This series of three parables grew out of the demand of the chief priests and elders for Jesus to explain what authority He had for cleansing the temple. As the custodians of the spiritual life of the nation, they had the right to ask this question. But we are amazed at their ignorance. Jesus had given them three years of ministry, and they still would not face the facts. They wanted more evidence.
In taking them back to the ministry of John, Jesus was not trying to avoid the issue. John had prepared the way for Jesus. Had the rulers received John’s ministry, they would have received Jesus. Instead, the leaders permitted Herod to arrest John and then to kill him. If they would not accept the authority of John, they would not accept the authority of Jesus, for both John and Jesus were sent by God.
It is a basic principle of Christian living that we cannot learn new truth if we disobey what God has already told us. “If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God” (John 7: nasb). The religious rulers had rejected the truth preached by John, and therefore Jesus could not impart new truth. Both He and John were under the same authority.
They rejected God the Father (21:23–32). The vineyard, of course, speaks of the nation of Israel (Ps. 80:8–16; Isa. 5). The two sons represent the two classes of people in that nation: the self-righteous religious people, and the publicans and sinners. When John came ministering, the religious crowd showed great interest in his work, but they would not repent and humble themselves and be baptized (Matt. 3:7–12; John 1:19–28). The nonreligious crowd, however, confessed their sins and obeyed John’s words and were baptized.
The leaders committed two sins: They would not believe John’s message and they would not repent of their sins. Of course, the leaders felt that they had no need to repent (Luke 18:9–14). But when they saw what repentance did for the publicans and sinners, they should have been convinced that John’s message was true and salvation was real. Again and again, the religious rulers rejected the clear evidence God gave them.
Their rejection of John was actually a rejection of the Father who had sent him. But God is gracious, and instead of sending judgment, He sent His Son. This leads to the next parable.
They rejected the Son (21:33–46). We are still at the vineyard. This parable is based on Isaiah 5:1–7, and in it Jesus reminded the Jews of God’s goodness to them as a nation. God delivered them from Egypt and planted them in a rich land of milk and honey. He gave them material and spiritual blessings and asked only that they bear fruit for His glory. From time to time, God sent His servants (the prophets) to the people to receive the fruit. But the people mistreated the servants, and even killed some of them.
What should the householder do? He could have sent his armies to destroy these wicked men. But instead he sent his own son to them. The reference, of course, is to Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He is the “heir” (Heb. 1:2). Instead of receiving and honoring the son, the men cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Jesus was crucified “outside the gate” (Heb. 13:12–13 nasb), rejected by His own nation.
The people listening to the parable were caught up in the drama and did not realize that they passed sentence on themselves. Jesus quoted Psalm 118:22–23 to explain that He was that Son and the religious leaders were the husbandmen (Matt. 21:45). The crowds had quoted from Psalm 118: when they had welcomed Jesus into the city, so this Scripture was fresh in the minds of the rulers.
Often in the Old Testament, God is referred to as a rock or a stone (Deut. 32:4, 18, 30–31; Ps. 18:2, 31, 46). The stone is also a messianic title. To Israel, Jesus was a stumbling stone (Isa. 8:14–15; Rom. 9:32–33; 1 Cor. 1:23). Israel rejected the Messiah, but in His death and resurrection He created the church. To the church, Jesus is the foundation stone, the head of the corner (Eph. 2:20–22; 1 Peter 2:4–5). At the end of the age, Jesus will come as the smiting stone (Dan. 2:34), destroy Gentile kingdoms, and establish His own glorious kingdom.
Of course, the Jewish leaders knew the messianic import of the Scripture Jesus quoted. They were the builders who rejected the stone (Acts 4:11). What were the consequences? For one thing, the kingdom would be taken from Israel and given to another nation, the church (1 Peter 2:9, and note the context, 1 Peter 2:6–10). Those who would attack this stone would be “pulverized”; those whom Christ judges will be crushed to bits.
They rejected the Holy Spirit (22:1–14). This parable must not be confused with the parable of the great supper (Luke 14:16–24) even though they have elements in common. Again we meet the Father and the Son, and the Son is alive (in spite of what the husbandmen did) and has a bride. The suggestion is that the Lord Jesus and His church are depicted (Eph. 5:22–33). The period described in this parable must be after His resurrection and ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit.
The Father is still inviting the people of Israel to come, in spite of what they did to His Son. When we study the first seven chapters of Acts, we discover that the message is going out to none but Jews (Acts 2:5, 10, 14, 22, 36; 3:25; 6:7). “To the Jew first” was God’s plan (Acts 3:26; Rom. 1:16). How did the nation’s leaders respond to the ministry of the Holy Spirit through the apostles? They rejected the Word and persecuted the church. The same rulers who permitted John to be killed, and who asked for Jesus to be killed, themselves killed Stephen! Later, Herod killed James (Acts 12:1ff.).
How did the king in the parable respond to the way the people treated his servants? He became angry and sent his armies to destroy them and their city. He then turned to other people and invited them to come to the feast. This is a picture of God’s dealing with Israel. They rejected the Father when they refused to obey John the Baptist’s preaching. Israel rejected the Son when they arrested Him and crucified Him. In His grace and patience, God sent other witnesses. The Holy Spirit came on the early believers and they witnessed with great power that Jesus was alive and the nation could be saved (Acts 2:32–36; 3:19–26). The miracles they did were proof that God was at work in and through them.
But Israel also rejected the Holy Spirit! This was Stephen’s indictment against the nation: “You do always resist the Holy Ghost” (Acts 7:51). With the stoning of Stephen, God’s patience with Israel began to end, though He delayed the judgment for almost forty years. In Acts 8 we read that the message went to the Samaritans, and in Acts 10 we read that it even went to the Gentiles.
This final rejection is, to me, the awful “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” that Jesus spoke about in Matthew 12:22–32. This was a national sin, committed by Israel. When they rejected John, they rejected the Father who sent him, but there remained the ministry of the Son. When they rejected the Son, they were forgiven because of their ignorance (Luke 23:34; Acts 3:17). No sinner today can be forgiven for rejecting Christ, for this rejection is what condemns the soul (John 3:16–22).
But there remained the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit came on the church at Pentecost, and the apostles performed great signs and wonders (Acts 2:43; Heb. 2:1–4). The rulers rejected the witness of the Spirit, and this brought final judgment. They had rejected the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and there were no more opportunities left.
This “sin against the Holy Spirit” cannot be committed today in the same way as Israel committed it, because the situation is different. The Spirit of God is bearing witness through the Word to the person and work of Jesus Christ. It is the Spirit who convinces the world of sin (John 16:7–11). The Spirit can be resisted by unbelievers (Acts 7:51), but nobody knows that crisis hour (if there is one) when the Spirit stops dealing with a lost sinner.
Matthew 22:11–14 seems like an appendix to the parable, but it is vitally important. The wedding garment was provided by the host so that everybody was properly attired and the poor did not feel conspicuous. Salvation is personal and individual. We must accept what God gives to us—the righteousness of Christ— and not try to make it on our own. Since these parables had a definite national emphasis, this personal emphasis at the end was most important.
The nation’s leaders were guilty of spiritual blindness, hypocrisy, and deliberate disobedience to the Word. Instead of accepting this indictment from Jesus, and repenting, they decided to attack Him and argue with Him. The result: judgment. We should be careful not to follow their example of disobedience.