I. The parable begins with a tender description of the preparation and allotment of the vineyard. The picture is based upon Isaiah"s lovely apologue (Isaiah v. 1), which was, no doubt, familiar to the learned officials. But there is a slight difference in the application of the metaphor which in Isaiah means the nation, and in the parable is rather the theocracy as an inst.i.tution, or, as we may put it roughly, the aggregate of divine revelations and appointments which const.i.tuted the religious prerogatives of Israel.
Our Lord follows the original pa.s.sage in the description of the preparation of the vineyard, but it would probably be going too far to press special meanings on the wall, the wine-press, and the watchman"s tower. The fence was to keep off marauders, whether pa.s.sers-by or "the boar out of the wood" (Psalm lx.x.x. 12,13); the wine-press, for which Mark uses the word which means rather the vat into which the juice from the press proper flowed, was to extract and collect the precious liquid; the tower was for the watchman.
A vineyard with all these fittings was ready for profitable occupation. Thus abundantly had G.o.d furnished Israel with all that was needed for fruitful, happy service. What was true of the ancient Church is still more true of us who have received every requisite for holy living. Isaiah"s solemn appeal has a still sharper edge for Christians: "Judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it?"
The "letting of the vineyard to husbandmen" means the committal to Israel and its rulers of these divine inst.i.tutions, and the holding them responsible for their fruitfulness. It may be a question whether the tenants are to be understood as only the official persons, or whether, while these are primarily addressed, they represent the whole people. The usual interpretation limits the meaning to the rulers, but, if so, it is difficult to carry out the application, as the vineyard would then have to be regarded as being the nation, which confuses all. The language of Matthew (which threatens the taking of the vineyard and giving it to another nation) obliges us to regard the nation as included in the husbandmen, though primarily the expression is addressed to the rulers.
But more important is it to note the strong expressions for man"s quasi-independence and responsibility. The Jew was invested with full possession of the vineyard. We all, in like manner, have intrusted to us, to do as we will with, the various gifts and powers of Christ"s gospel. G.o.d, as it were, draws somewhat apart from man, that he may have free play for his choice, and bear the burden of responsibility.
The divine action was conspicuous at the time of founding the polity of Judaism, and then came long years in which there were no miracles, but all things continued as they were. G.o.d was as near as before, but He seemed far off. Thus Jesus has, in like manner, gone "into a far country to receive a kingdom and to return"; and we, the tenants of a richer vineyard than Israel"s, have to administer what He has intrusted to us, and to bring near by faith Him who is to sense far off.
II. The next scenes paint the conduct of the dishonest vine-dressers.
We mark the stern, dark picture drawn of the continued and brutal violence, as well as the flagrant unfaithfulness, of the tenants.
Matthew"s version gives emphasis to the increasing harshness of treatment of the owner"s messengers, as does Mark"s. First comes beating, then wounding, then murder. The interpretation is self-evident. The "servants" are the prophets, mostly men inferior in rank to the hierarchy, shepherds, fig-gatherers, and the like. They came to rouse Israel to a sense of the purpose for which they had received their distinguishing prerogatives, and their reward had been contempt and maltreatment. They "had trial of mockings and scourgings, of bonds and imprisonment: they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword."
The indictment is the same as that by which Stephen wrought the Sanhedrim into a paroxysm of fury. To make such a charge as Jesus did, in the very Temple courts, and with the already hostile priests glaring at Him while He spoke, was a deliberate a.s.sault on them and their predecessors, whose true successors they showed themselves to be. They had just been solemnly questioning Him as to His authority.
He answers by thus pa.s.sing in review the uniform treatment meted by them and their like to those who came with G.o.d"s manifest authority.
If a mere man had spoken this parable, we might admire the magnificent audacity of such an accusation. But the Speaker is more than man, and we have to recognise the judicial calmness and severity of His tone.
Israel"s history, as it shaped itself before His "pure eyes and perfect judgment," was one long series of divine favours and of human ingrat.i.tude, of ample preparations for righteous living and of no result, of messengers sent and their contumelious rejection. We wonder at the sad monotony of such requital. Are we doing otherwise?
III. Then comes the last effort of the Owner, the last arrow in the quiver of Almighty Love. Two things are to be pondered in this part of the parable. First, that wonderful glimpse into the depths of G.o.d"s heart, in the hope expressed by the Owner of the vineyard, brings out very clearly Christ"s claim, made there before all these hostile, keen critics, to stand in an altogether singular relation to G.o.d. He a.s.serts His Sonship as separating Him from the cla.s.s of prophets who are servants only, and as const.i.tuting a relationship with the Father prior to His coming to earth. His Sonship is no mere synonym for His Messiahship, but was a fact long before Bethlehem; and its a.s.sertion lifts for us a corner of the veil of cloud and darkness round the throne of G.o.d. Not less striking is the expression of a frustrated hope in "they will reverence My Son." Men can thwart G.o.d"s purpose.
His divine charity "hopeth all things." The mystery thus sharply put here is but that which is presented everywhere in the co-existence of G.o.d"s purposes and man"s freedom.
The other noteworthy point is the corresponding casting of the vine-dressers" thoughts into words. Both representations are due to the graphic character of parable; both crystallise into speech motives which were not actually spoken. It is unnecessary to suppose that even the rulers of Israel had gone the awful length of clear recognition of Christ"s Messiahship, and of looking each other in the face and whispering such a fiendish resolve. Jesus is here dragging to light unconscious motives. The ma.s.ses did wish to have their national privileges and to avoid their national duties. The rulers did wish to have their sway over minds and consciences undisturbed. They did resent Jesus" interference, chiefly because they instinctively felt that it threatened their position. They wanted to get Him out of the way, that they might lord it at will. They could have known that He was the Son, and they suppressed dawning suspicions that He was. Alas!
they have descendants still in many of us who put away His claims, even while we secretly recognise them, in order that we may do as we like without His meddling with us!
The rulers" calculation was a blunder. As Augustine says, "They slew Him that they might possess, and, because they slew, they lost." So is it always. Whoever tries to secure any desired end by putting away his responsibility to render to G.o.d the fruit of his thankful service, loses the good which he would fain clutch at for his own. All sin is a mistake.
The parable pa.s.ses from thinly veiled history to equally transparent prediction. How sadly and how unshrinkingly does the meek yet mighty Victim disclose to the conspirators His perfect knowledge of the murder which they were even now hatching in their minds! He foresees all, and will not lift a finger to prevent it. Mark puts the "killing"
before the "casting out of the vineyard," while Matthew and Luke invert the order of the two things. The slaughtered corpse was, as a further indignity, thrown over the wall, by which is symbolically expressed His exclusion from Israel, and the vine-dressers" delusion that they now had secured undisturbed possession.
IV. The last point is the authoritative sentence on the evil-doers.
Mark"s condensed account makes Christ Himself answer His own question.
Probably we are to suppose that, with hypocritical readiness, some of the rulers replied, as the other Evangelists represent, and that Jesus then solemnly took up their words. If anything could have enraged the rulers more than the parable itself, the distinct declaration of the transference of Israel"s prerogatives to more worthy tenants would do so. The words are heavy with doom. They carry a lesson for us.
Stewardship implies responsibility, and faithlessness, sooner or later, involves deprivation. The only way to keep G.o.d"s gifts is to use them for His glory. "The grace of G.o.d," says Luther somewhere, "is like a flying summer shower." Where are Ephesus and the other apocalyptic churches? Let us "take heed lest, if G.o.d spared not the natural branches, He also spare not us."
Jesus leaves the hearers with the old psalm ringing in their ears, which proclaimed that "the stone which the builders rejected becomes the head stone of the corner." Other words of the same psalm had been chanted by the crowd in the procession on entering the city. Their fervour was cooling, but the prophecy would still be fulfilled. The builders are the same as the vine-dressers; their rejection of the stone is parallel with slaying the Son.
But though Jesus foretells His death, He also foretells His triumph after death. How could He have spoken, almost in one breath, the prophecy of His being slain and "cast out of the vineyard," and that of His being exalted to be the very apex and shining summit of the true Temple, unless He had been conscious that His death was indeed not the end, but the centre, of His work, and His elevation to universal and unchanging dominion?
G.o.d"S LAST ARROW
"Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved, he sent him also last unto them."--Mark xii. 6.
Reference to Isaiah v. There are differences in detail here which need not trouble us.
Isaiah"s parable is a review of the theocratic history of Israel, and clearly the messengers are the prophets; here Christ speaks of Himself and His own mission to Israel, and goes on to tell of His death as already accomplished.
I. The Son who follows and surpa.s.ses the servants.
(a) Our Lord here places Himself in the line of the prophets as coming for a similar purpose. The mission _to Israel_ was the same. The mission _of His life_ was the same.
The last words of the lawgiver certainly point to a person (Deut.
xviii. 18): "A prophet shall the Lord your G.o.d raise up unto you like unto me. Him shall ye hear." How ridiculous the cool superciliousness with which modern historical criticism "pooh-poohs" that interpretation! But the contrast is quite as prominent as the resemblance. This saying is one which occurs in all the Synoptics, and is as full a declaration of Sonship as any in John"s Gospel. It reposes on the scene at the baptism (Matt, iii.): "This is My beloved Son!" Such a saying was well enough understood by the Jews to mean more than the "Messiah." It clearly involves kindred to the divine in a far other and higher sense than any prophet ever had it. It involves pre-existence. It a.s.serts that He was the special object of the divine love, the "heir."
You cannot relieve the New Testament Christ of the responsibility of having made such a.s.sertions. There they are! He did deliberately declare that He was, in a unique sense, "_the_ Son" on whom the love and complacency of the Father rested continually.
II. The aggravation of men"s sins as tending to the enhancement of the divine efforts.
The terrible Nemesis of evil is that it ever tends to reproduce itself in aggravated forms. Think of the influence of habit; the searing of conscience, so that we become able to do things that we would have shrunk from at an earlier stage. Remember how impunity leads to greater sin. So here the first servant is merely sent away empty, the second is wounded and disgraced, the third is killed. All evil is an inclined plane, a steady, downward progress. How beautifully the opposite principle of the divine love and patience is represented as striving with the increasing hate and resistance! According to Matthew, the householder sent other servants "_more than_ the first,"
and the climax was that he sent his son. Mightier forces are brought to bear. This attraction _increases_ as the square of the distance.
The blacker the cloud, the brighter the sun; the thicker the ice, the hotter the flame; the harder the soil, the stronger the ploughshare.
Note, too, the undertone of sacrifice and of yearning for the son which may be discerned in the "householder"s" words. The son is his "dearest treasure," his mightiest gift, than which is nothing higher.
The mission of Christ is the ultimate appeal of G.o.d to men.
In the primary sense of the parable Jesus does close the history of the divine strivings with Israel. After Christ, the last of the prophets, the divine voice ceases; after the blaze of that light all is dark. There is nothing more remarkable in the whole history of the world than that cessation in an instant, as it were, of the long, august series of divine efforts for Israel. Henceforward there is an awful silence. "Forsaken Israel wanders lone."
And the principle involved for us is the same.
"Christ crucified" is more than Christ miracle-working. That "more" we have, as the Jews had. But if that avails not, then nothing else will.
He is "last" because highest, strongest, and all-sufficient.
He is "last" inasmuch as all since are but echoes of His voice and proclaimers of His grace.
He is "last" as the eternal and the permanent, the "same for ever"
(Heb. xiii. 8). There are to be no new powers for the world; no new forces to draw men to G.o.d. G.o.d"s quiver is empty, His last bolt shot, His most tender appeal made.
III. The unwearied divine charity.
"They will reverence My Son." May we not say this is a divine hope? It is not worth while to make a difficulty of the bold representation. It is but parallel to all the dealings of G.o.d with men; and it sets forth the possibility that He _might_ have won Israel back to G.o.d and to obedience. It suggests the good faith and the earnestness with which G.o.d sent Him, and He came, to bring Israel back to G.o.d. But we are not to suppose that this divine hope excluded the divine purpose of His death or was inconsistent with that, for He goes on to speak of His death as if it were past (verse 8). This shows how distinctly He foreknew it.
Its highest aspect is not here, for it was not needed for the parable.
"With wicked hands ye have crucified," etc., is true, as well as "I lay it down of Myself."
Let us lay to heart the solemn love which warns by prophesying, tells what men are going to do in order that they may _not_ do it (and what He will do in order that He may _not_ have to do it). And let us yield ourselves to the power of Christ"s death as G.o.d"s magnet for drawing us all back to Him; and as certain to bring about at last the satisfaction of the Father"s long-frustrated hope: "They will reverence my Son," and the fulfilment of the Son"s long-unaccomplished prediction: "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me."
NOT FAR AND NOT IN
"Thou art not far from the kingdom of G.o.d."--Mark xii. 34,
"A bruised reed He will not break, and the smoking flax He will not quench."