Matthew 21:33-46

Matthew 21:33-46     Parable 2: Unheeding Tenants Dispossessed

This second parable once more took up the themes, firstly, of the need to do the will of God, and, secondly, the imminent rejection of the Jewish leadership because of their failure to do so. Matthew followed Mark’s storyline quite closely, tidying it up to suit his allegorical intent more obviously.

The parable has clearly become an allegory, and Matthew intended every element to be read carefully. Frequently, Hebrew Scripture had imaged the People of God as a vineyard, carefully planted and looked after by God. The landowner, for the sake of the story, represented God: the land of Israel was God’s possession.

The scenario was common. Former peasant owners were being forced off their land and their holdings bought by rich landowners. They were then hired as tenant farmers. Absentee landowners were common, many of them, in fact, the wealthy elite residing in Jerusalem, others living abroad.

The element of surprise in the parable came from the fact that the chief priests would have naturally aligned themselves with the landowner, the listening crowds with the tenants.

The intent of Jesus is better seen if the actual translation “fruits” is understood rather than harvest. Production of fruit, for Matthew, is the essential indication of faithful discipleship.

Matthew has only two sets of slaves sent to collect the harvest (fruits), reflecting more neatly the early and later prophets of Israel. (The role of prophet was frequently to suffer and to die – Jesus had already made that point.)

Implicitly, Jesus gave his answer to the leaders’ earlier question about the source of his authority [21:23] by aligning himself with the son of the landowner: Jesus was a son of God.

Tidying up the details of Mark, Matthew had Jesus first thrown out of the vineyard before being killed – as he would later be taken out of the city to be crucified. (The folk memory knew Golgotha to be outside the city walls.) He had already forewarned his disciples of his looming death at the hands of the Jewish leaders.

The original language is strong: wicked men could be more accurately (but less elegantly) translated as “evilly evil”. 

The leadership was deceived by the apparent straightforwardness of the parable. They sided with the landowner (in contrast to how the crowds would have reacted against him) and forecast their own eventual fate.

Most likely, Jesus’ original parable stopped at this point. Following Mark, Matthew added the following clarifying statements.

The image of cornerstone was drawn from Psalm 118:21-22. (The crowd’s earlier acclamation of Jesus as he entered Jerusalem came from the same psalm.)

The metaphors became mixed: Jesus, the rejected son, would become the cornerstone of a new building. Earlier, Jesus had spoken about “building his church” [16:18] on the foundation “stone” of Peter and his faith.

Matthew continued to develop the theme. His clarification raised the question: what happens to the vineyard? Matthew addressed the issue immediately. There was no talk of destroying the vineyard. However, the metaphors became mixed again: vineyard was no longer mentioned and kingdom of God appeared.  

At this stage, the focus shifted from the responsibility of the leadership to hand over the fruits produced from the vineyard to the fertility of the vineyard itself. Matthew showed God removing the Jewish leadership from their previous role of nurturing the Jewish People. They had failed to lead the people to produce fruits of faith. Effectively, their removal happened with the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple in the year 70 AD – about twenty years before Matthew wrote his Gospel. Jesus was not stating, however, that God would reject the Jewish people.

The people that produce fruit could be translated as “nation”, and be seen to refer to the Gentiles entering the Christian Church. However, ethnic considerations were not primarily the question. Gentiles would not simply replace Jews. The real issue was ethical: faithfully doing the will of God. Matthew, apparently, could not resist the opportunity to extend and to apply his warning. The parable would be a admonition, not simply to the Jewish leadership, but to Christian leadership as well – and, by extension, to the common people of Israel (the vineyard) and to the members of the newly-born Christian community.

Matthew mixed his metaphors even further.  The use of cornerstone suggested stumbling stone.  It also suggested the rock excised from a mountainside, as mentioned in the visions of Daniel, which crushed the nations opposed to God’s People:

Insight came too late for the leadership. Not only was Jesus talking about them; but, unwittingly, they had implicated themselves – something, however, they would not admit publicly. They were not open to conversion, unlike the second son of the previous parable. 

Next >> Matthew 22:1-14