“Tending the Vineyard”:  Exegetical Notes

a.  Text:    9 Then Jesus started telling this parable to the people around him:  A man planted a vineyard, leased it out to some farmers, and then left home on a long journey.  10 At the time of the harvest he sent a servant to collect his portion of the fruit from the farmers.  But the farmers beat up the servant and sent him away.  11  The owner then sent another servant, this one the farmers beat up, dishonored and insulted him, and he too went away empty handed.  12  Again the owner sent another slave.  This one the farmers really injured and they threw him out of the vineyard.  13  So the owner of the Vineyard asked himself, “What shall I do?  I will send my beloved son, perhaps he will make them show me respect, and feel shame for their behavior.  14 But when the son arrived at the vineyard, the farmers discussed the situation with one another saying, “He is the heir.  Let’s kill him, so that we can keep the property for ourselves.”  15 So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.  What do you think the Owner of the Vineyard will do to farmers.  16  He will come back and kill the farmers, then lease the land to some others.  Hearing this, the people said, We would hope this would never happen!  17  Looking directly at the people Jesus then said, “What then does this Scripture mean:  A stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.  18 Anyone who falls on it will be broken to pieces, and whoever it falls on will be crushed.  19 Considering this the scribes and the chief priests wanted to immediately arrest Jesus, for they knew he spoke the parable against them, but they were afraid of the people. (Luke 20:9-19; POT, Patrick Oden Translation)

b.  Rationale for choosing this text:  I am intrigued by Jesus’ reaction to the leaders of his day, and I wonder about what the parallels or lessons are for ours.

c.  First questions:  Who are the major characters more specifically?  Obviously God is the owner and the son is Jesus, but are the tenants limited to the Jewish leaders?  What does the vineyard represent?  Israel? The kingdom?  Are the servants the prophets?  Can we properly read into this parable multiple levels of interpretation, i.e. a story of Jewish history ending in AD 70, as well as a continuing story for our own time.   Who are the others?  A key question.  The church?  Gentiles?  What was going on in the mind of the farmers that they thought if they killed the son, they could keep the land.  What are the historical parallels to these events?  What is the relevance of this now if it is simply a story of Jewish rejection?  I need to look at the 2 OT texts, Psalm 118 and Isaiah 5. 

d.  Exegetical notes:  In the Lukan telling, Jesus had his triumphant entry into Jerusalem in verse 19, then clearing the Temple after a brief lament about Jerusalem.  At one point I remember hearing a professor discuss the possibility that Jesus was not committed to death on the cross until after he felt the rejection by the Jewish leaders after his entry into Jerusalem, because they did not accept him as did the people, they became rejected, and laid a course for their destruction, rather than their exultation as followers.  Chapter 20 is verbal battling between the Jewish leaders and Jesus, with their ire increasingly raised as Jesus ably responded to their challenges. The Lukan version reduces some of the unmistakable references to the Isaiah text.  Matthew has more servants, with less emphasis on the increasingly violent response.  Only Luke has the mhV gevnoito.  Matthew adds a bit of explanation at the end saying the kingdom will be taken away “from you” (who are the “you” though) and given to the e[qnei producing the fruits of the kingdom of God (what is the “nation” here, non-Jewish? Non-Jewish leaders?  Christian? Church?  Textual study – no interesting variants in the manuscripts.  Grammatically this is straightforward, with no major points of confusion.  Interestingly, Wallace understands the mhV gevnoito of v.16 to be a “request in vain”, translating it as “We would hope that he would never do this”, implying they are bothered by the owner’s reaction in this story.  I’m not sure this is definite enough to make a point about.  The words used are also fairly straightforward, not differing much in translated meaning.  Interestingly, the word for heir, klhronovmo", also has the meaning of “one who receives what God has promised to the people”, it is a theologically rich word (Hs 5, 2, 6; Hb 1:2; Ro 8:17.)

Whitacre:  The vine/vineyard is the people of God, planted and cultivated by God for his delight and the produce it should yield.  The image of the vine is almost always associated with the contrast between God’s ideal for his people and their falling short of it.  (in this parable, though, the vineyard is fine, the tenants {workers? Leaders?] are at fault).

Weren:    Isaiah 5, a juridical parable, which is “a realistic story about a violation of the law, related to someone who had committed a similar offence with the purpose of leading the unsuspecting hearer to pass judgment on himself”  With the parable of the vineyard, the prophet hold up a mirror to his audience. God’s concern for the house of Israel requires social justice; however, Israel reacts by perpetrating social injustice.  One of the characteristics is that the listeners themselves judge the given legal case.  There are differences though – the vineyard is bad in Isaiah, but the vineyard is good in the parable, the tenants are bad.  The leaders realize they are the ones spoken about, but do not repent, they instead “follow the steps of the tenants and consciously set in motion a scenario which they know will have a fatal ending for themselves.  This parable is not meant as a characterization of a particular, empirically definable group but describes the criterion that in the final judgment is applied to all groups.  This means that the criticism leveled at the chief priests and the Pharisees also contains a word of warning to disciples of Jesus who are just as unproductive as they are.

Wenham:  In Jewish law a person who could prove 3 years undisputed possession of a property could claim ownership of it;

Buttrick:  In the synoptic Gospels the parable obviously has been allegorized in view of the crucifixion:  the owner = God; the abused servants = prophets; the beloved son = Christ.  He writes, … the passage must be widened to include the whole wide world and all human beings.  We are the wicked who reject God’s living word.  We are all vinedressers who deserve eviction – I absolutely disagree with this analysis.  Those who listen to and do the will of the Father are accepted, and we may fall into that category.  This is not a message of everyone’s corruptness.  It’s more specific, Jesus did not aim this message at everyone.   The vineyard is everyone, not the tenants.

Hultgren:  It should be seen, however, that while in the Isaiah text the owner’s problem is with the   vineyard, the owner’s problem in the parable is with the tenants who are supposed to care for the vineyard.  This subtle shift allows the vineyard to continue to refer to the Jewish people; and it also means that the vineyard is the object of God’s continuing care.  God as owner of the vineyard does not come to destroy the vineyard, and God as owner does not plant a new vineyard (signifying Christian supersessionism).  When the tenants do not fulfill their obligations, they have to be replaced.  

Psalm 118 Connection is with the parallel acts.  Golgotha was a stone quarry in  8^th or 7^th century BC. 

Blomberg:  From the central, triadic structure emerge at least the following 3 points: 1) God is patient and longsuffering in waiting for his people to bear the fruit which he requires of them, even when they are repeatedly and overtly hostile in their rebellion against him.  2) A day will come when God’s patience is exhausted and those who have rejected him will be destroyed. 3) God’s purposes will not thereby be thwarted, for he will raise up new leaders who will produce the fruit the original ones failed to provide.

 3 clusters of themes may be distinguished.  1 concerns the nature of God.  He preeminently exhibits grace to the undeserving, giving generously far beyond what one expects.  He considers all people as equal and emphasizes that even human enemies should be considered neighbors.  He waits patiently, repeatedly summoning people into his kingdom, even when they rebel against him.  He entrusts all individuals with resources and abilities and expects them to be good stewards of what they have been given.  A 2^nd surrounds the model of the faithful disciple.  This person bears the fruit of good works which flow from faith, including the outpouring of compassion to the needy, love for the dispossessed and outcast, forgiveness for debtors who are unable to repay, and a shrewd but godly use of one’s resources, especially in the financial arena.  A final collection warns against faithlessness.  A day of reckoning will come at which time there is no longer a  chance to repent.  None will be treated unfairly, but eternal punishment for those who have not proved true disciples will follow inexorably. 

Stern:  The parable of the Wicked Husbandmen is one of two narrative parables that are preserved in all three synoptic gospels.  This parable as an example of a Rabbinic Mashal – best defined as an allusive narrative which is told for an ulterior purpose. 

Milavec:  Psalm 118 recaptures the Davidic Messiah as a type of Cinderella story wherein rejection by the builders of society does not get in the way  of God’s plan to exalt the poor and the humble.  In the end by not exactly specifying the “others” but by allowing the Lord God to be the one who makes the critical choices, the writer allows each one to be preoccupied with conforming one’s life to God’s standards.  Even today this parable stands much more to caution and to judge the Church than to assure her of her superiority over the Jews.  Whenever the Church’s divine mission leads her to either an institutional triumphalism or to a mistreatment of her own prophets, this parable judges, her as unfit to be the ‘other.”  This new image  has the potential for unsettling the onlooker by tearing away those religious assurances which shield one from the terrible judgment of the living God.

e. Concluding observations: The kingdom of God will go forward with or without our help, we can aid or we will get pushed out of the way.  God is the owner of the vineyard.  The servants are 1)originally the prophets 2) then the apostles (1 Cor. 3:6; MK 13:9), or anyone who is sent by God as a reminder of the kingdom.  This may entail the poor and needy (Is.10:1ff.; Mt 25:31ff.; James 2:6).  The vineyard is the people and kingdom of God.  The Son is Jesus.  The tenants are the leaders who do not lead, or who obstruct, or who fight – those who do not hand over the fruit of what they have been given – personal gifts; in a church setting those who obstruct and do not develop those who God has “planted”.  People looking for their own gain – in pride, in power, in resources, in esteem, rather than acknowledging the one whose vineyard they tend.  God will hold us responsible for the responsibilities he has given us.  This is a constant message – Isaiah and the prophets (even before this with the various kings and earlier leaders of Israel), during Jesus’ time (he is the central interpretation of this parable, though not the only interpretation of this parable, his is the model of a constant theme.  Paul and other early church leaders saw this.  This theme is seen throughout history.  What is the relevance now?  In any setting we have been given a task of tending the vineyard (which means something different for every person), especially as pastors of a flock (Newsweek cartoon this week shows a Priest surrounded by a flock of sheep saying, “You mean we’re supposed to protect the flock”)  Psalm 118 reminds us that we cannot rebel against God, actively or passively, we will eventually be broken and destroyed if we try to do that.  Having responsibility in the kingdom is a great gift, but one which must come with a humble heart, and open mind to what God is doing.  Time and Newsweek cover articles reflect both the tending of the vineyard and the corruption of the vineyard – excellent symbols for today.

Theme:  We will work for God alone or we will be pushed out of the way, so it is our duty and responsibility to do the task appointed to us with humility and openness.

Purpose:  To remind future pastors (vocational or not) of the joy and weight of tending the vineyard, so they will be conscious of the owner’s demand for fruitfulness.