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.