33 “Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 34 When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.
35 “The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36 Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37 Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.
38 “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”
41 “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”
42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
“‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’[h]?
43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.”
45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them. 46 They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.
The moral of the story is the murderous tenants were in the right. They represented the people who are the true inheritors of God's works, not the priests who make themselves fat on their temple donations and do nothing to earn their higher status.
the Roman Empire officially adopted it, making Latin the language of scripture even centuries later after it became a dead language. The people were unable to know what the book actually said, and remained ignorant until it was translated into vernacular languages, at which point lots of people realized the book said nothing about giving money to priests making it okay to go whoring on the weekends or whatever. Protestant reformation happened and then capitalism grew out of the things that were developed in those wars and now when they teach this to kids in Sunday school they stop at verse 41 and tell you that God is the landlord, which would really piss Jesus off
there's an (admittedly fringe) book from 2005 called Caesar's Messiah that suggests Titus, Bernice, Alexander, and Josephus created the New Testament together as Josephus was writing War of the Jews around the time of Titus's destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and that Christianity is essentially an imperial comprador version of Judaism stitched together from Greek stoicism, Jewish monotheism, and Roman ritual, as a sly way to get enslaved Jews to worship the imperial cult indirectly. It's one of my favorite conspiracy theories of all time even if it's total horse shit. It draws its ideas based on strange parallels between the life of Jesus, and Titus's military campaign, as well as parallels between the New Testament and Josephus's War of the Jews, and also it is fond of pointing out that of all the Militant Messiah figures floating around in Jerusalem in that era, Jesus is the only one who is a pacifist and advocates paying taxes to the Romans.
That’s an interesting take, but I think it doesn’t make sense, the passage even says the parable is throwing shade on the Pharisees, who are the murderous tenants in the metaphor.
No, the tenants are not the “people who produced fruit” because in this parable God is the landlord and produce meant give the landlord his harvest, not “produce” in the general sense. I don’t know how you square it logically with the latter, because Jesus immediately calls out the people he’s talking to calling them the bad tenants from the metaphor.
Matthew 21:33-45
33 “Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 34 When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.
35 “The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36 Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37 Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.
38 “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”
41 “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”
42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
“‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’[h]?
43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.”
45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them. 46 They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.
The moral of the story is the murderous tenants were in the right. They represented the people who are the true inheritors of God's works, not the priests who make themselves fat on their temple donations and do nothing to earn their higher status.
Why can't more Christians be this based? What happened?
the Roman Empire officially adopted it, making Latin the language of scripture even centuries later after it became a dead language. The people were unable to know what the book actually said, and remained ignorant until it was translated into vernacular languages, at which point lots of people realized the book said nothing about giving money to priests making it okay to go whoring on the weekends or whatever. Protestant reformation happened and then capitalism grew out of the things that were developed in those wars and now when they teach this to kids in Sunday school they stop at verse 41 and tell you that God is the landlord, which would really piss Jesus off
https://old.reddit.com/r/LandlordLove/comments/1731syk/i_got_an_interesting_landlord_story_this_morning/k3zyshk/
Wow you aren't kidding the subreddit is literally arguing that unironically
Classic Protestant cope
r/LandlordLove
there's an (admittedly fringe) book from 2005 called Caesar's Messiah that suggests Titus, Bernice, Alexander, and Josephus created the New Testament together as Josephus was writing War of the Jews around the time of Titus's destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and that Christianity is essentially an imperial comprador version of Judaism stitched together from Greek stoicism, Jewish monotheism, and Roman ritual, as a sly way to get enslaved Jews to worship the imperial cult indirectly. It's one of my favorite conspiracy theories of all time even if it's total horse shit. It draws its ideas based on strange parallels between the life of Jesus, and Titus's military campaign, as well as parallels between the New Testament and Josephus's War of the Jews, and also it is fond of pointing out that of all the Militant Messiah figures floating around in Jerusalem in that era, Jesus is the only one who is a pacifist and advocates paying taxes to the Romans.
They will respect my large adult son
Bob Marley has a song that references this
Corner Stone (1970) - Bob Marley & The Wailers
That’s an interesting take, but I think it doesn’t make sense, the passage even says the parable is throwing shade on the Pharisees, who are the murderous tenants in the metaphor.
Isn't the vineyard in this case "the stone the builders rejected"? And the tenants who work the land the "people who will produce its fruit"?
I mean, this is classical Biblical shit, in that we can argue all day about interpretations haha
No, the tenants are not the “people who produced fruit” because in this parable God is the landlord and produce meant give the landlord his harvest, not “produce” in the general sense. I don’t know how you square it logically with the latter, because Jesus immediately calls out the people he’s talking to calling them the bad tenants from the metaphor.