The Parable of the Vineyard

S. Mark xii. 1–12

One Who was wont to illustrate His teaching by imagery drawn from the objects which surrounded Him, could hardly fail in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem to speak of vineyards. The hills and table-lands of Judah were the home of the vine. Five times our Lord availed Himself of this figure for His parables, and though it is doubtful in what locality He spoke that of the Labourers in the Vineyard, it is almost certain that the remaining four are intimately associated with Jerusalem.

In many places in Southern Palestine the features of this parable may still be traced. The loose stone fences, like the walls so familiar to the eye in Wales or Derbyshire; the remains of the old watch-towers, generally in one corner of the enclosure; and the cisterns hewn in the solid rock in which the grapes were pressed — all remain to the present day. It was the custom in our Lord’s time for the owner in leasing a vineyard to tenants, to arrange for the rent to be paid not in money but in kind, a certain portion of the produce being set apart as “a first charge” for the landlord. The system prevails in modern times in some parts of France, and more widely under the name of “ryot-rent” in India. The inner meaning of the parable is quite obvious. It had become perfectly familiar to the Jews from the frequent comparison of Israel to a vine in the Old Testament. Isaiah had said, “The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel,” and had spoken of God as a Vine -dresser, bestowing the utmost care upon the nation, only to receive in return a worthless vintage. “He looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.”

The Psalmist had sung of the vine brought out of Egypt, transplanted into a carefully-prepared soil, and growing over the whole land, only to be devastated by “the boar out of the wood, and the wild beasts of the field.”

Ezekiel had warned the nation that if they bore no fruit they would be useless, just as the barren vine was good for nothing but to be “cast into the fire for fuel.”

Indeed, the figure seemed to the Jews so peculiarly applicable that they appropriated it as their emblem, and it was perpetuated “on the coins of the Maccabees, and in the colossal cluster of golden grapes which overhung the porch of the second Temple; and the grapes of Judah still mark the tombstones of the Hebrew race in the oldest of their European cemeteries at Prague.”

Whether in the parable the hedge and winefat and tower had each a special application in the system of God’s Providential care for His ancient people, we cannot say; but at least in one particular we may trace a peculiar fitness in the figure of “the hedge.”

What was it that protected the land of Israel year by year during the three Great Festivals, when by the Divine Law the country was denuded of its male population — when every man, from north, south, east, and west, from the most unguarded districts, leaving their flocks and herds, their wives and little ones, totally unprotected from their bitterest enemies, went up to Jerusalem, the centre of religious worship?

What was it that held in check the Moabite and Ammonite, and the robber tribes of Arabia? 1 It was the fence of Divine protection, which, like “a wall of fire,” God in His Providence had built up, so that no one dared to pass it. The husbandmen were the leaders and chief rulers of the people; the servants were the prophets. The successive missions point perhaps to the earlier and later, — Elijah and Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Baptist. All were received with persecution and death. One was threatened wherever he went, another sawn asunder, a third beaten and thrown into the dungeon, a fourth denounced the people in the Temple, and perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Indeed, with such unbroken cruelty were the messengers of God treated, that, looking back over the history of wellnigh a thousand years, S. Stephen broke out into the indignant question, “Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?” And when God sent to them His Son, trusting that the hereditary reverence for the chief of the family would revive their respect and allegiance, they waxed bolder and bolder, till they crucified Him like a common malefactor, and cast His Body out of the city.

And what was the fate of the wicked husbandmen? It adds not a little to the interest that, as S. Matthew records, its justice was acknowledged by the very men who both earned and endured it. It seems strange that, knowing, as they must have done, that the parable was aimed against them, they should by their own lips have condemned themselves, for, in answer to the question, “What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do?” they answered at once, “He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.” We can hardly doubt, however, that it was intended as a blind, to hide from the people the conviction they must have felt. But it was fulfilled to the letter. Nothing could have exceeded the misery which overtook those miserable men at the destruction of their city. Their threatened wretchedness is intensified by the peculiar alliteration 2 which the first Evangelist has preserved: “He will miserably destroy these miserable men.” And not only did they perish for their wickedness, but the vineyard was given to others, and all the spiritual privileges which they had forfeited were transferred to the Gentiles, and are now the heritage of Catholic Christendom.

Such was the predicted punishment for the wicked husbandmen; but what was in store for the rejected messengers? The “Hosannahs” 3 with which He, the Heir, the Well-beloved Son, had been received, were still ringing in His ears, and the Psalm, so familiar to every Jew, from which the people had drawn their shouts of triumph, answered His thoughts. It had been written to commemorate the completion of the Second Temple after their Return from Captivity, and it was sung at their favourite Feast. The Psalmist wished to contrast their present happiness with their former misery; the joy of independence and restoration to ancient rights with the contempt and rejection they had endured at the hands of the heathen. And he drew his imagery from an episode in the building which had been noted by him for remembrance. Among the stones and slabs from the marble quarries was one which the builders set aside from some foolish caprice as unfitted for use, and there perhaps it lay neglected and mossgrown, till suddenly it was found to be exactly what was wanted; not, however, for some common occasion, but to be raised to a position of the highest honour.

The circumstance was seized by the poet to depict the change which the nation had experienced. The Rabbis, passing by the predicted rejection, and thinking only of the glory of the coming King as the Corner-stone of the nation, had interpreted it in its secondary sense as of Messianic application; and Jesus knew that they had done so. It is no matter of surprise, then, that His appeal to a well-known scripture to describe their conduct should have stung the Rulers and Scribes with resentment. That He should dare to tell the people that One Whom they were plotting to destroy would be set by God upon His holy hill, kindled to the highest degree their hatred against Him. Gladly would they have seized Him and silenced His voice for ever, but the people were on His side, and they dreaded another public demonstration — a repetition of Palm Sunday — if they attempted to lay hands upon Him. And so they went away in a rage, baffled for a time, but determined to redouble their efforts, and lay deeper designs to bring Him into their net.

Note: Probably He was then in Perasa; if so, the same principle applies, as Moab, no less than Judasa, was famous for its vines. There is no instance of His referring to the vine in Galilee, where it grew most rarely, if at all.

Note: The object of these was chiefly to protect the vines from robbers and wild beasts, which would root them up. They presented a very isolated appearance, rising out of the vineyards. “The lodge in the garden of cucumbers,” in Isa. i. 8, was no doubt such a tower of observation.

Note: It is called the mttayer system. It is known also in Italy and Persia.

Note: I feel that I rim indebted to some one for this illustration, but cannot recall where I have seen it.

Note: The answer is put into their mouth by S. Matthew. Probably it was taken up and repeated by Himself, as SS. Mark and Luke indicate.

Note: Kanovs kclk&s aToKeoei. It is not easy to transfer the force into another language, which is further increased by the juxtaposition of the adjective and adverb.

Note: Cf. p. 238, n. 1.

Note: It is the last of the collection forming the Hallel, cxiii. -cxviii. The Psalm has been assigned to David or Hezekiah, but there is a strong consensus of opinion in placing it after the Return from Captivity, though the occasion of its composition is disputed.