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.