Today’s Reading: Luke 20:9–19; Acts 4:11–12; 1 Peter 2:4–8; Psalm 118:22–23; Isaiah 8:13–15; 28:16
Parables are teaching tools where the teacher imagines a picture or invents a story in order to explain a real situation.
* Typically, each character has a direct relationship to a real person or group of people.
* In this parable, the son of the owner of the vineyard is clearly pointing to Jesus.
* Now, just about any time you read about a son in the Bible, you can expect that the son is either pointing to Jesus, or being intentionally contrasted with Jesus.
So, with the understanding that any metaphorical language like this has limits, let’s go ahead and break this parable down symbol by symbol:
* The owner = God
* The son = Jesus
* The vineyard = Israel (often referred to as God’s vineyard in the Old Testament)
* The tenants = the scribes and chief priests
* The servants = prophets
I hope it’s pretty clear how all of those symbols make sense of the parable, but what does this parable teach? What is the reality it corresponds to?
* Well, among other things, this parable teaches the Sonship of Christ.
* It is no accident that the owner refers to his son as his “beloved son” (v. 13), an obvious reference to the Father’s words at Jesus’ baptism (3:22).
* The son is different from any of the servants; he is not merely another messenger, but the heir.
Also, it is significant that the son is the last messenger the owner sent.
* What I mean is that it indicates a sense of finality in the coming of the Son.
* The owner didn’t send anyone else, so no one else should come along with a new message claiming to be from the “owner.”
* This point looms large in discussions with other religions that have “newer” messages that Christianity.
We should pay especially close attention to how Jesus interprets his own parable, right?
* Based on how Jesus concludes, one of the main points of his parable is a sort of turning of the tables.
* The points we’ve mentioned so far—the Sonship and the finality of Jesus’ coming—are evidence against those who reject Jesus.
Linguistic side note: The Hebrew words for “stone” (‘eben) and “son” (ben) in are very similar.
* Jesus transition from the story of the rejected son the rejected stone hinges on a sound relationship we can’t hear.
* In any case, it would probably have been compelling to his original audience.
In short, Jesus is warning the religious leaders who have rejected him.
* If they “fall” on the stone (they want to kill Jesus, remember), they will lose ("broken to pieces”).
* If the stone falls on them (say, when he returns to judge), they will lose (“it will crush them”).
And they understand that he’s talking about them!
* “Surely not!” they say, not in fear, but rather to contradict Jesus.
* They hear him loud and clear but, instead of considering such a warning in light of Jesus’ authority, they are all the more hardened against him.
* In the end, they choose not to “lay hands” on him (v. 19). Why? Because they are afraid of the people, not because they are afraid of the Cornerstone.
If we turn to Acts, there we find Peter speaking to the religious leaders also; even Caiaphas is present (see Acts 4:6).
* Verses 11–12 are part of a longer statement by Peter in defense of performing a healing in the name of Jesus.
* To conclude, he delivers a warning, strikingly similar to Jesus warning in Matthew, about the Cornerstone.
* Peter is not so subtle though: he calls out the “builders,” and he clarifies that salvation is at stake.
Again, the religious leaders hear the message, only all the more clearly—How could they not?—but they still do not take it to heart.
* If you continued to read the account in Acts, you would see that they merely threaten and dismiss Peter (and John, who was with him).
* They do not expect God to speak to them, much less for him to use Peter to do it.
But how similar is this scene to the rejection of Christ himself?
* A miracle of healing is standing right in front of them. Peter is teaching clearly and in accordance with the Scriptures.
* Yet, the religious leaders reject the message, and they are still without excuse.
Quick application:
* What should we expect from our audiences when we present the Gospel with boldness and clarity?
Changing gears…
In the letter of 1 Peter, Peter (yes, the same Peter) finally gives a positive angle on this cornerstone business.
* Those who receive Jesus will be built up as a spiritual house on top of the “chosen and precious” cornerstone (2:6).
* All believers are “living stones,” being built up together into the “spiritual house” of God (v. 5).
It’s easy to forget that Peter is not writing in a vacuum.
* He walked and talked with Jesus.
* And he once heard Jesus teach that the wise man builds his house on the rock (Matt 7:24–25). I wonder if that’s what he had in mind here.
* After all, it makes sense that Peter would like to use a rock metaphor; his name means “rock,” remember?
In conclusion, consider the amount of interaction across books of the Bible we have here. Look at Acts 4:11–12, for example.
* Luke is writing what Peter said.
* Peter is saying what he heard from Jesus.
* And Jesus is quoting Isaiah (Isa. 8:13–15; 28:16; see also Psa. 118:22–23).
* And Isaiah was writing the word of the Lord GOD (28:16).
Clever Remarks 