This parable is another jibe at the religious authorities of Jesus' day. It is not a kingdom parable, proclaiming the gospel in a veiled form. It is a teaching parable, an illustration which serves to expose the condition of the religious elite in Israel. This "godly" elite have rejected the messiah and therefore stand under judgement. Many scholars have doubted the authenticity of this parable, mainly because it so obviously portrays the players in the drama, especially the "son" as Jesus. Yet, there is no reason why Jesus wouldn't subtly identify himself as God's messiah.

v33-34. The parable illustrates the landowners care in preparing a beautiful and efficient vineyard. He is confident that the vineyard will bear fruit. The landowners agents then come to collect "his/its fruit". Certainly not all the fruit, just the rent from the tenant farmers.

v35-37. The tenant farmers rough up the landowners agents, even killing some. They "beat" ("flay", "flog") and generally ill-treat the agents (servants) of the landowner. Some commentators have suggested that the first and later servants represent the former and the latter prophets. They certainly do represent the prophets. Finally, the landowner sends his son, for he says, "they will respect my son".

v38-39. The tenants are cruel in the extreme, taking the son out of the vineyard and killing him (order reversed in Mark). The religious authorities had not, up to this point in time, intended Jesus harm, but they were opposed to his ministry and rejected him as messiah (the "son" represents Jesus as messiah). Some would soon call for his death, and Jesus, in this parable, is showing them where their opposition will take them.

v40-41. Jesus draws out from his hearers a self-condemning response. The prophet Nathan did the same with king David. This serves to drive home the point and expose their state of loss. Both Luke and Mark do not record these particular verses.

v42. Quoting psalm 118:22-23, Jesus applies the passage to himself. The nations may reject and despise Israel, as a builder rejects a particular stone because he thinks it is worthless, but God will make his people as a capstone, the top cornerstone of a parapet (possibly a corner foundation stone). When God makes greatness out of something that we despise, "what a wonderful thing that is."

v43. Jesus now comes straight to the point. "You" have been so remiss in handling the responsibilities given you by God ("produce its fruit"), that those responsibilities (with its associated covenant blessings) will be taken from you and given to others. The context limits the reference to "the chief priests and the Pharisees". The religious leaders have failed Israel and so God will now care for his people through others who will tend the vineyard.

v44. This verse is only found in a few manuscripts. It could well have been brought over from Luke's gospel, Lk.20:18. The verse may be a warning: rejecting Jesus is a dangerous path for the religious leaders to follow, for it is a path to judgment. On the other hand, it is possible that the image of falling on the stone illustrates submission for salvation.

v45-46. The religious leaders realize that Jesus is speaking about them. Jesus has warned them that they are about to violently reject God's messiah; now they rush off to do it.

Over some 20 years, a missionary family returned to their link church to report on the work of the gospel in their mission area. They were taken by a change that seemed to touch, not only their own denomination, but some of the other more established denominations as well. They visited regularly every year while on furlough and gave their 5 minute mission slot. Each year they noted the service was less formal and more entertaining. Each year they were told the church was getting some 25 new members a month, although each year the congregation seems to number the same. On their last visit, any formal structure to the service had completely disappeared. The band blasted forth, the "Sesame Street" slots amused, and as for the sermon, it left him horrified. The preaching was certainly "accessing", consisting of stories and pious observations, but there was no exposition. "The preacher", they said, "performed like a frustrated comedian".

The "farmers" of Israel, their shepherds, their religious leaders, their teachers, had failed to bear the fruit of a faithful word from God. Their words led the people to reject the messiah.

As nominalism fades in the Western world and institutional churches attempt to stem the tide of falling attendance, the temptation is to satisfy the emotions rather than the soul. Thus we entertain, play the topics rather than expound the Word. We may hold the crowd, but then all we have built is Babel.

Research in England has shown that there are more committed believers outside the established church than in it - disenfranchised, disillusioned. "Farmers" beware, the capstone crushes.

1. Identify the players in the parable and equate them with today.

2. What rent ("his fruit") did the landowner expect from the farmers?

3. Israel's religious leaders failed to pastor the people (via the Word). Discuss how their role was compromised. How is the role of "pastor-teacher" compromised today?