Foreign absentee landlords controlled much of the land in Judea and Galilee in the time of Jesus. The tenant farmers, who rented these lands, naturally held considerable resentment towards these rich and powerful (and often foreign and pagan) landowners. The Zealot party, a band of guerrillas who fought to overthrow foreign domination, stirred up opposition that occasionally became violent, just as the action of the tenants in the parable. Killing the heir of the property might be a way of getting possession of it. By law, in the absence of an heir, ownership would fall to the first occupant. In the parable, the workers made the mistake of forgetting that the owner, upon his return, could give his land to others.

Jesus may have originally addressed this parable to the leaders of the Zealot party, to emphasize that their goals and methods were alien to the true kingdom of God. Injustice in human affairs there might be, and we cannot be indifference in our efforts to bring about justice. But the justice of God’s kingdom cannot come about through partisan violence and hatred. The leaders of the Zealots, then, would have been identified with the vineyard workers, and because of their infidelity to the true purposes of God’s kingdom, their responsibility would be given to others.

In the course of the first few decades of the Church, the Zealot question was no longer a burning issue, but the Jewish-Gentile problem remained. By the time the Gospel was written, the emphasis of the parable seems to have changed. The workers were now seen to represent the Jews who had rejected Christ, and therefore were unfaithful to their "chosen" status. And so the kingdom itself was taken from them and given to the Gentiles. It also became an explanation of the reasons for Christ’s death, and its consequences — he was rejected and put to death because he was a threat to the personal security of Jewish leaders as God’s favored people.

At first glance this allegory seems very similar to the Gospel parable, but it is likely that Jesus did not have this in mind at all. Notice that the subject is vastly different: in Isaiah, the grapes do not ripen; in Matthew, the tenants revolt. The outcome is different: in Isaiah, unredeemed ruin predicted; in Matthew , Jesus foretells transfer of possession. The point of this allegory in Isaiah is to contrast the tender care which God lavishes upon his people with their ingratitude and unresponsiveness.

This psalm extends the allegory of the vine as representing God’s people, and asks him to care for it once again. Response: "The vineyard of the Lord is the house of Israel."

Paul’s final words to his beloved Philippians are not just a pious bit of farewell advice. There is a sense of urgency in his parting exhortations. The catalogue of virtues that should underlie a good life are not merely intended for the community’s own self-perfection. The missionary dimension of the Christian life is never far from Paul’s mind. Christians are to behave well so that their lives maybe a sign of the love of God to others. Note that vv 4-7 are read on the Third Sunday of Advent, Year C.

1. How can the Gospel parable apply to your life today?

2. How do you understand the meaning of "God’s peace" in Phil 4:7?