NOTES for Mat 21:33-46
Today’s reading once again presents us with Jesus’ parable of the vineyard. This parable, like all parables of this kind, is messianic, and the vineyard here, as throughout the Bible, becomes a symbol of the messianic Kingdom. To understand the parable, it is important to remember that the Pharisaic movement was a messianic movement whose members considered themselves to be the very remnant of which the prophets had spoken. The prophets did, of course, speak of a remnant, meaning a small part of the people who would pass through trials—the Babylonian exile became such a trial for the Jewish people—preserve their faith, and meet the Messiah promised by God. After the exile and the people’s return to the land of their fathers, however, a brotherhood movement took shape in the Synagogue whose members came to regard themselves as this remnant. They were called “Pharisees,” that is, “those who had separated themselves,” or “sectarians.” Perhaps at first this was a somewhat contemptuous nickname, but by Gospel times the members of the brotherhood readily called themselves “Pharisees,” even with a certain defiance. They considered themselves the spiritual heirs of the prophets and the guardians of the traditions of prophetic messianism.
Jesus places them alongside those who persecuted and killed the prophets in ancient times (vv. 34–36). From His point of view, they had in fact become heirs not of the prophets, but of their persecutors. They completed what their forerunners had begun (vv. 37–39). At this point there occurred what actually makes the cross of Christ inevitable. The listeners understood Jesus perfectly well, and decided to kill Him (vv. 45–46). Only very recently, the matter could still have been a theological discussion (vv. 23–27); now the discussion threatened to end in bloodshed. This is not surprising: their unwillingness to answer Jesus’ question (vv. 25–27) was not accidental. They faced a choice: acknowledge the obvious and abandon their own views and concepts, or abandon nothing and close their eyes to God’s will. Jesus’ interlocutors effectively choose the latter. If, in this situation, Jesus had rebuked His listeners but then insisted on nothing, perhaps everything would have passed without incident. Different points of view might have coexisted, as many already did in the Synagogue of Gospel times.
But Jesus says plainly that this is not about opinions, but about the Kingdom, and that no compromise is possible here (vv. 43–44). His listeners understand that this is no longer a theological dispute but a matter of survival: if this strange Teacher is right, they will have to leave and give way to others. He will not simply yield; He states the issue bluntly and will stand His ground to the end. Those who neither want to leave nor want to accept Him are then left with only one possibility. If this Man truly dies, the problem will resolve itself: it will become clear that He is neither Messiah nor prophet. Those who did not accept Him will therefore have been right and can sleep peacefully. Thus the rejection of Christ makes His cross inevitable.