Hear another parable There was a householder who planted a vineyard, and made a fence round it, and dug a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and left the country.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
But when the time of fruit drew near, he sent his bondmen to the husbandmen to receive his fruits.
Jesus tells a parable about a vineyard, and this verse is its turning point. The owner has done everything for his vineyard. Now he sends servants to collect what belongs to him. Two questions sit behind the picture. What could God expect from the people He had planted? And how would they treat His messengers?
The picture is not new. Isaiah had already described God's vineyard, and the servants come to press a claim the owner has every right to press.
It is a picture founded on and filling out the sketch of Isaiah 5 — a picture of God's special favours to Israel. "What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it?" He had brought them out of Egypt and settled them in a good land. They had every advantage His goodness and power could give. There was definite arrangement, abundant blessing, ample protection. Then He looked for fruit, reminding them of His rights by the prophets.
The parable before this one turned on a father and his sons. This one shifts the ground. The owner is away, the tenants hold the vineyard, and now he asks for what is his.
Clearly this applies first of all to the Jewish people. But as a general principle, the parable is also true of everyone who has heard the name of Christ and has refused to believe in Him. This is not merely a matter of relationship, as between a son and a father — we have seen that already. It is an appeal to the conscience of people, on the ground of certain things God has done.
Elsewhere Kelly calls the whole arrangement a test.
The Jewish system of the past is man under probation. It is the moral trial of man, shown in Israel's conduct. Man is bound to make a return to God, according to the position God has set him in. Israel had every possible advantage God could give: priests, religious ceremonies, fast days, feast days, every outward help, and even miraculous testimony from time to time. There was nothing they lacked that man could have, short of Christ Himself.
The messengers are named, and so is their treatment.
The Lord shows the patience that for ages waited on those at work among the Jews, to see if there might be fruit for God. He sent His servants, the prophets, to call His people back to their duty. They met nothing but contempt, ill-treatment, and death. He sent still more of them as the evil grew, and they met the same insulting treatment.
The owner asks for "his fruits" — what the vineyard exists to produce. Isaiah names it plainly, and the sending of servant after servant is God still hoping to find it.
Light is given as to the kind of fruit that God sought: "he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, an outcry!"
(Older translations render this "judgment… oppression".)
The season had come for a reason. These visits belonged to a closing stage, and one more messenger was still to come.
The owner of the vineyard had sent servant after servant, with no effect. The tenants had not handed over the fruits he was owed. At last he sent his son. God, the parable taught, had sent prophet after prophet. Now, at the close of the age, He sent His Son… The owner of the vineyard would make that last appeal to the tenants. He would make it before judgment overtook them for their stubbornness and rebellious spirit.
Writers apply the vineyard image beyond the nation it first described. The measure never changes: God looks for a return that matches what He has invested.
God considers whether the vineyard bears the fruit that a vineyard so cared for ought to bear. It is a general principle that applies to the Jews, to the church, and to each individual. If the church has received more than the Jews, God is entitled to expect that it produce more.
- Planted. God planted the vineyard and gave Israel every advantage His goodness and power could give.
- Owed. Because He planted it, He had rights in it. What a person owes God matches the position God has put him in.
- Asked. The servants were the prophets. God sent them again and again over ages of patience, and they met contempt, ill-treatment, and death.
- Sought. God looked for justice and righteousness. What came back was bloodshed and an outcry.
- Applied. The claim outlives Israel. It reaches everyone who has heard of Christ. Where God has given more, He looks for more.
And the husbandmen took his bondmen, and beat one, killed another, and stoned another.
The verse sits inside a story Jesus told against the religious leaders. An owner plants a vineyard, rents it to tenants, and sends servants at harvest to collect his share. What happens to those servants shows what the tenants thought of the owner — and what Israel had done with everyone God sent.
The story describes an ordinary rental deal. The tenants owed the owner a share of the fruit. One writer links the beating and killing to the way Israel treated God's prophets.
Of course, the tenants were renters. They had to give the owner some return of the fruits. But when the owner sent servants to collect it, the tenants treated them viciously, beating, stoning, or killing them on more than one occasion. This clearly points to the way Israel treated the prophets God sent. Many of them had been murdered, including John the Baptist only recently.
The owner does not stop after the first servants are attacked. He keeps sending, and behind that stands God's long patience with a people who gave Him nothing back.
The Lord shows the patience that waited for ages on those active among the Jews, hoping there might be fruit for Jehovah. But He sent His servants, the prophets, to call His people back to their duty, and they met with nothing but contempt, abuse, and death. He sent more and more as the evil grew, and they fared no better.
The three verbs are not just a story detail. One writer sets the parable beside the charge Stephen later made in Acts.
Nothing but the basest ingratitude and sin was ever rendered by Israel for all the favours with which God blessed them. Israel handed out violence and murder to His messengers: they "beat one, killed another, and stoned another." Stephen challenged them sharply: "Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?" (Acts 7:52). Insult and wrongdoing reached their height when the Son came. They said among themselves: "This is the heir; come, let us kill Him and seize on His inheritance." Within a week these words came painfully true — the Son of God lay dead in the tomb.
The attack was not really about unpaid fruit. The tenants wanted the vineyard for themselves, with no owner over them.
Here again we see a great principle: however God looks for a response from man, He finds none. God does look for fruit from what He has planted and nurtured in the world. But man bears no fruit towards God. The tenants' will was entirely and absolutely wrong. They did not recognise the authority of God in His vineyard. They wanted it for themselves. To satisfy their desires, they would go to any lengths in unrighteousness.
The servants were not the last to be sent. The nearer the messenger stood to the sender, the plainer the hatred became.
Lastly, He sent His Son. The Lord spoke of Himself. But His person carried real dignity, and His relationship to Jehovah was close and intimate. That gave the religious leaders among the Jews their chance to show contempt and deadly hatred for both the Father and the Son, as the Lord says in John 15. Could evil go further? Other sins, shameful and ungrateful as they were, became by comparison as nothing.
The men who beat and stoned the messengers were not irreligious. The warning reaches past its first hearers to anyone who holds a religious position without Christ.
So the ordinances God had given only brought out the enmity and hatred of those He had trusted with His vineyard. God placed man in a religious position, taught him patiently, and blessed him with outward advantages. Instead of giving fruit back to God, man completes the crowning act of wickedness. Religious man kills the Prince of Life! What a solemn warning to those who are zealous for God but do not know Him — because they neither know nor love His Son. A religion without Christ as its foundation and top-stone is worse than no religion at all.
- Sent. The servants stand for the prophets God kept sending for the fruit owed to Him. John the Baptist was the most recent.
- Beaten. Their reward was contempt, abuse and death. Stephen later said the same to the leaders' faces: which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?
- Sent again. More messengers followed, and the sending increased as the evil grew. God's patience outlasted their violence.
- Refused. The real issue was not unpaid rent but a will that would not have God's authority in His own vineyard.
- Silenced. The same hatred that struck the servants reached its height on the Son. Within a week the parable came true.
Again he sent other bondmen more than the first, and they did to them in like manner.
This parable pictures a vineyard owner, the tenants he left in charge, and the servants he sent to collect his fruit. The tenants beat, killed and stoned the first servants, so why does the owner send more — and why does a larger group change nothing?
The owner did all the work in the vineyard himself. That is what gives him a claim on its fruit.
It is HE who planted the vineyard — put a hedge around it — dug the winepress and built the towers — and then handed it over to tenants. This stands for His care and work, and in return He looks for fruit. As a general rule, the parable applies to everyone who has heard of Christ and has refused to believe in Him. But it applies first of all to the Jews, and they must have understood that well. Isaiah 5 uses the same picture and very similar language about them.
The words "more than the first" match Israel's own history. God's messengers did not stay few, and one writer explains why their number grew.
At first they appear one at a time, as in the book of Judges and then under the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon. Later they multiply as wrongdoing grows in the kingdom. This is what the Lord says in Matthew 21:34-36. At the start there were only a few servants: the tenants beat one, killed another and stoned a third. Then the owner sent other servants, more than the first, and the tenants treated them in the same way. At last He sent His Son.
The owner already knows what the tenants did to the first servants. He sends again anyway.
Then He looked for fruit, reminding them of His rights by the prophets. "And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another." There was full patience too. "Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them." Was there a single possibility left? a hope, however faint?
The rough treatment in the parable matches real history.
Of course the tenants, being renters, had to give the owner some return of the fruits. But when he sent servants to collect it, the tenants treated them cruelly, beating, stoning or killing them on more than one occasion. This points plainly to the way Israel treated the prophets God sent. Many of them had been murdered, including John the Baptist not long before.
More light did not soften the tenants. One writer explains what more light does to a resisting heart.
The more God reveals Himself, the more the heart's natural opposition shows itself. Those who receive the first grace receive all the rest until glory, and go from strength to strength. God did not let judgment fall on Jerusalem until Jerusalem rejected the Holy Spirit. When grace is exhausted, God sends judgment. The flesh always wants to keep enjoying its desires, and it would harden the conscience against the testimony God sends.
Behind the beatings lies a settled intention about the vineyard itself.
The tenants' will was entirely and absolutely wrong. They did not recognise the authority of God in His vineyard. They liked having it for themselves. To satisfy their desires they would go to any lengths in unrighteousness.
The sending does not stop with this verse. One move is still left to the owner.
The owner of the vineyard had sent servant after servant, but without effect. The tenants had not given him the fruits he had a right to. At last he sent his son. God, the parable taught, had sent prophet after prophet. Now, at the close of that age, He sent His Son... The owner of the vineyard would make that last appeal to the tenants before judgment fell on them for their defiance and rebellious spirit.
- He planted. The hedge, winepress and tower were all the owner's own work. That is why He can come looking for fruit. Isaiah 5 uses the same picture, so the hearers knew it meant Israel.
- He sent. The servants are the prophets. Their number grew as the wrongdoing grew, so "more than the first" is history, not decoration.
- He waited. The tenants beat, killed and stoned the first servants, yet the owner sent a larger group. That is full patience, leaving no faint hope untried.
- They refused. The second group met the same treatment. The tenants wanted the vineyard for themselves, and the more God reveals Himself, the more the heart's opposition shows.
- He sent His Son. After servant upon servant came one last appeal. Then judgment fell on men who had set themselves against the owner's rights.
And at last he sent to them his son, saying, They will have respect for my son.
This verse comes from a parable about a vineyard, the tenants who owed its owner fruit, and the servants they beat when he sent for it. Then the owner sends one last messenger, not a servant but his own son — and the question is what that tells us about God.
(The writers quoted below use an older translation. It reads "reverence my son" where the ESV has "respect my son.")
The picture was not new. God had used it of Israel centuries before, asking what more He could have done for His vineyard.
The parable of the wicked tenants, though aimed at the leaders, gives the whole history of Israel from the day God began to pour favours on them. Their beautiful inheritance is like a vineyard with everything needed to bear plenty of fruit. But God looked in vain for any return from Israel. Eight centuries before Christ came He complained: "What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it? When I looked for it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?" (Isaiah 5:4). For all the favours God blessed them with, Israel gave back nothing but the worst ingratitude and sin. They handed violence and murder to His messengers.
The tenants had abused every messenger before. Sending one more — the dearest one — shows how slow God was to give up on them.
Why then, we may ask, should Jehovah, now made known as the Father, send His only Son, His well-beloved, to the vineyard? In past days His servants had gone there only at the cost of their honour and their lives. Sending the Son of His love proved the patience of God the Father with these rebellious tenants. It also proved His earnest desire that when they saw His Son they might "reverence" Him and deal rightly with the vineyard He had entrusted to them. Sadly, it also proved how deep-rooted the evil was in the hearts of those tenants.
The owner was in no hurry to punish, and nothing in the tenants had changed. What he did next came out of his own counsel.
The owner was slow to anger. He did not want to pour out his wrath on them if it could be avoided. Not a word had come from them expressing regret for the past or promising to do better. What could be done? In Luke 20:13 the owner of the vineyard takes counsel with himself: "What shall I do? I will send my beloved son." Mark 12:6 dwells on how precious that son was to his father. We know who the Lord was speaking about — His Father and Himself. So we are taught the Father's affection for His Son, the One most precious to Him.
Nothing could come after the Son. His coming would show once for all what people are.
God had applied test after test to our condition, in one period after another. Each test brought out more fully that we were lost. "But last of all he sent to them his son, saying, They will reverence my son… And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him." This was not God, as in the law, claiming something from somebody. This was God come in Christ, making Himself known in all His love in a world of guilty and ruined sinners. It was the last and most searching test of all. And what came out? Grace had brought Him so low, so to speak within our reach. These terrible hearts seized on that grace and threw Him out of the earth as unfit for any place in it.
The parable does not end with the son's death. The listeners themselves pronounced the sentence.
When they seized the heir and threw him out of the vineyard, the question arose: "When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?" They said to him, "He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons." This came true when Titus besieged Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
The killing of the Son was man's worst act — and God made it the means of salvation.
God had tested man in every possible way — with no law, and then under law mixed with mercy and patience. Then He sent Christ, saying, Surely they will reverence My Son. We know what they did to Him. God came into the world to save us, so that where sin abounded, grace might much more abound. In that very act where man showed that he hated God, the work was done that saves us. This shows that God's love is greater than man's wickedness.
- Patience. The tenants beat and killed servant after servant, yet the owner kept sending. Sending the Son proved the Father's patience.
- Dearest gift. The one sent last was not another servant but the beloved Son, most precious to the Father.
- Last test. Grace brought Him within reach, and they threw Him out — the last and most searching test of what people are.
- The verdict. The hearers themselves said the owner would destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others; Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70.
- Greater love. Man's worst act became the place where grace abounded over sin.
But the husbandmen, seeing the son, said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him and possess his inheritance.
The last messenger the owner sends is his own son. Jesus lets the crowd hear what the tenants say in private, and tells them what they are about to do to Him.
One writer traces the whole story of Israel here, from God's first favours to the week that followed this parable:
The parable of the tenants, though aimed at the leaders, gives the whole history of Israel from the day God began to give them favours. The parable pictures their beautiful inheritance as a vineyard that had everything it needed to bear rich fruit. But God looked in vain for any return from Israel. Eight centuries before Christ came He complained: "When I looked for it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?" … Insult and evil reached their height when the Son came. They said among themselves, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him and have his inheritance." Within a week these words came true in the most painful way — the Son of God lay dead in the tomb.
The tenants know exactly who has come. That is what makes their crime so grave:
In the parable, was the one sent not the Son of the owner of the vineyard before He was sent on His errand? Was He not the Son held in reserve until all lesser means had failed? Most truly so. He came to them, not as a Son made such just for the occasion, but in His own inherent personal right. The tenants knew this, for they said, "This is the heir; come, let us kill Him." Their crime against the Son was the specific cause of the wrath of God that fell on them in full. It was not the murder of the Lord's servants from Abel to Zechariah.
They kill Him to take what is His. One writer sees the same will at work far beyond Israel's leaders:
The coming of the Son made clear the real state of man's heart. Israel would gladly have a kingdom without Christ, and the Gentiles would have a world without God. It is just as the tenants in the parable say: "This is the heir. Come, let us kill Him and have His inheritance." What was true of Israel's leaders in the Lord's own day is true of the whole world today. More and more, we see that man's will is to shut God out of His own world.
The Son's coming closed a long line of tests:
God had tested our condition again and again, and each test showed more clearly that we were lost… This was no longer God under the law, claiming something from someone. This was God come in Christ, making Himself known in all His love in a world of guilty and ruined sinners. It was the last and most searching test of all… Grace had brought Him low, within our reach, so to speak. These terrible hearts seized that very grace as their chance to cast Him out of the earth as unfit for any place in it.
These were religious men, trusted with God's vineyard:
The ordinances God gave them only brought out the hatred of the men He had trusted with His vineyard… Religious man kills the Prince of Life! What a solemn warning to those who would be zealous for God, but who do not know Him, because they do not know or love His Son. A religion that does not have Christ as its foundation and its top stone is worse than none at all.
Jesus does not announce the penalty. He asks a question, and they answer it:
The King had asked the question, "What will the Lord do to those tenants?" They must answer it, and their answer must be their own verdict. Will they dare to answer Him? They were so blind that they did… And what they had spoken against themselves came upon these wicked tenants.
Killing the heir did not transfer the estate:
Christ is Himself the heir of the inheritance… They rejected His claim to the inheritance, cast Him out of the vineyard (Israel) and killed Him. That is the point where the letter to the Hebrews begins. Could this rejection of the rightful heir overturn God's purpose? Of course not. "He has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things." The matter is fixed and no one can break it. The inheritance is Christ's, and no one will ever take it from Him.
- Planted. God gave His vineyard all it needed and looked for fruit. Centuries before Christ He was already asking why it gave wild grapes.
- Patience. The owner sent servant after servant, and the tenants killed them. Still he sent his Son — the last and most searching test of man.
- Plot. The tenants knew exactly who He was. They killed the heir to own the estate — the same will that shuts God out of His own world today.
- Verdict. Jesus made them pass sentence on themselves, and their own words came true upon them.
- Possession. The plot failed at its one aim. The inheritance is still the Son's, and no one will ever take it from Him.
And they took him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him.
The parable reaches its climax here. Jesus tells the religious leaders in front of Him what they are about to do to Him, then asks them what the owner of such a vineyard will do next.
Sending the son was the owner's last move. One writer shows what that part of the story was really describing:
The householder had 'one son'. This was the final attempt to receive fruit from the vineyard. The response is very clearly given in Matthew 21:38-39. What the parable puts in story form actually happened at the cross. Every detail of the parable is full of meaning.
They did not kill Him because they mistook Him. They killed Him because they knew who He was and wanted His property. One writer sets this beside the murder of Naboth, the man killed so a king could take his vineyard:
Our blessed Lord was the righteous one in Israel in His day, as Naboth had been. He was the rightful Heir of all the nation's greatness. He was the Son of David, and claimed to be received as such. The vineyard, the inheritance, was His. The wicked tenants admitted His right to it, yet refused to let Him have it. They said, "This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance." And they did so. They wanted the vineyard for themselves, and they loved their "place and nation" under the Romans.
Servant after servant had already been sent away empty or killed. The Son was not one more messenger among many. He was the last:
God sent servant after servant to His vineyard to collect the fruit of what He had planted. The tenants treated them shamefully, sent them away empty-handed, or killed them. He still had one Son, His beloved Son, and He sent Him last of all, saying, "They will respect my Son." But when they recognised Him, "they took him, and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard." That was the last answer of man's heart to the last test God had to give it — "Away with him, crucify him."
Notice the order. The wording quoted just above puts the killing first, then the throwing out. Here in Matthew the son is thrown out first.
The tenants were not outsiders or pagans. God had entrusted His vineyard to them. Every advantage they had ended in murder.
So the religious rules God had given did only one thing: they brought out the hostility and hatred of the people He had entrusted with His vineyard. Man was put in a religious position, taught patiently, and given outward advantages. Instead of giving fruit to God, he completes the crowning act of wickedness. Religious man kills the Prince of Life! What a solemn warning this is to people who want to be zealous for God but do not know Him, because they neither know nor love His Son. A religion that does not have Christ as its foundation and its top stone is worse than no religion at all.
The son is put outside the vineyard before he is killed. Jesus died the same way — put outside by His own nation. One writer turns that into an invitation:
Guilty Israel put their Messiah outside its door, and crucified Him on a criminal's cross. Was it not a privilege for Christ's disciples to share His place of rejection, and to choose for themselves the shame handed to the One who died for them? Is it not our privilege to go out to Christ and share His shame, outside the door of a guilty Christian world that has put Him outside?
Jesus does not give the verdict Himself. He asks a question, and His hearers answer it:
The King had asked them, "What will the Lord do to those tenants?" It is for them to answer, and their answer must be their own verdict. Would they dare give Him an answer? They were so blinded that they did. "They said to Him, He will destroy those wicked men in a terrible way, and will rent out his vineyard to other tenants, who will give him the fruit at the right time." Well said! And what they had spoken to their own condemnation came upon these wicked tenants.
- Outside was foretold. Jesus told a story about an heir thrown out and killed, and then it happened to Him.
- Outside was greed. They knew who He was and killed Him anyway. They wanted the vineyard for themselves.
- Outside was the end of testing. Servants first, then the one Son last of all; after this there was nothing further God could send.
- Outside was religion's work. The men with every advantage, entrusted with God's vineyard, are the ones who killed the Prince of Life.
- Outside is now the invitation. The place where they put Him is where His followers now go to join Him and share His shame.
When therefore the lord of the vineyard comes, what shall he do to those husbandmen?
Jesus has just told a story about a vineyard owner whose tenants beat his servants and killed his son. Instead of finishing it Himself, He asks the leaders listening to Him what the owner should do to such tenants.
The Lord's method here has a precedent. The prophet Nathan once got King David to pass sentence on a man in a story — and the man was David himself.
The same thing happens with the tenants of Matthew 21. Like Nathan with David, the Lord catches the conscience of the Jews and makes them pronounce their own condemnation. And all this happened because self-love was, so to speak, put out of the courtroom. The plain moral sense — the sense of good and evil, right and wrong — sits alone on the judgment seat. So they themselves announce God's sentence against them before it falls.
The question assumes an owner with rights. Where do those rights come from?
It is HE who planted the vineyard, put a fence around it, dug the winepress and built the tower — and then entrusted it to tenants. This shows His care and work, and in return He looks for fruit. As a general principle, the parable applies to everyone who has heard of Christ and has refused to believe in Him. But without doubt it applies first of all to the Jews, and they must have understood that well.
Their answer was harsh, and it turned on what they had wanted all along: the property without the owner.
The Lord asked what the owner should do to the lawless tenants. In reply, His hearers pronounced their own sentence. They wanted the inheritance for themselves, with no interference or claim from God at all. Instead they would get destruction. Even the forbearance of God has its limits.
The owner's coming did not stay in the future. Writers point to a date in history when He settled the account.
This was fulfilled when Titus besieged Jerusalem in A.D. 70. There 1,100,000 Jews died, and the rest were scattered among the nations. So Scripture's prophecy came true: "And the LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations" (Deut. 4:27). They have been scattered among the nations from that day to this.
The vineyard does not stay empty. It passes to new tenants, and it passes on one condition.
Then the Lord comments openly and states the result for the Jews. The kingdom of God is taken from them and given to a nation that produces the fruits of the kingdom. It went to Gentiles, but that is not the special point of the Lord's words. It went to a nation that produces the fruits of the kingdom. If that fruit is not produced, they no longer fit the description, whatever the patience of God.
Commentators differ over who those new tenants are. Some point to the Gentiles. Others look further ahead.
The nation that produces the fruit appears to be the nation Israel, restored to blessing in the age to come. That is when they will receive Jesus as their promised Messiah.
The question does not stop with the men who first heard it. It reaches anyone who has been given more than they were.
Is this nothing to you, reader, with the still greater privileges of Christendom? Are you hardening your heart against the truth? Are you shrinking back from the God who came so near to you in Christ? He was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting men's offences against them, and He has put the word of reconciliation in His servants.
- Owner. Every part of the vineyard — fence, winepress, tower — came from His hand. So the fruit He looks for is His by right, not by favour.
- Question. Jesus asks instead of announcing. Like Nathan with David, He puts the guilty in the judge's seat and lets their own moral sense speak.
- Sentence. They wanted the inheritance without the owner's claim. The doom they named for the tenants was the doom they had chosen.
- Coming. The owner did come; commentators point to the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the scattering that followed.
- Successors. The vineyard passes to those who give the owner his fruit. The terms stay the same. That is why the question still searches anyone who has heard of Christ.
They say to him, He will miserably destroy those evil [men], and let out the vineyard to other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
Jesus' opponents have just heard a story about a landowner, his servants, and his murdered son — and now He asks them to pass sentence. Without knowing it, they hand down an exact and harsh sentence on themselves — which leaves two questions: who are the "others" who will hand over the fruit, and when did this sentence fall?
The Lord does not announce the judgment; He extracts it. One writer compares the moment to the prophet Nathan, who drew a verdict out of King David.
Like Nathan with David, the Lord catches the conscience of the Jews and makes them pronounce their own condemnation. All this happens because self-love is again, as it were, sent out of the courtroom. Only the moral sense is left on the judgment seat — the sense of good and evil, right and wrong. So God's sentence against them is spoken there in advance, and spoken by their own mouths.
They see other people's crimes sharply and their own not at all. Their reply names two penalties, and both would land on them.
After telling the parable, He asked them again, in effect, "What do you think?" He left it to them to judge what the tenants deserved. His opponents were sharp about anything that touched their own interests. But they were slow and very blind to everything spiritual. So they missed the point of the parable completely, and gave an answer that announced in advance the just doom that would fall on their own heads. In two words, they would find themselves dispossessed and destroyed.
The same pattern shows up wherever a person is not the one on trial. Writing on David and Nathan, one commentator points straight back to this verse.
David's heart and conscience are in a bad state, yet his judgment is still righteous. He was under sin's yoke himself, but he judged sin harshly in others. When we are not the ones involved, we often see evil in others clearly and fully, while our own hearts go unjudged (Matt. 21:41).
The punishment answers the crime exactly.
When the Lord asked what should be done to the lawless tenants, His hearers pronounced their own sentence. They wanted the inheritance for themselves, with no claim or interference from God at all. Instead they would get destruction. The stone the builders rejected was about to become the cornerstone... God's patience has its limits.
One writer points to a date in history when the first half of their sentence came true.
This was fulfilled when Titus besieged Jerusalem in A.D. 70. In it 1,100,000 Jews died, and the rest were scattered among the nations. This fulfilled the prophecy of Scripture: "Then the LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations" (Deut. 4:27). They have been scattered among the nations from that day to this. Yet in the last hundred years there have been clear signs of their return, in unbelief, to their own land. That fulfils the Scripture prophecies which say this will happen in the last days.
One writer admits that this part is hard to settle.
The time of testing was over, and the nation was guilty. There was no fruit for God. Only judgment from God could come upon them. It is difficult to say who it is that shall render fruits for God. It may be a reference to the present day, or it may look on to the time when Israel will be restored. However, for the moment Israel is set aside.
The new tenants can fail too. One writer warns them not to assume the vineyard is theirs for ever.
The Lord of the vineyard did destroy the wicked tenants, and He gave the vineyard to others. Those others heard the good news for a while, but they did not continue in goodness or stand by faith. Instead they dared to think that God had cast off Israel in order to give the Christian world an everlasting hold on the earth and on all nations — a hold nothing could take away.
The three Gospel accounts of this parable do not end in the same way.
Mark and Luke speak only of giving the vineyard to others. Matthew speaks of letting it out to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons. So Matthew holds out responsibility most, and Luke grace. Both are true, and both matter greatly.
- Trusted — the owner let the vineyard out. The fruit was still his to claim.
- Seized — the tenants wanted the inheritance for themselves, with no claim from the owner at all.
- Self-sentenced — Jesus made them the judges. Like David before Nathan, they announced the doom that was already theirs.
- Dispossessed and destroyed — both halves of their own verdict fell. One writer traces this to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
- Re-let — the vineyard passed to others on the same terms. The new tenants inherit the warning as well as the trust.
Jesus says to them, Have ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which they that builded rejected, this has become the corner-stone this is of [the] Lord, and it is wonderful in our eyes?
Jesus has just told the chief priests and elders a story. In it, the tenants of a vineyard beat the owner's servants and killed his son. Without noticing, the leaders have passed sentence on themselves. Now He turns to their own Psalm 118 and asks whether they have ever read it.
He does not argue. He quotes, and the quotation places them and God on opposite sides.
The Lord then turns to Scripture — testimony they could not deny. He shows that God made the very stone they rejected the head of the corner. No testimony could be plainer, or fit them more directly. God, and the chiefs of Israel, the builders, were in open contradiction. It was Jehovah's doing to exalt the rejected stone. The Scripture is still Psalm 118, God's special word about these events.
The proof came from the book they claimed as their own.
Then came their own Scriptures to prove that the corner stone of God's building was one rejected by the builders. Clearly they could understand that all this spoke of them, and feel it enough to be maddened by it.
The "builders" are not workmen. They are the men standing in front of Him, the leaders of Israel. They had a plan for their building, and He did not fit it.
He was the stone which they, the builders, were rejecting. He in no way fitted into the building which they designed and they refused Him. A day is coming when He will be brought forth to be the foundation and set the lines of the building that God has in view.
The parable carried a warning as well as a verdict.
It also contained a solemn warning. It showed that they (the builders) would refuse the Stone that Jehovah laid in Zion. But He would make that despised Stone the exalted Cornerstone, to their shame and utter destruction.
One phrase in the verse does double duty.
The Lord Jesus is the chief corner stone that binds all together, and is the foundation upon which all rests. Beyond that, He is the stone the Jewish builders rejected, and He has become the head stone of the corner. As well as being the foundation He must have the highest place.
The reversal was not human recovery from a setback. It was God stepping in after the worst thing men ever did.
What a scene of desolation this world was when Jesus hung dead upon the cross and lay dead in the grave! Could there come out of that desolation any glory for God or blessing for men? Yes. For Christ, whom men slew, God has raised up again. "This is the Lord's doing; it is marvelous in our eyes." It is God's intervention for His own glory and our blessing... God has given His answer to man's foul act. He has justified His Son whom men condemned. And in the risen Christ He has His new beginning.
The psalm puts the wonder in Israel's mouth. Kelly places that day in the future, when the people who refused their King will welcome Him.
Their own Scriptures revealed the conduct of the men who took the lead in Israel. What a marvelous act on the Lord's part! It plainly overturns those who set themselves up as acting in His name, and were accepted as such. Yet it will still be marvelous in Israel's eyes. The Saviour is now hidden but exalted, and He will come out as the joy of a converted people. They will then welcome their once-rejected King and bless Him for ever.
Between the refusal and that welcome, another building is going up.
Between the rejection of God's ancient people and the day He owns them again, a completely new building is going up. It rests on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (of the New Testament). Jesus Christ Himself is its foundation cornerstone — the One who reconciled Jew and Gentile to God in one body by the cross, now risen and glorified in heaven.
- Rejected. Israel's leaders were the builders. The stone did not fit their plan, so they threw it out — just as their own psalm said they would.
- Reversed. Men threw the stone away. God raised Him and gave Him the highest place. The psalm calls that the Lord's doing, not man's.
- Ranked. Cornerstone means lowest and highest at once. Everything rests on Him, and nothing ranks above Him.
- Rebuilt. Meanwhile a new building rises. The rejected stone is its cornerstone, joining Jew and Gentile in one.
- Recognised. The wonder is still ahead. A converted people will one day look at the King they refused and call it marvelous.
Therefore I say to you, that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation producing the fruits of it.
These words close the parable of the tenants. The Lord has just let Israel's leaders pronounce sentence on themselves. What was taken away, who receives it, and on what terms do they hold it?
The Lord told the parable to the chief priests and elders, and they supplied the ending themselves.
But the Lord now pronounces His verdict upon them. He had heard the words spoken by His enemies in their self-condemnation; He speaks next and tells them that their judgment was right.
Behind that sentence lies a long history.
He had done everything for His vineyard. Then, at the right time, He looked for fruit. He sent the prophets, who were rejected, persecuted, and killed. He sent more, and they treated them the same way. At last He sent His Son, saying, "They will respect my Son." They cast Him out and killed Him.
The thing removed was real and already in their hands. God's rule had been set up among them, and its administration had been trusted to the nation's leaders.
The parable of the vineyard and the tenants (vv. 33-41) shows God entrusting His kingdom to the rulers of the nation. Every time God sought their recognition of His rights, they rejected not only His voice in the prophets, but His Son in person. Had Israel not been guilty of shamefully corrupting the Lord's kingdom? What else could result?
This was not only a warning to Israel. It happened.
They were broken as a people, and this finally came to pass when Jerusalem was destroyed. God had established His kingdom among them through Moses. Now it was taken from them for good. It was to be given in another form to a "nation" that would produce its proper fruits.
Why should rejecting a person cost a nation a kingdom? Because the two cannot be separated.
The kingdom of God is so bound up with the person of the Christ, the true King, that it goes with His rejection, and comes with His reception.
That also explains the change of form.
Is the answer not simply this, that the kingdom of God was now to take a completely different form? In the Old Testament it stood on an earthly level. That was only a temporary arrangement, and it proved men totally unfit to administer God's kingdom. The true King Himself had come. It was the sowing of a new crop, a kingdom that would not be limited to Israel.
Commentators differ here. Some hold that the receiving nation is Israel itself in a future day, since the church is never called a nation.
The nation to whom the Lord promises the Kingdom is not the Church. The Church is called the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the dwelling of God by the Spirit, the Lamb's Wife, but never a nation. The nation is Israel still, but that believing remnant of the nation, living when the Lord comes.
Others read the phrase as reaching beyond Jewish limits altogether.
In this the Lord goes beyond the idea of the vineyard, using language which takes in God's dealings with Gentiles along with those who are Jews. For the kingdom of God is made up of believers from both Jews and Gentiles.
One writer holds both sides together. That nation will be born again at the start of the coming age. Believers now anticipate it, called "a holy nation" who "show forth the virtues of the One who has called" them (F. B. Hole). Even where the verse is applied to Gentiles, "it is only to fruit-bearing, not to covenant, that it applies" (William Kelly).
The new holders are marked by fruit, not by being Gentiles. That condition cuts both ways.
It was to Gentiles, but that is not the special point of the Lord's words. It was to a nation producing the fruits of the kingdom. If that is not done, they cease to answer to the description, whatever the patience of God; and though that is not the subject here, they too would have to be cut off.
- Fruit — God looked to His vineyard for fruit. The kingdom moves to those who give it, and stays only while they do.
- Verdict — the leaders sentenced themselves in the parable, and the Lord confirmed that their judgment was right.
- Person — the kingdom is so tied to Christ the King that it leaves with His rejection and arrives with His reception.
- Form — the earthly form proved men unfit. What follows is the kingdom in a new form, not limited to Israel.
- Nation — commentators differ. Some point to the believing remnant of Israel in a coming day. Others point to believers from Jews and Gentiles now. Either way, the church does not take over Israel's covenant.
And he that falls on this stone shall be broken, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.
Jesus has just told the religious leaders a story about tenants who killed the owner's son, then quoted a psalm about a stone the builders threw away. Now He turns that stone on them, and commentators read its two outcomes as two different moments in history (older translations end the verse "grind him to powder," where the ESV has "crush him").
The difference is not in the stone but in where it lies. One writer ties each half of the verse to one of Christ's two comings.
The stone in Matthew 21:44 means the Lord Himself in two positions, answering to His two comings. First, in His humiliation, He is like a stone lying in the ground: "whoever falls on it will be broken." That is proved true in all unbelievers, but especially in the Jews. Next, He is raised to heaven. Coming again in power and great glory, He will carry out destructive judgment: "on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder."
Falling on the stone means stumbling at the Person of Christ. One writer names what made Him so easy to trip over.
While Daniel's emphasis was on the kingdom, here in Matthew it is very clearly on the Person of Christ. The apostle Paul explains the words "And whoever falls on this stone" further in Romans 9:32: "For they stumbled at that stumbling stone." Had the Lord Jesus come in power to free the nation from Roman rule, it might have been different. But His lowly character and meekness exposed their hypocrisy. That did not suit them, and so they stumbled.
A long stretch of time separates the two halves of the verse. The first was already happening as He spoke.
Jesus applies the parable to them by quoting Psalm 118… Whoever falls on this stone — as the nation was doing at that very moment — will be broken. But the stone will grind to powder whoever it falls on, and this will be the fate of the rebellious nation in the last days.
The two verbs are not two ways of saying the same thing. One writer reads them against Isaiah and Daniel, and finds a future beyond the breaking.
Here are three prophecies about the stone, about those who fall on it, and about those on whom it falls. The first, from Psalm 118:22-23, shows that the stone, though at first refused by Israel, later becomes the head of the corner. The second, from Isaiah 8:14, declares Christ to be "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence to both houses of Israel"… Then come deep anguish and darkness. Out of these the people emerge and rejoice before the Lord. So Isaiah's words match our Lord's: the nation that stumbles on the stone is broken, not destroyed. The third prophecy is from Daniel 2, and foretells a very different fate for those on whom the stone falls. Israel, stumbling on the stone, is broken, but afterwards healed. The Gentile powers, which for a time have taken the rule out of Israel's hands, are struck by the stone.
One writer rules out a popular reading of the stone, then says what it offers a reader right now.
The stone does not roll along, turning the great image of Daniel 2 into its own substance. The stone is not the Gospel. The Gospel tells us that this symbolic stone is now, while the day of salvation lasts, a foundation stone, and that poor sinners may safely build on it for eternity. But this stone has been raised to heaven, and will come down from there like a destructive thunderbolt.
Commentators differ on who the falling stone crushes. One writer looks past Israel to the proud powers of the nations.
The Jewish nation fell over Jesus. They could not receive Him in His humiliation and lowliness, and so they were broken. But the crushing stone, the now rejected Christ Jesus, will fall by and by on the proud Gentile powers. That stone will fall on the proud unbelieving Gentile, who will not receive the gospel of a heavenly Saviour, and grind him to powder. No picture of total judgment could be more fitting.
- One Stone. The whole verse turns on one Person in two positions. He lies low in humiliation at His first coming. He falls from heaven in power at His second.
- Stumbled over. They tripped on Him because His lowliness and meekness exposed their hypocrisy. Paul says it simply: they stumbled at the stumbling stone.
- Broken. The nation was already falling on Him as He spoke. But "broken" is not "destroyed" — Israel is broken, and afterwards healed.
- Built on. While the day of salvation lasts, the same stone is a foundation. Sinners may build on it for eternity.
- Falling. The crushing comes last. It reaches past Israel to the proud powers of the nations and to everyone who refuses the gospel.