Here is the version of this parable that appears in Thomas (Patterson–Meyer Translation): Verse 66 is a quote from
Psalm 118:22–23. Many writers of the
New Testament used this Psalm to sum up their understanding of Jesus' death as part of his role as the
messiah. It is notable that the
Hebrew word for son,
ben, is almost the same as stone, '
eben, which might be what generated seeing Jesus as a stone. This could be seen as referring to the new Church's belief that they had
superseded Judaism through Jesus' death, resurrection and role as the messiah. Others think it might be a reference to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem as seen by Christians as God's punishment for Jesus' death and their assumption that their new communities were the new Temple. Seeing Jesus as a "stone" to build on precedes Jerusalem's destruction, however.
Paul, in his letter to the
Romans chapter 9:33, refers to Jesus as a stone. Paul does not use the Psalms for his scriptural support but instead uses quotes from
Isaiah 8:14 and 28:16. Luke stated, probably after Jerusalem's destruction, in
Acts of the Apostles 4:11 that
Peter used the same Psalm to describe Jesus shortly after Jesus' death.
1 Peter, which most scholars consider
pseudepigraphal, uses both Isaiah and the Psalm as references in 2:6–8. Matthew's version states the method of killing the third servant, stoning, which the other versions lack. Stoning might be a reference to Christian
martyrs' deaths, perhaps the death of
James the Just.
Irenaeus used this parable to defend the link between
Judaism's God and Jesus, in his
Adversus Haereses. If one sees the servants as the
Jewish prophets, then the owner who sent them must then be the same father of the son in the story, who are
God the Father and Jesus, so the God of the Jews must also be Jesus' father. '' in the
Temple in Jerusalem All the
synoptic versions of the parable state that the priests of the
Sanhedrin understood that Jesus' parable was directed against them, and thus that they are the husbandmen. The term
husbandman is translated as
tenant or
farmer in the
New International Version and as
vine-grower in the
New American Standard Bible. Workers often tended absentee estates and if the owner had no heirs the workers would have the first right to the land. The
tower and the
winepress have been interpreted as "sanctuary" and "altar", respectively. The description of the vineyard is from
Isaiah 5. Using a vineyard as a
metaphor to describe
Israel was a common practice for religious discourse at the time. The produce made at the vineyard might be a metaphor for all the good produced by the people, which the authorities are not sharing with God, and trying to keep for themselves. The owner of the vineyard is God and the son is Jesus. The traditional interpretation about the owner leaving the vineyard is expressed by
Erasmus to argue that God leaving humans the
free will to act, as is said by
Bede the Venerable: "He seems to leave the vineyard so as to leave the keepers of the vineyard free choice of action." A common interpretation of the servants is that of the
Jewish
prophets, although they could be all of God's preceding messengers. The meaning of the "others" who will be given the vineyard is debated. Some proposed interpretations have seen them as other Jews,
Gentiles (generally), Christians, or maybe even the
Jewish Christians.
The possibility of tenants as greedy commercial farmers vs. poor farmers Craig Evans surveys the use of "tenant" ( cf. Matt 21:38) in lease agreements in antiquity to contextualize how these tenants should be viewed. He concludes that: Interpreters should not assume that these farmers would necessarily have been understood as poor sharecroppers who out of desperation for land resorted to theft and murder. The farmers who entered into a legal agreement with the owner of the vineyard could very well have been understood by Jesus’ hearers as commercial farmers hungry for profits. Hence, their equation with the ruling priests would have been readily perceived. There is no reason to assume that the would necessarily have been understood as impoverished or marginalized. Their high-handed actions against the servants and son of the owner parallel Jeddous’ rough treatment of the emissaries of Zenon’s associate, while the owner’s military response parallels the action taken against the Senators of Salamis. These parallels from history are consistent with an interpretation of the parable that identifies the tenant farmers as the ruling priests. ==See also==