Matthew 21:33-43
A. INTRODUCTION
If you’ve ever watched any of the current affair television programmes, you would probably have seen stories about tenants from ‘hell’. People who have no regard for the property in which they are renting, and often leaving without paying the rent and leaving a clean-up bill of thousands of dollars because of the damage they have left in their wake.
Furthermore, some of you may know, personally, what it’s like to be a landlord. Some of you may know from firsthand experience the risks of leasing a property or a business to others.
Of course, it’s also probably true that in the majority of cases of leasing properties or businesses there are very few problems at all—and the problems there are, are of a very minor nature. But the rest . . . Well they discourage many people from investing in properties or businesses at all.
But of course, if you think that what we see and hear about on the TV and in newspapers, is bad. Then think of the parable that Jesus told. Because if you want to get a picture of the worst kind of tenants ever, then this is it.
B. THE PARABLE OF THE TENANTS
1. The Players:
And in the parable, there are a number of players:
The first is the owner of the property. Now, he’d set up the business, he’d planted the crop, and he’d provided for its security. But as far as he was concerned, this was an investment. It was not something in which he would take an ongoing part. He’d planned to live miles away from the business, letting it to others to actually run it. Yes, there would be some ongoing expenses, like his half share of the costs of the stakes to support the vines, but apart from that his interest was only to collect his share of the profits.
The second group of players in the parable were the tenants. They were the ones who were to run the business. And, after the initial protection of the property and the planting of the crop, it was the tenants that were going to do all the labour. Now these weren’t poor people—these were people who had the means to look after themselves while the crop was growing. And in addition, they would also have had the means to provide some of the ongoing costs before they started to receive any income from the business, for they were expected to pay at least the other half of the costs for stakes, and whatever else was necessary.
The third group of players were the servants of the owner. These were the ones who presented themselves to the tenants on the owner’s behalf. These were the ones who were to come and collect the owner’s share of the profits.
And lastly there was the owner’s son, who, if the servants failed in their duty (through no fault of their own), would be sent in their place.
2. The Significant Factors
Now in addition to the players themselves, this story also has two significant factors.
The first being that the vineyard was brand spanking new. There were no hang-ups from the past, and no old debts to repay. However, being a new vineyard, its viability was uncertain. After all, although vineyards were pretty common in those days—as a source of income—establishing a new one was no guarantee of success. It would also take at least four years before there was any significant yield, and would be five years before any real profit was realised.
The second factor, however, was a question of ownership. Under the law of the day, if the owner wanted to continue to own the property, he would need to show a continuing interest in the business. He couldn’t just leave it in the tenants’ hands and forget it. On the other hand, if the tenants could show that the owner had left them to their own devices—and he had shown no real interest at all for three consecutive years—then they could establish title to the land itself, and they would be rid of the landlord forever.
3. The Scenario
You can see where this is leading too, can’t you? It was in the tenants’ interests to discourage the owner into showing any interest in the property and business. It was in the tenants’ interest to disguise whatever contact they had, to make it look as though the property owner wasn’t interested or involved in any way.
4. The Parable (33-41)
And from that backdrop the story begins. And it starts with the owner setting up his business (33).
First, he planted his vineyard. Next, he fenced it off to protect it from wild animals and the like. Then he dug a winepress—two basins connected by a channel—so that the final produce could be thrown in the upper basin and trodden under foot, with the result that the juice flowed into the lower basin where it began the process of fermentation. And finally, he built a tower, which would enable a watchman to keep an eye on what was going on. The watchman could then take action against marauders—human or animal. And having done all that he went away.
Now we don’t know under what terms the vineyard was let (34), but it would have been natural to expect payment at least at the time the grapes were ripe. However, as we’ve discovered it was also important for the owner to keep in regular contact. So the owner sent his servants to the property on a regular basis.
Now it may well be that at the early stages there was no profit to be received. In fact, it may rather have been, that the owner had to pay the tenants his half share of the ongoing costs. But on legal grounds he still had to show that he was still interested in the property. But evidently the tenants had already decided that they were going to make this vineyard their own (35). And they may well have thought that if they gave the owner enough trouble, he might just let the vineyard go. So right from the outset they ill-treated the servants that were sent to them. They beat them, they stoned them, and even killed some of them. And they certainly didn’t give the owner what he was due. Indeed, they built up a sufficiently strong case, so that when they could process their claim for the property, they could explain away their treatment of the servants as simply repelling people they thought were trying to rob them.
However, the owner was not so easily put off (36). Not only did he send more servants to the vineyard, but he sent them in greater numbers. But the tenants treated the larger delegation in exactly the same way. The tenants were determined to own the property, and to demonstrate a lack of contact with the owner.
And then, finally, the owner sent his son (37). He knew that his servants had been rejected with force and his rights totally disregarded. He also knew that he’d been unsuccessful in demonstrating his continuing interest in the property. And he reasoned that although the tenants had treated his servants badly, they wouldn’t do the same to his son. However, the tenants, were not so easily put off either, and they persisted in their violent opposition to the owner’s just claims (38).
Now, the appearance of the son, may have got the tenants wondering: Had the owner died, and had the son come to claim his inheritance? Or with all the trouble that they’d caused, had the father simply transferred the title to his son? Or was the son just a spokesman for the owner in the same way that the servants were? Whatever their reasoning, they decided that they needed to kill him and take away his inheritance anyway. So they took the son, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him (39).
From the tenants’ point of view, their title was now secure. They had never paid the vineyard owner anything. And they were sure that the owner, who had never been back in person, would not care to prosecute his claim. The vineyard was theirs, and they could claim that the dead man had come to make an unjust claim on their vineyard, and all that they had done had been to repel a robber.
And so the story ends. Except for the fact that Jesus’s audience are then left to finish the story for themselves (40-41). And as far as his audience were concerned, the vine growers in the story had reckoned without one thing. The owner would not be a man to let this final horror go unpunished And the listeners conclude that not only would the owner bring those bad men to a wretched end, but in addition, the owner would continue with his original plans for the vineyard. Indeed, he would find other tenants, who would not only respect his ownership, but would be willing to pay the owner his due.
5. The Application by Jesus (42-43)
It’s a dramatic story, and Jesus made sure its meaning was not lost on his audience. The story was about the Jewish hierarchy—the custodians of the faith in the one true God. And it was about how they had not responded, as they should have. And that was witnessed by the way they had treated the prophets—God’s servants—that had been sent to them in the past. And, further, it was being witnessed right there and then, by the way that they were treating God’s son. After all, they’d been opposed to Jesus throughout his ministry, and even at this point they were plotting to get rid of him.
The message for the hierarchy of the time was that just as the vineyard owner (in the story) would have to remove and deal with his tenants, so too the kingdom would be taken away from the religious leaders. They would then have to face the ultimate punishment. Meanwhile the kingdom would be given to those who could respond more favourably—to those who would be much more fruitful.
C. IMPLICATIONS
In other words, this isn’t just a dramatic story, it’s a rather damning one as well. A damning story of the Jewish hierarchy of the time. However, it’s not just a story of the past, it is also a story of today. And the reason I say that is because I believe it has three important ingredients that are worthy of note:
1. A Warning for Non-Believers
The first is that the parable serves as a warning for non-believers (and that includes church leaders who lead the people astray). The tenants wanted the property, but they didn’t want its creator and owner. They knew that he existed, but they wanted to live as though he didn’t. In fact, they made a concerted effort to rid him from their lives. And to rid anything to do with him out of their lives as well, even his servants.
Similarly, there are many people today who may want this world—or even their little part in it—but they don’t want anything to do with its creator, or his servants either. There are people who want to treat God as though he is so distant, so remote that he has no relevance to everyday life. There are people who deny his very existence. There are people who want nothing to do with God. And there are those who pay lip service to God but, in reality, God plays no real part in their lives whatsoever.
To these people the message of the parable is clear. These people may be enjoying life now—and may be clinging on to what they claim is theirs, whether by deceit or whatever means—but, in the end, their time will come. For them the end result will be that God will take everything that they have away from them, and he will deal with them as harshly as the owner of the vineyard would have dealt with his tenants.
2. A Reminder to Believers
The second thing is that the parable serves as a reminder to believers, that being a Christian is not always easy. For the tenants did not just reject the owner, but they mistreated the owner’s servants, killed some, and even killed his son.
Now you and I know that in this world, even today. dreadful things have happened and continue to happen to Christians around the globe. And often to Christians, simply because they are Christians. For many people persecution is part and parcel of everyday Christian life.
Now I would hope that that wouldn’t be true of any of us here. However, even here we face persecution even in a subtle sort of way. Even if it is simply the element of being looked on as being a bit ‘cuckoo’ from people who don’t understand.
So, the warning is that as Christian’s we are not immune from persecution. Indeed, it is something that we may all have to face. As a consequently we need to be prepared, and we need to stand up and do God’s will despite some tremendous opposition.
3. A Message of Hope
And the third thing is that this parable serves as a message of hope. Because not only will today’s tenants be dealt with—and whatever they have will be torn away from them—but that God’s world will then be handed lock stock and barrel to the faithful, and to the faithful alone.
In other words, we have something to work towards, and something to live for. God’s kingdom will be given to those who are not out to replace him. God’s kingdom will be given to the faithful, to those who have respect for the owner. And God’s people will be handed to those who give God his due—those who not only profess faith in Jesus Christ, but those who actively live their faith too.
Whatever we face in this world, and no matter what injustices we see, in the end all wrongs will be dealt with and justice, God’s justice, will prevail. And that is something to get excited about, and something that we really have to look forward to and to hold on to, particularly through the tough times of life.
D. CONCLUSION
Now, I have no doubt that all of us have heard and seen pictures of some tenants from ‘hell’. Some may have experienced these sorts of tenants first hand, but not many would have seen anything like the tenants in the parable of Jesus.
However, while the parable serves as a warning to those who want to reject God—and that is its obvious intent—it’s also a story of hope. Hope for Christians going through a tough time, particularly at the hands of people who have little or no time for God.
It’s a story of hope that in the end everything will be made right, and that as Christian’s we will inherit his kingdom as he intended us to do. But it will be a kingdom free from those who reject God, and free from those who treat him and his servants with contempt.
Posted: 10th March 2023
© 2023, Brian A Curtis
www.brianacurtis.com.au
