Matthew 21:33-36 33“But hear another parable. There was a man who was the master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenant famers, and went on a journey. 34And when the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. 35And after the tenants seizing his servants, they beat one, killed another, and stoned one. 36Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them.
Jesus moves directly on to another parable of confrontation with the Jewish leaders. This is another scenario type parable from an agricultural setting. A possible background to this parable is found in Isaiah 5 known as the Song of the Vineyard. Israel was God’s vineyard but refused to produce fruit even thought it had the best growing conditions. Since this vineyard did not produce any fruit, God would destroy it. Israel’s refusal to listen to God was mirrored in how the Jewish leaders refused to accept Jesus.
This parable is found in all three Synoptic Gospels. In the context of Matthew, the religious authorities are questioning Jesus’ authority. The theme of the parable is that the most despised of the people were entering the kingdom of heaven while the religious leaders, who should have know better, were not. Once again, Jesus provides the religious leaders opportunity to feel conviction, change their minds, and come to believe in him, but because of their hardened and selfish hearts, they refuse and will be judged for that.
The story has dramatic movement between the protagonists (servants and son) and antagonists (the tenant farmers). With each going forth of the servants, the violence increases and the plot thickens until the point of sending the son. The story is in the form of a tragedy, where the good guy (the servants and son) experience a bad ending. The surprise in the parable is that the listeners would not expect the son to be murdered. In fact, the listeners might even question why the owner sent his beloved son knowing what happened to his servants.
The story begins with a farmer who put a lot of effort into preparing the perfect growing conditions for his vineyard. He must have been a person of substantial wealth because he then went on a trip to another country. To preserve his investment, he leased it out to tenants with the expectation that they would care for it and provide him the fruit at then end of the growing season. The story continues with that simple and logical expectation.
The parable takes a surprising turn that creates the conflict in the plot when the tenants refuse to give the fruit owed to the master. The clear implication is that they were selfish. They think they had done all the work and it was their fruit. They forgot that they were hired to do a job and were under contract to pay what was owed.
Not only did they refuse to pay but they even beat up one servant, killed another, and stoned a third. Their disobedience led to violence and even murder. Another surprise of the story is that the owner sent even more servants after receiving the news of the tragic experience of the first group. The tenants even did the same to the second group. These were violent people! The historical application is clear in that the people of Israel had rejected time again the prophets that God sent.
The refusal of the tenant farmers to do as they agreed and were under legal obligation grew until it led to violence. The religious leaders may not have made connection right away to their own situation, but it did not take long, as verse 45 shows. The tenant farmers may have justified their actions thinking that the fruit was theirs because they grew it. We must never think that the fruit of ministry is ours. We must never refuse God’s invitation and conviction of the Holy Spirit. Refusing to heed the conviction of the Holy Spirit brings hardness of heart. We are accountable for the message that we hear.
For older posts, click here.