Parable of the Wicked Tenants: From Rejection to the Church

Introduction: A Parable of Judgment and Hope

Every word Jesus spoke carried weight, but His parables often carried a double edge, comfort for those with open hearts and sharp warning for those who resisted Him. Among His most striking parables is the story of the wicked tenants. Told during the final week of His earthly ministry, this parable confronted the religious leaders who had long opposed Him. It also revealed the fate of Israel’s stewardship and the dawning reality of the kingdom of God.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke each record this parable, and the setting is crucial. Jesus has entered Jerusalem, cleansed the temple, and openly challenged the authority of the chief priests, scribes, and elders. These leaders question His authority, but Jesus responds by asking them about John the Baptist. When they refuse to answer honestly, He launches into a parable that exposes their hypocrisy and foretells their downfall.

At first, the story seems simple, a vineyard owner rents out his land, sends servants to collect his share, and faces rebellion from those he entrusted. Yet every detail points to God’s dealings with Israel. The vineyard recalls Isaiah’s song of the vineyard. The servants represent the prophets. The beloved son points unmistakably to Christ Himself. The tenants’ violence echoes centuries of rejection, climaxing in the cross.

From a partial preterist perspective, this parable does not simply point to some distant future judgment at the end of history. It speaks directly to the impending crisis of the first century, the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70, the fall of its leaders, and the transfer of God’s kingdom to a new people who would bear fruit. In this light, the parable offers both sobering warning and enduring hope. Judgment is real, but God’s purposes are never thwarted.

The Vineyard and Its Tenants: Old Testament Roots

When Jesus began His parable with the words, “A man planted a vineyard…” His audience immediately recognized the reference. This was no random choice of scenery. In the Scriptures, the vineyard was a well-known symbol for Israel, God’s chosen nation. The most vivid example comes from Isaiah 5:1–7, often called the “Song of the Vineyard.”

Isaiah sings of a beloved who plants a vineyard on a fertile hill. He clears the stones, builds a watchtower, hews out a winepress, and expects good grapes. Instead, it yields wild and bitter fruit. The prophet interprets the vision plainly: “For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are his pleasant planting” (Isaiah 5:7 ESV). Despite God’s careful cultivation, His people produced bloodshed instead of justice, cries of distress instead of righteousness.

By invoking the vineyard, Jesus deliberately placed His parable in this prophetic tradition. The landowner who planted the vineyard represents God Himself, who formed Israel as a people, delivered them from Egypt, gave them the law, and established them in the land. Every act of preparation, the hedge, the tower, the winepress, speaks of His care and provision. Israel was no accidental nation. They were a people cultivated to bear fruit for His glory.

The tenants, therefore, represent those entrusted with the vineyard. In the Old Testament context, this pointed broadly to Israel’s leaders, especially the priests and rulers, who bore responsibility for guiding the nation. In Jesus’ day, the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees stood in this role. They were supposed to cultivate justice, mercy, and faithfulness. Instead, they clung to power, burdened the people, and resisted God’s messengers.

This setting already carried a sting. By echoing Isaiah, Jesus reminded His listeners that their history was one of repeated failure. Just as the vineyard in Isaiah produced wild grapes, so too had Israel’s leaders failed to yield the fruit God desired. The parable was not just a quaint story; it was a mirror reflecting their unfaithfulness.

From the start, then, we see the depth of the parable. It is not about an abstract vineyard but about God’s covenant people. It is not about distant tenants but about those very leaders standing before Jesus. And it is not about random fruit but about the righteousness and obedience God has always desired.

The Servants and the Son: God’s Messengers Rejected

As the parable unfolds, the vineyard owner sends his servants to collect fruit from the tenants. This detail was common practice in the first century. A landowner who leased out a vineyard expected part of the harvest as payment. Yet instead of honoring the agreement, the tenants beat one servant, killed another, and stoned a third. The violence escalates with each sending.

Jesus’ audience would not have missed the symbolism. The servants represent the prophets God sent throughout Israel’s history. Time and again, the Lord raised up men who spoke His word, calling His people to repentance and faithfulness. Yet rather than receiving them, the leaders often despised them.

Consider Elijah, hunted by Ahab and Jezebel. Think of Jeremiah, imprisoned and thrown into a cistern for warning of judgment. Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, was stoned in the temple courts (2 Chronicles 24:20–21). The book of Hebrews summarizes this legacy: “They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword” (Hebrews 11:37). The history of Israel is filled with prophets mistreated by those who should have listened most closely.

By including multiple servants in His story, Jesus highlighted both God’s patience and Israel’s pattern of rebellion. The owner did not give up after one rejection; he sent servant after servant. In the same way, God did not abandon His people after their first act of disobedience. He continued sending prophets, pleading with His vineyard to yield fruit. But each time, the leaders refused.

Then comes the turning point: “Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son’” (Matthew 21:37). This statement brims with significance. The son is not just another servant. He is unique, the heir of the vineyard, bearing the full authority of the father. In Mark’s account, the phrase is even stronger: “He had still one other, a beloved son” (Mark 12:6). The echo of Genesis 22, where Isaac is called Abraham’s beloved son, and of Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration, where the Father declares Him the beloved Son, cannot be missed.

By introducing the son, Jesus identified Himself as the climax of God’s sending. The prophets were servants, but He is the Son. They came with the word of the Lord, but He comes as the Word made flesh. They pointed toward God’s purposes, but He embodies them. To reject Him would not simply be to spurn another messenger. It would be to reject the very heir of the kingdom.

The tenants’ response is chilling. Instead of showing respect, they conspire together: “This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance” (Matthew 21:38). Their motive is plain, they desire control. If the son is out of the way, they believe the vineyard will be theirs. This reveals the heart of Israel’s leaders in Jesus’ day. They feared losing their influence and authority. His teaching threatened their power, so they plotted to kill Him.

Here the parable moves from history to prophecy. The rejection of prophets was past; the rejection of the Son was imminent. Within days of telling this story, the religious leaders would arrest Jesus, hand Him over to the Romans, and watch Him crucified. The parable therefore stands as both an indictment of their past and a prediction of their immediate future.

From a partial preterist perspective, this point is crucial. Jesus is not describing a rebellion far in the future or a symbolic rejection by a later generation. He is speaking directly about His contemporaries, the leaders of Israel who stood before Him. Their rejection of the Son would bring swift and devastating consequences, not only for themselves but for the entire city and temple they cherished.

The pattern is unmistakable: servants rejected, Son rejected, judgment looming. Yet even here, we must see the grace of God. That He would send servant after servant shows His patience. That He would send His Son shows the depth of His love. And that the Son would willingly go, knowing what awaited Him, shows the greatness of His sacrifice.

The Owner’s Judgment: Historical Fulfillment

After the tenants kill the son, Jesus asks His listeners a question: “When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” (Matthew 21:40). The crowd answers with surprising clarity: “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons” (Matthew 21:41).

The irony is striking. The very leaders whom Jesus indicates pronounce judgment on themselves. They admit that such wicked tenants deserve destruction. In so doing, they confirm the justice of the coming judgment on Jerusalem.

From a partial preterist standpoint, this judgment finds concrete fulfillment in the events of AD 70. Within a generation of Jesus’ words, Roman armies besieged Jerusalem, destroyed the temple, and left the city in ruins. Josephus, the Jewish historian, records the horror of famine, slaughter, and fire. Over one million perished, and the center of Israel’s religious life was reduced to rubble.

This was no random tragedy of history. Jesus had foretold it repeatedly. In Luke 19:43–44 He warned, “For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.” The parable of the wicked tenants fits into this same prophetic pattern. The destruction of the tenants is the destruction of Jerusalem’s leaders and their city.

Notice also that the judgment is not merely punitive. It has a redemptive purpose. The vineyard is not abandoned; it is entrusted to others who will produce fruit. This transfer signifies the movement of God’s kingdom from the unfaithful leaders of Israel to a new people, the apostles and the church—who would bear the fruit of faith, obedience, and love.

This is where partial preterism stands in stark contrast to dispensational readings. Dispensational theology often treats the parable as describing Israel’s temporary rejection, with the kingdom postponed until a future millennial reign. But Jesus’ words indicate no such delay. The kingdom is not postponed, but transferred. The unfaithful tenants are destroyed, and the vineyard is immediately given to new tenants. In other words, the church inherits the promises, not as a replacement but as the continuation and fulfillment of God’s covenant purposes.

The destruction of Jerusalem, therefore, was not merely a political disaster. It was the decisive act of divine judgment that marked the end of the old covenant order. The temple, sacrifices, and priesthood, all shadows of Christ, were swept away. In their place stands the Son, the true cornerstone, and His people, the living temple built of Jew and Gentile together.

For the first-century audience, this was both terrifying and urgent. The leaders who plotted Jesus’ death were sealing their own doom. The city that rejected its Messiah would soon face fire and sword. The parable was not a distant allegory but a pressing warning of imminent judgment.

For us, this historical fulfillment underscores the faithfulness of God’s word. What Jesus declared came to pass within a generation, just as He said. The parable, then, is not only a story of judgment but also a testimony to the reliability of Christ’s promises. If His words of warning were fulfilled in AD 70, His words of hope and salvation can be trusted as well.

The Stone the Builders Rejected

After describing the fate of the tenants, Jesus shifts to a powerful Scripture reference: “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” (Matthew 21:42, quoting Psalm 118:22–23).

Here the imagery moves from the vineyard to the building site. The builders, Israel’s leaders, examined the stone and discarded it as unfit. Yet the very stone they rejected became the cornerstone, the foundation of God’s new work. This transition highlights the shocking reversal at the heart of the gospel.

In its original setting, Psalm 118 celebrated God’s deliverance and exaltation of His chosen one. The rejected stone becoming the cornerstone symbolized God overturning human judgment. Applied to Christ, it takes on ultimate meaning. Though the leaders rejected Him and handed Him over to death, God raised Him up and made Him the foundation of His kingdom.

From a partial preterist view, this Scripture not only points to Christ’s resurrection and exaltation but also to the shift of covenantal authority. The cornerstone is not laid in some future millennial temple but in the present reality of the church, which is built on Christ and the apostles’ teaching. Peter would later echo this truth: “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense” (1 Peter 2:7–8). The early church saw this fulfilled in Jesus’ resurrection and the establishment of the new covenant people.

The builders’ rejection and God’s vindication highlight a central truth: human authority does not determine God’s purposes. The leaders thought by rejecting Jesus they could secure their power. Instead, they brought about their own downfall and ensured His exaltation. What they despised became the very foundation of salvation.

Transfer of the Kingdom

Following His quotation of Psalm 118, Jesus delivers the central statement of the parable: “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits” (Matthew 21:43).

This verse is decisive. The kingdom is not delayed. It is not withdrawn until a future dispensation. It is taken from the corrupt leaders of Israel and entrusted to another people who will bear fruit.

Who are these new tenants? The apostles and the early church, made up of Jews who believed and soon joined by Gentiles grafted in through the gospel. Together they form the “people producing its fruits.” Paul describes this in Romans 11, where natural branches were broken off because of unbelief, and wild branches were grafted in by faith. The vineyard continues, but its stewards change.

For Israel’s leaders, this was a devastating announcement. Their privileged role as guardians of God’s people was ending. Their failure to recognize the Son cost them their stewardship. For the disciples, however, this was a message of hope. Though small and weak, they would soon be entrusted with the vineyard. Through their preaching, teaching, and witness, the kingdom would spread to the ends of the earth.

Again, the partial preterist perspective underscores the immediacy of this transfer. Jesus was not speaking of an era thousands of years later but of events unfolding within their generation. By AD 70, the old order was destroyed, and the church stood as the visible expression of God’s kingdom on earth.

The Response of the Leaders

The parable closes with a telling reaction. Matthew records: “When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet” (Matthew 21:45–46).

Their response confirms the accuracy of the parable. They knew Jesus was targeting them. Instead of repenting, they hardened their hearts further. Their desire to arrest Him shows the very spirit of the tenants who plotted against the son. The parable was not just a story about others, it was a mirror exposing their own intentions.

In Mark and Luke’s accounts, the leaders’ hostility is even clearer. They seek to lay hands on Him immediately but are restrained by fear of the people. The contrast is stark: the crowds see Jesus as a prophet, while the leaders see Him as a threat. This divide sets the stage for the coming confrontation that will lead to the cross.

Their response teaches us something sobering. Hearing the truth is not enough. The leaders heard Jesus plainly. They even recognized themselves in His words. Yet recognition without repentance only deepened their guilt. The same sun that softens wax hardens clay. The parable, which could have led to repentance, instead became one more step toward rejection.

Lessons for Us Today

While this parable had a specific historical fulfillment in the first century, its lessons remain timeless.

First, God expects fruit from His people. Israel was cultivated to bear justice and righteousness. The church is likewise called to bear the fruit of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22–23). Privilege without fruitfulness leads to judgment.

Second, rejecting God’s messengers is rejecting God Himself. The tenants did not simply despise the servants; they despised the owner who sent them. To resist God’s word, whether through prophets, apostles, or Scripture itself, is to resist God.

Third, Christ is the cornerstone. Every life and every community must decide: will we stumble over Him or be built upon Him? There is no neutrality. To reject Him is to be broken; to receive Him is to become part of His temple.

Finally, God’s purposes cannot be thwarted. Though the leaders rejected Jesus, God exalted Him. Though Jerusalem fell, the kingdom advanced. Today, the gospel continues to bear fruit around the world. This assures us that even when human opposition rages, God’s plan stands firm.

Closing Thoughts: From Rejection to Victory

The parable of the wicked tenants is both sobering and hopeful. Sobering, because it reveals the seriousness of rejecting God’s Son and the reality of divine judgment. Hopeful, because it shows that God’s purposes move forward even in the face of rejection.

For the first-century leaders, this parable was a pronouncement of doom. They had failed their stewardship, rejected the prophets, and plotted against the Son. Within a generation, their city and temple were destroyed, and their authority ended. For the disciples, however, it was a promise. Though small in number, they would inherit the vineyard. Through them, the kingdom would spread, bearing fruit for generations to come.

For us today, the parable calls us to embrace Christ as the cornerstone, to produce the fruit of obedience, and to trust in God’s sovereign plan. The same Lord who judged unfaithfulness also builds His church on the stone the builders rejected. And as Peter declared, “whoever believes in him will not be put to shame” (1 Peter 2:6).