The Parable of the Tenants
The parable of the tenants is preceded
by two statements concerning John the Baptist. In the temple, Jesus’s authority
is contested and he responds by putting a question to his interlocutors. Was
the source of John’s baptism εξ ουρανου η εξ ανθρωπων (21:25)? Matthew
narrates the private discussion and negative estimation of John that follows.
Refusing to make their opinion of John public, Jesus responds in parables, the
first of which concerns a father and his two sons. The first agrees to do the
work of his father but doesn’t; the second refuses, but later changed his mind
and went into the vineyard to work (21:28-29). Jesus puts the question to the
chief priests and the elders of the people (21:23): which of the two did the
will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say
to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God
before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not
believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even
when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him”
(21:31-32). Jesus then turns to the parable of the tenants. The parable
continues the vineyard theme and ends with Jesus’s verdict about the religious
leader, who, like the second son, failed to do the will of God (cf. 21:32;
7:21-23). They refused to believe the Isaianic forerunner who came εν οδω διαιοσυνης (21:25, 32). The
parable of the tenants show the intensification of their belief as it gives
rise to hostility to the master’s servants: beating, stoning, and killing them
(21:35). The repeated process unfolds over a protracted period of time. This salvation-historical
point is confirmed when Jesus pronounces his woes over Israel’s leaders for
persecuting the prophets sent to them (23:34). The original question (e.g.,
21:25) is still the main issue, the issue of divine authority and the required
response of Israel. While the vineyard is a well-known OT designation for
Israel (cf. Ps 80:8-9; Isa 3:14; 5:1-17; 27:2; Hos 10:1; Mic 1:6), the emphasis
here is on the disobedience of the religious leaders (cf. Jer 12:10).
After sending servants to collect his
due, the owner dispatches his son who is summarily killed and tossed out of the
vineyard. Readers of Matthew can interpret the son’s identity since he has
already been called ο υιος μου
(3:1; 17:5) and in both accounts John and his prophetic status is referenced
(3:2, 4; 17:10-13). The sending of the son is the final and Christological
moment for the vineyard works and the reaction to the son seals their fate. To
the imagery of a violent death (17:41) is added the loss of land and temple.
Jesus is not describing the end of the age, but is added the loss of land and
temple. Jesus is not describing the end of the age, but the end of the nation’s
special status before God. This meaning is confirmed by the religious
authorities’ statement that after putting the tenants to death, the owner will τὸν
ἀμπελῶνα ἐκδώσεται ἄλλοις γεωργοῖς, οἵτινες ἀποδώσουσιν αὐτῷ τοὺς καρποὺς ἐν τοῖς
καιροῖς αὐτῶν (21:41). Their assessment and application is confirmed by the
narrator (21:43, 45). (Daniel W. McManigal, A Baptism of Judgment in the
Fire of the Holy Spirit: John’s Eschatological Proclamation in Mathew 3 [Library
of New Testament Studies 595; London: T&T Clark, 2019], 172-73)
