The Parable Of The Land Owner Series

How likely is it that a man whose servants have been mistreated and killed by his tenants will then send his beloved son to try to collect his share of the harvest? But this unreal story illustrates the incredible patience of God. It is truly mind-boggling that God would send his Son into the world after he had seen how his people treated the prophets. To our ears it also sounds unreal that the tenants who murdered the son should expect to take possession of his inheritance—especially while his father, the vineyard owner, is still alive. But selfish ambition and greed all too often and all too easily cause us to forget God’s presence (Albrecht, G. J., & Albrecht, M. J. (1996). Matthew. The People’s Bible (308). Milwaukee, Wis.: Northwestern Pub. House.).

In this parable the act of sending the son as Matthew 21:38 indicates, simply drove the growers to greater greed and more heinous treachery. When the tenants/vine-growers saw the son, they said to/among themselves, “This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and have/seize his inheritance.” Finally, Matthew 21:39 concludes, And they took him, and threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. The ancient world was very conscious of class. So there is some reasonableness in the landowner’s expectation that his son would be respected. While someone else’s slaves could be mistreated with relative impunity, it would be quite another matter to mistreat someone’s son (Nolland, J. (2005). The Gospel of Matthew : A commentary on the Greek text (873). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.)

Jesus says they threw the son out of the vineyard before they killed him. We remember how the crucifixion took place outside the walls of Jerusalem (Hebrews 13:11, 12). Since Jesus was most likley telling this parable on Tuesday of Holy Week, he was describing what was going to happen only three days later (Albrecht, G. J., & Albrecht, M. J. (1996). Matthew. The People’s Bible (308). Milwaukee, Wis.: Northwestern Pub. House.).

Originally the sharecroppers had plotted simply to keep all the profits from the vineyard; now they planned to expropriate the entire vineyard.

When the son goes as his father’s messenger he goes with all his father’s authority, and so deserves “respect” and obedience. To reject the son’s demand is therefore the climax of rebellion. But to kill him is to add injury to insult (France, R. T. (2007). The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (813). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co.)

The murder of the son was coldly premeditated. The growers did not mistake him for another slave but knew exactly who he was. It was for the very reason that he was the son that they planned his murder in order to have/seize his inheritance. By the end of this startling and dramatic parable, the interest of the Jewish leaders and the many bystanders was thoroughly piqued. The story generated great pity for the betrayed, grieving owner and resentful rage at the heartless, brutal growers. It was the very uncommonness of the owner’s patience and of the growers’ wickedness that Jesus’ wanted His hearers to notice.