copyrighted 1999 by Richard H. Anderson

Although the Parable of the Wicked Tenants appears in all the synoptic gospels in nearly identical language, there are changes that are not stylistic, indicating each author understood the parable differently. Scholars agree that the Parable of the Wicked Tenants is based on the Song of the Vineyard found in Isa. 5:1-7. However scholars disagree on whether the parable was spoken by the Historical Jesus.⁽¹⁾ Prior discussions on the synoptic differences⁽²⁾ have focused on which of the gospel accounts is the earliest and whether or not this parable is an authentic Jesus' saying without considering the significance of the Lucan differences. This article will attempt to explain the significance of the Lucan differences in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants and whether or not these differences can aid us in determining which synoptic account is the earliest.

The symbolism of the vineyard was not lost on the chief priests. There are numerous biblical references to 'vine' and 'vineyard' wherein the imagery represented the whole people of Israel. For example, the Psalmist says to God, 'You brought a vine out of Egypt; you drove out the nations and planted it. You cleared the ground for it; it took deep root and filled the land.'⁽³⁾ The Hebrew prophets also likened Israel to a vine or vineyard. For instance Hosea said that 'Israel is a luxuriant vine that yields its fruit.'⁽⁴⁾ Isaiah said '...my beloved had a vineyard on a very fertile hill... He looked for it to yield grapes but it yielded wild grapes.'⁽⁵⁾ Jeremiah preached to the people: 'I planted you as a choice vine, from the purest stock. How then did you degenerate and become a wild vine?'⁽⁶⁾ The words of Ezekiel were also spoken against Judah: 'Therefore thus says the Lord God: Like the wood of the vine among the trees of the forest, which I have given to the fire for fuel, so I will give up the inhabitants of Jerusalem.'⁽⁷⁾ The people who heard the parable would be quite familiar with the idea of comparing the people to 'vines' and 'vineyards.'

The differences between Isaiah 5 and the Parable are revealing. In Isaiah 5, the Prophet warned the audience that they, Judah, were the vineyard of the Lord of hosts that yielded wild grapes. Isaiah's parable is directed against 'the inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah'.⁽⁸⁾ The parable is told to the people but each synoptic gospel writer tells us that the chief priests⁽⁹⁾ realized that Jesus had told the parable 'against them.'

The vineyard parables presuppose the absence of the landlord⁽¹⁰⁾ but was the landlord a foreigner? Halvor Moxnes analyzed the economic relationships of the landlord in The Economy of the Kingdom.⁽¹¹⁾ The trusted servant acted as a messenger on his behalf (Lk. 14:17-24; 20:9-14). The absentee landlord employed a steward oikonomos) who is in charge of the estate while the landlord is away (Lk. 12:41-48). Moxnes stated 'It was primarily the large absentee landowners who needed agents. The owner of the vineyard in the parable 20:9-19 lives close enough to deal with his tenants directly through a servant messenger (doulos) who could not act independently of the master.'⁽¹²⁾ These observations may contradict the conclusion that the owner of the vineyard was an absentee foreign landlord. The phrase, 'went into another country', may be the derogatory comment of a Galilean preacher identifying 'Judea' with 'another country.' At the time of Jesus, Galilee had only been subject to Jerusalem authority for about 100 years beginning when the Hasmonean High Priests came to power during the Maccabean revolt. Since the phrase appears in all the synoptic gospels, it does not enter into the analysis of the Lucan differences.

Matthew and Mark both follow Isaiah in describing the vineyard in detail. It is these details that have caused scholars to conclude that the parable is a literary allusion to the 'Song of the Vineyard.' A well-constructed first century Palestinian vineyard included both a hedge of thorns and a wall of stone to protect the vineyard.⁽¹³⁾ It also included a watchtower⁽¹⁴⁾ and a winevat as a permanent storage area.⁽¹⁵⁾

However, Luke lacks the critical references to the hedge, winevat and watchtower. Luke says only, 'A man planted a vineyard' but even this brief statement repeats the words 'planted a vineyard' verbatim from Isa. 5:2 and is sufficient to evoke echoes of the familiar Hebrew text. Luke is also unique in having only the beloved son slain,⁽¹⁶⁾ including the description of the crowd's exclamatory reaction⁽¹⁷⁾ and in making a strong and unique point about judgment.⁽¹⁸⁾

Luke invites the crowd's exclamatory reaction by careful preparation by reporting the vineyard owner's soliloquy after the rejection of the third servant. Soliloquies are common in distinctively Lucan parables⁽¹⁹⁾ but this soliloquy also echoes the Song of the Vineyard.⁽²⁰⁾ Following the narrator's answer, those who heard it responded with a forceful exclamation, 'God forbid!' Luke, like all great storytellers, not only includes but also invites the audience's participation.

A common explanation of Luke's editorial policy is that Luke is making changes in the traditions transmitted to him because his Gentile audience can not understand the hebraic, semitic, judaic nature of the original gospel. This explanation can not be the reason Luke omits the details of the hedge, winepress and watchtower because the parable concludes with an allusion to Psalm 118:22 about 'the stone which the builders rejected' that would be equally obtuse to a Gentile audience. None of the Gospels tell us Jesus is the stone which was rejected⁽²¹⁾ or that 'builders' is a term for the religious aristocracy.⁽²²⁾ The semitic character of the parable is clearly established by this quotation and the wordplay⁽²³⁾ it invites between the son = ha-ben and the stone = ha-'eben.

Klyne Snodgrass has shown 'that the quotation at the end of the Parable of the Wicked Tenants is not illogical and disruptive; rather, it is bound to the parable through the wordplay.'⁽²⁴⁾ Surprisingly, Snodgrass does not mention the wordplay in the Song of the Vineyard and the inspirational significance it might have. Snodgrass does indicate 'Paranomasis is, of course, frequent in both testaments and should occasion no surprise,' citing Matthew Black,⁽²⁵⁾ 'and this wordplay is so common that one can justly call it a traditional wordplay.'⁽²⁶⁾

Perhaps the wordplay was introduced into the parable to strengthen the allusion to the 'Song of the Vineyard' inasmuch as the 7th verse also contains a clever play on the sound of words in Hebrew. In the seventh verse of the Song, Isaiah reminds his audience that God expected his people whom he created and 'planted' in the land to be righteous and practice justice. The Prophet makes his point with a play on the sound of two sets of paired words, justice-bloodshed and righteousness-a cry (for help).⁽²⁷⁾ The Hebrew word for 'justice' is mishpat and 'bloodshed' is mishpach ('ch' is pronounced as 'k'). The Hebrew translated 'righteousness' as tsedakah and 'a cry' as tseakah. In verse 7, 'Isaiah resorts to the prophetic technique of assonance, using Hebrew words that are similar in sound but have a drastic contrast in meaning.'⁽²⁸⁾ 'These powerful assonances, which can not be reproduced in English, are evidently designed to clinch the moral of the parable in the memories of the hearers.'⁽²⁹⁾ We might transliterate the sentence: He expected mishpat but saw mishpach, tsedakah but heard tseakah. These words condemn injustice and oppression. The context makes it even more explicit. Verse 8, which is the beginning of Isaiah's sevenfold woe upon Judah, states:

Woe to those who join house to house,

who add field to field,

until there is no more room,

and you are made to dwell alone

in the midst of the land.
 

It refers to the cries for help from the victims of land speculators, who were acquiring and consolidating small properties and evicting the peasant farmers. In the end, as a consequence of their greed, they injure themselves for their houses shall be empty and lands desolate. For Isaiah, the cause of poverty which produced the worst concern and true indignation was not what the poor did or did not do but what 'others' did to them.⁽³⁰⁾

The allusion to Ps. 118:22 in the parable is Luke's third reference to Psalm 118. The first two citations to the Psalm are somewhat subtle. The first citation of this psalm in Lk. 13:35 applied the cry of recognition to Jesus.⁽³¹⁾ This earlier 'cry of recognition' reference to Psalm 118 strengthens the conclusion that Jesus intends his wordplay to allude to the wordplay in the Song of the Vineyard wherein a cry for help is included. A second citation in Luke 19:38 made explicit reference to the king, and shows that the psalm is regal and messianic.⁽³²⁾ The second citation thus ties in the messianic psalm with the stone established in Judaism as a messianic symbol,⁽³³⁾ and prepares the audience for the third remarkable citation to Psalm 118:22.

Luke by his triple allusion to Psalm 118 and the wordplay between 'son' and 'stone' intends a reversal of traditional Jewish thinking about the identity of the messiah. In this instance, Luke is announcing that a reversal is about to occur.

Repetition⁽³⁴⁾ is used in this instance and with respect to 'hanged on a tree'⁽³⁵⁾ to make the point that the vindication of the stone by the power of God is the reversal of the action of a group identified as 'the builders' who rejected it.⁽³⁶⁾

Bruce Chilton's⁽³⁷⁾ careful study of the Isaiah Targum has clarified the anti-Temple orientation of the parable⁽³⁸⁾ but his conclusions have not been generally accepted because the targum was not reduced to writing until the second or third century of the common era. Nonetheless it is productive to review Chilton's findings. Chilton notes that in the Isaiah Targum the tower and winepress of Isa. 5:2 are interpreted as the sanctuary and altar. J.M. Baumgarten has likewise observed that in Targum Jonathan and the Tosefta (t. Sukk. 3.15) the tower and winepress are interpreted as the Temple and its altar.⁽³⁹⁾ Evans has demonstrated that 1 Enoch 89:73 indicates that 'tower' = 'Temple' was accepted first century interpretation.⁽⁴⁰⁾

The publication of the Qumran fragment, 4Q500 which is based on Isa 5:1-7, suggests that the interpretation preserved in the Targum and also in 1 Enoch predates the New Testament. The text of this Qumran corpus reveals that the third line containing 'wine vat built among stones' is a clear allusion to Isa. 5:2 and that 'the gate of the holy height' in line 4 refers to the Temple.⁽⁴¹⁾

The Isaiah Targum gives the Song of the Vineyard passage a narrower and distinctively cultic cast. It is exactly what we might expect of someone viewing the animals sacrificial system in the years following the destruction of the Temple and looking for scriptural comfort. Such a person might rewrite a biblical passage to support such new realities. An outsider to the temple establishment, such as the Qumran community, might also view the temple establishment as anti-cultic. In any event, Chilton, Baumgarten and Evans have demonstrated that the hedge, winepress and tower represent the sanctuary and altar of the Temple and the parable with such language included has an anti-Temple institutional orientation.

More importantly, Jon Levenson⁽⁴²⁾ concluded his demonstration of the midrashic character of the parable by quoting the following rabbinic midrash:

'For the Lord's portion is his people.' [Deut 32:9]. A parable: A king had a field which he leased to tenants. When the tenants began to steal from him, he took it away from them and leased it to their children. When the children began to act worse than their fathers, he took it away from them and gave it to (the original tenants') grandchildren. When these too became worse than their predecessors, a son was born to him. He then said to the grandchildren, 'Leave my property. You may not remain therein. Give me back my portion, so that I may repossess it.' Thus also, when our father Abraham came into the world, unworthy (descendants) issued from him, Ishmael and all of Keturah's children. When Isaac came into the world, unworthy (descendants) issued from him, Essau and all the princes of Edom, and they became worse than their predecessors. When Jacob came into the world, he did not produce unworthy (descendants), rather all his children were worthy, as it is said, 'Jacob was a mild man who stayed in camp.' [Gen 25:27]. When did God repossess his portion? Beginning with Jacob, as it is said, 'For the Lord's portion is his people/Jacob His own allotment' [Deut 32:9], and, 'For the Lord has chosen Jacob for Himself' [Ps 135:4](Sifre Deut 312).
 

Levenson then stated:
 

As in the Synoptic parable, so in this rabbinic midrash, the climatic act of election is the final one, the one occasioned by the arrival of the son. In both passages, the point is to justify the preference for the latecomers at the expense of those whom they dispossess, the non-Israelite descendants of Abraham in the case of the midrash, the Jews in the Christian parable as we have interpreted it. The rabbinic culture transmitted a parable on the matters so similar to the Synoptic text and its alloform in Thomas suggests that the prominence of the 'beloved son' in the canonical Gospels--or at least of the concept underlying it--is not incidental to the meaning of the Gospel passage. Rather, both texts would seem to have had their origins in the dispute of Jews and early Christians over the identity of the beloved son and the community that harks back to him. The only way in which a dispute of this sort could be carried on was through the exegesis of the only scripture either community knew--the Hebrew Bible.
 

As the last sentence of Levenson's compelling paragraph has informed us both groups relied upon 'the exegesis of the only scripture either community knew--the Hebrew Bible.' Only those well versed in Hebrew scripture could understand the Parable of the Wicked Tenants and its allusions to the Song of the Vineyard.

No discussion of the meaning of the parable would be complete without mention of the genre of the story or the dispute about the identification. The allegory dispute arose because some commentators questioned the likelihood of its usage by Jesus and the debate then expanded over the definition. Yet we know that Philo of Alexandria invited his audience to consider both the literal and symbolic meaning of scripture. There is no reason to think that Jesus did not do so likewise.⁽⁴³⁾

One feature of the soliloquy merits additional discussion. The intent and meaning becomes clear after the question is answered and a reply is given. Since the reply provides the understanding, it is unlikely this explanation is an addition made by the early church. Furthermore, this reply feature is the cipher that the form preserved in the gospel survived substantially intact as a juridical parable, modeled perhaps on the Old Testament parable of Nathan.⁽⁴⁴⁾ Designating the parable as a juridical parable makes sense only if the parable is directed at the chief priests. In fact, all three synoptic gospels report that the chief priests realized that Jesus had told the parable against them. A juridical parable can not be directed at the nation, only towards individuals, because the purpose of the juridical parable is to have the addressee recognize himself. As Uriel Simon has explained: 'The juridical parable is a disguised parable designed to overcome man's closeness to himself, enabling him to judge himself by the same yardstick that he applies to others.'⁽⁴⁵⁾ If addressed to the 'chief priests', the juridical parable is realistic but if addressed to the people it is a rhetorical device of limited effectiveness. Jesus, in modifying the Song of the Vineyard by addressing the 'chief priests' in the presence of the people, made the retort to the question of his authority devastating.

Our preliminary analysis has demonstrated that the vineyard is God's kingdom in Israel represented by the people. The fence, tower and wine-vat represent the institutions of Israel including the law, temple and priesthood which are meant to safeguard God's vineyard. The tenants are the religious leaders of the people who are responsible for the vineyard. The analysis has also shown that the juridical parable is a well-constructed Palestinian story created by someone knowledgeable in Hebrew scripture utilizing midrashic and pesher techniques of exegesis and 'the prophetic techniques of assonance.' Although the question of genre has not been resolved, primarily because there has been no agreement on the definition of allegory, there has been a recognition that the form preserved in the gospel was common in the first century and could have been spoken by Jesus. In considering whether or not Jesus is the creator of the parable it is important to remember what Matthew Black said: 'Jesus did not commit anything to writing, but by His use of poetic form and language He ensured that His sayings would not be forgotten.'⁽⁴⁶⁾

Jesus did not identify those to whom the vineyard will be given. They are often considered to be the Gentiles. While this true of Matthew's version of the parable containing 21:43, the 'others' may refer to the disenfranchised to whom and for whom Jesus had directed his ministry.

We now turn the puzzling question of why Luke lacks the critical references to the hedge, winepress and watchtower found in Matthew and Mark. According to Snodgrass, Luke 'omitted the irrelevant details. Such an omission is in keeping with his proclivity for neatness and efficiency.'⁽⁴⁷⁾ This article will demonstrate that the 'irrelevant details' are significant and that the details were not included for non-stylistic reasons.

Since removal of the hedge⁽⁴⁸⁾ was seen as removal of God's protection,⁽⁴⁹⁾ Luke would not want his Jewish audience to conclude that God was no longer with them. There is no Lucan parallel to Matthew 21:43 which talks explicitly of the rejection of the Jewish people as a whole. The fence/hedge reference was not included to re-affirm that the people of Jewish background are accepted in Luke's community.

Did the religious aristocracy recognize that Jesus had told this parable against them because the Qumran community had utilized a commentary on Isaiah 5 to attack them? Although firm conclusions can not be drawn, it is apparent that the Qumran community had utilized a commentary on Isaiah 5 in their literary attacks upon their opponents. For instance, in Pesher Isaiah B, which survives only for parts of chapter 5 of Isaiah, the opponents of the sect are termed 'scoffers in Jerusalem.'⁽⁵⁰⁾ According to the fragmentary Pesher Nahum, the 'scoffers in Jerusalem' are the same priests who had led the people astray.⁽⁵¹⁾ Pesher Nahum, inter alia, attacks the large amounts of money accumulated by the 'priests of Jerusalem.'⁽⁵²⁾ The 'scoffers in Jerusalem' are also derisively labeled 'Shoddy-Wall-Builders' and 'White-washers.'⁽⁵³⁾ One reason the chief priests knew the parable was directed to them may have been because of their familiarity with the Qumran literature. However we do not know.

Perhaps Matthew and Mark, because they did not understand how the chief priests knew that the parable had been told against them, added the details about the winepress and tower so that the imagery of the Temple would provide the necessary connective linkage. Furthermore Matthew and Mark but not Luke condemned the animal sacrificial system. Thus for them, including the winepress and watchtower made sense. In so doing, Matthew and Mark converted the condemnation against the high priests into a condemnation of the Temple and its animal sacrificial system and together with other changes made by Matthew and Mark broaden the condemnation to include the people of Israel. Since the treading of the winepress is emblematic of divine judgment,⁽⁵⁴⁾ perhaps Matthew and Mark included 'winepress' to attenuate the condemnation of the people of Israel and heighten the polemics against the Jews.⁽⁵⁵⁾

The phrase 'hear another parable'⁽⁵⁶⁾ is a clue that Matthew intends the Parable of the Two Sons,⁽⁵⁷⁾ the Parable of the Wicked Tenants and the Parable of the Wedding Guests⁽⁵⁸⁾ to be interpreted together. The first two parables recall the earlier vineyard parable about the labor dispute concerning the payment of wages.⁽⁵⁹⁾ In all three vineyard parables, all based on Isaiah 5, the vineyard represents the people of Israel.

In the next vineyard parable, the one son says he will not but does while the other son says he will but does not. According to Drury, '...the parable explains the momentous transfer of divine approval from orthodox Jewry to the unrespectable but responsive gathering of repentant sinners who make up the Church.'⁽⁶⁰⁾

The Parable of the Two Sons speaks of the people as God's sons raising in the minds of the listeners the question of which son is to receive the inheritance: Ishmael or Isaac, Essau or Jacob? For Levenson, the question is which son is the Beloved Son?⁽⁶¹⁾ Who are the new tenants? Who are the wedding guests? Levenson has demonstrated that the Parable of the Wicked Tenants is about 'Christian supersessionism.'⁽⁶²⁾ However Levenson did not consider the synoptic differences. Levenson's analysis of the Parable of the Wicked Tenants is accurate as applied to Matthew and Mark but not Luke for the reasons presented in this article.

The Parable of the Wedding Guests is the third parable in the Matthean series. When the invited guests failed to appear at the wedding, the king sent other servants saying,

Tell those who are invited, 'Behold, I have made ready my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves are killed, and everything is ready; come to the marriage feast.' But they made light of it and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the thoroughfare, and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.' And those servants went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good; so the wedding hall was filled with guests.
 

But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment; and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen.
 

The killing of the servants bringing the invitations to the wedding banquet is senseless. 'This apparently motiveless killing is one of the signs that a historical allegorical interest has superseded a concern with realism in the narrative.'⁽⁶³⁾ Drury has explained that the Parable of the Wedding Feast must be read in conjunction with the preceding parable. When read together, '...the two parables are linked by a theme: the historical crisis whereby Judaism was condemned and Christianity is authorized, the fundamental Christian historical myth.'⁽⁶⁴⁾

Just as Levenson located and discussed a rabbinic parallel to the Parable of the Wicked Tenants so has Drury located a rabbinic parallel to the Parable of the Wedding in the Midrash Rabbah on Ecclesiastes 9.8, 'Let your garments be always white; let not oil be lacking on your head':

To what may the matter be likened? To a king who made a

banquet to which he invited guests. He said to them, Go wash yourselves, brush up your clothes, anoint yourselves with oil, wash your garments and prepare for the banquet. But he fixed no time when they were to come to it. The wise among them walked about by the entrance of the palace, saying, Does the king lack anything? The foolish among them paid no regard or attention to the king's command. They said, we will in due course notice when the king's banquet is to take place, for can there be a banquet without labor and company? So the plasterer went to his plaster, the potter to his clay, the smith to his charcoal, the washer to his laundry. Suddenly the king ordered, Let them come to the banquet. They hurried the guests so that some came in their splendid attire and others came in their dirty clothes. The king was pleased with the wise ones who had obeyed his command, and also because they had shown honor to his palace. The king said, Let those who have prepared for the banquet come and eat of the king's meal, but those who have not prepared themselves shall not partake of it. You might suppose that the latter were simply to depart, but the king continued, No, but the former shall recline and eat and drink, while these shall remain standing, be punished and look on and be grieved.⁽⁶⁵⁾
 

As Drury notes: 'The two versions are close to one another in content as well as time, most strikingly in the unworthy guests returning to their ordinary business after being invited.'⁽⁶⁶⁾ Drury comments as follow: 'The most significant contrast between the two versions is in their similar but different patterns of sacred history.'⁽⁶⁷⁾ The parable defines for the Matthean community the question of who are the wedding guests who declined the invitation. They are the Jewish people.

Not only is the Lucan Parable of the Wedding Guests⁽⁶⁸⁾ located earlier, the emphasis is decidedly and significantly different. When the invited guests declined the invitation, it is extended to the outcasts and poor for whom the gospel is especially intended.⁽⁶⁹⁾ In fact, the Lucan Jesus instructs his host:

When you give a dinner or banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your kinsman or your rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you.⁽⁷⁰⁾

The inclusion of the maimed is significant in that they were banned from full participation in Jewish worship.⁽⁷¹⁾ At the conclusion of the Lucan Parable of the Wedding Guests, 'the master said to the servant':

Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.⁽⁷²⁾
 

The Lucan Jesus shows no partiality. The invitation is extended to everyone. 'If those who follow Jesus are not those one would expect, it is not because Jesus excluded some but because some excluded themselves.'⁽⁷³⁾

Matthew has chosen to emphasize displacement in the context of the covenant of election. The Parable of the Laborers, although separated by fourteen pericopes⁽⁷⁴⁾, is related. These three Matthean parables are about God's vineyard and His expectations of justice and righteousness represented by the 'fruits', whether it be something radical about economic arrangements in society or the radical equality to be shown to those who accept the invitation to become co-workers in the vineyard planted by God. The 'time for fruit' has been a theme of his since the preaching of John in chapter 3. Matthew's unique focus on 'fruits' is in fact related to his view that because the vineyard did not yield 'fruits' the Temple was destroyed. In Hebrew, 'fruit' is transliterated as kais and pronounced the same as kes which means 'destruction.' Is the wordplay in the 8th chapter of Amos the inspiration for 21:43? The allusion to Amos 8:2 is admittedly subtle but the use of wordplay and subtlety is the hallmark of prophetic preaching. Had Jesus used such a 'pun', then it would take the polemic bite out of 21:43. However, the evidence at the present time is too weak to make such a conclusion. The definition of wordplay and/or pun is broad enough to include the use of one word to suggest the meaning of another. In the post-70 era, the repeated reference to 'fruit[s]' in a parable including a hedge, tower and winepress and susceptible of being considered an explanation for the end of the Temple is sufficient to enable an audience of Jewish background to recall the kais - kes wordplay in Amos.

There is no question Matthew also intends the three vineyard parables and the Parable of the Wedding Guests to be about the legitimation of the separation of his community from Judaism. These parables show signs of the crisis of the schism between new Jewish Christianity and old Judaism. This is consistent with Matthew's strident polemics against the Jews.⁽⁷⁵⁾ Many scholars have noted that it is necessary to examine the referent prior to assuming that 'the you' of the Jewish leaders has become the Jewish people. However with Matthew's strident polemics, it is easy to see that Matthew has already made that connection.

Bock erroneously states that 'The appeal to a pattern of slaying the prophets shows the tenants picture the whole nation, not just its leaders... To restricts the tenants to leaders alone is too narrow.'⁽⁷⁶⁾ In point of fact, as Bock noted several pages earlier, 'Luke is alone in having only the son slain.'⁽⁷⁷⁾ There is a pattern of slaying of prophets in both the Matthean and Marcan versions of the parable which Luke lacks.⁽⁷⁸⁾ Likewise, there are no senseless killings in the Lucan version of the Parable of the Wedding Guests.

More importantly Bock and those who interpret the Lucan version to include the Jewish people in the condemnation ignore not only the explicit language that the chief priests knew that the parable had been told 'against them' but more importantly 'they feared the people.' However the Matthean version of the parable supports such an interpretation since Matthew has included

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits thereof[.],⁽⁷⁹⁾
 

which Luke lacks. This Lucan interpretation, that the 'Wicked Tenants' does not include the people, is strengthened by the unique point about judgment made by Luke in 20:18 which is consistent with Luke's views of individual responsibility.⁽⁸⁰⁾

Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls.⁽⁸¹⁾
 

Luke has based this verse on the 'stone of stumbling' passage of Isa. 8:14 as a comment on the Parable of the Wicked Tenants. Bock indicated there is no verbal allusion to Isaiah but that there is conceptual allusion to Isaiah 8:14 and to Dan. 2:45.⁽⁸²⁾ Combining two separate 'stone' passages to provide a new understanding of the Song of the Vineyard is the type of midrash one would expect of a first century rabbi.

The stone of stumbling passage is also quoted by Paul who has combined it with the stone passage of Isa. 28:16 which concludes with a positive note: 'and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.'⁽⁸³⁾ Thus Paul re-affirms that the decision to believe is an individual one as are the consequences.

The Lucan Parable of the Wicked Tenants is not directed against the people. It is, like the original Song of the Vineyard, directed against those who have accumulated excessive wealth at the expense of the peasants. These individuals are identified by Luke as the chief priests and scribes, the religious aristocracy of the Temple.

In Luke, the parable is separated from the brief cleansing of the Temple by a mere eight verses. This placement is doubly significant. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants is the first opportunity for the Lucan Jesus has to publicly state why he was so upset in the Temple that

he began to cast out those who sold, saying to them, 'It is written "my house shall be a house of prayer' but you have made it a 'den of robbers."' (emphasis added).
 

He does so with his Parable of the Wicked Tenants directed to those who made the 'house of prayer' a 'den of robbers,' the 'chief priests and scribes.' The parable relates back to the bold 'you' who have made the 'house of prayer' into 'a den of robbers.' 'You' can only be understood as the same persons addressed by the Lucan Jesus, 'the scribes and chief priests.' The parable expounds and makes more meaningful the brief Lucan cleansing of the Temple pericope.

Jeremias⁽⁸⁴⁾, Marshall⁽⁸⁵⁾ and more recently, Bock⁽⁸⁶⁾ have each viewed the Lucan Jesus in the 'temple cleansing' episode as criticizing the excessive profiteering of the trade, controlled by the high priest's family, and not the sacrificial system itself. They suggest that the account can be better understood by recognizing that for the convenience of those who came to the Temple, the animal vendors provided sacrificial animals that would meet the proper ritual requirements.

The Temple commerce was directly linked to sacrifices in the Temple, a main source of income for the Temple, and the offerings to the Temple treasury that was originally meant for redistribution among the poor. None of this is criticized by Luke who holds the Temple in high regard. In Luke, the two verse 'cleansing of the Temple' is an act urging reformation. His criticism focuses on the use of these resources by the religious aristocracy for their own selfish purpose. Thus the power and authority of Temple leadership was also expressed in the control of the people's resources. Another aspect of this control is the role of the Temple as a large landowner.

Recognizing that the parable is based on the Song of the Vineyard is important. It is also important to recognize the context of the Song by what precedes it and by what follows it. Isaiah starts his ministry by informing the people of their prevalent delusion that God could be pleased by costly and elaborate sacrifices without regard to the character and conduct of the worshippers.⁽⁸⁷⁾ The first woe following the Song describes the accumulation of property by a few greedy landowners as well as the undermining of the relationship between families and their ancestral lands in a farm economy. It condemned the injustice and oppression of those who have acquired and consolidated the small farms and evicted the tenant farmers who worked them.

The conditions that the Prophet Isaiah condemned also existed during the time of Jesus. Several Lucan parables also give clear indications both of the precarious situation of tenants and of the built-up antagonisms and criticism against landlords (16:1-8; 19:12-27; 20:9-16).⁽⁸⁸⁾ Gerd Theissen makes this comment: 'A progressive concentration of possession probably heightened the struggle over the distribution of wealth in the first century A.D.'⁽⁸⁹⁾ Sean Freyne stated: 'The Galilian Jewish peasant found himself in the rather strange position that those very people to whom he felt bound by ties of national and religious loyalty, the priestly aristocracy, were in fact his social oppressors.⁽⁹⁰⁾ There was considerable popular resentment against the High Priest because the high-priestly families of the Annas, Boethus, Phiabi and Kamith, who dominated the office of the high priest from 35 B.C.E. to 66 C.E. and possessed considerable economic, religious and political influence, had abused the sacred trust. The priestly aristocracy was itself oppressive, not only toward the common people but also toward other priests.⁽⁹¹⁾ Josephus reports that Ananias, the high priest from 47 to 59 C.E., before whom Paul appeared, was greedy and ruthlessly violent using beatings to extort tithes from the common priests' allotment and leaving them destitute.⁽⁹²⁾ The talmud preserves a lamant of Abba Joseph ben Hanan, who lived during the era of Herod's temple; he conveys the plight of the common person under the high-priestly families:

Woe to me because of the house of Boethus,

woe is me because of their staves.

Woe to me because of the house of Hanan,

woe is me because of their whispering.

Woe to me because of the house of Kathros,

woe is me because of their pens.

Woe to me because of the house of Ismael ben Phiabi,

woe is me because of their fists.

For they are high priests

and their sons are treasurers

and their sons-in-law are trustees

and their servants beat the people with staves.⁽⁹³⁾
 

The placement of the parable eight verses after the cleansing of the Temple is significant for a second reason. Luke does not condemn the animal sacrificial system. Matthew and Mark do. Although a complete discussion of this point appears in an earlier article,⁽⁹⁴⁾ it is important to note that Matthew and Mark include a scene so uncharacteristic of Jesus, the cursing of the fig tree.⁽⁹⁵⁾ From the placement of the stories of the cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the Temple and the well known symbolic meaning of fig trees, the commentators conclude that the fig tree represents the animal sacrificial system.⁽⁹⁶⁾ One commentator said: 'The cursing of the fig tree symbolizes the condemnation of the temple institution which, as the central systemic structure of Judaism, has been regulating the religious, political, economic and social life of the Jewish people.'⁽⁹⁷⁾ Thus it is significant that the 'withered fig tree' account is conspicuous by its absence from Luke. The animal sacrificial system condemned by Matthew and Mark⁽⁹⁸⁾, but not Luke, was the very basis of the Judaic temple worship.

The Lucan Jesus 'will not remove its hedge,' 'break down its walls,''make it a waste' will not 'command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.'⁽⁹⁹⁾ The Lucan Jesus is prophesying only that 'the wicked tenants,' 'the chiefs priests and scribes' will be replaced, not that the chosen people represented by the 'vineyard' will be replaced. To read replacement theology into the Lucan parable is an erroneous interpretation not supported by proper biblical exegesis. Furthermore, Peter Richardson has shown that Justin Martyr was the first Christian writer to identify Christianity with Israel in explicit terms.⁽¹⁰⁰⁾ Consequently, rejection-displacement theology begins not with the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, but more than one hundred years later. Thus the omission of the hedge, winepress and watchtower is consistent with the one of the themes developed by Luke, that the animal sacrificial system, priesthood and Temple are not condemned.

If the 'vineyard' equals 'the people of Israel', then certain consequences logically follow. One can not take the vineyard away from the people. Although the parable does not identify the 'others' to whom the vineyard will be given, it seems clear that the vineyard will be taken away from the chief priests so that they will no longer be in the vineyard serving the people. Jesus did not tell the chief priests that He is the Messiah nor did He tell them that the vineyard had been turned over to Him. For Luke, the message is clear. Jesus is not the absentee landlord; He is now the Lord of the vineyard.

1. Members of the Jesus Seminar have maintained that the version of the parable of the wicked tenants preserved in the Synoptic Gospels represents a secondary, embellished form of the parable that includes allegorical features. The seminar believes that the form of the parable preserved in the Gospel of Thomas, which lacks any allusion to Isaiah 5, is closer to Jesus' original teaching. I disagree. The basis of my disagreement is contained in this article.
2. See generally Bock, Luke, Vol. 2: 9:51-24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Moises Silva, (Grand Rapids, Vol. 3b 1996), 1593-94.
3. Psalm 80:8-9.
4. Hos. 10:1.
5. Isaiah 5:1-2. See also Isa. 27:2-6.
6. Jer. 2:21.
7. Ezek. 15:6. See also Ezek. 19:10-14.
8. Isa. 5:3.
9. chief priests and pharisees, Matt. 21:45; chief priests, scribes and elders, Mark 11:27, 12:12; scribes and chief priests, Lk. 20:19.
10. Lk. 16:1ff; 13:6ff; 19:1ff; Matt. 21:33-44; Mark 12:1.
11. Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflicts and Economic Relations in Luke's Gospel, (Philadelphia 1988), 62-64.
12. Moxnes, 63.
13. Isa. 5:5.
14. Isa 5:2; Matt 22:33; Mark 12:1.
15. Isa. 5:2; Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, An Introduction & Commentary, (Downers Grove, 1993), 68.
16. Bock, 1593.
17. 20:16b.
18. 20:18.
19. see 12:17, 45; 15:17; 16:3-4; 18:4-5; 20:13.
20. Isa. 5:4-5.
21. Luke tells us in his second publication that Jesus is the stone which was rejected. Acts 4:7-12. It was a favorite quotation of the early Church as a description of the death and the resurrection of Jesus. Acts 4:11; 1 Peters 2:7; Barnabus 6:4. By the time of Justin Martyr, 'the stone' had become a name for Jesus (Dialogue with Trypho 34). Bock, 1604.
22. In Acts 4:11, Peter calls the religious aristocracy of the Temple, 'builders'.
23. M. Black, 'The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,' NTS 18 (1971), 12.
24. K. Snodgrass, The Parable of the Wicked Tenants, (Tubingen, 1983), 118.
25. M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd. ed. (Oxford, 1967).
26. Snodgrass, 63.
27. Isaiah employs, as noted by Motyer, 'the telling use of assonance and alliteration': 1:21; 5:7, 16, 30; 7:9; 8:12, 22; 14:23; 15:9; 24:1, 3-4, 6, 16, 23; 27:7; 35:9; 37:30; 40:31; 40:31; 41:2; 50:4; 54:11; 58:12; 59:7, 11; 60:18. Motyer, 25.
28. Elmer A. Leslie, Isaiah, (New York, 1963), 32.
29. J. Skinner, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, (Cambridge 1963), 37.
30. Isa. 10:2; 32:7.
31. Bock, 1603.
32. Bock, 1603.
33. Isa. 28:16 and Dan. 2:44-45.
34. According to Adele Berlin, repetition 'is one of the most extensive devices in the Bible, taking many different forms... It should not be mistaken for ancient redundancy, or even as simply an esthetic device. It is a key to perception, interpretation.' Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, (Sheffield: Almond, 1983), 136.
35. Acts 5:30 (Peter to the council); 10:39 (Peter to Cornelius) and 13:29 (Paul at Ephesus).
36. The identity of 'builders' as 'scribes' is supported by rabbinic traditions. J.D.M. Derrett, 'The Stone that the Builders Rejected' in Studies in the New Testament, 5 vols. (Leiden, 1977-78), 2:64-65.
37. B. D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum (ArBib 11; Wilmington: Glazier, 1987) 10-11.
38. As this article will demonstrate, this is true for Matthew and Mark only.
39. J.M. Baumgarten, '4Q500 and the Ancient Conception of the Lord's Vineyard,' JJS 40 (1989) 1-6.
40. C.A. Evans, 'On the Vineyard Parable of Isaiah 5 and Mark 12,' BZ 28 (1984), 83-84.
41. M. Baillet, Qumran Grotte 4 III (4Q482-4Q520)(DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982) 78-79 + pl. 27; J.M. Baumgarten, '4Q500 and the Ancient Conception of the Lord's Vineyard,' Journal of Jewish Studies 40 (1989) 1-6; Marcus, The Way of the Lord, 120;
    G.J. Brooke, '4Q500 1 and the Use of Scripture in the Parable of the Vineyard,' Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995) 268-94.
42. Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, (New Haven and London, 1993), 230-231.
43. Adolph Julicher, who began the modern study of parables by showing many of them could be interpreted in non-allegorical ways, initiated the debate by rejecting as later interpolations all prophetic interpretations of the parables. Julicher was a product of 19th century rationalism which refused to countenance predictive prophecy.
44. 2 Sam. 12:1-14.
45. U. Simon, 'The Poor Man's Ewe-Lamb: an Example of a Juridical Parable,' Biblica XLVIII (1967), 221.
46. Black, 185.
47. Snodgrass, 48.
48. Isa 5:5 RSV; NRSV, fence.
49. The Qumran community also understood the removal of the hedge as the removal of God's protection as indicated by the 4Q162 col 1 exegesis of Isa. 5:5. Wise, Abregg & Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls, (Harper: San Francisco 1996), 211.
50. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, (Philadelphia and Jerusalem, 1994), 229; Cf. "Behold, you scoffers,' Acts 13:41 and also Isa. 28:14 and Isa. 29:20.
51. Schiffman, 386.
52. Schiffman, 387.
53. Wise, Abegg & Cook, 59. Cf. Acts 23:3, 'white-washed walls.'
54. Isa. 63:2; Lam. 1:15; Rev. 14:19, 20; 19:15.
55. This conclusion is strengthened by their substitution of 'winepress' for the 'winevat' contained in Isa. 5:2.
56. Matt. 21:33.
57. This parable, Matt. 21:28-32, is unique to Matthew having no parallel in Mark or Luke.
58. Matt. 22:1-14; Lk. 14:15-24.
59. The Parable of the Laborers appears at Matt. 20:1-16.
60. John Drury, The Parables in the Gospel, (New York, 1985), 96.
61. Levenson, 231.
62. Levenson, 231.
63. Frederick Houk Borsch, Many Things in Parables, (Philadelphia, 1988), 48.
64. Drury, 97.
65. Drury, 98-99.
66. Drury, 99.
67. Drury, 100.
68. Throckmorton, Gospel Parallels, places the Matthean version in Section 205 and the Lucan version in Section 170.
69. 1:50-53; 4:16-30; 6:20-23. The OT background is Isa. 61:1-2; 35:5-6 and 29:18-19.
70. Lk. 14:12-14.
71. Lev. 21:17-23.
72. Lk. 14:23-24.
73. Bock, 1268-69.
74. Throckmorton places the Parable of the Laborers in Section 190 and the Parable of the Wicked Tenants in Section 204. Georg Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit (Gottingen, 2nd rev. ed. 1966) asserted that Matthew's community had made a definite break with Judaism. Strecker assembled an imposing list of evidence: Matthew speaks of 'their' scribes (7:29) and 'their' synagogues (4:23; 9:35; 10:17; 12:9; 13:54). In comparison to parallel in Luke and Mark, Matthew intensifies polemical references to the Pharisees (see 15:12-14; 23:25-26). The title 'rabbi' which is often used in Mark to refer respectfully to Jesus (Mk. 9:5; 11:21; 14:45), is found in Matthew on the lips of Judas (26:25, 49). The disciples are warned not to take on the title 'rabbi' (23:7-8). These are clear signs of alienation from Pharisaic Judaism. At the same time Matthew shows an openness to the Gentiles (28:19; 21:43; etc.), a sharp contrast with his hostility to Judaism, especially to its leaders.
75. Bock, 1597.
76. Bock, 1593.
77. Isaiah is the only prophet 'remembered' as having been killed and buried, like Jesus, in Jerusalem. The source of the tradition that Isaiah was sawn in half by the wicked king Manasseh is not known and in fact is not mentioned in the Bible. Perhaps Luke is aware the story is not historical but in his ambivalence includes Lk. 13:34.
78. Matt. 21:43.
79. Matthew and Mark have re-introduced collective responsibility which the Prophet Ezekiel had abandoned. Ezek. 18:5-9. See also Lk. 14:24, infra page 16. Matthew and Mark's belief in collective responsibility is consistent with their belief that the Gentiles replaced the Jews.
80. Matt. 21:44 is listed as a variant reading appearing in some of the later manuscripts. Mark lacks this parallel.
81. Bock, 1605.
82. Rom. 9:32-33.
83. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, (Philadelphia, 1969), 49.
84. I.H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, 1978), 721.
85. Bock, 1572.
86. Isa. 1:10-17.
87. Moxnes, 73.
88. Gerd Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, (Philadelphia 1978), 41.
89. Sean Freyne, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323 B.C.E - 135 C.E.: A Study of Second Temple Judaism, (Philadelphia, 1980), 199.
90. Attacks against an avaricious priesthood are also found in the Qumran material. See CD 2:12-20; 6:12-17; 20:20-27; 1QHab. 8:8-18; 11:4-15; 12:1-10; as well as Pss. of Sol. 1; 2; 4; 8.
91. Ant. XX, 103, 131.
92. Babylonian Talmud Pesahim, 57a; Tosephta Menahoth 13:21 cited by Menahem Stern, 'Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priesthood and Other Classes,' in Jewish People, ed. Safrai and Stern, 2:602-3.
93. Anderson, 'The Cross and Atonement from Luke to Hebrews,' EQ 71:2 (1999), 127-149.
94. Mk. 11:12; Mt. 21:18-19.
95. The following commentators have concluded that the fruitless and cursed fig tree symbolizes a fruitless and doomed Temple: C.E.B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (CGTC; Cambridge, 1959) 356-57 (following Adolf Schlatter); W. L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark (NIC; Grand Rapids, 1974) 400; H. Anderson, The Gospel of Mark (NAB; London and Grand Rapids, 1976) 267; L. Williamson, Jr., Mark (Interpretation: A Commentary for Teaching and Preaching; Atlanta, 1983) 206.
96. Waetjen, 182.
97. Ernest Lohmeyer has suggested that the tradition concerning Jesus relied upon by Matthew and Mark was strictly anti-cultic. Lohmeyer, Kultus und Evangelium (Gottingen: 1942), 125.
98. Isa. 5:8-9.
99. Peter Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church, (Cambridge 1969) 9-14, 74.
100. Admittedly the chief priests are not told that following the resurrection, the Church and the Holy Spirit will meet the spiritual needs of the people formerly provided by the chief priests albeit in a different manner. Thus the chief priests lost their real estate investments as well as their privilege to serve in the vineyard, the people.
101. Lucan christology has noticed an overlap between 'lord' used of Jesus and that of God to the extent that there is an identification of Jesus with God. C. Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology, (Tubingen 1997), 21-22 and works cited therein. Therefore Jesus is now LORD of the vineyard.
102. Lk. 1:17, 21; 2:10, 31, 32.
103. Jervell, Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts, Minneapolis, Augsburg, 1972.
104. Sirach 44:19-21.
105. Luke uses the theme of the wicked tenants as one of the threads that ties together his two volumes. Although it is beyond the scope of this article, it also appears that Luke has an interest in showing that Jesus and the Jerusalem community are following the teachings and traditions of the Priestly Narrative as interpreted by Ezekiel, Sirach, et al. The priestly writers were interested in temple rituals, the ordering of the priesthood, the sacred holidays, the rite of circumcision, and worship at the Jerusalem shrine.
106. Motyer, 13.
107. Isa. 5:24.
108. 'The emphasis in the book of Kings [chapters 1-37] is on the rejection of the Holy One [1:4; 5:24; 30:11; 31:1; 37:23] and the judgment which follows [5:16, 24; 10:17; 30:12-14].' Motyer, 18.
109. 66:18-24.
110. Motyer, 18. See also the discussion of the Lucan Parable of the Wedding Guests, infra page 16.
111. Motyer, 17-18