Tuesday, May 23, 2023

Daniel W. McManigal on the Parable of the Tenants

  

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)

 

Blog Archive