D. The parable of the wicked husbandmen (20:9–18)
D. The parable of the wicked husbandmen (20:9–18)
We should see this story as in part an allegorical setting out of Jesus’ relationship to the Jewish leaders. He saw himself as making God’s last appeal to them. Systematically the religious leaders of the Jews have rejected God’s messengers (cf. Neh. 9:26; Jer. 7:25f.; 25:4– 7; Matt. 23:34; Acts 7:52; Heb. 11:36–38). Now the climax is at hand. Not a prophet, but the Son of God is among them. They face the most critical decision of their lives.
9. Jesus describes what was evidently a common action on the part of a property owner. He planted a vineyard and let it out before going abroad. At the same time the language is reminiscent of Old Testament language about Israel (cf. Isa. 5:1ff.). The tenants (geōrgoi ) were ‘farmers’.
10–12. In due course the owner sent a slave to collect the rent, which was evidently to be paid in kind. But, instead of paying what they owed, the farmers reacted with violence. Each slave who was sent was treated worse than the previous one, and none collected what was due. The farmers appear to us to have behaved unreasonably and outrageously. But Derrett thinks some reason can be given for their conduct.2 He points out that a vineyard would produce very little revenue during the first few years, while the vines were establishing themselves. During this period it was even possible that on balance an owner might owe the tenants money, for he would be responsible for expenses such as the purchase of stakes, which might conceivably exceed the income. If the tenants in this story were rejecting the owner’s account and claiming that he owed them something, their ill-treatment of the messengers would be an emphatic way of registering their protest. They sent them back ‘empty’ (so, rather than empty-handed ), which may mean that they took what they could from the slaves to go towards what they claimed from the owner. This is possible, but there is no hint in Jesus’ story that the tenants were claiming anything. They simply rejected the messengers. Jesus depicts a nation which is obdurate and a God who is compassionate in the face of unreasonable truculence. Instead of punishing those who rejected the prophets he gave them further opportunities by sending other servants.
13. In real life the owner would surely have taken strong action. He had the law on his side and he would have dealt severely with the offenders. But Jesus is depicting a God who loves beyond measure and is compassionate where he has every right to be severe. So he speaks of the owner as thinking the matter over and deciding to send his beloved son (language which reminds us of the description of Jesus in 3:22). Perhaps they will respect him. It may be translates ‘an urbane expression of one’s reasonable hope’ (GT).
14. But the tenants react unreasonably. They decide to kill the heir (and thus go one worse than with any of the slaves). Their idea is that the vineyard will then be theirs. They may have thought that the landlord had died and that the son had come to take possession. Or the appearance of the son may have given them the idea that the father had transferred title in the vineyard to the son. Tenants were known to claim possession of land they worked for absentee landlords (Talmud, Baba Bathra 35b, 40b). In a day when title was sometimes uncertain, anyone who had had the use of land for three years was presumed to own it in the absence of an alternative claim (Mishnah, Baba Bathra 3:1). The tenants were clearly relying on the fact that the owner was a long way away (9). They seem to have thought that with all the trouble the vineyard was giving him, he would not bother to press his claim. They would claim that the vineyard was theirs, as their occupation of it during the preceding years, during which they had paid rent to no-one, plainly showed. They would doubtless represent the killing of the heir as self-defence. They were only repelling a robber who had come to take their land from them. In such ways people justify wrongdoing. The allegorical application shows that Jesus knew what fate awaited him. The nation was acting towards him in the same outrageous way as the tenants behaved towards the heir.
15–16. The tenants carried out their plan. They threw the heir out of the vineyard and killed him. Derrett maintains that it was important that they did not kill him in the vineyard, for this would have defiled the ground with the corpse and made it more difficult for them to sell their produce. He thinks that Mark’s account means that the murder was carried out in the ‘tower’, where the son could be cornered after his attendants were ejected. ‘The death-blow would be delivered inside in the hope that the body could be carried alive as far as the wall.’3 Luke gets the same effect with the death taking place outside the vineyard. But the tenants did not reckon with the determination of the owner. He would neither condone nor overlook this last deed. It must be punished. And since the crime was extreme, so would the punishment be. The tenants would be destroyed and the vineyard given to others. In the application this must refer to the Gentiles. But to Jesus’ enemies it was unthinkable that the privileges of the Jews as God’s chosen people could under any circumstances be given to the Gentiles. They interject, God forbid! (the only occurrence of this strong expression anywhere in the New Testament outside the Pauline writings). The words express their sense of outrage and horror as they break in, in the manner of the listeners in 19:25.
17. Jesus points them to Scripture. What is written there must be fulfilled. If the destruction of which he has spoken is not to occur, then how do they explain Psalm 118:22 (incidentally a favourite text in the early church; cf. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7)? The head of the corner was clearly an important stone, but it is not certain where it was. It may have been a large stone set at a corner in the foundations. In this way it would determine the position of two walls and so shape the whole building. Or it may have been a stone at the top of the wall binding the whole together and consummating the work. Either way it is of great importance. Jesus is saying that, though people might reject him, he is accepted by God whose acceptance is what counts. Even though the Jews make the same kind of mistake as the builders and reject him, God’s purposes will be fulfilled.
18. The imagery changes. Now it is not the value to be placed on the stone that is in mind, but the destructive power of the stone as against flesh and blood. To fall on the stone or have the stone fall on one in either case means destruction. People may reject and oppose Jesus but it is they, not he, who will suffer. The second part of the saying will refer to the future judgment. It will be their attitude to Jesus that will mean the final destruction of the people of his day. The imagery here is derived from Isaiah 8:14f. (cf. also Dan. 2:34f.).