3. Closely connected with the two preceding Parables, and, indeed, with the whole tenor of Christ's sayings at that time, is that about the Evil Husbandmen in the Vineyard. [5314] As in the Parable about the Labourers sought by the Householder at different times, the object here is to set forth the patience and goodness of the owner, even towards the evil. And as, in the Parable of the Two Sons, reference is made to the practical rejection of the testimony of the Baptist by the Jews, and their consequent self-exclusion from the Kingdom, so in this there is allusion to John as greater than the prophets, [5315] to the exclusion of Israel as a people from their position in the Kingdom, [5316] and to their punishment as individuals. [5317] Only we mark here a terrible progression. The neglect and non-belief which had appeared in the former Parable have now ripened into rebellion, deliberate, aggravated, and carried to its utmost consequences in the murder of the King's only and loved Son. Similarly, what formerly appeared as their loss, in that sinners went into the Kingdom of God before them, is now presented alike as their guilt and their judgment, both national and individual.
The Parable opens, like that in Is. v., with a description of the complete arrangements made by the Owner of the Vineyard, [5318] to show how everything had been done to ensure a good yield of fruit, and what right the Owner had to expect at least a share in it. In the Parable, as in the prophecy, the Vineyard represents the Theocracy, although in the Old Testament, necesaary, as identified with the nation of Israel, [5319] while in the Parable the two are distinguished, and the nation is represented by the labourers to whom the Vineyeard was let out.' Indeed, the whole structure of the Parable shows, that the husbandmen are Israel as a nation, although they are addressed and dealt with in the persons of their representatives and leaders. And so it was spoken to the people,' [5320] and yet the chief priests and Pharisees' rightly perceived that He spake of them.' [5321]
This vineyard the owner had let out to husbandmen, while he himself travelled away' [abroad], as St. Luke adds, for a long time.' From the language it is evident, that the husbandmen had the full management of the vineyard. We remember, that there were three modes of dealing with land. According to one of these (Arisuth), the labourers' employed received a certaain portion of the fruits, say, a third or fourth of the produce. [5322] In such cases it seems, at least sometimes, to have been the practice, besides giving them a proportion of the produce, to provide also the seed (for a field) and to pay wages to the labourers. [5323] The other two modes of letting land were, either that the tenant paid a money rent to the proprietor, [5324] or else that he agreed to give the owner a definite amount of produce, whether the harvest had been good or bad. [5325] Such leases were given by the year or for life: sometimes the lease was even hereditary, passing from father to son. [5326] There can scarcely be a doubt that it is the latter kind of lease (Chakhranutha, from {hebrew}) which is referred to in the Parable, the lessees being bound to give the owner a certain amount of fruits in their season.
Accordingly, when the time of the fruits drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen to receive his fruits' - the part of them belonging to him, or, as St. Mark and St. Luke express it, of the fruits of the vineyard.' We gather, that it was a succession of servants, who received increasingly ill treatment from them evil husbandmen. We might have expected that the owner would now have taken severe measures; but instead of this he sent, in his patience and goodness, other servants' - not more,' [5327] which would scarcely have any meaning, but greater than the first,' no doubt, with the idea that their greater authority would command respect. And when these also received the same treatment, we must regard it as involving, not only additional, but increased guilt on the part of the husbandmen. Once more, and with deepening force, does the question arise, what measures the owner would now take. But once more we have only a fresh and still greater display of his patience and unwillingness to believe that these husbandmen were so evil. As St. Mark pathetically put it, indicating not only the owner's goodness, but the spirit of determined rebellion and the wickedness of the husbandmen: He had yet one, a beloved son - he sent him last unto them,' on the supposition that they would reverence him. The result was different. The appearance of the legal heir made them apprehensive of their tenure. Practically, the vineyard was already theirs; by killing the heir, the only claimant to it would be put out of the way, and so thevineyard become in every respect their own. For, the husbandmen proceeded on the idea, that as the owner was abroad' for a long time,' he would not personally interfere - an impression strengthened by the circumstance that he had not avenged the former ill-usage of his servants, but only sent others in the hope of influencing them by gentleness. So the labourers. taking him [the son], cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him' - the first action indicating that by violence they thrust him out of his possession, before they wickedly slew him.