What More Could I Have Done?

The Vineyard and the Son

Bible Reading: Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19; Matt. 21:33-46 (Selected Verses)]

1. Introduction: The Question That Catches You
2. The ‘Love Song’ That Becomes a Lawsuit (Isaiah 5:1–7)

1. A Love Song (5:1–2)
2. The Jury Summons – You "judge between me & my vineyard.” (5:3)
3. The Sentence (5:5–6)
4. The Reveal (5:7)
5. Why call it a Lawsuit?

3. How the Song was Heard Afterward

1. Prophesying the Jerusalem Temple’s Destruction 586 BC
2. Isaiah’s Vineyard Song Interpreted in terms of the Temple & Priesthood

4. Jesus Takes Up the Song

1. He adopts Isaiah’s Song
2. He adjusts Isaiah’s Song
   1. The problem isn’t the vineyard or the grapes
   2. It’s the tenant-farmers – Israel’s Leaders
3. He augments Isaiah’s Song
   1. The servants –the prophets.
   2. ‘What more could I have done?’ (Isa. 5:4)
   3. “The Question…Decisively Answered by Jesus” –John Peckham
   4. “What should I do? I will send my beloved son” (Lk. 20:13)
4. The Tenants’ Motive – Stewards grasp for Ownership
5. The Jury Returns
6. Decoding the Parable

5. Judgment Refocused, Hope Revealed (Mark 12:9–12)

1. Judgment Refocused, not exempted
2. The Stone: Where Hope Enters
3. The Beloved Son’s Death is Not the Final Word

6. Application and Conclusion

1. Application:
2. Conclusion

WHAT MORE COULD I HAVE DONE? [Study Guide]

The Vineyard and the Son

Bible Reading: Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19; Matt. 21:33-46 (Selected Verses)]

12¹ [Jesus] began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug out a pit for a winepress, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenant farmers and went away. ² At harvest time he sent a servant to the farmers to collect some of the fruit of the vineyard from them. ³ But they took him, beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. ⁴ Again he sent another servant to them, and they hit him on the head and treated him shamefully. ⁵ Then he sent another, and they killed that one. He also sent many others; some they beat, and others they killed. (Mark 12:1-5)

¹³ “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What should I do? I will send my beloved son. Perhaps they will respect him.’

¹⁴ “But when the tenant farmers saw him, they discussed it among themselves and said, ‘This is the heir. Let’s kill him, so that the inheritance will be ours.’ ¹⁵ So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. “What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? (Luke 20:13-15)

⁴¹ “He will completely destroy those terrible men,” they told him, “and lease his vineyard to other farmers who will give him his fruit at the harvest.” (Matt. 21:41)

But when they heard this, they said, “That must never happen!” ¹⁷ But he looked at them and said, “Then what is the meaning of this Scripture: The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone? ¹⁸ Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomever it falls, it will shatter him.” (Luke 20:16b-18)

⁴⁵ When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they knew he was speaking about them. ⁴⁶ Although they were looking for a way to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because the people regarded him as a prophet. (Mt. 21:45-46)

SUMMARY:

Jesus’ Parable of the Vineyard Tenants deliberately echoes Isaiah’s Song of the Vineyard (Isaiah 5:1-7). In both, the hearers become the jury. In Isaiah, God prepares a fully-equipped vineyard, finds only wild grapes, and asks, “What more could I have done?” Jesus retells the song, shifting the failure from the vines to the tenant-farmers, who reject the servants and finally murder the owner’s beloved son.

The cross answers Isaiah’s question: “What more could I have done?” God the Father gives everything, His beloved Son. That gift is rejected, and judgment follows. But judgment is not the last word. The rejected and resurrected Son becomes the cornerstone, and this is the Lord’s doing.

The message calls us to see ourselves as stewards, not owners; to take the jury seat honestly; to seek the fruit God desires; and to rest on the stone in repentance, because the One who summons us also provides the sacrifice.

1. Introduction: The Question That Catches You

The question -- “What more could I have done?” – reflects failure and disappointment. Perhaps a parent has labored long & hard over many years to raise and educate a child, who has not lived up to their potential. Perhaps an employer invested in a trainee, selflessly allocating time and money in their training, giving abundant opportunities, “second- and third—chances,” yet they’ve all been squandered. The final, “exit interview,” might open with this question, an appeal for a fair-minded evaluation, before the final decision is announced. God does this here, in Jesus’ parable

The Context

“Through his messianic entry into the city [of Jerusalem] & prophetic action in the Temple Jesus has [challenged] ‘thrown down the gauntlet’ as regards authority in Jerusalem. He has directly challenged the religious establishment currently clinging to…power…” [Brendan Byrne, Costly Freedom…Mark’s Gospel, p. 182]

In the last week before the cross, Jesus rode into Jerusalem to shouts of “Hosanna.” He overturned the money-changers’ tables & said that God’s house was meant to be a house of prayer, and they’d made it a den of robbers. And the next morning the chief priests, the scribes and the elders come to him with one question: “By what authority are you doing these things?”

They are not asking for information. They are asking for credentials. Who gave this Galilean the right?

Jesus does not hand over credentials. He tells them a story. When it’s over, they knew he had told the parable against them.

Where we are Going

Here is where we are going this morning. First, we will listen to Isaiah’s Song of the Vineyard, and see how a love song turns into a lawsuit. Second, we will watch Jesus pick up that song and do 3 things with it: he adopts it, he adjusts it, and he augments it. Third, we will see how, in his hands, the judgment is refocused onto the leaders who were supposed to be stewards, and how, astonishingly, the story holds out hope in the form of a Son and a stone.

And I want to ask you to do something uncomfortable. Do not listen as a spectator. Listen like David. Because when this kind of story is told well, the one telling it asks for a verdict.

Let’s begin where Jesus began, with Isaiah 5. Here, “the singer speaks of a [beloved] friend who is really Yahweh, & a vineyard, a bride, who is really Israel.” [John DW. Watts, Isaiah 1-33, p. 54]

2. The ‘Love Song’ That Becomes a Lawsuit (Isaiah 5:1–7)

“I will sing about the one I love, a song about my loved one’s vineyard:
The one I love had a vineyard on a very fertile hill. ² He broke up the soil, cleared it of stones, and planted it with the finest vines. He built a tower in the middle of it and even dug out a winepress there. He expected it to yield good grapes, but it yielded worthless grapes.

³ So now, residents of Jerusalem and men of Judah, please judge between me and my vineyard. ⁴ What more could I have done for my vineyard than I did? Why, when I expected a yield of good grapes, did it yield worthless grapes?
⁵ Now I will tell you what I am about to do to my vineyard: I will remove its hedge, and it will be consumed; I will tear down its wall, and it will be trampled. ⁶ I will make it a wasteland. It will not be pruned or weeded; thorns and briers will grow up. I will also give orders to the clouds that rain should not fall on it.
⁷ For the vineyard of the Lord of Armies is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah, the plant he delighted in.
He expected justice but saw injustice; he expected righteousness but heard cries of despair. (Isaiah 5:1-7 CSB)

1. A Love Song (5:1–2)

Picture the scene. Many scholars imagine Isaiah at a harvest festival. The grapes are in, the mood is good, the wine is flowing. A prophet stands up and says, “Let me sing for my beloved a love song about his vineyard” (5:1a).

The crowd settles in. Everybody loves a love song. And this one is about a farmer who adores his vineyard. Watch what he does for it.

He chooses a very fertile hillside. He digs it up. He clears out the stones, one back-breaking stone at a time. He plants not just any vines, but choice vines. He builds a watchtower in the middle to guard it, and he hews out a winepress, (a vat) which means he is already planning the party. He is not planting in hope. He is building for harvest.

Then 5:2 ends with the line that stops the song: ‘he looked for good grapes, & it yielded worthless grapes.’ (5:2c)

The Hebrew word for those wild grapes, be’ushim, has a smell to it. Rotten. Foul. Not merely grapes that disappoint, but grapes that stink – ‘Stink-fruit.’

Stop there for a moment, because the first thing to see about this ‘lawsuit’ is that it begins with grace. Before there is any accusation, there is a record of love: the digging, the clearing, the planting, the guarding. Israel’s story did not begin with God demanding something. It began with God giving: the land, the covenant, the law, the Temple, the prophets. When God says, “I looked for fruit,” he is not an angry landlord. He is a lover who has poured himself out: ‘I did all this.’

2. The Jury Summons – You "judge between me & my vineyard.” (5:3)

Now the song takes a turn nobody saw coming. 5:3: “And now, inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard.”

The singer has changed voice. A moment ago, he was singing about a friend’s vineyard. Now the owner himself is speaking, in the first person, and the festival crowd has become a jury.

And then comes the question that is the heart of every lawsuit: “What more was there to do for my vineyard that I have not done in it? When I looked for grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?” (5:4)

Hear what that is. It is the plaintiff resting his case. He has laid out the evidence: “here is everything I did.” Now he turns and gives the defendant the floor.

And the defendant says nothing. There is no defense. The only honest answer to “What more could I have done?” is “Nothing.” That silence is the verdict.

“In Isaiah 5:3-4, God says: ‘Please judge between me & my vineyard. ⁴ What more could I have done for my vineyard than I did?” (Isa. 5:3-4). Amazingly, God instructs his people to render a judgment regarding his care of his vineyard. What more could God have done? The implication …is that God has done everything that he could do. Culpability [responsibility] lies elsewhere.” [John C. Peckham, Theodicy of Love, p. 23]

3. A ‘Juridical’ Parable of Judgment

Klyne Snodgrass “concluded that this parable is a juridical parable, modeled after Isaiah's juridical parable, or song, of the vineyard (Isa. 5:1–7), which passes judgment against the ruling priests of Jerusalem.” [Klyne Snodgrass, “Recent Research on the Parable of the Wicked Tenants,” Bulletin for Biblical Research, Vol. 8 (1998) p. 187]

4. The Sentence (5:5–6)

“And now I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard” (5:5a). The sentence is the undoing of the work: the hedge removed, the wall broken down, the vineyard trampled and laid waste. No pruning, no hoeing, only briers and thorns. Then comes the line that gives the owner away: “I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it” (5:6b).

There’s only one ‘farmer’ commands the clouds –The Lord Himself.

Notice that the sentence mirrors the care. Everything he did for the vineyard, he now stops doing. Often in Scripture judgment looks like this: not a thunderbolt, but God taking away the protection his people had presumed on.

5. The Reveal (5:7)

Then Isaiah drops the picture: “the vineyard of the Lord…is the house of Israel, & the men of Judah are his pleasant planting.” (Isa. 5:7a)

“He expected justice but saw injustice; he expected righteousness but heard cries of despair.” (Isaiah 5:7b)

And now the line that is like a punch, and in Hebrew it is a pun: he looked for mishpat, justice, and behold, mispach, bloodshed. He looked for tsedaqah, righteousness, and behold, tse’aqah, a cry.

The words nearly rhyme, and the meanings are a world apart. Justice turned to bloodshed. Righteousness turned to the cry of the oppressed, the scream of people being crushed. The ‘fruit’ God looked for is not religious feeling. It is a community in which the weak are safe. And Isaiah 5 goes on to spell out the wild grapes: the land-grabbers who add house to house ‘til no one else has room, the revelers who pay no attention to the Lord’s work, the judges who acquit the guilty for a bribe.

6. Why call it a Lawsuit?

Scholars have a name for this kind of speech: the covenant lawsuit, in Hebrew the rîb. God, as plaintiff and judge, summons his own people to court for breaking the covenant. You find it in Deut. 32, in Micah 6 (“Arise, plead your case before the mountains”), in Hosea 4, in Jeremiah 2, and in Isaiah 1, where heaven and earth are called as witnesses. The steps are consistent: God says, ‘remember what I did for you; here is what you did (You broke the covenant); here is the sentence.’

Isaiah 5 is a lawsuit dressed as a love song. Some scholars call it a juridical parable, because the hearers become the jury, just like David. Either label points to the same thing: you start out in the audience, & before you notice, you’re in the dock.

3. How the Song was Heard Afterward
   1. Prophesying the Jerusalem Temple’s Destruction 586 BC

The ‘Song’ ends with the Vineyard’s destruction. In Isaiah’s own lifetime, the Assyrian armies tore up the vineyard. The northern kingdom fell in 722 BC, and Judah was battered in 701 BC. But the song did not stay in the eighth century BC.

“Rabbinic interpretations of Isaiah 5 understood Isaiah’s Song of the Vineyard as a prophecy of the destruction of the [Jerusalem] Temple in 586 BC by Nebuchadnezzar.” [DW. Pao & EJ. Schnabel, Op. cit., p. 361]

The picture of a vineyard torn down was used again when catastrophe came a 2nd time, in 586 BC, when Babylon broke into Jerusalem and burned the Temple. Jeremiah laments that many shepherds have destroyed the Lord’s vineyard and trampled his portion. Notice, shepherds: leaders. Ezekiel sings a lament over a vine uprooted in fury. Psalm 80 prays over a vineyard whose walls have been broken down. And when Israel’s own historian looks back at the fall of Jerusalem, he says that God sent messengers again & again [2 Chron. 36:15] because he had compassion on his people, but they mocked the messengers, despised his words, and scoffed at his prophets until there was no remedy.

[Optional] Later Jewish readers kept hearing Isaiah 5 in connection with the Temple itself. Ancient Aramaic translations of Isaiah, & rabbinic tradition such as the Tosefta, read the tower & the winepress as the sanctuary [temple] & the altar. And a fragmentary Dead Sea scroll, 4Q500, appears to use vineyard and winepress imagery alongside a holy gate.

4Q500 is an “Aramaic paraphrase of Isaiah 5:1-7, which narrows the critical focus of Isaiah’s Song of the Vineyard from the nation [Israel] in general to…the temple establishment [which] lies behind Jesus’ creative introduction of…‘tenant farmers’ who play the role of the ruling priests.” [Craig A. Evans, “Vineyard Text (4Q500),” in Dictionary of NT Background, p. ]

2. Isaiah’s Vineyard Song Interpreted in terms of the Temple & Priesthood

“The vineyard …planted on a ‘fertile hall’ (Isa. 5:1) might have been viewed as a reference to Jerusalem…In the Aramaic [Isaiah] the identification with the temple becomes explicit.” [Craig A. Evans, Jesus & the Manuscripts, p. 439]

“The parable is…told against [background of] the temple. The “vineyard” (Mk. 12:1) is Israel, as seen in Isaiah 5:1–7…The “tower” & the “wine press” are specifically understood in the late Second Temple literature as symbols of the temple & altar respectively. The “tenants,” therefore, are those…tending to the business of the wine press & tower (the temple). Thus, the tenants are Israel’s priests put in charge of the temple. Once again…the tenants/priests have no fruit (Mk. 12:2). The result, therefore, is the judgment of the tenants/priests & the building of a new temple (Mk. 12:10) …” [Nicholas G. Piotrowski, “’Whatever You Ask’ for the Missionary Purposes of the Eschatological Temple,” SBJT, Vol. 21.1 (2017) pp 104-5].

So by the time Jesus stands in the Temple court, anyone listening to “a man planted a vineyard, put a wall around it, dug a winepress, and built a tower” would have heard…: ‘that’s us. That’s this place—the Temple.’

That is the song Jesus picks up.

4. Jesus Takes Up the Song

• In the Synoptic Gospels: {Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19; Matt. 21:33-46 (Selected Verses))

12¹ [Jesus] began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug out a pit for a winepress, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenant farmers and went away. ² At harvest time he sent a servant to the farmers to collect some of the fruit of the vineyard from them. ³ But they took him, beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. ⁴ Again he sent another servant to them, and they hit him on the head and treated him shamefully. ⁵ Then he sent another, and they killed that one. He also sent many others; some they beat, and others they killed. [Mk 12:1-5]

¹³ “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What should I do? I will send my beloved son. Perhaps they will respect him.’

¹⁴ “But when the tenant farmers saw him, they discussed it among themselves and said, ‘This is the heir. Let’s kill him, so that the inheritance will be ours.’ ¹⁵ So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. “What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? (Luke 20:13-15)

⁴¹ “He will completely destroy those terrible men,” they told him, “and lease his vineyard to other farmers who will give him his fruit at the harvest.” (Matt. 21:41)

But when they heard this, they said, “That must never happen!” ¹⁷ But he looked at them and said, “Then what is the meaning of this Scripture: The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone? ¹⁸ Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomever it falls, it will shatter him.” (Luke 20:16b-18)

⁴⁵ When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they knew he was speaking about them. ⁴⁶ Although they were looking for a way to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because the people regarded him as a prophet. (Mt. 21:45-46)

1. Who is Whom in Jesus’ Parable?

“The full significance of this parable [‘of the wicked tenants’] comes into view only when we see its…relationship with Isaiah’s Song of the unfruitful Vineyard (Isaiah 5:1-7).” [Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, p. 40]

“The vineyard owner stands for God, the first tenants for Israel’s [current] leaders…That [Mk. 12:1] almost directly quotes …Isaiah’s vineyard parable (Isa. 5:1-7) makes these equations certain.” [Craig Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, p. 248]

“The ‘man’ who plants the vineyard is an allegorical reference to God…consistent with…Isaiah’s Song of the Vineyard. Likewise, the vineyard represents Israel.” [Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, p. 232]

Listen to the first sentence [12:2] again. ‘A man planted a vineyard, put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress, and built a tower’ (Mk. 12:1). The leaders in that courtyard knew Isaiah 5 the way we know the Lord’s Prayer. In the Greek Bible, the vocabulary matches closely. Jesus does what a good teacher of his day would do: he quotes the opening line of the passage and trusts his hearers to supply the rest.

“Jesus begins his Parable of the Vineyard (Mk. 12) with an obvious allusion to Isaiah’s sharply critical Song of the Vineyard (Isa. 5) …[In Mk. 12:1] about a dozen words are imported from Isaiah, inviting hearers and readers to think of …the old prophetic song as [Jesus’] parable unfolds.” [Craig A. Evans, Op. cit., p. 439]

“The Parable of the Wicked Tenants is clearly modeled on Isaiah 5:1-7…Quoting Isaiah’s parable of the vineyard makes it absolutely clear that Jesus is passing judgment on the Israel of his day & its leadership.” [Craig Blomberg, Op. cit., p. 71]

“This parable [of the Wicked Tenants] is a juridical parable, modeled after Isaiah's juridical parable, or ‘Song of the Vineyard’ (Isaiah 5:1–7), which passes judgment against the ruling priests of Jerusalem.” –Klyne Snodgrass

But Jesus does not simply repeat the song. He does three things with it. He adopts it. He adjusts it. He augments it.

1. He adopts Isaiah’s Song

What does Jesus keep? He keeps the form: a story about a vineyard and an owner who invested everything and has every right to expect fruit. He keeps the setting: this is Israel, this is Jerusalem, this is the place where God’s name dwells. And he keeps the jury. “What will the owner of the vineyard do?” (Mk. 12:9).

Remember where Jesus has just been. He’s been in the Temple, quoting Isaiah & Jeremiah: “my house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations,” but you’ve made it “a den of robbers.” That 2nd phrase is from Jeremiah’s great Temple sermon, preached right here, at the Temple gate not long before Babylon came, telling the people in charge that the building would not protect them if they did not do justice.

So Jesus is not inventing a new kind of speech. He is standing in the line of Isaiah and Jeremiah. He is taking up the prophets’ pulpit and using the prophets’ form.

2. He adjusts Isaiah’s Song

Here is the first big change. In Isaiah 5 the problem is the vineyard itself. It was planted with the best vines, and it produced stink-grapes. The failure is in what grows.

1. The problem isn’t the vineyard or the grapes

In Jesus’ version, there is nothing wrong with the vineyard. Nothing says the vines are bad. In fact, the vineyard is productive: the owner sends servants “at the season” to collect some of the fruit. The problem has moved to a different party, the tenants who run the vineyard.

“In Mark’s [Vineyard parable] the issue is not the quality of the fruit & the vineyard’s destruction, but rather the leaders’ [i.e., tenants’] rejection of the owner’s son.” [Rikk E. Watts, “Mark,” in GK. Beale & DA. Carson (eds.) Op. cit., p. 212]

“In Jesus’ telling…the vineyard image mutates…The problem is no longer that the vineyard fails to produce [good] grapes, but rather that it is cared for by unscrupulous tenant-farmers who refuse to give the vineyard owner his rightful share of the fruit, indeed, they…resort to violence against [his] emissaries.” [Richard B. Hays, Op. cit., p. 41]

“In the case of Isaiah [Isa. 5:1-7], the entire vineyard which has produced only sour grapes is destroyed…Mark… introduces…the tenant-farmers working the vineyard, they alone are to be destroyed. This is… [how] Mark[‘s Jesus] alters the thrust of Isaiah’s parable. Israel is not to be destroyed. The vineyard is quite capable of producing a good and abundant harvest of fruits just as the Lord prepared it to do. The problem, …is…the husbandmen [tenants] …[they], have to be destroyed & replaced by others…” [Aaron Milavec, “…Mark’s Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen Reconsidered,” Biblical Theology Bulletin, V. 20, pp. 34-35]

2. It’s the tenant-farmers – Israel’s Leaders
   1. Against the OT Background –the land of Israel belongs to God; His people are sojourners, ‘tenants’
   • The clearest OT statement is Leviticus 25:23, where God says:
   • “The land is not to be permanently sold because it is Mine, & you are only aliens & temporary residents on My land.” CSB
   • “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is Mine…you are strangers & sojourners with me.” (Lev. 25:23 ESV)
   • “The land is the Lord’s, so one cannot sell his inherited land as though it were his permanent possession. The status of the Israelites is that of strangers & sojourners with the Lord. Thus, they are tenants…in the Promised Land. This principle is later applied to the believer’s existence in this world (Ps. 39:12; 1 Pet. 2:11).” [ESV Note on Lev. 25:23]
   2. In Jesus’ parable the ‘tenants’ represent Israel’s leaders

These ‘tenants’ are stewards. They own nothing. They were handed a vineyard and told, in effect: tend it, and at harvest pay the rent. And notice that the rent is modest: “some of the fruit.” The owner is no tyrant. He goes away, “into another country,” which sounds like absence but really means trust. He has put the care of his people into human hands. That is what leadership among God’s people has always been: delegated custody of something that belongs to someone else.

The prophets had spoken of Israel’s leaders in just this way. “Woe to the shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves,” says Ezekiel. Jeremiah says the same, & Isaiah 56 mocks the watchmen who are blind. So when Jesus moves the failure from vines to the tenants, he’s not changing the subject. He is naming those responsible for the fruit.

And that is what makes the story painful for the people in the Temple court. If the point were simply “the nation bears bad fruit,” the leaders could nod along: ‘yes, those people.’ But Jesus says that the vineyard may be perfectly fine. What has gone wrong is us, the ones who hold the keys –the ‘tenants, the leaders.’

“In the first half of the parable…Jesus expands Isaiah’s original allegory about Israel & Israel’s God into a retelling of Israel’s rebellious history…one that specifically lays the blame on Israel’s unjust leaders…[It] takes …an autobiographical turn with the introduction of the owner’s [‘beloved son’] in Mk. 12:6…By inserting himself into the center of the parable, Jesus reads his own fate into the climax of Israel’s story.” [James M. Neumann, Gospel of the Son of God, p. 131]

3. He augments Isaiah’s Song

Now the additions. Isaiah’s song has no tenants, no messengers, & no son. Jesus builds both into the story.

1. The servants –the prophets.

The owner sends a servant, and the tenants beat him and send him away empty-handed. A second, and they strike him on the head and treat him shamefully. A third, and they kill him. “And so with many others,” Jesus says: some beaten, some killed (Mk. 12:5).

In four sentences, Jesus has retold Israel’s story, and every person in that courtyard could fill in the names. Jeremiah, beaten and put in the stocks. Uriah, struck down with a sword for prophesying against the city. Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, stoned in the courtyard of the Temple itself. This courtyard.

2. ‘What more could I have done?’ (Isa. 5:4)

Now notice what this does to Isaiah’s question. Isaiah’s owner asked, “What more could I have done?” & the silent answer was, “Nothing.” But Jesus’ ‘owner’ has one more thing to do. And this is the line that ought to stop your heart (12:6): “He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally, he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’”

3. “The Question…Decisively Answered by Jesus” –John Peckham

“The question of what more God could have done is decisively answered by Jesus’ use of this passage [Isa. 5:1-7] in Matt. 21. Jesus quotes Isaiah 5 regarding all that the landowner did for his vineyard …God sent his servants (the prophets) …Finally, he sent his beloved son (Christ)…But the [tenants] murdered his son…God repeatedly sent his prophets, but they were killed for their testimony as God’s witnesses (within the cosmic lawsuit). Finally, ‘God so loved the world, that he gave’ his beloved son (Jn. 3:16) –Jesus, the ultimate ‘faithful & true witness’ (Rev. 3:14) –who willingly submitted to death, even death on a cross’ (Phil. 2:8) …There is no greater love than this (Jn. 15:13). What more could he do? …The cross demonstrates that God is love & testifies that God has done everything that could be done…” [John C. Peckham, Op. cit., pp. 23-24]

4. “What should I do? I will send my beloved son” (Lk. 20:13)

A beloved son. Gospel--readers know that phrase. It is the voice at the baptism, “You are my beloved Son” (Mk. 1:11), and the voice on the mountain, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him” (Mk. 9:7). Jesus is not hiding who the son is. The owner’s last, best, most costly move is not a bigger army. It is a child.

The ‘Owner’s (i.e., God’s) Son’ “means more than a ‘holy person’…in the Parable of the Vineyard. The owner repeatedly sends slaves [servants]; then he sends his son. This move is expressed as an escalation, & the owner expects the tenants to respond differently…the son; their abuse…unlike their abuse of the salves, cannot be tolerated…Thus, the gospel makes a clear distinction between the status of the prophets, & that of Jesus.” [Kelli S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture in the …Passion Narrative, p. 193]

The Parable “reflects Jesus’ consciousness of his sonship in relation to the Lord of the vineyard & his full awareness of his impending death at the hands of the authorities.” [David E. Garland, Theology of Mark’s Gospel, p. 152]

4. The Tenants’ Motive – Stewards grasp for Ownership

And then comes the tenants’ reasoning (12:7): “This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.”

The tenants know exactly who he is. They do not kill him because they misunderstand him. They kill him because they understand him. The vineyard is the prize, and possession is the motive. That is why Mark closes the scene the way he does: the leaders wanted to arrest Jesus, and they were afraid of the crowd. They have just told on themselves.

“And they took him and killed him and threw him out of the vineyard.” Matthew and Luke reverse the order: they threw him out, and then killed him. Many readers have heard in that the cross outside the city gate.

5. The Jury Returns

Then the question: “What will the owner of the vineyard do?” In Mark, Jesus answers it himself: he will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others. In Matthew, the chief priests and elders answer for themselves: “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants.” In Luke, they hear the sentence and cry out, “Surely not!” as though they sense the verdict is theirs –it’s on them.

6. Decoding the Parable

“Jesus saw himself as the (messianic) son, coming as the last in the line of the prophets…to Israel on behalf of her God. But, …the tenants, in rejecting to son, & hence the message of his father, kill him, & throw him out of the vineyard… This precipitates the judgment of the vineyard owner upon his wicked tenants.” [NT Wright, Jesus & Victory of God, p. xcviii]

1. Not an Allegory, but a Parable with Allegorical Elements

“In the Parable of the wicked tenants, Israel is the vineyard, her rulers the [tenant-] vineyard-keepers, the prophets are the messengers [servants], Jesus is the son; Israel’s God, the Creator, is himself the owner & father. But this ‘allegorical’ meaning allows for much wider implications. Jesus is claiming to be developing a story already used by Isaiah (5:1-7).” [NT. Wright, NT & the People of God, p. 178]

“The parables of Jesus are limited allegories.” [Craig Blomberg, “Allegory in Biblical Parable…,” in D. Parry(ed.) Oxford Handbook of Allegory, p. 55]

“Parables are not allegories…Parables are stories about something else…Most parables are not strict or mechanical allegories, [but] they do have allegorical elements… Jesus’ parables must not be confused with strict allegories, though they often contain the allegorical mode… What distinguishes many parables from allegory is that at a certain point in the [parable’s] narrative, the allegorical correspondence breaks down.” [Gisela H. Kreglinger, Storied Revelations, pp. 46-48]

“The question is to what extent the parables are made up of [1.] allegorical elements, [2.] metaphors, & [3.] elements that are merely provided to make the parable work as a story & have [no interpretive] significance… [In] the Parable of the Wicked Tenants…a good e.g. of this question: [Is] the comment [that the owner], ‘leased it to tenant farmers & went away’ [Mk. 12:1] ‘[which] has been interpreted to mean that he [God, the owner] was an absentee landlord… [Is this merely] a necessary comment to make the story work [or allegorical needing interpretation?] …One’s decision about…this phrase is hugely important for how one interprets the whole parable.” [Gisela H. Kreglinger, Op. cit., p. 45 & #107]

“Readers might object that the idea of the owner going on a trip means that the owner could not represent God. But not every element of a parable has some hidden meaning…” [Mary A. Getty-Sullivan, Parables of the kingdom, p. 42]

2. The Parable clearly indicts the Temple Leaders

“The details of the parable are recognized by the people & by the Jerusalem leadership as having ‘literal’ significance in the real world (Lk. 20:16, 19).” [DW. Pao & EJ. Schnabel, Op. cit., p. 360]

In the Aramaic “Targum, the vine is a primary symbol of the Temple, so that the tenants in Jesus’ parable are readily identified with the leadership of the Temple. They knew he was telling the parable against them.” [Bruce Chilton, Synoptikon: Streams of Tradition…, p. 335]

“The parable is unmistakably directed at the chief priests, scribes, and elders, who are explicitly present in the narrative (Mark 12:12). By using the imagery of a vineyard & rebellious tenants, Jesus crafts a pointed allegory that indicts these leaders for their failure to fulfil their God-given responsibilities. The vineyard, a well-known biblical symbol of Israel (Is. 5:1-7), represents God’s covenantal relationship with His people. The tenants, who abuse & kill the landowner’s messengers, symbolise the religious leaders who have rejected God’s prophets &, ultimately, His Son.” [Abel A. Inyaregh, “Rereading the Parable of the Wicked Tenants,” VERITAS JOURNAL Of HUMANITIES, V. 6, #1, (2025) p. 44]

In every version, they get it. Mark does not leave us guessing: they perceived that he had told the parable against them.

Put it together. Isaiah gave us love, lawsuit, and sentence. Jesus keeps that structure, moves the weight onto the stewards [‘tenants’], and adds the two things Isaiah lacked: the messengers rejected, and the Son killed. The charge has moved from “wild grapes” to murder—the murder of the owner’s beloved son. And the last exhibit in the plaintiff’s case is not a piece of evidence. It is a person: I sent my beloved Son.

If the parable ended here, it would be the bleakest story in the Gospels. But Jesus does not end it here.

3. Parable Depicts Salvation History: Israel to Jesus’ Death & Resurrection

“The parable is…an allegorical story of Israel's salvation history up to the point of the coming of Jesus.” [Ben Johnson, “Parable of the Wicked Tenants in Context,” (Jan. 2009) p. 24]

The Parable illustrates God’s accusation regarding Israel’s history: “²⁵ Since the day your ancestors came out of the land of Egypt until today, I have sent all my servants the prophets to you time & time again. ²⁶ However, my people wouldn’t listen to me or pay attention but became obstinate; they did more evil than their ancestors.” (Jer. 7:25-26)

“The Parable of the Wicked [Tenants] (Mt. 21:33-46) covers the history of salvation from OT times to the emergence of the church. The [‘owner’] stands for God, the vineyard for Israel as the nation God chose for Himself, the ‘tenants’ for…members of [Israel’s] Sanhedrin, the representative [‘servants’]…for the prophets…The ‘heir’…designated… as ‘his son,’ ‘my son,’ & ‘the son’ is obviously Jesus Messiah…The Parable of the Wicked [Tenants] reaches its culmination with the times of Jesus.” [Jack D. Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom, pp. 71-72]

5. Judgment Refocused, Hope Revealed (Mark 12:9–12)
   1. Judgment Refocused, not exempted

Compare the two endings. Isaiah’s ending: the vineyard is laid waste. Jesus’ ending: the tenants are destroyed, and the vineyard is given to ‘others.’

Did you catch the shift? In Isaiah, the whole vineyard, “the men of Judah, his pleasant planting,” stands in the dock and takes the sentence. In Jesus’ parable, the judgment is refocused onto the people who were entrusted with the vineyard: the Temple leadership. The vineyard survives. The owner isn’t finished with it. The harvest he wants has not changed.

That does not mean the people get a pass. Jesus weeps over Jerusalem and warns the whole city. But in this parable the weight of accountability falls on the stewards, and the people are the vineyard they were supposed to tend. Mark even notes that the leaders were afraid of the crowd, & that the great throng heard Jesus gladly. Much has been given to the stewards [‘tenants’], so much will be required.

“The parable of the wicked tenants [implies, Israel’s] present hierarchy had decided to try to keep the vineyard for themselves, but it would now be given to others. Their rejection of Jesus meant that now they would not only not be heirs, they would not be tenants either …The kingdom of God [would be] taken away from them & apportioned elsewhere; the stone which had been rejected would become the head of the corner.” [NT. Wright, Op. cit., p. xcviii]

Mark emphasizes “that the Jerusalem leaders are guilty…The parable [of the vineyard tenants] concludes with the owner of the vineyard coming to ‘destroy the tenants,’ & Mark 12:12 declares that the chief priests, scribes, & elders ‘realized that (Jesus) had told this parable against them.’ The temple, its destruction, and the rejection of its leadership [are] important …preliminaries of the passion narrative…[Mark’s] narrative…consistently condemns the leaders of Jerusalem for their rejection of Jesus &, as implied in the Parable of the Vineyard, their rejection of all God’s agents. They face judgment & destruction…at the conclusion of the 1st Jewish Revolt [AD 70].” [Kelli S. O’Brien, Op. cit., p. 192]

In “the Parable of the Vineyard [with] its theme of opposition…the leaders, the ‘tenants,’ [who] gather & conspire to kill the son…can expect their [own] destruction, seen both in the Parable & in the Psalm [2:1-2].” [Kelli S. O’Brien, Op. cit., p. 166]

2. Who are “the Others”?

“He will give the vineyard to others” (Mark 12:9). Matthew puts it this way: ‘the kingdom will be taken from you and given to a people producing its fruits’ (Mt. 21:43).

“Matt. 21:43 mentions ‘a nation that produces the fruits’ … ‘Produces fruits’ is a description of moral behavior …[Matthew’s] choice of words shows remarkable similarities to Isa. 5:1-7 …[e.g.] righteousness & justice in Isa. 5:7.” [Wim JC. Weren, "Use of Isaiah 5:1-7 in the Parable of the Tenants," Biblica Vol. 79.1 (1998) p. 20]

“’Fruit’ [is] a Matthean metaphor for right living or obedience to God’s Law. Israel’s relationship with God…obligated its leaders to righteousness, just as that tenants were…obligated to produce fruit for the owner.” [DL Turner, Matthew, p. 160]

“The new tenants have often been taken to refer to the Gentiles, but…nothing suggests that the story’s setting has been transported outside the nation of Israel… [The Parable implies] God’s purposes will not… be thwarted, for He will raise up new leaders who will produce the fruit the original [tenants] failed to produce.” [Craig Blomberg, Op. cit., pp. 248-9]

Be careful here, because this verse has been abused for centuries. Read it in context. Jesus is speaking to Jewish leaders, in the Jewish Temple, as a Jewish teacher, with a band of 12 Jewish disciples, 12 for the tribes. The first “others” are the new stewards he himself is appointing: the Twelve & the first witnesses, all of them Jews. The vineyard is not swapped for a different vineyard. It is the same Israel, now under faithful shepherds.

Gentiles will be welcomed in, as the prophets promised. That’s the passage Jesus quoted in the Temple: a house of prayer for all nations. But Paul warns Gentile believers in Romans 11 not to boast over the natural branches, and he insists that God has not rejected his people.

So if this parable says anything to a Christian congregation, it is not “thank God we are the others.” It is: ‘be careful what you do with what has been entrusted to you.’

3. Is this History? Babylon, AD 70, and the Leaders

Here is a question thoughtful listeners ask. Did judgment on the Temple and its leadership actually come?

History has already given one answer to the pattern. In 586 BC, Babylon burned Solomon’s Temple. In AD 70, after four years of revolt, Rome burned Herod’s Temple. Jews and Christians alike have remembered both as covenant-lawsuit events.

“In the wake [aftermath] of the destruction of Jerusalem & the Temple in 70 CE., the grieving author of 3 Baruch asks God, ‘Lord, why have You set fire to your vineyard & laid it waste?’” [Craig A. Evans, Op. cit., p. 232]

Let me be honest about what we can and cannot say. From early on, and in much of modern scholarship, readers have connected Jesus’ judgment on the Temple’s leadership to AD 70. Jesus foretold that the Temple would be thrown down, and he wept over a city that did not know the time of its visitation. In Matthew’s parable of the wedding feast, a king sends troops and burns the city of those who killed his servants, and many scholars think that reflects the fall of Jerusalem. Scholars disagree about what to make of that. Some think the Gospel writers, writing after 70 CE, shaped Jesus’ words in hindsight. Others, NT. Wright most prominently, argue that Jesus was announcing, in the tradition of Jeremiah, that the Temple and its leaders were heading for catastrophe, and that 70 CE fits what he said.

4. The Synoptics’ Wider Message: The Temple’s Destruction & Replacement

R. E. Watts “proposes that Mark…presents Jesus as both Israel's Davidic Messiah (Ps. 2, 118) & the temple's Lord (Ps. 110) who, coming to purge Jerusalem, but rejected by the temple authorities, announces the present [temple] structure's destruction &, through his death & vindication (Ps. 22), its replacement with a new people-temple centered on himself.” [Rikk E. Watts, “Lord’s House & David’s Lord: Psalms & Mark’s Perspective on Jesus & Temple,” Biblical Interpretation, Vol. 15.3 (2007) p. 307]

5. “Jesus’ Parable…Basis for God’s Destruction of the Temple [AD 70]” — GK. Beale, BL. Gladd

“Jesus’ parable…is a symbolic use of the OT, providing the theological basis for God’s destruction of the Temple—the unfaithfulness of Israel’s leaders to obey the covenant & heed…the prophets.” [GK Beale, BL. Gladd, Story Retold, p. 94]

In Isaiah 5 “Yahweh destroys…[the] vineyard, but in Mark the vineyard is given to ‘others’ (Mk. 12:9). Nevertheless, the Parable of the Wicked Tenants provides theological rationale for the destruction of the Temple [AD 70]: the Jewish leadership has led Israel astray, manifesting its despicable character…that climaxes in the murder of the beloved son…Mark draws on Isaiah 5 typologically. God’s punishment of Israelite leadership…entails…exile in Babylon. This…. sets a prophetic pattern of God sending…the Jewish leaders into a permanent spiritual exile when they crucify His Son.” [Benjamin L. Gladd, Handbook on the Gospels, pp. 16-17]

6. The ‘Wicked Tenants’ Parable explains Jesus’ Temple Demonstration

“In each of the Synoptic Gospels [the Wicked Tenants Parable] occurs in the context of an indictment against the Temple …Thus, the context in which Jesus tells his parable is perfectly in line with…judgment against the Temple or Jewish leadership.” [Ben Johnson, “Parable of the Wicked Tenants in Context,” (Jan. 2009) pp. ]

Israel’s “leaders…recognize that Jesus’…riff on Isaiah’s song has now targeted them –-the caretakers of the people—as scoundrels who are not rendering to God His due (Mk. 12:12). Since Jesus has just reminded them of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the destruction of the temple by accusing them of turning it into a ‘den of robbers’.” [Richard B. Hays, Op. cit., p. 41]

“The parable [of the Tenants] tells the story of Israel, culminating in judgment…Jesus was taking a well-known theme…from Isaiah 5:1-7…The retold story…[was] suggesting that the Temple… invited prophetic denunciation & ultimately, divine demolition. The master [owner]…would come & destroy the tenants…This refers most naturally to the forthcoming destruction of Jerusalem [AD 70]; Jesus’ Temple action was a symbol of judgment to come…The parable …explained Jesus’ action…The ‘wicked tenants [parable]’ explained why Jesus did what he did in the Temple.” [NT. Wright, Op. cit., p. ]

Third, a caution for preachers. The Gospels use the parable] to explain the leaders’ rejection of the Son, not to hand the church a proof text against the Jewish people. Christian history has done terrible damage by doing exactly that. Jesus wept over Jerusalem. We are not here to gloat over a ruin. We are here to hear the warning Jeremiah’s hearers and Jesus’ hearers heard: the owner expects fruit, and a building cannot protect stewards who kill his Son. That is the right level of confidence. This sermon does not need to prove that AD 70 was the fulfillment. What matters is the pattern Israel’s own history had taught: God sends messengers, the leaders reject them, and the building cannot save the people.

7. The Stone: Where Hope Enters

Now the best part. Jesus does not end with the destruction of the tenants. He turns the question into a Scripture: “Have you not read this Scripture: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” (Mk. 12:10–11, quoting Psalm 118).

From ‘Son’ to ‘Stone’

Jesus transitions from the Parable’s murdered son to the rejected stone. “with a quotation from Psalm 118:22… which equates the fate of the son with the chosen & rejected stone. There are…arguments for its authenticity…The [Aramaic] Targum of Ps. 118:22 has changed the ‘rejected stone’ to the ‘boy which the builders abandoned was among the sons of Jesse & he is… appointed king & ruler.’ [The ‘boy’ (Jesse’s son David) replaces ‘stone.’ So,] There’s…a precedent for Jesus introducing a rejected (royal) son into the parable.” [Steve Moyise, “From Jesus to Justin,” Neotestamentica, V 43.2, p. 256]

“In Mark 12:10-11…’the stone that the builders rejected’ corresponds to the murdered ‘beloved son; in Mk. 12:6-8. A connection …signalled by…the wordplay between ‘son’ (ben) & ‘stone’ (eben)…[Then] the quotation of Ps. 118:22-23… [is] foreshadowing not only Jesus’ death, but also his vindication; as [it] reads: ‘This one has become the head of the corner’.” [James M. Neumann, Gospel of the Son of God, p. 132]

Jesus concludes with… “This is from the Lord & it is marvelous in our eyes” (Ps. 118:23 quoted in Mark 12:11) “This rejection & murder [of the son/stone] do not seem ‘marvellous’ but tragic. Only in retrospect after the resurrection can one begin to fathom the marvelous thing God has done. Only in retrospect can one also recognize that the structure built on the cornerstone is not a physical structure but the church…in the NT (Acts 4:10-12 [etc.]).” [David E. Garland, Op. cit., p. 505]

You know where that psalm was sung. Psalm 118 is the last of the Passover psalms, sung by pilgrims on the way up to Jerusalem. Two days earlier, the crowd on the road shouted its verses: “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” Now Jesus returns to the same psalm and quotes the verse the crowd skipped. The crowd quoted the welcome. Jesus quotes the rejection, and the reversal that follows it.

Who are the ‘builders’? In those Temple courts, where construction had been going on for decades, the ‘builders’ are the people in charge. And the stone is the Son. Here the parable swings from vineyard to building, from son to stone, and in Hebrew the words even sound alike: ben, son, and eben, stone.

8. The Beloved Son’s Death is Not the Final Word

“By employing the loaded epithet ‘beloved son,’ Mark cause the story of [Abraham’s] sacrifice of Isaac to echo in the background of Jesus’ parable… [so that] the murder of the vineyard owner’s [beloved] son is not necessarily…a grim ending to the tale – death is not necessarily the final word…[Plus,] the parable of the tenants does not end with the threat of judgment in Mk. 12:9; instead it continues with…Psalm 118 which --in the context of Mark’s story-- points to the resurrection & vindication of the Son of God.” [Richard B. Hays, Op. cit., p. 43]

“The rejected stone (Jesus) is made the cornerstone by the Lord (Mk. 12:11) …The Lord God’s transforming the stone, Jesus, into the cornerstone after Jesus has been rejected & killed by the leaders, portrays the marvelous consequences of the death & resurrection Jesus has already predicted. By putting Jesus to death, the leaders ironically enable God to raise him as the ‘cornerstone,’ the most crucial component of the new ‘building’ which the ‘others,’ the disciples, are to form as a community.” [John P. Heil, “Narrative Strategy & Pragmatics of the Temple Theme in Mark,” CBQ, V. 59 (1997) p. 82]

The Son they threw out is the stone they threw away. And God picks it up. “This was the Lord’s doing.” Inside that sentence is the resurrection: the Father’s own reversal of the killing. The tenants thought the story ended at “they killed him.” Jesus says that God has the next line.

But mind the sharp edge. Luke adds that the stone ‘cuts both ways’: whoever falls on it will be broken to pieces, and anyone it falls on will be crushed. The stone cannot be ignored. It is either the foundation you stand on or the thing you collide with.

6. Application and Conclusion
   1. Application: So what do we do with a lawsuit? Four things.

1. If you hold anything ‘in trust,’ hear the tenants’ story as your own; you are a ‘tenant,’ a steward (not the owner)

Pastors, elders, teachers, parents, anyone who leads: we are tenants. The vineyard is not ours. The church is not ours, the children are not ours, the ministry is not ours. The first symptom of their tenant-thinking was not murder. It is resentment of the messenger. So ask: when someone brings me a word from the Owner, through Scripture, through a faithful friend, through a rebuke I did not want, do I receive that person as the Owner’s servant, or do I send him away empty-handed?

2. Everyone: take the jury seat honestly

“What more could I have done?” the Owner asks. Let’s answer honestly. He planted, cleared, hedged, & guarded. He sent prophets. He sent his Son. The cross is both the answer to the Owner’s question and the proof of the charge, because the Son was sent, and each of us has stood in the crowd that didn’t want an Owner. Do not rush past this. The gospel is not good news until the verdict is true.

3. Look for the ‘fruit’ he is looking for

Isaiah told us what the ‘fruit’ is (Isa. 5:7b): justice and righteousness, a community in which the weak are safe. Jesus tells us where it comes from: abiding in him. ‘Fruit’ is not manufactured by effort. It grows out of union. So ask: where is the cry, the tse’aqah, that we have stopped hearing? Who is the ‘poor man’ among us with one lamb?

4. Rest on the Stone

Here’s the good news inside the lawsuit. The rejected Son is the cornerstone. He was thrown out so you could be brought in. The stone is either your foundation or your collision. There’s a way to fall on it & be broken in the best sense: repentance.

2. Conclusion

That is the gospel inside every lawsuit God files. The One who summons us to court is the one who provides the sacrifice. David deserved the sentence he pronounced on himself, and he did not receive it. Why? Because there was another Son coming, from David’s line, who would stand in the place of the guilty.

Outside the city gate, the Owner’s beloved Son was where the ‘tenants’ should’ve been: cast out, killed, and then raised. The builders threw the stone away, & God made it the cornerstone. It’s the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes.

So come to the stone. Bring your empty hands. He is the true Vine, and all who abide in him will bear fruit. Let us pray.

[Group Material] WHAT MORE COULD I HAVE DONE?

Bible Reading: Isaiah 5:1-7

“I will sing about the one I love, a song about my loved one’s vineyard: The one I love had a vineyard on a very fertile hill. ² He broke up the soil, cleared it of stones, and planted it with the finest vines. He built a tower in the middle of it and even dug out a winepress there. He expected it to yield good grapes, but it yielded worthless grapes. ³ So now, residents of Jerusalem and men of Judah, please judge between me and my vineyard. ⁴ What more could I have done for my vineyard than I did? Why, when I expected a yield of good grapes, did it yield worthless grapes? ⁵ Now I will tell you what I am about to do to my vineyard: I will remove its hedge, and it will be consumed; I will tear down its wall, and it will be trampled. ⁶ I will make it a wasteland. It will not be pruned or weeded; thorns and briers will grow up. I will also give orders to the clouds that rain should not fall on it. ⁷ For the vineyard of the Lord of Armies is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah, the plant he delighted in. He expected justice but saw injustice; he expected righteousness but heard cries of despair. (Isa. 5:1-7 CSB)

Bible Reading: Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19; Matt. 21:33-46 (Selected Verses)]

12¹ [Jesus] began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug out a pit for a winepress, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenant farmers and went away. ² At harvest time he sent a servant to the farmers to collect some of the fruit of the vineyard from them. ³ But they took him, beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. ⁴ Again he sent another servant to them, and they hit him on the head and treated him shamefully. ⁵ Then he sent another, and they killed that one. He also sent many others; some they beat, and others they killed. (Mark 12:1-5)

¹³ “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What should I do? I will send my beloved son. Perhaps they will respect him.’

¹⁴ “But when the tenant farmers saw him, they discussed it among themselves and said, ‘This is the heir. Let’s kill him, so that the inheritance will be ours.’ ¹⁵ So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. “What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? (Luke 20:13-15) ⁴¹ “He will completely destroy those terrible men,” they told him, “and lease his vineyard to other farmers who will give him his fruit at the harvest.” (Matt. 21:41) But when they heard this, they said, “That must never happen!” ¹⁷ But he looked at them and said, “Then what is the meaning of this Scripture: The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone? ¹⁸ Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomever it falls, it will shatter him.” (Luke 20:16b-18) ⁴⁵ When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they knew he was speaking about them. ⁴⁶ Although they were looking for a way to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because the people regarded him as a prophet. (Mt. 21:45-46)

SUMMARY:

Jesus’ Parable of the Vineyard Tenants deliberately echoes Isaiah’s Song of the Vineyard (Isaiah 5:1-7). In both, the hearers become the jury. In Isaiah, God prepares a fully-equipped vineyard, finds only wild grapes, and asks, “What more could I have done?” Jesus retells the song, shifting the failure from the vines to the tenant-farmers, who reject the servants and finally murder the owner’s beloved son. The cross answers Isaiah’s question: “What more could I have done?” God the Father gives everything, His beloved Son. That gift is rejected, and judgment follows –the temple will fall, its leaders destroyed. But judgment is not the last word. The rejected and resurrected Son becomes the cornerstone, and this is the Lord’s doing. The message calls us to see ourselves as stewards, not owners; to take the jury seat honestly; to seek the fruit God desires; and to rest on the stone in repentance, because the One who summons us also provides the sacrifice.

Discussion Questions

1. Read Bible text (Mk. 12; Luke 20) above alongside Isaiah 5:1-7. What new elements has Jesus introduced, that were not present in Isaiah 5? How do those new elements change Jesus’ parable compared to Isaiah’s Song?
2. In Isaiah 5, the problem is the vineyard. In Jesus’ parable who or what is the problem? Why does this shift matter for the leaders listening? Why might it matter for us?
3. In Isaiah 5 the vineyard owner asks: “What more could I have done for my vineyard than I did?” (Isa. 5:4) What is the (implied) answer Isaiah expects to that question? Now think about Jesus’ parable (Mark 12:1-5); what is the answer?
4. How is the NT Gospel emphasized by comparing Jesus’ parable with the OT in Isaiah 5:1-7? Discuss.
5. In Jesus’ parable the owner says, “I’ll send my beloved son” (Luke 20:13). From a human point-of-view this is a ‘foolish and risky strategy.’ What does this decision imply about God? Discuss.
6. What does the parable reveal about Jesus’ self-understanding, and what would happen in the near future?
7. According to the parable what motivated the tenants’ plan and actions against Jesus?
8. Jesus’ parable told the Jewish leaders he knew about their murderous plot to kill him & that they would lose their role as ‘tenants’ (stewards), yet they proceeded with their plan –Why? What does this suggest to you?
9. Israel’s leaders were “stewards” of what God committed to them. What has God committed to you as a “steward”? How should we respond to that commission? How should we not respond to that commission (based on the Parable)?

This week's set list:

tbd