard here in the parable of Matthew 21:33-43 prepares for the problem with the "produce" of the vineyard in the subsequent development of the parable. While in Isaiah 5, the unfruitfulness is entirely the fault of the vineyard, in the parable, the tenants put themselves between the owner and his vineyard's produce. The owner of the vineyard -- the oikodespotes -- shows interest in the fruits of the vineyard in a very striking way. He does not send servants one after the other as in Mark, but in groups. After what the tenants did to the first group, he sends servants "more numerous than the first one". Although Matthew shortens the account of the sending of the servants here and attenuates the drama of the sending of the son (compare with Mark 12:4-5.6), he does however allow passages like Jeremiah 7:25 to resonate here.
One may find it striking that despite the violent resistance shown by the tenants, the oikodespotes still sends in his son. One would expect that -- given his title -- he would be more aggressive. Was Matthew perhaps making another allussion here? Or rather, did he rewrite it so as to make his readers remember psalmic recitations such as Psalm 78, where the continuous rebellion of Israel in the desert was met by Yahweh's mercy and compassion? (see Ps. 78:38-40) 1.
Finally, the owner sends his son. Matthew suppresses Mark's "beloved" son (Luke follows Mark here) and carries over from Mark the intentions of the owner. He thinks that by sending his son, the tenants would finally yield out of respect. In the face of the violence of the tenants, the oikodespotes still thinks well of them! Could it be that here we have a thought similar to John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave us his only Son?" But the tenants think differently and in consistency with what they have been doing, they also murder the son. As in Mark, the intention of the tenants is to kill the heir so that they can take his place. The parable at this point anticipates v. 41: there is no way that anyone who answers the question of Jesus in v. 40 would exonerate the tenants from their crime. As to crime itself, Matthew reverses the order of the verbs of violence employed in Mark; he puts "they cast him out of the vineyard" at the beginning of the murderous action, "and they killed him". The order reflects Jesus' passion and death; he was brought out of the city walls first, before being crucified. At this point, the allegorization of salvation history is complete.
The second part of the narrative follows the pattern of the previous section in Matthew 21:28-32. Jesus bases the moral lesson of the parable on the answer of his interlocutors to the question at the end of the parable. In this case, the question is formulated thus: "When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?" (Matthew 21:40)." Matthew once more rewrites the answer of Jesus' interlocutors by modifying the first one and adding the phrase about the produce finally given to the oikodespotes at the proper times. This modification prepares for the sentence that Jesus pronounces over his interlocutors (not found in Mark and Luke):
Therefore I tell you,
the kingdom of God will be taken away from you
and given to a nation producing the fruits of it."
It must be noted that in this sentence, the part about the tenants "put to a wretched death" (Mark and Luke: they will be destroyed) is omitted. The part about the vineyard being taken away and given to a different people is repeated, however, reflecting the Christian conviction that the privilege of being Yahweh's "tenants" has been transferred from Israel to the Church.
Jesus prefaces this judgment on his interlocutors with a quote from Psalm 118:22-23, about the stone rejected by the builders. The psalm itself is at the background of the Hallelujah's shouted at Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. In the gospel of Mark, the moral lesson for the previous parable is taken up by this quotation of the psalm and has the effect of identifying the killed son with the rejected stone itself. In Matthew's gospel, the fact that this quotation precedes the sentence of Jesus a nuance is added to the "stone rejected". The metaphor of the stone rejected by the builders in Psalm 118:22-23 may refer either to the victor king who enters the gates of righteousness in vv. 19-20 or the whole nation which he represents (the first person plurals in vv. 23-25). With Matthew's addition in verse 43 of a transfer of privileges to the Church, there is here the notion -- incipient but nuanced -- of a stone rejected which has become the cornerstone of a new edifice similar to 1 Peter 2:7-8 and Eph. 2:20.
The reaction of Jesus' interlocutors is recorded in all the Synoptics with Matthew and Luke introducing some modifications to that found in Mark. In Matthew the reaction to Jesus' words is presented thus:
When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables,
they perceived that he was speaking about them.
But when they tried to arrest him,
they feared the multitudes,
because they held him to be a prophet. (Matthew 21:44-45)
"Parables" in v. 45 refers to both the parable of the two sons and the parable of the wicked tenants. Thus the section that began with the chief priests and elders confronting Jesus ends here. The failure of the Jewish religious leaders to believe in John the Baptist will bring them to murder the "son", Jesus in an act that is consistent to the way they have been rebelling against God, like the son who gives lip service and the tenants who who murder and killl. For the moment, only their fear of the multitudes will prevent them from laying their hands on Jesus.
- 1. If this is correct, Psalm 78 would be appropriate since it is also the psalm that tells of a transfer of privileges from Shiloh to Jerusalem, from Joseph to David, cf. Psalm 78:67-72 -- a sub-theme in Matthew's version of the parable.
