This page intentionally left blank

The Vine, Israel

and the Church
Studies in Biblical Literature

Hemchand Gossai
General Editor

Vol. 51

PETER LANG
New York ! Washington, D.C./Baltimore ! Bern
Frankfurt am Main ! Berlin ! Brussels ! Vienna ! Oxford
 Peter Damian Akpunonu

The Vine, Israel

and the Church

PETER LANG
New York ! Washington, D.C./Baltimore ! Bern
Frankfurt am Main ! Berlin ! Brussels ! Vienna ! Oxford
 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Akpunonu, Peter Damian.
The vine, Israel and the church / Peter Damian Akpunonu.
p. cm. — (Studies in biblical literature; v. 51)
1. Viticulture in the Bible. 2. Metaphor in the Bible. 3. People
of God—Biblical teaching. I. Title. II. Series.
BS665 .A39 220.6'4—dc21 2002005691
ISBN 0-8204-6160-1
ISSN 1089-0645

Die Deutsche Bibliothek-CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Akpunonu, Peter Damian:
The vine, Israel and the Church / Peter Damian Akpunonu.
−New York; Washington, D.C./Baltimore; Bern;
Frankfurt am Main; Berlin; Brussels; Vienna; Oxford: Lang.
(Studies in biblical literature; Vol. 51)
ISBN 0-8204-6160-1

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability
of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity
of the Council of Library Resources.

© 2004 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York

th
275 Seventh Avenue, 28 Floor, New York, NY 10001
www.peterlangusa.com

All rights reserved.

Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm,
xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited.

Printed in Germany
To My Mother

Bernadette
This page intentionally left blank
 Contents

Acknowledgments xi

...
List of Abbreviations Xlll

Series Editor Preface xv

Introduction i

Chapter One The Vine in Israel 3

I. I Terminology 3
1.2 Viticulture m Anctent Near East 4
1-3 Viticulture In Israel 5
1.4 Planting of the Vine 7
1.5 The Harvest 8
1.6 The Wine Press 10
1.7 The Vine and Other Divine Blessings lo
1.8 Esteem for the Vineyar 12
1.9 The Poisonous Vine 13
1.10 Destruction of the Vine 13
I. I I Wine 14

Chapter Two The Canticle of the Vine (Isa 5 : I-TI

2.1 The Literary Genre 22
2.2 TheText 26
2.3 Textual Analysis 27

Chapter Three Psalm 80

3.1 T h e Histclrical Background of Psalm 80 45
3. I . I The Period of Assyrian Expansionism 46
3.I .2 JudeanOrigin of the Psalm 47
3.~.3 Post-exilic Composition nf the P~alrn 48
viii The Vine, Israel and the Church
3.1.4 A Tradition—Historic Interpretation 49
3.2 The Literary Genre of the Psalm 50
3.2.1 Structure of the Lament 51
3.2.2 The Refrain 51
3.2.3 The Meter 52
3.2.4 Similarity with Other Psalms 52
3.2.5 Division of Psalm 80 53
3.3 Exegesis 56
3.3.1 The Mid-Section 70
3.3.2 Prayer for Restoration 82

Chapter Four The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Matt 21:33–44) 87

4.1 A Parable or an Allegory? 89
4.2 Interpretation of the Pericope 92
4.3 The Text 93
4.3.1 Mark 94
4.3.2 Luke 94
4.3.3 Matthew 94
4.3.4 Similarities 95
4.4 The Historical Setting of the Parable 96
4.5 The Text—Matthew 21:33–43 98
4.5.1 The Exegesis of the Pericope 99
4.5.2 Attempted Appropriation of the Vineyard 115
4.6 Conclusion 121

Chapter Five The Vine in John’s Gospel 125

5.1 Introduction: The Vine in John’s Gospel (15:1–8) 125
5.2 The Context 128
5.3 The Background to the Image of the Vine 132
5.3.1 The Eucharist as the Background 132
5.3.2 The Old Testament as Background 134
5.3.3 Extra Biblical Sources 134
5.4 The Text 137
5.5 Exegesis 138
5.5.1 The “I Am” Formula 139
5.5.2 The True Vine 141
5.5.3 My Father Is the Vine-Dresser 144
5.5.4 Becoming Disciples of Jesus 156
5.5.5 My Father 157
 Contents ix
Chapter Six Israel as Vine 158
6.1 Hosea 10:1–2 159
6.2 Jeremiah 2:21 161
6.3 Ezekiel 15:1–8 163
6.4 Ezekiel 17:1–10 168
6.5 Conclusion 174

Chapter Seven The Church as Vine 176

7.1 Jesus, the Vine/Vineyard and the Jews 177
7.1.1 The Synoptic Tradition 178
7.1.2 The Johannine Tradition 180
7.2 The Church and Judaism 181
7.3 The Early Days of the Church 183
7.4 The Rupture 186
7.5 Continuity Between the Synagogue and the Church 190
7.6 Continuity and Discontinuity in Paul 194

Epilogue 199

Notes 201

Primary Sources and Reference Works 215

Bibliography 219
This page intentionally left blank
 Acknowledgments

I
thank the Lord who in his providence and mercy guided my steps to the Univer-
sity of St. Mary of the Lake/Mundelein Seminary, to spend my sabbatical leave.
To the Rector/President, Very Rev. John F. Canary, the Faculty, Staff, and Stu-
dents of this noble and revered institution, the first University of the State of Illi-
nois, I express my sincere and heartfelt gratitude for throwing its doors and facilities
wide open to me, so that in its quiet, peaceful, and prayerful atmosphere, I could
grow; the sky being my only limit. Their care, company, understanding, and friend-
ship have made my days in the United States. I will never forget them.
To my mother, Bernadette, to all my family members, who at all stages of my life
have given me unflinching support and unstinted love, I thank you all, especially
my two brothers, Basil and Dama, who are here in the United States with their fam-
ilies. Your homes have always been a Bethany for me. I am immensely appreciative
also of your financial and material support.
It was Rev. Dr. James Chukwuma Okoye, C.S.Sp, an Associate-Professor of the
Catholic Theological Union of Chicago who encouraged and advised me to spend
my leave at Chicago and worked hard to make it a reality. I thank you immensely,
James, for I have been richly blessed by God for being in Illinois. God used Paul Ugo
Arinze, now a priest of Madison Diocese, to direct my steps to Mundelein. I owe a
lot to you, Paul, for your bold initiative at a turning point in my life. I thank also the
Nigerian students at Mundelein especially Sanctus Kodilinye Ibe, also now a priest
of Madison Diocese.
The Library of the University deserves special mention. The team worked cheer-
fully and tirelessly to provide all I needed—finding the books, inter-library loans
and photocopying facilities: I wish to thank them for their company, sincere friend-
ship, and support. To the Librarian, Hermann Peterson, and other Library Staff—
Julie, Marian, Mary Ann (now the University’s Registrar), Anna, Anne and Ed—
please accept my sincere gratitude. Your friendship is deeply appreciated by my
family members and other friends who called on me at the Library.
xii The Vine, Israel and the Church
I single out for special recognition and appreciation, Susie, who typed my manu-
scripts and all other documents and made all the corrections at every phase of this
work. Your hard work, patience, and dedication will remain forever green in my
memory.
My sincere sentiments of gratitude and esteem go to Rev. Msgr. Anthony W.
McGuire, the Pastor of Maternity of the B.V.M. Parish in Northeast Philadelphia, to
the Associate Pastors, the entire Parish Staff, and personnel. I thank you all for wel-
coming me to the Parish all these years and making me happy and at home whenever
I am with you. May God bless and reward you for your care and generosity.
To Professor Joseph Blekinsopp and Dr. Hugh R. Page Jr. of the University of
Notre Dame, Indiana, I owe special gratitude for reading the drafts and making the
necessary corrections. I am very indebted to Rev. Dr. Paulinus Odozor, C.S.Sp., a
visiting professor of the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, for introducing me to
the University and working so hard to ensure that this work sees the light of day.
To all my friends at home, in Europe, and in the United States; to the Congrega-
tion of Daughters of Divine Love; to all who in any way have contributed to this
work—may you live forever in God’s presence.
SHALOM SHALOM!!!
Peter Damian Akpunonu
 Acknowledgments xiii
Abbreviations

Cf Confer
CL Community Lament
ch chapter
ed edition; editor
LXX Septuagint
NT New Testament
OT Old Testament
Targ Targum
TM Textus Massoreticus
tr translation; translator
Ugar Ugaritic

Abbreviations of Titles
of Books and Periodicals

AnBibl Analecta Biblica (Rome)

AHw Akkadisches Handwörterbuch ed. W. Von Soden
ANEP The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament
ed. J. B. Pritchard (Princeton: New Jersey, 1955)
ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament with
Supplement ed. J.B. Pritchard (Princeton: New Jersey, 1969)
ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch (Göttingen)
AnOr Analecta Orientalia (Roma)
ARM Archives Royales de Mari
B-D-B Brown F., Driver S. R., & Briggs C. A., A Hebrew and English Lexicon
to the Old Testament (Oxford)
BH Biblia Hebraica (Stuttgart)
BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia ed. K. Elliger & W. Rudolph,1968.
Bib Biblica (Roma)
Bib Or Pont Biblica et Orientalia (Roma)
BK Biblischer Kommentar (Neukirchen)
BWA(N)T Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament (Leipzig:
Stuttgart)
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Altestamentliche Wissenschaft (Giessen;
Berlin)
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago, 1956ff
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly (Washington, D.C.)
xiv The Vine, Israel and the Church
EB Etudes Bibliques (Paris)
EH Exegetishes Handbuch zum Alten Testament (Münster
EvTh Evangelische Theologie, Munich.
ExpT Expository Times, London
GHK Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament ed. N.Nowack.
GKC Gesenius Hebrew Grammar enlarged by E.Kautsch (Oxford).
HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. O. Eissfeldt
HAW Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, ed. W. Otto
HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (Göttingen)
HTR Harvard Theological Review
IB Interpreters Bible (Nashville)
ICC International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh)
IDB Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible with Supplement (Nashville)
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies (Chicago)
KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Gütersloh)
Nov.T Novum Testamentum
NTS New Testament Studies
RB Revue Biblique (Paris)
SVT Supplement to Vetus Testamentum (Leiden)
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI)
TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI)
UL Ugaritic Literature (Roma)
UT Ugaritic Textbook (Roma)
VD Verbum Domini (Roma)
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (Berlin)
ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
 Editor's Preface

More than ever the horizons in biblical literature are being expanded beyond
that which is immediately imagined; important new methodological, theologi-
cal, and hermeneutical directions are being explored, often resulting in signifi-
cant contributions to the world of biblical scholarship. It is an exciting time for
the academy as engagement in biblical studies continues to be heightened.
This series seeks to make available to scholars and institutions, scholarship
of a high order, and which will make a significant contribution to the ongoing
biblical discourse. This series includes established and innovative directions,
covering general and particular areas in biblical study. For every volume consid-
ered for this series, we explore the question as to whether the study will push the
horizons of biblical scholarship. The answer must be yes for inclusion.
In this volume Peter Akpunonu explores in detail the biblical theme of The
Vine with regard to both Israel and with implications for the Church.
Akpunonu's approach is textually oriented and bridges with ease and sensitivity
both the texts from the Hebrew Bible and those in the New Testament. While
the author's aim finally is to draw theological implications, on the basis of his
examination of the respective texts and themes, the journey to that end is done
with meticulous and intentional care to the details and various trajectories.
What we have at the end is a study that is thoughtful and one that is sure to pro-
vide insight for future study.
The horizon has been expanded.

Hemchand Gossai
Series Editor
This page intentionally left blank
 Introduction

T
he Canticle of the Vine (Isa 5:1–7), will strike even a casual reader of the
Bible as a work of literary ingenuity. There have been so few texts of the
Old Testament that have attracted such favorable and wonderful comments
as the pericope. It is truly a gem. A researcher in prophetic studies, a preacher, will
find himself returning times without number to this poem to draw inspiration from
it and to be motivated as well. It is a key to understanding Old Testament theology.
The Canticle of the Vine has a beauty of its own. It excels not only in literary el-
egance but also in profundity of thought. The text is dense and limpid; so well writ-
ten that it is extremely difficult to introduce a gloss into the well-constructed art-
work. In fact, no word is wasted. With a masterstroke, it makes a rare and an
enviable combination of literary craftsmanship and contemplation. It is, therefore,
not surprising that the pericope has a doublet (Isa 27:3–5).
The Canticle has the singularity of condensing the Old Testament theology and
the history of salvation into seven verses. The omnipotence of God, his Providence,
Election, the Covenant, divine Retributive Justice, and his Fidelity are succinctly nar-
rated and explicitly taught in this love song. Besides rehearsing the history of Israel, it
interprets the vicissitudes of the nation, justifies the righteous anger of God, and con-
demns the nonchalance of Israel and her amoral attitude towards the covenant.
The Canticle of the Vine constitutes a turning point in biblical use and under-
standing of the vine. No longer considered primarily as a botanical object, as one of
the prized products of the Promised Land, as a reward for right living, the vine has
become a special symbol for Israel. This symbol began to be used in the eighth cen-
tury as the canticle belongs to one of the earliest oracles of Isaiah of Jerusalem. Such
understanding and use continued to the New Testament era. So important was the
imagery that Jesus in one of his “I am” sayings did not hesitate to say: “I am the true
vine” (John 15:1).
The vine, the botanic and also political-religious reality—took on a spiritual di-
mension which now needs to be studied from the perspective of the Promise and the
Covenant.
2 The Vine, Israel and the Church
The transition of the vine from “a choice plant” to “a choice nation” is very sig-
nificant. In the New Testament, the vine came to designate both Jesus the Messiah
and his Church. The metamorphosis, the style, purpose of viticulture, were all
woven into salvation history.
These factors make the study of the vine not only interesting and worthwhile but
above all its application to Israel and later to the Church more challenging. This is
the gold mine we have set out to dig, confident that at the end of this research work,
we shall come to a clearer understanding of what it means to call Israel, Jesus Christ
and the Church, “the vine.”
 CHAPTER ONE

The Vine in Israel

T
he vine is one of the choice plants of Palestine. Together with the fig and
the olive, it represents some of the great blessings of the Promised Land.
The three are mentioned together in Jotham’s diatribe (Judg 9:8–13) and
also in Deut 8:8 where the land of promise is described as a land

where you will eat bread without scarcity

and would lack nothing.

Since the vine played such an important role in the life of the people of Pales-
tine, it is not surprising that it is used in literature as a symbol of peace, blessing,
fruitfulness, and joy.

1.1 Terminology

The Hebrew word for vine is }epeG gephen (Gen 40:9) and it is twice expanded to }epeG
}iyiYah- gephen-hayyayin (Num 6:4; Judg 13:14) to mean “grapevine”, a fruit which a
Nazarite is not supposed to eat (Num 6:1–4). The choice vine is qer& ś¯oreq (Isa 5:2;
Jer 2:21) or hfqre & śoreqâh (Gen 49:11), whose grape is usually red in color. Often }epGe
gephen and qer& e soreq are parallel as in Gen 49:11; Isa 16:8, and Jer 2:21. Because qer& e
soreq is considered high quality, if not the best of grapes, it is [called tem) E -(arz¢ z¯ era‘-
‘meth “authentic fruit” and is contrasted with degenerate grapes a hfyri :knf }epGe h
a y¢rWs sôrê
haggephen n°kriyâh (Jer 2:21).
The Hebrew word for the vineyard is {erek kerem. In 2 Kgs 18:31–32 it is synony-
mous with and in parallelism with }epeG and is listed with the fig tree, corn, wine, oil,
honey, abundance of water, and better land, a land of greater blessings, into which
Sennacherib promised to deport the Judeans, if they surrendered to him. It is in the
vineyard that grapes are planted, nurtured, harvested, and occasionally pressed into
wine or syrup (Isa 5:1–7).
4 The Vine, Israel and the Church

Other terms relevant to our study are ryican nazîr “undressed vine” (Lev 25:5, 11)
“the vintage” (Lev 26:5). The “tendril” is ryigf& ś¯agîr (Gen 40:10) while the “vine
row” is hfrf& s¯arâh (Jer 5:10)
In cognate languages }epeG is found in Aramaic as }¢pOG gôph¯ en or }epeG; in the Akka-
dian as gapnu1 and in late Babylonian as gupnu2. It is found in Assyrian Royal In-
scriptions of the eighth century.3 The term is also found in the Ugaritic as gpn and
has two possible meanings:

“vine” UT 52:9, 10, 11

“harness trappings”, “packsaddle”,4 and this is found in UT 51:IV
5, 7, 10:12; 1 Aqht:53.
“gpn” and “ugr” are Baal’s messengers UT 158:3 ; 2058: 20.
In Arabic it is found as gafn or gifn.5

In the Greek, the vine is a)\mpeloj ampelos and the vineyard is a)mpelwn
ampel¯on. It does appear that a vineyard can be converted into an orchard or more
specifically into a vegetable garden. Hence Ahab asked Naboth to give him his
vineyard for a vegetable garden (1 Kgs 2:12).

1.2 Viticulture in Ancient Near East

The Bible traces viticulture to Noah. Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant
a vineyard (Gen 9:20). Despite this assertion, from the end of the 19th century,
scholars have carried out special research on the vine right from ancient times. It
was once believed that viticulture originated in the region of the Caspian Sea,
spread over the Ancient Near East and was eventually brought into Greece and
Italy by the Phoenicians.6 Today this view has been largely replaced with the theory
that viticulture developed independently in several regions of the Mediterranean
Sea.7 In Egypt, viticulture could be traced back to the fourth millennium b.c. But
the vine did not flourish in Egypt because the soil was not very favorable to its
growth. Occasionally the Nile would overflow its banks whereas too much water or
excessive heat was not conducive to its growth. Although the vine was greatly ap-
preciated in Egypt, it was not a daily commodity for ordinary Egyptians. The story of
Joseph and the cupbearer (Gen 40:9–14) indicates how highly prized the vine was
in Egypt.
In Mesopotamia, the soil was equally unfavorable to viticulture. Vine was found
in the region but not in large quantity nor was the quality the best.
The vine found the most favorable conditions in Asia Minor, in the Mediter-
ranean regions and especially in Syro-Palestine. Given the hills and collines, mod-
 The Vine in Israel 5
erate rainfall, clement weather without the excesses of heat and cold, these condi-
tions made viticulture in Syro-Palestine prestigious, lucrative, and a matter of joy
and pride.
That the vine was produced in large quantities in Syro-Palestine and Asia Minor
is evident from some extra-biblical texts. In the sixth dynasty of Egypt, a career offi-
cial, UNI by name, who was very active in the reign of Pepi (c. 2375), left an in-
scription now found on his cenotaph at Abydos where he described a major cam-
paign against the Asiatics. From his narrative, it can be concluded that the
expedition was successful for:

the army returned in safety

after it had hacked up the land of the (sand) Dwellers. . . .
after it had thrown down its enclosures. . . .
after it had cut down its fig trees and its vines. . . .
after it had set fire into all its dwellings. . . .
after it had killed troops in it by thousands. . . .
(after it had taken troops) in it a great multitude as living captives.8

The text clearly indicates that there was abundance of vine, the destruction of
which was meant to inflict punishment and to humiliate the conquered people.
Another Egyptian document of the Middle Kingdom (c. 1950 B.C.) tells the
story of SI-NUHE, who returned from Asia and was made a courtier of the Egyptian
King. Describing the country which bordered on Egypt he said

It was a land named Yaa. Figs were in it and grapes. It had

more wine than water. Plentiful was its honey, abundant
in olives. Every (kind of) fruit was on its trees. Barley was
there and emmer. There was no limit to any (kind of) cattle.9

In all these countries, not only did many make a prestigious and high standard of
living from viticultre, the vine played an important and occasionally dominant role
in the social and religious life of the people. There were cultic drinkings and liba-
tions. Among the Greeks, the cult of Dionysius was well known and celebrated in
its usual baccanalian style.

1.3 Viticulture in Israel

Israel celebrated the fruit of the vine right from its earliest days. It was even called
the “Feast of Yahweh” hwhy-gax hÓ ag-YHWH (Judg 21:19; Lev. 23:16) or the “Feast of
6 The Vine, Israel and the Church

Ingathering” vyisf)fh-gax Óhag h¯a ¯asîph (Exod 23:16) or simply “the Feast” gaxax ha Óhag
(1 Kgs 8:2; Isa 30:29; Ezek 45:23). It was celebrated in autumn at the end of the year
(Exod 23:16; 34:22) and lasted seven days (Lev 23:34; Deut 16:13–15) and this
feast continued into the New Testament times (John 7). It was one of the three pil-
grimage feasts and the most joyful of all.
This feast was kept on the 15th day of the seventh month (Lev 23:39) and ob-
served for eight days. On the first and the last days of the festival, the Israelites ob-
served complete rest. On the first day, the Israelites collected palm branches,
boughs of leafy trees and willows from the river bank and rejoiced in the presence of
Yahweh for seven days. They lived in shelters to recall the days when they lived in
shelters as they journeyed into the Promised Land. After the exile, the Israelites
lived in shelters as they celebrated this feast.
The feast of the vine was found among the Canaanites and sometimes it in-
cluded orgiastic features which later infiltrated into Israel. The daughters of Shiloh
performed the traditional vintage dance during the feast at which Benjaminites car-
ried off some of them as wives (Judg 21:21). This feature of occasional loose con-
duct continued into New Testament times and the story of the woman taken in
adultery (John 8:1–11) finds its natural context at this feast.
The vine was grown and produced large fruit in Canaan even before the Is-
raelites settled there. When Moses sent some Israelites to spy the land of Canaan,
they initially gave a favorable report of the land:

They came to Wadi Eschol and cut down from there a branch
with a single cluster of grapes and they carried it on a pole
between the two of them (Num 13:23).

In Israel, on account of abundance of grapes, several places had names relating to

viticulture, e.g. Abel-Keramim (Judg 11:33), Anab (Josh 11:21; 15:50), Beth-
Hakkerem (Neh 3:14; Jer 6:1), Eschol (Num 13:23, 24; 32:9; Deut 1:24). Of the
vine of Sibmah Isaiah speaks in these words:

For the fields of Heshbon languish,

and the vines of Sibmah;
the Lord of the nations
have struck down the branches,
which reached to Jazer
and strayed to the desert;
its shoots spread abroad
and passed over the sea. (Isa 16:8).

Viticulture flourished not only in Judah but also in the plains of Sharon and Jezreel
 The Vine in Israel 7
(1 Kgs 21:1); in Timnah (Judg 14:5); in Shiloh (Judg 21); and in Heshbon (Jer 48:
33). In Syria, Helbon near Damascus was renowned for viticulture (Ezek 27:18) as
well as Lebanon.
From the evidence of these texts, it is clear that Syria and Palestine produced not
only large quantities of wine buy even more so, wine of very high quality. Therefore,
the vine exercised tremendous influence on the political, economic, social, and
above all religious life of the people. Consequently, we shall study in detail the
planting, the nurturing, and the harvesting of the grapevine.

1.4 Planting of the Vine

On account of the high premium placed on the vine, care and attention surrounded
the plant. Isaiah 5:1–7 gives an insight into some of the steps taken to ensure that
the vine bore the desired fruit. As with many objects that play an important role in
daily life, the Hebrew Old Testament has numerous expressions for the parts of the
plant and for the fruits of the grapevine as well as things done in connection with its
cultivation.10
To plant a vineyard, careful preparations were made. Excellent terrain was cho-
sen, the soil dug up and cleared of stones (Isa 5:2) and the vineyard secured from
danger. A stone wall or strong hedge was built not only to keep the enemies of the
vineyard away—foxes (Cant 2:15), wild boars (Ps 80:14), and thieves (Jer 49:9) but
also to keep safe within those working in the vineyard. Often a watchtower was
built to oversee the safety of the workers and of the vineyard, and to warn those liv-
ing within of impending danger. During the vintage, the harvesters and other work-
ers lived in the tower.
The vine produced its best fruit when planted on a colline (Isa 5:2) where the
contours provided excellent terraces. Vines were planted in rows from three to four
meters apart. Being a creeping plant, it was allowed to trail on the ground (Ps 80:10,
12), but when it bloomed with its cluster of grapes, it had to be propped up 0.5—1.0
meter to prevent the grapes from rotting. But to ensure good produce, it was often
raised higher than that, sometimes to climb trees or people’s houses; a practice
which gave rise to the adage “every one dwelt under his vine and his fig tree” (1 Kgs
5:5; 4:25; Mic 4:4; Zech 3:10). Hence Ezekiel could speak of a vine which:

and stood
“towered aloft among the thick boughs out in its height
with its mass of branches” (Ezek 19:11).

Since the Bible speaks of people dwelling under their vine and fig trees, it may be
presumed that the vine was often planted beside the fig tree and this is a common
8 The Vine, Israel and the Church
practice of Palestinian Arabs today. However, trailing the grapevine on poles and
trellises, a practice found in Egypt from time immemorial can be traced to Palestine
only during the Hellenic period.11
The vine having been planted, blossoms xrp p¯arah and flowers )cn n¯aÓ s¯a (Isa 18:
5; Gen 40:10) in spring and its tendril, gyr# s¯arîg appears (Gen 40:10). Then
comes the tender grape, radfm: s sem¯adar (Cant 2:13, 15; 7:13). On the vine stalk
hangs a cluster of grapes lOk:$e) eˇ skôl e (Num 13:23) as they begin to ripen about
July. The technical term for “the grape” is bfn¢( ‘¯ enaÓb (Jer 25:5; Deut 32:14; Isa 5:2,
4; Num 6:3). The unripe grape is r¢soB b¯os¯ er (Isa 18:4; Job 15:33) which some enjoy
to eat but which later sets teeth on edge (Jer 31:29; Ezek 18:2). The full ripe grape is lemoG
resoB b¯oser g¯ omel (Isa 18:5) while the stunted grapes (always plural), stinking and worth-
less are {yi$u): B b‘uˇsim (Isa 5:2, 4).
But to ensure a good harvest, the vine has to be pruned. Pruning, rmz z¯amar
(Lev 25: 3, 4; Isa 5:6) takes place before and after the vine has blossomed and for
this the vine—dressers use pruning hooks. Pruning hooks were small sickle—
shaped knives that could easily have been weapons originally but which could cer-
tainly be converted to such quickly, were an enemy to threaten.12 The pruning
hooks, tOrem: zam mazmerôth (Isa 2:4; 18:5; Mic 4:3) cut off the non-fruit bearing
branches. The consequence was that the remaining branches became stronger and
produced more fruit (Isa 18:5; John 15:2). The dead branches were collected and
burnt (John 15:6).
Pending on the weather and on the location, the grapes reached maturity be-
tween July and October and the main harvest was always in the autumn. The har-
vest (Judg 9:27; Jer 48:32) was always a joyful period and a celebration, full of danc-
ing (Judg 9:27) and merriment

For over your harvest and vintage the cheering has died away:
joy and gladness have vanished from the orchards.
No more revelry in the vineyards
no more happy shouting:
no more does the treader tread wine in the presses,
the cheering has ceased. (Isa 16: 9b-10 Translation: mine).

1.5 The Harvest

The harvest takes place between the months of August and October. The yield de-
pends on a number of factors—the quality of the vine, the terrain, annual rainfall,
climatic conditions, harassment or not by thieves and wild animals. There is no way
to predict the produce of the vineyard. However, on account of Yahweh’s anger ten
acres would yield a bath of wine (Isa 5:10), i.e. about six gallons of wine.
 The Vine in Israel 9
Nevertheless, huge acres of vineyard and abundance of vine are expressions of di-
vine favor. The grapevine, its fruits, and the luxuries that they produce—grape
juice, wine, grape honey, and grape cakes—are viewed positively as blessings from
Yahweh. A good example is Gen 49:11–12; the blessing of Judah

v.11 Binding his foal to the vine

and his donkey’s colt to the choice vine;
he washes his garments in wine
and his robes in the blood of grapes

v.12 his eyes are darker than wine

his teeth whiter than milk.

Judah, along with its military might is also so blessed with abundance that he could
tether his donkey to the vine (even though the vine stalk was not strong enough to
hold back the donkey) and could even wash his garments not in water but in high
quality wine.
Abundance of grapevine was a special feature of the apocalyptic times. In No. 29
of Second (Syriac Apocalyptic Book of) Baruch we read:

The earth will yield its fruit ten thousandfold.

And on one vine will be a thousand branches,
and each branch will produce a thousand clusters,
and one cluster will produce a thousand grapes,
and one grape will produce a cor of wine.13

The grapes were gathered by the reapers {yir: coB b¯oserîm. The verb, racfB b¯aÓ sar,
means “to cut off, make inaccessible, enclose”14 but when used with bfn¢( ¯ enaÓb, it be-
comes the technical term for reaping grapes. A reaper, therefore, was recoB b¯oÓ ser.
The grape gatherers plucked the grapes with their hands. This is evident from Jer 6:
9 and is confirmed by pictures from Egypt.15 The use of the sickle to gather grapes is
not found in the OT: in fact it is found only once in biblical tradition; in Rev 14:8.
But it was not possible to reap all the grapes all at the same time, either because
some were not ripe enough or because of oversight. Going through the vineyard
twice was done by the gleaners, tOl¢lO( ‘ôl¯ elôth (Judg 8:2; Isa 24:13; Jer 6:9; Mic 7:
1). But the law forbade the gleaning of the vineyard. The left-over belonged to the
alien (Lev 19:10), the fatherless, and the widows (Deut 24:21)

You shall not strip the vineyard bare or gather the fallen grapes
of your vineyard: you shall leave them for the poor and the alien
(Lev 19:10).
10 The Vine, Israel and the Church
When the grapes were gathered, one of the following could be done:

the grapes could be eaten in their natural state;

they could be dried and turned into raisins;
they could be boiled down into a thick syrup grape;
they could be pressed into wine.

1.6 The Wine Press

The wine press was occasionally built in the vineyard (Isa 5:2; Matt 21:33) but
more often outside it. For pressing the grapes, occasionally very heavy stones were
used. The grapes were carried in baskets or even on a yoke to the big wine press
which consisted of two containers, one above the other, hewn out of solid rock
(Joel 3:13; Isa 5:2). The grape-juice that exuded into the lower vat on account of
the weight of the grapes and the stones was highly prized: it was the “new” wine,
the “sweet” wine (Hos 4:11; Amos 9:13; Acts 2:13) and was kept separate from the
juice pressed subsequently.
But the chief method of pressing grapes was simply to tread them by foot. The
verb used was simply \lh hlk “to walk” (Num 13:15; Job 24:11; Isa 16:10). It was
done by many people shouting and encouraging one another (Isa 16:19–20; Jer 25:
30; 48:33) as their legs and loincloths became stained with juice. Hence we read in
Trito-Isaiah:

Why are your robes red

and your garments like those who tread the wine press?

I have trodden the winepress alone

and from the peoples no one was with me (Isa 63:2–3).

His regret was not that he treaded the winepress or that his clothes were crimson
with grape but that he treaded the winepress alone.

1.7 The Vine and Other Divine Blessings

The vine is not the only gift with which Yahweh blessed Israel. Other blessings in-
clude the fig tree, the olive tree, the grain of the field, houses, pomegranates, and
water. Some of these gifts are found in pairs.

Vineyard and Houses—This represents the prosperity of cultivated land. Israel is

 The Vine in Israel 11
blessed with the land of promise which it possesses, develops and in which it
lives in peace (Amos 5:11; 9:14; Zeph 1:13b; Ezek 28:26; Isa 62:21; Sir 2:4)
Vineyard and Fields—This is found in the Book of the Covenant (Exod 22:4)
and in ancient narratives (Num 16:14; 20:17; 21:22; 1 Sam 8:15; 22:7; 2 Kgs
18:32) and in pre-exilic oracles (Isa 32:12). It is also found in post-exilic texts
(Ps 107:37; Mal 3:11; Neh 5:4; Zech 8:12). The texts teach that Yahweh gave
Israel the land and the fruits of the land to enjoy and to praise God for his
munificence.
The Vine and the Fig Tree—The more common pairing is the vine and the fig
tree (Hos 2:14; Joel 1:7; 2:22; Isa 34:4; Mic 4:4; Zech 3:10). It denotes the
prosperity and above all the peace of the Promised Land.
The Vine and the Olive—This combination is rare but it does exist (1 Sam 8:15).
It designates the prosperity of the land.
The Vine, the Fig, and the Olive—This is a rare combination. A classical exam-
ple is Jotham’s diatribe and the only other occurrence is Hab 3:17. From such
rare occurrences it can be deduced that “the the vine, the fig, and the olive” is
not a stereotyped formula, but the three mentioned together designate the rich-
ness and the blessing of the land.
Grapevine and Pomegranates—This is found in the Canticle of Canticles 6:11; 7:
13
Fields, Seed, Vineyard, Fig, Pomegranate, Date, and Olive—are found in Num 20:
5; Joel 1:11–12; Hag 2:19.

More combinations are found in Neh 9:25 to include fortified towns, fertile coun-
tryside, possession of houses, storage-wells ready hewn, vineyards, olive groves, and
fruit trees. Here seven elements are found. But the most comprehensive is in Deut
8:7–9

For Yahweh your God is bringing you into a good land

of flowing streams, with springs and underground waters
welling up in valleys and hills, a land of wheat and barley;
of vines and figs and pomegranates, a land of olive trees
and honey, a land where you will eat bread without scarcity,
where you will lack nothing, a land whose stones are iron
and from whose hills you mine copper.

Here are enumerated some of the great blessings of the land and the vine holds
pride of place among them.
12 The Vine, Israel and the Church
1.8 Esteem for the Vineyard

The vine is highly treasured in Israel. It entails hard work, vigilance, patience, and
endurance. That makes its fruit all the more joyful and prestigious.
The vine also brought a lot of revenue. Isaiah speaks about a thousand vines
worth a thousand pieces of silver (7:23). The vineyard is to lie fallow on the Sab-
bath year (Exod 23:10–11; Lev 25:3–5). It was forbidden to sow other seeds in the
vineyard:

You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seed
or the whole yield will have to be forfeited, both the crop you
have sown and the yield of the vineyard itself (Deut 22:9).

It does appear this regulation was not seriously enforced and later was abandoned,
for in a parable of Jesus in Luke 13:6, we read:

“A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard.”

Anyone who planted a vineyard and had not enjoyed its fruit was exempt from com-
pulsory military service, like a man who had completed a house and not dedicated it,
or a man newly married (Deut 20:5–8). In the case of the vineyard, we read:

Has anyone planted a vineyard but not enjoyed its fruit? He

should go back to his house, or he might die in the battle and
another be first to enjoy his fruit (Deut 20:6).

To plant a vineyard and not eat its fruit is a sign of divine displeasure or even a curse
(Isa 62:8; 65:2; Mic 6:15).
The vine is also used in a religious sense. The wife of the righteous man is like a
fruitful vine and their children like shoots of the olive (Ps 128:3), whereas the
wicked will be like the vine whose unripe grapes are shaken off or like the olive
whose blossoms are cast off (Job 15:13). In Ezekiel 17, the allegory of the eagle and
the vine is used for Zedekiah and the Davidic dynasty about to be overwhelmed by
catastrophe. The use of the vine as love language—found in Canticles (2:13; 7:8, 9)
is not as developed as other various images of the vine.
The vine was cultivated at every stage of Israel’s history. Kings cultivated vine-
yards (1 Sam 8:14) and appropriated other peoples’ (1 Kgs:21). During the Baby-
lonian exile, only the poor were left behind in Judah as vine dressers and plough-
men (2 Kgs 25:12; Jer 52:16). When the exiles returned to Judah, this duty was
taken over by foreigners (Isa 61:5).
 The Vine in Israel 13
1.9 The Poisonous Vine

The vine, though a cherished product of the land, does appear to have a species that
is poisonous. It is called hedf>Aah-\EPEg gephen ha śś¯adeh , literally “the vine of the field”
and its fruit is called hedf& to(uqap paquoth ś¯adeh The poisonous vine is mentioned in
2 Kgs 4:39–40 and Mal 3:10:

One of them (sons of the prophets) went out into the field to gather
herbs; he found a wild vine and gathered from it a lapful of wild gourds,
and cut them up into the pot of stew, not knowing what they were.
They served some to the men to eat. But while they were eating the
stew, they cried out: “Man of God, there is death in the pot” (2 Kgs 4:
39–40).

Some of the blessings Israel would receive for paying its tithes is that at Yahweh’s
command, the locusts would not destroy the fruit of the land and the vine would
not produce dangerous gourds (Mal 3:11).
Worthy of note too is the “Vine of Sodom” {od: s }epeG gephen Sedom, a)mpeloj
Sodo/ mwn ampelos Sodomon. It is a vine with bitter clusters of poisonous grapes. It is
an orange colored fruit with black powdery interior.16 In Deut 32:32–33 we read

v. 32 Their vine comes from the vinestock of Sodom,

from the vineyards of Gomorrah;
their grapes are grapes of poison,
their clusters are bitter;
v.33 their vine is the poison of serpents,
the cruel venom of asps.

1.10 Destruction of the Vine

The vine, though a very cherished product, can nevertheless be destroyed deliber-
ately. This is done very often in war (Jer 5:17) or by Yahweh as a sign of his anger
and the result of divine judgement (Hos 2:14; Isa 7:23; 32:12; 34:4; 24:7, 13; Deut
6: 11; Ps 105:33, 78:47). Esteem for the grapevine is presumed even when its de-
struction is depicted as divine punishment.
But it is interesting to note that the Assyrian Empire, at the zenith of its power,
even though it wreaked havoc and destroyed peoples, cities, houses, and even gar-
dens, never mentioned once in its annals the destruction of the vineyard.
14 The Vine, Israel and the Church
1.11 Wine

It would not be complete to write a chapter on the vine without studying “wine” in
Israel and in the Ancient Near East. This is so because wine is first and foremost a
produce of the vine. Because of its color, it is often called “blood of the grapes” (Gen
49:11, Deut 32:14; Sir 39:26; 50:15).
Certain localities were famous for their wine, e.g. Judah (Gen 49:10–11); the
plains of Jezreel and Sharon (1 Kgs 21:1); Timnah (Judg 14:5). Shiloh and Gibeon
were famous for production and storage of wine and this in part explains the vintage
dance at Shiloh (Judg 20:21–22).Special attention should be paid to Gibeon.
Gibeon, modern el Jib, is an Arab village eight miles north of Jerusalem. It was
excavated five summers between 1956–62 during which perfect identification was
made based on etymology (g b ‘ n) and (j b) and the archaelogical finds.The Bible
was silent about Gibeon from about mid tenth century to the beginning of the sixth
century B.C. It was then that Gibeon not only flourished but reached the peak of
her prosperity.
121 pieces of pottery and 56 jar handles each bearing inscriptions in archaic He-
brew letters were found. The usual formula of the graffiti is “Gibeon” followed by
gdr/ d and one of the personal names—Azariah, Amariah or Hananiah Nera. Vats
capable of holding 9.75 gallons of liquid were found in cellars of temperature of 75
degrees Fahrenheit. 38 of such cellars were discovered and this big winery provided
wine which was sold to very many other places.17 The 38 cellars could provide
50,000 liters of wine18 These vats were sealed with a few centimeters of olive oil for
storage in the underground wine cellar.
Gibeon was in big business of making and exporting wine. Grapes were gathered
and pressed and the juice gathered into large storage jars and lowered into the wine
cellars. When the wine had fermented and aged, the surplus was transferred to
smaller jars which were labeled with the place name “Gibeon” and the name of the
makers and sold. Stamped jar handles were found out some of which bore the royal
stamp with place names like Hebron, Socoh and Ziph. The vats for export were
capped with clay stoppers which were held in place by a cord attached to the two
handles.
Gibeon was famous for its wine and it does appear that during the monarchy,
when other cities and villages were much involved in the affairs of the king, the
people of Gibeon quietly went about their business of producing wine. The wine in-
stallation at Gibeon was truly astonishing. Did Gibeon provide opportunities and
facilities for harvest festival, for drinking as well as singing and dancing similar to
what took place in Shiloh (Judg 21:10- 24)? Till the present day, el Jib is famous for
her grapes.
Outside Israel, Hosea speaks well of the wine of Lebanon (Hos 14:8). Heshbon
and Sibmah were equally famous (Isa 16:8; Jer 48:32–33), while Syria was world fa-
 The Vine in Israel 15
mous for its wine. Among the merchandise from Damascus to Tyre was wine from
Helbon and Uzal (Ezek 27:18–19). The wine from Helbon was considered one of
the top ten quality wines. It was so indicated in the library of Ashurbanipal and was
said to be preferred to all others by the Persian kings.19
Wine was occasionally mixed with water which in certain circumstances was
considered pleasant and as producing a sense of well-being (2 Mac 15:39). How-
ever, it could also be resented as adulterating the wine (Isa 1:22). More often it was
mixed with some spices which rendered it more intoxicating, and was served at ban-
quets (Prov 9:2, 5; Cant 8:2). Those who linger late over wine and keep trying
mixed wines have woes, sorrows, strife, complaints, wounds without cause, and red-
ness of eyes. Much drinking bites like a serpent, and stings like an adder and those
who drink much see strange things and their minds utter perverse things. They are
like someone who lies in the midst of the sea (Prov 23:29–34). Wine mixed with
myrrh or gall was used as a narcotic and hence offered to Jesus to lessen his pains
(Matt 27:34; Mark 15:23).
In ancient Israel, wine was part of the everyday meal. At the Passover, the Jews
drank four cups of wine.20 Wine was liberally provided at banquets. In fact the He-
brew word for a banquet was heT:$im miˇ steh , “a drink”21, and shortage of wine at a
feast would constitute a serious embarrassment to the host (John 2:1–10). Old wine
was preferred because of better sedimentation and also because it was stronger (Sir
9:10; Luke 5:39).
Wine was often offered by an inferior to a superior, Abigail to David (1Sam 25:
18); Ziba to David (2 Sam 16:1). It was used to revive those who were fainting and
were exhausted (2 Sam 16:2), and as medication (1 Tim 5:23) for dressing wounds
(Luke 10:34).
Wine was an important aspect of the religious life of the people. It was one of the
items brought for offering and used at sacrifices. Though libations were made to
false gods (Deut 32:37–38; Isa 57:6; Jer 7:18), worshippers making pilgrimages to
Shiloh (1 Sam 1:14–15; 24), and to Bethel (1 Sam 10:3) brought wine. Wine was
offered to God often in combination with a lamb, fine flour, and oil (Exod 29:40;
Lev 23:13; Num 15:7).
From the many and varied uses of wine, it was evident that the fruit of the grape
was a great blessing. It was used at all important events in people’s lives and of the
nation. Jesus celebrated the Last Supper with wine during which he told his disci-
ples that he would not drink of the fruit of the wine until he would drink new wine
with them in the kingdom of his Father (Matt 26:29).The Jews always praised God
for the fruit of the vine (Mishna: Berakoth,6.1).
Wine gladdens the heart (Ps 104:5) and cheers the gods and human beings
(Judg 9:13) and was considered one of the good things created from the begin-
ning for good people (Sir 39:25–26). A Jewish saying called it “the head of all
medicines”.
16 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Attitude towards wine was both praised and condemned. Noah, called the father
of viticulture, was drunk in his tent (Gen 9:20–21). Wine was treacherous (Hab 2:5),
took away understanding (Hos 4:11), and led to debauchery and shamelessness (Hos
4:18). The story of Lot indicated what drunkenness could lead to (Gen 19:31–38).
Micah complained about those who welcomed a “prophet” who “prophesied” about
wine and strong drinks (Mic 2:11). Isaiah condemned priests who “reeled” and “stag-
gered” under the influence of wine (Isa 28:7). Consequently while engaged in sacred
duties, priests were forbidden to drink wine under the pain of death (Lev 10:9).
Wine was a “mocker” and strong drinks a “brawler” (Prov 20:1) and those who
loved to drink much wine would not get rich (Prov 21:17). Deuteronomy summa-
rized a degenerate son in these words:

This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us.
He is a glutton and a drunkard (21:20).

“When wine enters, counsel leaves”, says Hiyya Rabba.(T. Sanhedrin,70a).

It was in reaction to excessive drinking and its consequences that the Nazarites
took a vow not to drink wine or eat any produce of the vine (Num 6:3). Even the
mother of a Nazarite was forbidden the grape (Judg 13:4; 7:14) and this was later ex-
panded by the Recabites to include not building of houses (Jer 35:6–7). Paul taught
that drunkards and other self-indulgent people would not inherit the kingdom of
God (1 Cor 6:10).
In later times, especially in the post-exilic period, opposition to wine decreased.
Ben-Sirach was able to say:

Do not try to prove your strength by wine-drinking,

for wine has destroyed many.
As the furnace tests the work of the smith,
so wine tests the heart when the insolent quarrel.
Wine is the very life to human beings,
if taken in moderation.
What is life to one who is without wine?
It has been created to make people happy.
Wine drunk at the proper time and in moderation
is rejoicing to heart and gladness of soul.
Wine drunk to excess leads to bitterness of spirit,
to quarrels and stumbling.
Drunkenness increases the anger of a fool to his own hurt,
reducing his strength and adding wounds.
Do not reprove your neighbor at banquet of wine,
and do not despise him in his merry making;
 The Vine in Israel 17
speak no word of reproach to him,
and do not distress him by making demands of him.
(Sir 31:25–31)

The Jews have some interesting sayings about wine which would be worth repeating.

“Wine is an unreliable emissary

I I sent it to my stomach but it went to my head.

“The tree of which Adam ate was the vine,

since its fruit has caused the most wailing in the world.”

“Wine cooleth man in summer’s heat,

and warmeth him in winter’s sleet.”

The Jews approached wine with a great sense of humor. They had sayings suit-
able and appropriate for every occasion or situation.
Wine is also an image of God’s punishment. God’s anger on his people is ex-
pressed in terms of a cup of wine they drink and reel (Ps 60:3). To the wicked a cup
of wine, foaming and well-mixed will be given which they will drain (Ps 75:8). Yah-
weh gives Jeremiah a cup of wrath for the nations (Jer 25:15). Babylon is a golden
cup of Yahweh’s hand; she makes all the nations drink; they drink and go mad (Jer
51:7). In Trito-Isaiah Yahweh is said to trample the nations in his anger and making
them drunk in his wrath and pouring their blood on the ground (Isa 63:6).
However, abundance of wine is an expression of God’ blessing. Hence Isaac in
blessing Jacob prays that God may give him abundance of grain and wine (Gen 27:
28). Joel, looking forward to the future assures Israel in Yahweh’s words:

2:19 I am sending you grain, wine, and oil and you will
be satisfied. . . .

2:24 The threshing floors will be full of grain

the vats will overflow with wine and oil. . . .

3:18 In that day the mountains will drip sweet wine

the hills shall flow with milk

The twin themes, vine and wine, as symbols of fertility, well-being, and blessing on
the one hand, and of debauchery and shame on the other hand run through the
Holy Writ. It is evident from the texts that there is nothing disturbing about wine:
it is its immoderate consumption that creates problems.
18 The Vine, Israel and the Church
The vine is a choice fruit of Israel. It is one of the special blessings of the
Promised Land. The wine was part of Israel at every stage of her history and it
played a significant role in the history, cult, and social life of the people. Its impor-
tance and imagery continued into New Testament times. There are many teachings
about the vine in the New Testament, the climax of which being Jesus calling him-
self the vine, the true vine (John 15:1). After the destruction of the second temple,
the disciples of Rabbi Johann ben Zakkai at Jabneh were called “the Vineyard of
Jabneh.”22
 CHAPTER TWO

The Canticle of the Vine

(Isa 5:1–7)

T
he Canticle of the Vine is a literary masterpiece and a work of ingenuity.
Here we meet the great Isaiah of Jerusalem; a poet, a teacher, and a theolo-
gian. The canticle is not only one of the artistic passages of the Hebrew
Bible but of world literature. It is a classic illustration of Isaiah’s inimitable style, a
testimony of his wisdom, style, and techniques. It is an outstanding embodiment of
the parabolic form which Isaiah adapts for his own purpose.
The style, though easy and simple, is noble and great. The content is down to
earth, easy to follow but pregnant with meaning. Because the text is limpid, it is free
of glosses and hardly needs any textual emendation. Not wasting a word, it also does
not create unnecessary suspense to deliver the message. The prophet ably and amply
demonstrated his command of Hebrew language and the pericope is a work of liter-
ary craftsmanship.
Indeed Isa 5:1–7 is a well-cut piece of literature. Sharply set off from the preced-
ing and following sections, it is an independent artistic literary unit. The text is not
limited to any meter. The ability to move freely and with mastery from one meter to
another while maintaining an easy flow of words and melodies bespeaks mastery of
Hebrew poetry. The jarring change of pace with the element of surprise and out-
standing shifting perspective, is built into the basis structure and helps to heighten
the overall effectiveness.1 Truly Isaiah belongs to the golden age of Hebrew lan-
guage. For Herbert

the canticle of the vine is one of the finest and most powerful examples
of a form of teaching of which many occurrences appear in the Old Tes-
tament and in the teaching of Jesus.2

Speaking along the same line, Renkens says

20 The Vine, Israel and the Church
The song is famous, and according to style and content, it is a jewel. It is
world literature. A deeply human situation suddenly takes shape in a
very locally colored occasional poem.3

The content of the poem cannot be disassociated from the style of the author: both
form a literary unit.

Here we have a skillfully constructed artistic tale, which has been de-
signed to elicit the “gossipy” interest of the hearers and their sympathy,
then finally the verdict on the villain.4

Jerusalem had never heard Isaiah speak in this manner. The background seems to
be the Feast of Tents, the most joyful feast in Israel, sometimes called “the feast of
Yahweh”, hwhy gx Óhag YHWH (Lev 23:39; Judg 21:19) or simply “the feast” gaxah ha
Óhag (1 Kgs 8:2;Neh 8:14; Ezk 45:23). The canticle fits the context superbly. But
Isaiah was neither a “kill-joy” nor a “spoil-sport”5 in fact he seems to participate ac-
tively in the celebrations. He poses as a minstrel and asks his audience to listen to
his song.
The skill with which this parable is presented stands out in that it begins with
words associated with love songs. In the ears of his hearers, this would be particu-
larly appropriate at the vintage season, which among the Canaanites, had fertility
myths overtones; and in Israel, was an occasion for songs, joy, and merriment.
On this subject, Duhm says that the poet, having gained the attention of his lis-
teners, suddenly throws away the mask and gives the prophetic message in a lan-
guage no one could possibly forget.

Nachdem er ihre Aufmerksamkeit durch die leichtgeschürzten Verse in

Volkston, wohl auch durch entsprechende Musik, vor allem durch die
gefesselt hat, wirft er die Maske ab und schließt mit kurzen prophetis-
chen Sätzen die man nicht wieder vergißt.6

The introduction indicates the intention of the prophet to tell a story. By this for-
mal introduction he gains the attention of his audience and tells the story in such a
dramatic style that could not leave anyone untouched. The conclusion is obvious:
what began as a love song ends up as a trial at which the hearers are invited to pass
judgement. The verdict with its inevitable punishment is declared by the prophet,
the justice of which is acknowledged by all as fully appropriate.
Just as Jesus narrates the parables of the Sower (Matt 13:4–9; Mark 4:3–9; Luke
8:5–8), and of the Darnel (Matt 13:24–30) and gives their interpretation in Matt
13:18–23; Mark 4:10–12; Luke 8:9–10 and in Matt 13:36–43 respectively, so does
the prophet interpret his Canticle to his audience (v. 7).
 The Canticle of the Vine 21
But the interpretation must have sent a shrill through their spine of the listeners.
The closest similarity to the interpretation is the Parable of the Wicked Husband-
men as preserved in the Lukan tradition (20:9–19) where at the conclusion, the au-
dience exclaimed “God Forbid”, because they understood perfectly the implication
and the application of the parable.
The Canticle is presented as a love song and reference to it is as a “love song” is
an intrinsic element in its parabolic form. The love of the beloved for his vineyard
is the key to understanding the Canticle. It is because of his love for the vineyard
that he spared no effort in providing the very best for it. It is the frustration conse-
quent on the indifference to the efforts made that paved the way for the verdict and
to the eventual destruction of the vineyard.
The imagery of the vine is widespread in the Bible. Although Isaiah will always
be remembered for the Canticle of the vine, it was Jeremiah more than any other
hagiographer of the Old and New Testaments that used the imagery most. In the
Bible we observe the following occurrences

vine 53 x
vines 23 x
vineyard 69 x
vineyards 52 x
vintage hapax

Of these, the following occurrences are found in Jeremiah

vine 4x
vines 2x
vineyard 1x
vineyards 7x

Jeremiah used it especially in the context or perspective of reproach and condemna-

tion of Israel (2:21; 5:10; 8:13; 12:10–11). A strong condemnation of Israel, with
similar language and style is found in Jer 11:15–17. The strongest analogous com-
parison is found in Jer 2:21 where Israel , a qero& soreq , a shoot of soundest stock, has
become a degenerate plant, a bastard vine, hfYir: kfn }epeGah y¢rUs sure haggephen han
kriyyah
Isaiah proved to be a prophet, faithful to Yahweh. He was able to give divine
message, sad and tragic as it was, without adulterating the word of God. He was able
to keep his audience in suspense until the very end when he pronounced divine
judgment. Above all his negative conclusion did not provoke adverse or polemic re-
actions as was the case with Jeremiah (Jer 7 & 26). To be able to pronounce divine
judgment without becoming a Gerichtsprophet was rare in biblical tradition.
22 The Vine, Israel and the Church
2.1 The Literary Genre

An important issue in the Canticle of the Vine is its literary form. Is it a metaphor,
a parable, a love song, or an accusation speech? That it is a figure of speech, is ac-
cepted by all. That it should be interpreted as an allegory, is disputed. However, it
should not be interpreted as an allegory by understanding the various steps in the
cultivation of the vineyard described in v. 2 in terms of history of salvation. Hence
it would not be correct to interpret the

the Hill — Land of Canaan

the Vine — Israelites
hoeing and clearing the ground — Expulsion of the Canaanites
setting the tower — Davidic Dynasty7

If the Canticle should be considered a “love song” in the formal sense, then the
singer would be the bride or the husband of the beloved.8 But the singer is the
prophet and the relationship is between Yahweh and Israel. Consequently, it is not
a love song, certainly not in the formal sense.
Scholars prefer to study the poem either as a parable or as an Accusation Speech.
According to Vermeylen:

Ces deux approches du poeme sont valables, chacune de point du vue

propre.9

Viewed as a parable, the pericope would be unique in the entire prophetic tradition
in the manner it denounced the culpability of Israel and announced divine punish-
ment. It is so different from other oracles of doom characteristic of many prophets of
the eighth to the sixth centuries.
Viewed as an accusation speech, it suffices to say that there are many contentious
and polemic passages in the Bible. The language of law-court spreads through the
entire OT tradition and is highly developed in the writings of Deutero-Isaiah, espe-
cially in his polemics against idols: chapters 40–46.
But such speeches go by different names according to various authors. H. Gress-
mann speaks about threats, DROHUNGEN; court pleadings GERICHTSWORTE;
and invectives, SCHELTWORTE.10 L. Koehler speaks about Disputations STRE-
ITGESPRACHE.11 Claus Westermann distinguishes between Judgments—
GERICHTSREDEN and Arguments—DISPUTATIONSWORTE.
The borderline between these various genres is not very neat: in fact it does ap-
pear that one genre is hardly distinct from the other. But Westermann, followed
by the majority of scholars put these various genres under a generic name
 The Canticle of the Vine 23

GERICHTSWORT or to use the technical term of the Bible itself—byir RIÓB.

Hence scholars speak of RIB-FORMEL, RIB-PATTERN, GENRE DE RIB.12
Westermann makes a distinction between Judgment Speech against Individuals
and Judgment Speech against Israel, and he considers Judgment against Israel a fur-
ther development of Announcement of Judgment against the Individual.13 The
Canticle of the Vine would belong to Judgment Speech against Israel.
The basic structure of Judgment Speech against a nation (Gerichtswort an das
Volk) is as follows14

Anklage (Accusation)
Begründung
(Justification)
Entfaltung der Anklage
(Unfolding of Accusation)
Botenformel
Eingreifen Gottes
(God’s Intervention)
Gerischtsankündigung
(Pronouncement of Judgment)
Folge des Eingreifens
(Consequence of the Intervention)

Georg Fohrer who holds the same view says that the Canticle of the vine was
structured as an Accusation Speech:

Jesaja hat dieses sogennante Weinberglied als Gleichnis oder Parabel in

dichterischer Form nach dem Aufbau der Anklagerede gebildet.15

Elaborating on the Accusation Speech, Fohrer notes that the Anklagerede—Accu-

sation Speech—includes the following

• the affirmation of relationship in society imposing an obligation between

the accuser and the accused;
• an account by the accuser of the way he has fulfilled his own obligations;
• complaint at the failure of the accused to honor his obligations;
• appeal to court for decision.16

Vermeylen considers the canticle a RIB too but structures it slightly differently:
24 The Vine, Israel and the Church
• l’appel aux temoins prevus par la Loi (v. 3)
• le rappel des bienfaits octroyes par Yahveh a son peuple (vvlb—2; 4a)
• l’interrogatoire (v. 4)
• la declaration de culpabilite/ et le requisitoire (v 2b, 7b)
• la sentence de mort (vv.5–7)17

It does appear from the most recent studies that the literary genre of this pericope
could be considered a RIB. However the style is fluid and lends itself to a variety of
interpretations. The literary form depends to a large extent on the emphasis the
writer or reader puts on one or any aspect of the poem—whether he considers it first
and foremost a love song, a parable or a RIB. In any case, all the elements of a RIB
are verified in the canticle.
Vermeylen also carried out a quick survey of some key words in the Canticle of
the Vine. From his analysis of the text, he came to the conclusion that the key
words were not typically Isaian but belonged to a later date.

On admetterà neanmoique le vocabulaire caracteristique du “chant de

vigne” n’est guere isaïen . . . c’est avec le livre de Jeremie et avec des
texts de la fin de l’epoque monarchique et du temps de l’exil que nous
avons releve le plus grand nombres de contacts.18

It has to be said that dating a pericope from the mere study of some words considered
“key words” is not sufficient. Many other factors of scholarship, e.g. the events nar-
rated, literary style, evidence of glosses, etc., shall necessarily come into play. This is
all the more so when the author himself admits that the survey is “trop rapide”

ce survol trop rapide ne permit de tirer des conclusions definitives19.

There are a number of assonances in the Hebrew text of the pericope which add
beauty and majesty to the text:

Hfryi&f) taryi&
Yidyidyil yidOd
Om: rak: l {ereq
Yidyid: lhfyfh yidyidil)n
{ereK }ereq
}ereq }eme&-}eB
+fP:&im xfP:&im
hfqfd: c xfqf(: c

In his overview of the text, Skinner considers the pericope “one of the finest exhi-
 The Canticle of the Vine 25
bitions of rhetorical skill and power which the book contains.”20 Delitzsch says

the winged rhythm, the euphoric music, the sweet assonances of this ap-
peal cannot be reproduced.21

Worthy of note is the recurrence of segholizations in the text which makes it easy to
memorize.
The Canticle of the Vine brings to an end the introductory part of the book of
Isaiah. If chapter one introduced the reader to the book as a whole, chapters 2—4
laid bare the enormous conflict between what Israel was called to be and what de
facto it was.22 Chapter five highlights the realities at the moment of Isaiah’s teach-
ing—syncretism in cult, idolatry, oppression of the poor, loose conduct, avarice, and
infidelity to the covenant. Though the poem speaks of the final destruction of Israel,
as yet Israel is Yahweh’s pleasant planting.23
Chapter five is a good introduction to the Book of Immanuel. Here the drama of
God’s attempt to save his vineyard from utter destruction is played out in great de-
tail. The Covenant, divine commitment to the Davidic dynasty, his messianic
blessings—all these did little to stem the downward trend in Judah as it rolled head-
long as though pre-determined to meet her doom.
Although Isaiah was called to the ministry in the year of King Uzziah’s death (6:
1), i.e. in 740 BC, the Canticle depicts a background prior to Uzziah’s death, when
every Israelite dwelt under his vine and fig tree (Mic 4:4). Uzziah with a long reign
of at least forty years (781- 740), gave Judah another golden age in her history, sim-
ilar to Davidic age. It was an era of prosperity and peace. Besides his military feats,
Uzziah re-organized and modernized the army, extended the trade route as far as
Elath and received tributes from conquered peoples.

He built towers in the wilderness and hewed out many cisterns,

for he had large herds both in the Shephelah and in the plain, and
he had farmers and vinedressers in the hills and in the fertile lands,
for he loved the land (2 Chr 26:10).

The achievements of King Uzziah are recorded in glowing language in 2 Chr:26.

The Jerusalem Bible summarizes his feats in 2 Chr 26:15 as following:

His fame spread far and wide: he owed his strength to a help
nothing short of miraculous.

The effectiveness of this song presupposes a period of undisturbed peace and conse-
quently before the Syro-Ephraimite war (734 BC). Hence Duhm thinks that the
poem fits better into the early days of the ministry of Isaiah.
26 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Da das Bild vom Weinberg hier als unbekannt vorausgesetzt
wird, da in später Zeit Jes. wohl allgemein, selbst den Landleuten,
so bekannt war, daß ihm die Verkleidung nichts geholfen hatte,
so verlegen wir die Parabel vom ungeratenen Weinberg wohl am
besten in seine früheste Zeit.24

From the above arguments, we believe that the Canticle belongs to the earliest days
of Isaiah’s ministry when there was relative peace in Judah but also serious abuses to
warrant the call of the prophet to insist on the holiness of Yahweh. It was meant
also to warn the complacent Judaeans of the impending doom, which could be
averted by following the teaching and the guidance of the prophet.
The question about the insertion of Isa 5:1–7 within its present context has not
been given much attention by scholars. J. Vella considers 5:1–17 a homogenous
unit comprising of three parts; Accusation (vv. 1–14); Confession of Sins (vv. 15–
16); and Announcement of Salvation for the Remnant (v. 17).25 This opinion can-
not be sustained because 5:1–7 is undoubtedly an independent literary unit.
It would appear that the Canticle found itself in its present position because it
was an early oracle of Isaiah and it was found a suitable introduction to the “woe”
passages (5:8–24; 10:1–14). Moreover, as was earlier said, it was a suitable introduc-
tion to the Book of Immanuel.
Chapter five can conveniently be divided into three parts:

vv. 1–7 The Canticle of the Vine

vv. 8–25 The Woe Passages
vv. 26–30 Yahweh’s summon to the invaders.

The Canticle in its turn can be subdivided into:

The Introduction—v. 1a
The Song—vv 1b-2 ; 3–4 ; 5–6.
The interpretation. v. 7.

This takes us then to the exegesis of the text.

2.2 The Text—Isaiah 5:1–7

1. Now I will sing for my loved one,

my love song concerning his vineyard.
My loved one had a vineyard on a fertile hillside;
 The Canticle of the Vine 27
2. He dug it up, cleared it of stones
and planted it with choicest vines.
He built a watch-tower in its midst
hewed a wine press in it and expected it to yield grapes:
instead it yielded stunted grapes.

3. And now, inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah;

judge, please, between me and my vineyard.

4. What more was there to do for my vineyard

that I did not do?
When I expected it to yield grapes;
why did it yield stunted grapes?

5. Now, I will tell you

what I will do to my vineyard.
I will take away its hedge,
and it will be destroyed.
I will break down its wall,
and it will be trampled down.

6. I will make it a wasteland

neither pruned nor cultivated;
and it will grow briers and thorns.
I will also command the clouds
not to rain on it.

7. The vineyard of Yahweh Sebaoth is the house of Israel

and the people of Judah a plantation of his delight.
He expected justice but behold bloodshed;
righteousness, but behold cry of distress.

2.3 Textual Analysis

v. 1 hfryi$f). The verb ryi$ ˇ sˆır is found 90 times in the MT, but appears only 6 times
in prophetic literature (Isa 5:1; 26:1; 42:10; Jer 20:13; Ezek 40:44; Soph 2:14). It
was in the period of Jeremiah that the verb was most used in prophetic literature.
However, it occurs 25 times in the Psalter and 40 times in Chronicles. The noun
ryi$ ˇ sir appears 79 times out of which 12 times in prophetic literature. The plural
28 The Vine, Israel and the Church

{yiry$ ˇsˇˆırˆım is found 36 times; 3 times in Amos (5:23; 6:5; 8:10) but always in the
context of uncalled merriment.
Hfryi$f) ’¯asˆırˆah is the volitive which in the first person is always a cohortative. It
can either mean: “Let me sing” or “I want to sing”: i.e. I have the desire or the in-
tention to perform an action. The cohortative lays emphasis on the determination
underlying the action and personal interest in it. It may stand alone or coordinated
with another cohortative, frequently strengthened by another particle )n n¯a to ex-
press encouragement (Isa 5:1, 5) or to express a wish or permission to be allowed to
do something.26
Here the prophet declares his intention to declaim a poem, to sing a song for the
benefit of his audience. At the beginning of a poetic work in which God is praised,
“I will sing” is often used (Exo 15:1; Judg 5:3; Ps 89:1; 92:1; 101:1; 108:1). yidyidyil
lˆıdˆıdˆı comes from the root dOd dˆod “love”. In the Assyrian it is dadu27 and in the
Ugaritic the basic meaning is “beloved one,” “friend.”28 The word can also mean
“uncle” (Lev 10:4; Num 35:11; 1 Sam 10:4; Esther 2:15; Jer 32:7). The tribe of Ben-
jamin as a special object of Yahweh’s predilection is called hOhy dyid: y yedˆıd YHWH ,
“beloved of YWHW” (Deut 33:12) while Israel as a people is f \¢dyid: y yedideka (Ps 60:
7) and Judah is yidyidyil lˆıdˆıdˆı (Jer 11:15).
yidyidyil. dyid:y yedid occurs 8 times in the MT and twice in Isa 5:1. It is also found in
Jeremiah 11:15 where the context is not only similar to our text, as the prophet com-
pares Israel to “a green olive-tree covered in fine fruit”, but we have the identical term
ydydyil The noun from the same root dwd dˆod “love,” is found 60 times of which 40 are
in the Canticles. The use of dwd in Ezekiel 16:8; 23:17; is important to our context for
it discusses the infidelity of Israel despite the overwhelming love of Yahweh.
The word dyid: y could easily remind the hearers of David and Solomon: David be-
cause of the root dwd and Solomon because of the name Yedidiah, given to him by
Nathan (2 Sam 12:25). The root could be used to speak of a lover or a close, actual
or assumed kinship.29 With this hypothesis the canticle would then have much to
do with the Davidic dynasty that is threatened with danger.
5:1a is subject to a variety of translations and this depends primarily on one’s un-
derstanding of ydydl. If the lamedh is taken as lamedh of authorship, it would mean
that Yahweh, not the prophet, is the author of the hymn.

“Supponendo il significato del lamedh auctoris,

il carme sarrebbe presentato come una composizione
poetica di Dio stesso.”30

It could then be translated as

“I will sing the song of my beloved,

a love song for his vineyard.”
 The Canticle of the Vine 29
Yahweh would be called “the beloved” or in modern parlance, “darling.”
“VINEYARD” AS EROTIC LANGUAGE. Besides the general understanding
of kerem to mean a vineyard, some modern scholars e.g. H.- P. Muller think that the
“vineyard” can be understood metaphorically and so used in love language. Relying
heavily on the Canticles, especially on 1:6; 8:11f he says

On the one hand, “vineyard” denotes the plot of ground that needs to
be guarded or yields its fruit; on the other , it denotes the female body
and its sexual charm.
(Cfr “kerem, korem, karmel”,TDOT, V11). 324

A more careful reading of the Canticle reveals that the book speaks about love and
wine (1:2, 4; 4:10); the human body (1:13, 14; 8:8–9); mandrakes (7:14) which
were supposed to be aphrodisiacs (Gen 30:14–16); the love between the bride and
the groom consummated in the vineyard (7:13). The Benjaminites lay and ambush
in the vineyard and carried off the daughters of Shiloh as they came to dance during
the Feast of Yahweh (Judg 21:19–23).
Dodim (pl) means love but always sexual desire or its satisfaction (Ezk 16:18; 23:
17; Prov 7:18; Cant 1:2–4; 4:10; 5:1). Muller goes on to say that the identification
of “vineyard” with the female body is an instance of the common identification of
women with fields and the soil (Ibid, 324). He refers to the Ugaritic text KTU
1.24,22f, according to which the Moon-God, Yarih, seeks through coitus to make
the goddess Nikkal’s field “ a vineyard, the field of her love , an orchard”.
Pressing his point further, Muller places Isa 5:1–7; 27:2–3 and Jer 12:10 where
Israel is called “the Vineyard of Yahweh” against love language. Yahweh is the lover
and Israel is the beloved. He quotes an inscription from Khirbet al—Qom (brk.
‘ryhw. lYHWH. w l’srth—Blessed through YHWH and through his Asherah). Also
found are two jug inscriptions in Wadi Quraiya (Sinai): brkt ‘tkm l’YHWH smrn
wl’srth—I bless you through Yahweh who protects us and through his Asherah and finally

brkt lYHWH . . . wl’srth—I bless you through Yahweh and through his
Asherah

Some parallelism must be admitted. Hosea, a contemporary of Isaiah, though in the

northern kingdom the covenant relationship between Israel and her God as a love
relationship. The terms yadid, dod and kerem can be used to describe the way Yah-
weh can be said to relate to Israel.
However, such concept can hardly be conceived Isaian. It is radically opposed to
Isaiah’s understanding of God which depended heavily on his inaugural vision. Isa-
iah saw the thrice holy God seated on a high and elevated throne. The Holy One of
Israel is transcendent and even when he speaks of Yahweh’s deep love for Israel, his
30 The Vine, Israel and the Church
language is not erotic. Moreover there is no Isaian text that would justify such inter-
pretation. It would be remarkable that Isaiah should use such a term, even in a para-
ble, for Yahweh. A prophet of another cultural background or of a different tem-
perament might speak of God as “my darling” but not Isaiah for whom Yahweh is
the “Holy One of Israel.”31
Therefore we conclude by saying that the “Vineyard” of the Canticle and God’s
relation with Israel cannot be subjected to that manner of interpretation.
Consequently the text should not be translated as lamedh auctoris; rather the text
has a better and clearer reading if translated:

“Let me sing concerning my beloved,

his love song for his vineyard.”

The prophet would be filling the role of the friend of the groom, who interprets his
will. Hence Heinrich says

“Der Prophet ist nur Interpret für den anderen, dem dies
gehört, weil es von ihm handelt. Der Prophet singt für
diesen Freund und die Zuhörer sollen unter seiner Stimme
die Stimme des anderen, des Freundes, hören. ”32

The LXX translates:

“I will sing to my beloved

a love song for my vineyard.”

The Targum of Isaiah reads:

The prophet said, “I will sing now for Israel—which is like a vineyard,
the seed of Abraham, my friend—my friend’s song for his vineyard.”33

But the Targum is only a paraphrase. From the many possibilities of translations that
we have briefly recounted, it demonstrates how 5:1a has attracted the attention of
scholars.
But the song stems from a context that is real to life. The poet begins by declar-
ing his intention to sing a song and this is welcomed by his audience. He then pro-
ceeded to say that it is a song for his friend concerning his vineyard. He did not
force his will on his audience, hence the particle)n which today could be translated
as “please”.
5.1b “My loved one had a vineyard on a fertile hillside,” literally “a vineyard
there was to my friend on a horn, the son of oil.”
 The Canticle of the Vine 31

}ereq qeren means “a horn,” a symbol of strength (Deut 35:17). It also means “a
hill,” “a peak,” “an isolated hill.”34 The vineyard was on a hill and this hill he desig-
nates as a horn. To picture a mountain as a horn is not uncommonof especially snow-
capped mountains, e.g. Matterhorn, Schreckhorn.35 It can also be a hill separated
from the rest, the Alpine horns, e.g. Gabelhorn.36 During the Crusades there was
the famous battle of the “Horns of Hattin” on 3rd and 4th July 1187.37
}eme$ semen “oil,” “fat.” It is a symbol for affluence and plenty (Deut 2:13);used for
medication (Isa 1:6; Luke 10:34); a sign of hospitality (Ps 23:5). Kings were
anointed with oil (1 Sam 10:1; 2 Kgs 9:1, 3). To be full of oil can also mean “to be
dull, unreceptive, insensitive” (Isa 6:10).
“Son of oil.” Son }¢B, ben taB bath are used extensively in the OT to express ge-
nealogy or relationship. When an intimate relationship exists between two persons
or things, this is frequently expressed in father—son formula e.g. son of shame (Lev
10:5).38 A few examples clarify the point

liyax-}eB ben- hayil 1 Kgs 1:52 warrior

tewfm-}eB ben- maweth 1 Sam 20:31 condemned to die
la(yil: B-taB bath- Belial 1 Sam 1:16 a wicked woman
hf l yal -}eB ben-laylah Jon 4:10 grown in the night
ve&er-y¢n: B bene- reseph Job 5:7 sparks
}em&-}eB ben-semen Isa 5:1 plenty of oil, fat, fertile

The vineyard is located on an isolated hilltop on a hill which catches all the rain,
dew and the sun.39 The image of Israel as a vineyard is dear to Isaian tradition and
hence it is repeated in 27:2–4. Also, the vineyard is strategically located on a fertile
plain, isolated and with very good weather conditions. That is an indispensable
condition if it is to bear fruit.
v. 2 Uh¢q: za(: yaw The verb qz( ‘¯azaq means “to dig.” It is hapax. In the piel it means
“to dig around carefully.”40 The owner harrowed the soil, turning it over carefully so
that the soil would be thoroughly prepared. This was usually done with the hoe, es-
pecially in areas the plough could not reach. The soil was dug thoroughly with the
hoe, impressing on all the human effort invested on the project.
Uh¢l: qas: yaw lqs s¯aqal means “to stone, to put to death by stoning,” however in the
piel it means “to clear of stone.”41 lqs occurs 22 times in the MT but only here
does it have the meaning of clearing of stones. Piel, taken denominatively may ex-
press “to take away,” “to root out,” “to extirpate.” Hence l ¢Qis siqqel means “to pelt
with stones,” “to clear of stones.”42 Removal of stones is Piel Privative. Clearing of
stones is an enormous laborious work especially in stony Judah. It is an essential
task in a land where the limestone croppings helped to produce the fertile terra
rossa. The stones would be piled about the perimeter of the field as a wall to keep
out marauding animals. Those left over from the wall would be used later to build
32 The Vine, Israel and the Church
the watch-tower.43 The two verbs indicate intensity and the thoroughness with
which the owner set about work in his vineyard.
Uh¢(f+iy: w The verb (+n n¯ata‘ “to plant” occurs 59 times in the MT and usually
takes two accusatives—the direct object and object of specification. The verb is a
often used for the planting of the chosen people in the Promised Land (Exod 15:17;
2 Sam 7:10; Ps 44:3; 80:9; Jer 11:17).
qer& ś¯oreq that was the species planted in the vineyard. The root qr& means
“light red,” “shew redness,” “become red (like blood).” The adjective qorf& ś¯ar¯oq is
“to have a ruddy tinge” (Zech 1:8). qorf& is also vine tendrils or clusters of red color
(Isa 16:3).44 It is also found in the Assyrian as sarku to mean “red blood.”45
qer& was high quality grape, red in color, plumpy, juicy, and tasty. This high qual-
ity of grapes was found in many parts of Palestine especially in Judah. Samson en-
countered Delilah in the Valley of Soreq (Judg 16:4).
lD: Gim migdal “tower.” The owner built not a temporary booth but a tower, pre-
sumably from the stones gathered from the clearing of the ground.46 The tower pro-
tected the workers not only from the weather but also from wild animals and from
thieves. From the watch-tower, workers could be alerted about any pending danger.
This was a wise way to ensure that the vineyard had a good yield.
beqe y yeqeb—“a wine vat.” The word is found 16 times in the MT. It is the lower
part of a trough, often carved out of solid stone, and served to receive juice of grapes
that had been pressed down or trampled on in the upper trough. From this wine-
press, the juice flowed down into the beqey or wine vat. The digging of the vat was dif-
ficult because it was carved out of stone.
b¢cax haÓ seÓb “to dig, cut out, hew, prepare.” It occurs 25 times in the MT. It is a la-
borious and painstaking job.
There is a crescendo in the text. The owner dug up the terrain well, removed all
stones, planted soreq, built a tower in the vineyard and went as far as to build a
wine-vat there. All was done in readiness for a good harvest of grapes—in fact noth-
ing was left out. He looked forward with eager expectation for a good harvest to jus-
tify his efforts and investment.
hfwfq qawah probably meant in the first instance “to twist,” “to stretch,” and later
came to mean “the tension of waiting” and finally “to wait in eager expectation.”47
Instead of getting abundance of produce from the red high quality grapes, he got
stinking grapes.
$a)fB b¯a’aˇs—“to have a bad smell, to stink.”48 It is found 17 times in the MT. In
Aramaic, $¢): b b’ eˇ s means “to be evil”—“to be bad,” and the adjective $)B means
“bad”. In theAssyrian it is found as bisu—to be bad. 49 &)o: B appears three times in
the MT, all in prophetic writings, Amos 4:10; Joel 2:20 and Isa 34:3 and it means a
“stench” especially the stench of corpses.
{iy$u): B beuˇ sˆım is found twice in MT, always in the plural (Isa 5:2, 4) to mean
“stinking worthless grapes.” It should not be translated as “wild grapes” because wild
 The Canticle of the Vine 33
grapes grow on their own, untended. These are rather small, worthless grapes, ined-
ible and which easily rot and stink.
This is the sad and calamitous unexpected result of the owner’s labors. The
grapes produced are not usable. The Arabs speak of grapes that are unfit to be eaten
as “wolf grapes.”50 What an anticlimax!! What a disappointment!!! After his labors
and care for the vineyard!!!
v.3 hfTa(: w we ‘att¯ah But now. This introduces a new segment in the parable. It
alerts the reader/hearer of a break or a shift. Hitherto the speaker was the friend,
now the owner of the vineyard speaks. There is also a change in the literary form.
Before it was a love song, at least of some sort, now it is a RIÓB.
“But now” of v. 3 prepares his audience for “but now” of v. 5. The addressee are
the inhabitant (sg) of Jerusalem and man (sg) of Judah. This is collective singular,
for the owner is addressing the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the men of Judah as
though an individual.

The solemn official sounding designation of the audience

as inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, and the
sequence of which attests the pre-eminence of Jerusalem
as the center of post-exilic Judaism.51

Those who dwell in Jerusalem are distinct from residents of Judah. The Jerusalem-
mites are mentioned first because they are at the administrative and religious center
of the country, where decisions on the country are taken and where most of the in-
iquity is perpetrated. The men of Judah stand condemned too because they are not
immune from guilt.
Though the literary genre is RIB, the text does not go to enumerate the crimes
committed: probably they are presumed known. It is important to note that the
owner, in spite of everything, continues to call the property “my vineyard.” His love
for the vineyard perdues despite everything.
v. 4 The owner asks two rhetorical questions. What more was there to do for his
vineyard that he did not do? When he expected it to yield grapes, why did it yield
stunted grapes? Certainly no rational explanation could be given. Heintrich says
that in a situation like this no excuse can be given.

Est ist ja ein ganz unvorstellbares widernatürliches Geschehen,

was sich hier abgespielt hat. Es gibt keine Begründung, es gibt
keine Entschuldigung.52

This pericope recalls an analogous episode: the parable of Nathan to David (2 Sam
12:1–7). Like David, the opinion of the audience was sought and if it gave the cor-
rect answer, like David, it would have condemned itself.
34 The Vine, Israel and the Church
But the audience did not answer: in fact it is possible that the prophet did not
give his audience the opportunity to make a statement on a matter that was so self-
evident. “Sie sprechen schon das Gericht durch ihr Schweigen.”53. Their silence is
eloquent enough: they were tongue-tied in their guilt. Then with concise, precise
style, typical of Isaiah, the prophet continues the parable.
vv. 5–6 This segment begins as in v. 3 with hfta(: w. Cheyne in his notes on Isaiah
5 in THE POLYCHROME BIBLE says:

The parable takes the form of a song. As in 23:10; 27:2–5, the prophet
assumes the character of a popular singer. From its dancing rhythm it
might well be a dancing song that he gives us but the bitter irony of the
close dispels the illusion. It was only to attract attention that Isaiah so
disguised his earnestness, and he never did so again. If he accompanied
his song with music, he must have changed his note at v. 3, and what an
effect it must have produced when in the middle of the sentence (v. 6)
he suddenly passed out of the lyric into a grave prophetic rhythm, and
became no longer a singer but an orator.54

It is now time to pronounce the judgment which the audience had been reluctant to
do or was not given the opportunity. The owner in terse unsympathetic language
declares what he will do.

I will remove the hedge so that the vineyard can be trampled

underfoot.
I will make it a waste-land, overgrown with briers and thorns.
I will command rain not to fall on it.

This is not the voice of a complainant: it is the verdict of a judge. He has handed
vineyard over to destruction.
But even in the irreversible judgment, there is the aspect of love and regret and
this is evident in the particle )n. The owner is still aware that the vineyard is his, and
had invested tremendously on it. He persists in calling it “my vineyard”, vv. 3, 4, 5,
each time he speaks in the first person. Though he is the one carrying out the de-
struction, he never loses sight that he is destroying the cherished work of his hand.
(yidOh Hiphil (dy yada‘ with cohortative ending. He uses two infinitive ab-
solutes, r¢sax hÓ aser and r¢(fB ba’er to indicate determination.

hfkU&: m me śukˆah “hedge”. The word is found only here and in Prov.15:19. The root
\U& śˆuk means “to hedge, fence up or about.”55 Another synonym is }akf& ´s¯akan “to
cover, lay over so as to screen” and the noun |¢& means “a booth, a partition” or
 The Canticle of the Vine 35

even “a thorn”.56 Another word used to secure a property is r¢dfG gader , 14 times in
MT, which is usually a stone wall or a fence (Num 22:24).
Every vineyard had to be protected from hostile forces especially animals, e.g.
foxes and wild boars (Cant 2:15; Ps 80:13) and human predators. In fact the vine-
yard often had double enclosure.57 But with no wall or hedge, cattle and wild beasts
enter unhindered. “When a property has no fence, it is open to plunder” (Sir 36:
25). It will be worthwhile to quote here a text of Isaiah.

In that day every place where there used to be a thousand vines

worth a thousand shekels of silver, will become briers and thorns.
With bows and arrows men will come there for all the land will
be briers and thorns; and as for all the hills which used to be hoed
with a hoe, you will not come there for fear of briers and thorns;
they will become a place where cattle are let loose and where
sheep tread (7:23–25).

In fact much of the treeless character of Palestine is due to the grazing off of unpro-
tected young shoots by goats.58
The hedge is used figuratively for divine protection (Job 1:10). To hedge in can
also mean “to hem in, to cramp in.” In Job 3:23 and Lam 3:7, it means to constrict
in such a way that there is no escape. Micah complaining of the total corruption of
Judah says

The best of them is like a brier

the most upright of them a thorn-hedge (7:4)

Other terms which need to be attended to are the following:

jrp p¯araÓ s “ to break through, break into, burst open”

sm: rim mirmas “trampling place, trampling.” It is found seven times in
MT, and comes from the root smr ramas “to trample.”
hftBf Uh¢tyi &A)wa I will make it a waste or destruction. I will make an end of it.
hftfB battah “end, destruction”. It is hapax.
hfTaB battah precipice, steep.59

I will make it a steep, a place of thorns and briers. Haupt suggests point-
ing it as HfTaB battah from the root ttb bathath which means “to cut, be
cut off, to sever, decided, ended.”60 In the Assyrian it is butturu.61

With the fence and the hedge removed, the property was no longer secure, and
the vineyard would no longer be tended. As soon as animals ate up the vine and
36 The Vine, Israel and the Church
other young shoots, thorns, thistles, and brambles would grow and choke up what
was left of the vine and indeed of any vegetation. This verse echoed the curse of the
earth consequent on man’s fall since in reward for his labors, the earth would yield
thorns and thistles. (Gen 3:18).
Thorns, thistles, and briers are indications of God’s anger. In particular they are
punishment for the man who makes his living from the earth. It is not possible to
cultivate a land overgrown with thorns and brambles. Cattle and herds do not find
nourishment on the terrain. The growth of thorns and thistles is consequent on the
abandonment of the land. The land then becomes a waste, a steppe, neither pruned
nor cultivated and where nothing grows.

ramfz zamar to prune—is found three times in MT, twice in Lev 25:3,4
and here.
radf( ‘ adar to hoe—is found twice in the Hebrew bible, Isa 7:25 and
here.
riyimf$ ˇs¯amˆır brier—eight times in MT.
tiiy&a sayith thorns—seven times in MT.
tiya$: w riyimf& samir w‘ ˇ sayith is found only is Isaian corpus; 5:6; 7:23, 24,
25; 9:17; 27:4 and in inverse order in Isa 10:17. riyim& alone is found in
32:13. The once fertile land, the once “son of oil” can produce only
thorns and thistles.

v. 6 “I will command the clouds not to rain on it.”

The identity of the owner of the vineyard is gradually unveiled. The issue is not the
identity of the person who produces rain; rather it is that he commands the clouds to
produce rain or not. Thus the prophet categorically asserts that the owner of the
vineyard is Yahweh himself. Here the progression in the development of ideas is
second to none.
Rain—rf+m f m¯atÓ a¯ r—90 times in MT, is a great blessing (Lev 26:4;Deut 11:11, 14;
2 Sam 23:4) Deserving special mention are the early rains and the latter rains, i.e.,
the autumn and the spring rains (Jer 5:24; Joel 2:23; James 28:22; Jer 2:6). In Deut
28:12–13 we read about some of the punishments to unfaithful Israel which includes:

The sky over you shall be bronze and the earth under you iron.
The Lord will change the rain of your land into powder and only
dust shall come down upon you from the sky until you are
destroyed.

When Saul and Jonathan fell in battle on Mount Gilboa, David sang this elegy over
them:
 The Canticle of the Vine 37
Ye mountains of Gilboa
let there be no dew or rain upon you
nor the upsurging of the deep
for there the shield of the mighty was defiled (1 Sam 1:21).

In Ezek 22:24 we read

“You are a land that has had no rain or shower on the day of anger.”

Scarce rainfall is compensated by abundance of dew which in its turn is a great

blessing (Gen 27:28, 39; Deut 33:13; Prov 19:12; Dan 4:15). Yahweh blessed Israel
in these words:

“I will be like a dew to Israel” (Hos 14:15),

and when there is neither rain nor dew, there is drought (1 Kgs 17:1).
Yahweh has occasionally withheld rain in punishment:

I will withhold rain from you

when there were still three months to the harvest;
I will send rain on one city
and send no rain on another city.
One field would be rained upon
and the field on which it did not rain withered (Amos 4:7).

The importance of rain is borne out by the sheer different names that it bears:

{e$eG geˇ sem “rain, shower.” 35 times

rf+fm m¯at¯ar “rain, downpour.” 18 times
$Oq: lam malqˆoˇ s “latter rain, spring rain.” 8 times
herOm mˆoreh “autumn rain, early rains”. 3 times
veleD deleph “dripping of rain.” 2 times
{erez zerem “flood of rain, rain storm, heavy shower.” 9 times
herOy yˆoreh “early rain.” 3 times
{yiryi(:& śe‘rˆım “showers of rain” (hapax)
{ybyib: r rebibim “copious shower.” 6 times
ve+e$ ˇ seteph “flood.” 6 times

The most common terms are {e$eG geˇ sem and rf+fm matar which are used in a gen-
eral sense whereas herOm moreh and herOy yoreh indicate the essential first rainfall of
38 The Vine, Israel and the Church

the season and &Oq: lam malqôˇ s the latter rains, often lighter rains, but nevertheless
important rainfall which help to swell the grain.62
The great blessing of rain is aptly described in Ps 65:9–13

v. 9 You visit the earth and water it,

you greatly enrich it;
the river of God is full of water;
you provide their grain,
so you have prepared it.

v. 10 You water its furrows abundantly,

settling its ridges,
softening it with showers,
and blessing its growth.

v. 11 You crown the year with your bounty;

the tracks of your chariot drip with fatness.

v. 12 The pastures of the wilderness drip,

the hills gird themselves with joy,

v. 13 the meadows clothe themselves with flocks,

the valleys deck themselves with grain,
they shout and sing together with joy.

Because rain is so great a blessing, other gifts are compared to rain. Hence God
“rained” down manna from heaven (Ex 16:4; Ps 78:24) and “rained” meat as well
(Ps 78:27). Disaster could also rain down from heaven, e.g., fire and brimstones on
Sodom (Gen 19:24) and on the wicked (Ps 11:16; Luke 17:29).
Consequently to withhold rain is to withhold life itself and the effect of such ac-
tion is felt all through creation. With the vineyard not pruned, hoed nor cultivated
and above all without rain, that was the end; that was the htb battah of the vineyard.
v. 7 This is the climax of the pericope. The prophet led his audience pedagogi-
cally to the message for which he had been preparing them.

Die Steigerung hat ihren Höhenpunkt erreicht, nur muß der

Schlag herniederfahren.63

If some of the audience did not understand the application of the parable, the
prophet left them in no doubt as to the meaning and the application of the canticle.
“The time for poetry is past; the time for interpretation and application has
 The Canticle of the Vine 39
come.”64 In terse phrases, made more telling by paronomasia, he unveils and drives
home the awful portent of his parable.65

The Vineyard — House of Israel

Owner — Yahweh Sebaoth
Garden of Delight — Men of Israel

The owner had his just expectations but the yield was so different from what he had
hoped.

He expected justice. — He received bloodshed.

He expected righteousness. — He received cries of oppression.

With the secession of Jeroboam I, the Davidic kingdom was split in two: Israel to
the North, Judah to the South (1 Kgs 12:16–24). Israel was used to designate not
just the Northern Kingdom but the entire covenanted people without any reference
to the schism. This is to understand “Israel” in the religious sense.
For Isaiah the secession was a national catastrophe of unparalleled dimension. It
went contrary to Israel’s Heilsgeschichte especially to Yahweh’s promise through
Nathan about the permanence of the Davidic dynasty (2 Sam 7:5–16). It made
nonsense of the temple, a rallying point of all God’s covenanted people, especially
as syncretistic cult, idolatry and even apostasy was found in other rival sanctuaries
of the North. The secession was such a tragedy that Isaiah wanted nothing of its
kind or proportion to repeat itself in Israel’s history.

Yahweh will bring on you, and on your people and on your ancestral
house, such days as have not come since that day Ephraim departed
from Judah (Isa 7:27).

Isaiah remained attached to the Davidic dynasty and to the temple where he re-
ceived his call. Isaiah did not recognize the Northern Kingdom and rarely did he
call it “Israel,” (7:1) but referred to it rather as “Ephraim” (7:9, 17). Yahweh was the
God of the entire people hence that glorious epithet so dear to the Isaian tradition:
“The Holy One of Israel.”
Isaiah had many reasons for opposing the secession. He was from Judah. In the
Northern Kingdom kings were not appointed by Yahweh as should happen in every
theocratic state, for the appointment of kings was a divine prerogative; instead
there were many political, social, and religious abuses in the secessionist state which
set out to prove the impropriety of the schism. In cult, there was the appointment of
priests not from the family of Aaron (1 Kgs 12:31). Jeroboam I set up rival sanctuar-
ies in Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:29 & 30) and syncretism in cult prevailed (v. 28).
Kings were chosen and slaughtered at will (2 Kgs 15:8–17:1). It was accompanied
40 The Vine, Israel and the Church
with oppression of the poor and shedding of innocent blood (1 Kgs 21:1–16) and
general apostasy under Ahab and Jezabel (1 Kgs 16:29–33). Human sacrifice was
also practiced (v. 34). Hosea condemned idolatry in Israel while Amos condemned
social injustice in that state.
The earlier prophets did not countenance the secession either. For Amos, Israel
was “the whole family that I brought out of Egypt” (Amos 3:1). Cfr. Mic 6:1–4.
The Canticle of the Vine is one of the early oracles of Isaiah. Ephraim as a king-
dom was still standing: the disaster of 722/721 had not overtaken Ephraim. Conse-
quently Israel should be understood in a religious sense. The oracle though uttered
in Judah, and more probably in Jerusalem, would appear to be a warning to Ephraim
and a lesson to Judah.
Therefore, the vineyard of Yahweh Sebaoth was the house of Israel, the entire
covenanted people. But even then, Judah had a privileged place—it was Yahweh’s
plantation of delight.
a
{yi(:$A(a$ ˇ sa‘ ˇ suyim -delight. Plural only and 9 times in MT. (a+¢n neta’ means ¢ ¢
¢plantation, plant”. Though the verb (a+f¢n naÓta‘ is found 59 times in the MT (a+¢n, the
noun is found 4 times; 3 times in Isaiah 17:10, 11 and here and once in Job 14:9.
Judah was beloved of Yahweh and the object of his delight. This was founded on the
Promise, confirmed by the oath to the Davidic dynasty, kept alive by the temple
which was the abiding presence of Yahweh among his people.
In Isaian tradition, there is a very close bond between righteousness and the
planting of the people for the glory of God:

Your people shall be righteous,

they shall possess the land forever.
They are the shoot that I planted
the work of my hands
so that I might be glorified (Isa 60:21).

In another text we read:

They will be called oaks of righteousness

the planting of Yahweh, to display his glory (61:3).

There is similarity with Isa 1:21:

How the faithful city

has become a harlot,
She that was full of justice!
Righteousness lodged in her
but now murderers.
 The Canticle of the Vine 41
Righteousness is a gift of God. In the messianic oracle of the Righteous Branch (Jer
23:5–6) the text says that Yahweh will raise a righteous branch for David, who will
reign as king, and execute righteousness and justice in the land. Because of his wise
and just rule, Judah will be saved and Israel dwell in safety. Yahweh who will bring
this to pass will be called Un ¢q: dic hOhy, YHWH Ó sidqenû”Yahweh our righteousness”.
Though the Canticle of the Vine was declaimed in Judah, for the inhabitants of
Jerusalem and men of Judah, the poem was directed first and foremost against the
Northern Kingdom. She, more than Judah, stood in greater need, not only on ac-
count of its moral depravity but above all because of the resurgent great Assyrian Em-
pire under Tiglath—Pileser III (745—727). Ephraim more than Judah was threat-
ened. It can be said that this was a timely warning about the destruction of Samaria.
The owner of the vineyard is Yahweh Sabaoth. The full name tO)fb: c y¢hole) hwhy
{yibur: Kah b¢&oy YHWH elohe sebaoth y¯oˇseb hakerubim i.e., “Yahweh God of hosts seated
on the cherubs.” This name is absent in the Pentateuch and is used from the time of
the Judges especially in Samuel, Kings, Psalms, and Chronicles. It is used by the
prophets especially Isaiah and Jeremiah and by the three post- exilic trio: Haggai,
Zechariah, Malachy.
The name was used with the Ark of the Covenant especially in Samuel. It has
been widely discussed whether the Ark was used as a palladium (1 Sam 4). Be it as it
may, it was used in the context of wars for it was Yahweh who led his people to war
and to victory.
It does appear that the more correct understanding of the name was—God who
ruled over all forces in the tripartite division of the Universe—the heavens, the
earth, and Sheol. It was a title to designate God as the Almighty Lord and Master of
Creation. This understanding fits in perfectly with our text. It is Yahweh who by his
Almighty power now commands the rain not to fall on the vineyard. God’s action of
withholding rain is found a number of times in biblical tradition (Jer 3:3; 1 Kgs 17:
1; 1 Kgs 8:35).
After the choice of a fertile hill spot, clearing of stones, digging the soil, planting
soreq, and giving the vineyard all the care and attention it needed; the owner was
confident of a very good yield. Rather instead of justice, +ap:&im miˇ spaÓt, it produced
bloodshed xap:&im miśpaÓh; instead of righteousness hfqfd: c Ó sed¯aqˆah, it produced cries of
oppression—hfqf(: c Ó se‘¯aqˆah. Play on words can hardly escape detection. The great
Isaiah is at work.
Concrete result of holiness is external justice with fellow human beings: but here
instead of love, the extreme opposite is found—bloodshed. It is to be noted that
there is no greater evidence for hatred than bloodshed. Instead of cries of joy conse-
quent on right living, there are cries of oppression.
Justice is righting wrongs, bloodshed is inflicting wrongs. Righteousness is right
living and right relationships, but cries and screams indicate wrong relationships
and the anguish of oppression.
42 The Vine, Israel and the Church
The assonance would seem to indicate that the worthless grapes bore at least out-
ward resemblance to the good ones. The sounds were similar, almost indistinguish-
able but the reality was utterly different. Judging from the externals, Israel still ap-
peared to be the chosen people, but in reality it was faithless as it broke the
covenant bond. It was the difference between holiness and iniquity, life and death,
the covenant and apostasy.
Israel’s destruction was deliberately not mentioned. In fact it was not necessary,
for once the equation between Israel and the vineyard was made, the impending
judgment was inexorable.66 Sin was not only the inability to rise to the good but
also the perversion of the good.
Verse 7 brings the Canticle to an end. What began as a happy song, a love song,
ends with judgment of doom, leaving the audience downcast and disorientated. The
three Infinitive Absolutes disclose the determination with which the destruction
has been decreed; it is an irrevocable decision. Hence Heintrich says:

Darum ist dieses Liebeslied Totenlied, darum muß die Freude umschla-
gen zur furchtbarfter Klage.67

It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb 10:31) for God is
a consuming fire (Heb 12:29; Cfr Isa 33:14).
The Canticle was followed by the Seven Woes. That redactional arrangement
was probably meant to indicate that Ephraim was unrepentant and consequently
destroyed. The destruction of Ephraim is spoken about in Chapter 17 but Ephraim
did not heed the warnings of the prophet. Rather rolling in drunkenness and rev-
elry, Yahweh cast down to the earth with violence, the proud crown of the drunk-
ards of Ephraim, the fading flower of its glorious beauty and trod its glory underfoot
(Isa 28:1–4). The same fate awaited Judah if she continued to engage in syncretistic
cult and oppression of the poor.
As Israel’s election was compared to the preparation for and the plantation of the
vineyard, so the destruction of the vineyard was the destruction of the people. It was
the undoing of the work, the undoing of the vineyard.
Election was a gift not a privilege nor was Israel set apart for self exaltation:
rather Israel, the soreq, was planted to bear rich fruit. Some conclusions which can
be drawn from the Canticle are as follows:

God’s promise to Abraham led to the planting of the people in the land of
Canaan. That was the basis for the Sinaitic covenant and for other future
covenants.

• Election was meant to yield fruits of righteousness.

• Divine husbandry can be thwarted by inner degeneracy.
 The Canticle of the Vine 43
• Apostasy, impenitence, and refusal to accept God’s love through the teach-
ing of the prophets may bring about the withdrawal of God’s favors and pro-
tection.

The Canticle of the Vine is a masterpiece. It is the foundation of other important

texts on the vine not only in Isaiah but in other biblical traditions especially in Je-
remiah and in the Psalter. In the NT, Jesus had many parables and teachings on the
vineyard; Matt 20:1–16; 21:28–32, 33–43; Mark 12:1- Matt 20:1–16, 21:28–32.
Matt 21:33–43 has its parallel passages Mark 12:1–12; and Luke 20:9–19. Another
important text is Luke 13:6–9. The climax is found in John 15:1 where Jesus pub-
licly declared; e)gw) ei)mi o( a)mpeloj o( a)lhqinV)h?/ ego eimi ho ampelos ho alethine “I
am the true vine”.
 CHAPTER THREE

Psalm 80

I
ntroduction. Psalm 80 is one of the psalms of Asaph; pss 50, 73–83. It follows
naturally Ps 79:13, another psalm of Asaph, which ends with these words:

so we your people, the flock of your pasture

will give you thanks for ever.

The psalm has a lot in common with Ps 79 as we shall see later.

This psalm is a community lament. It is an earnest, urgent prayer to God, the
Shepherd of Israel, to turn around and restore to his favor battered and distressed Is-
rael, whose life, as it were, hangs in a balance. It prays for the restoration of Israel to
its pristine privileged position. Weiser believes that the psalm could have been re-
cited at a joint celebration of cult at the central shrine of the confederacy.1 The
prayer song of the community is addressed to Yahweh; to rouse himself, to come for-
ward and to make an appearance.
It seems that the psalm was used on a national day of penitence and prayer.2
With the exception of Yom Kippur, fasts were not fixed on any specific day of the
liturgical calendar. The peculiarity about fasts and laments is that they do not occur
regularly. Rather they are proclaimed and spontaneously observed whenever a crisis
sends out a clarion call—a drought perhaps. a plague, an enemy attack, a disastrous
defeat or the destruction of a city or a sanctuary.3 Only God, enthroned on the
cherubs, can intervene and save the situation.
This psalm poses some theological problems. It contains no expression of peni-
tence or sorrow, no assessment by the congregation of its past and present conduct.
The prayer does acknowledge that the distress of the congregation is consequent on
divine wrath; however, it does not complain that God’s anger is unjust.4
The lament begins at the point where the trouble has its origin: God’s relation-
ship with his suppliant people. Whatever is plaguing the people can be traced back
to God. Every statement in vv. 4b-6 begins with “You . . . You . . . You . . . .” The
complaint is directed against God and Westermann says that accusation again God
 Psalm 80 45
is the nerve-center of all lamentations in the Psalter.5 The lament is directed to the
one, who as Creator, permitted suffering to come upon his creatures, and who could
have prevented it, if only he wanted. The laments of the OT search for the cause of
suffering, not in some power hostile to God but in God himself and in himself
alone.6 It addresses God, the actor of the congregation’s experience of suffering and
of salvation, and pleads for God’s resumption of his earlier works of salvation as a
means of restoration.
However, behind all these lies faith and confidence in the power and mercy of
God; the God who is willing and able; the God who saved, who saves and will con-
tinue to save. That God will save is as certain as day: otherwise what would be the
purpose of the prayer?

3.1 The Historical Background of Psalm 80

I have rarely studied a biblical problem that has such a variety of opinions as the his-
torical setting of this psalm. It is not easy to document and synthesize the wide
range of opinions of scholars for the past 150 years on this subject. No such attempt
will be made especially as it falls outside the scope of this work. Nevertheless, a
short survey is necessary, for without it, a sound exegesis of the psalm would be well-
nigh impossible. Moreover, it is necessary to put the psalm in its Sitz im Leben to
grasp the full meaning and message of the psalm.
There are certain indisputable facts about this psalm:

• it is a lament of the community

• Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh seem worse off than other tribes
• a good part of the territory has been overrun by the enemy, subjecting the
people to humiliation, intolerable hardship, mockery and ridicule
• God appears deaf to the prayers and entreaties of the people and indifferent
to their hard lot.
• God is requested to bestir himself and save his people.

To study satisfactorily the historical background of this psalm, some questions need
to be asked:

• When was the psalm composed and what were other circumstances of its
composition?
• Was it a prayer of the northern tribes for restoration from Assyrian captivity
or was it a prayer of the Southern Kingdom for restoration of the kingdom
of Judah after its fall?
46 The Vine, Israel and the Church
• Was it a post-exilic prayer for the restoration of the nation as in the days of
King David?
The opinions of scholars fall into three main groups:

• those who see events of 733–721 BC, the period of Assyrian expansionism,
as the historical context:
• those who opt for a Judean origin of the psalm and date it to the post-ex-
ilic period:
• those who date it as late as the Maccabean period.

3.1.1 The Period of Assyrian Expansionism

From the content, it is evident that Israel was facing a national catastrophe which
threatened its very existence. The sub-title of the LXX, yalmo\j u(per touª As-
suri/ ou, psalmos hyper tou Assyriou though not found in the Hebrew, is a scribal at-
tempt to contextualize the psalm and a witness to an oral tradition which associated
the psalm with the Assyrian threat which culminated in the destruction of the
Northern Kingdom.
M. Dahood believes that the mention of Israel in v. 2 and of the northern tribes
of Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh in v. 3, proves that the psalm was composed
in the Northern Kingdom shortly prior to its destruction in the catastrophe of 721
BC.7 This is also the opinion of F. Delitzsch.8 E. König says that the mention of
Ephraim indicates that it is the Northern Kingdom that is in question, probably in
the days of Tiglath-Pileser

Die eigenartige Beziehung dieses Gedichts auf Ephraim

usw begründet das Urteil, daß der Dichter auf eine Katastrophe
des Königsreichs SAMARIA blickte. Denn denkt man
natürlich sofort an den Einmarsch der Assyrer unter Phul
in Israels Gebiet, so weißt darauf auch schon die in der LXX
gegebene (2 K 15:19) überschrift, “betreffs des Assyrers” hin.9

Otto Eissfeldt holds to the northern origin of the psalm because Ephraim Benjamin
and Manasseh are clearly mentioned

Daß die Nennung von Israel und Joseph, von Ephraim

und Benjamin und Manasseh ein deutliches Zeichen für
die Bezugnahme unseres Psalms auf Nordisrael darstellt,
ist allgemein anerkannt.10
 Psalm 80 47
He dates it about 732–722 BC, because of the sub-title and more so because of the di-
vine name Yahweh–Sebaoth which he says originated in Shiloh.11 A. Weiser thinks
that probably only the period preceding the downfall of the Northern Kingdom
comes into question since the Rachel tribes, Joseph and Benjamin, are mentioned.12
W. O. E. Oesterly says that with the specific mention of Ephraim, Benjamin and
Manasseh, it is the Northern Kingdom that the psalm is concerned with. Moreover,
v. 17 seems to contain a play on Benjamin’s name. The conditions are those of the
Northern Kingdom after 721 BC as described in 2 Kgs 17:18. Worthy of note is the
reference to the wild beasts.13
Anderson thinks that the complete lack of any reference to Judah may suggest
that the psalm was of northern provenance, though the motive need not have en-
tirely altruistic, for the collapse of the Northern Kingdom would remove the last
barrier between Judah and the tidal waves of Assyrian invasions.14

3.1.2 Judean Origin of the Psalm

Others like E. König, H. Schmidt and H. J. Kraus believe that while the event be-
longed to the Northern Kingdom, the prayer originated in the South. For König,
the menance of the Northern Kingdom was a cause of concern and prayer for Judah.

Der Bedrängnis der nördlichen Stämme Israels war

selbstverständlich auch für die Patrioten in Juda ein
Gegenstand der Trauer and des Fürbittenden Gebets.15

Hans Schmidt put the event not only in Israel but even a hundred years earlier—to
the period of the Aramean wars, 1 Kgs 22:29–38,—because Israel needed the assis-
tance of Judah not politically but in cult. Indeed it was a period

. . . . in der man auch in Jerusalem wegen Gefährdung und

Wiederstandsunfähigkeit des Nordreichs in Angst war. Die
lange Zeit der Aramäerkriege, in den Juda dem Nordreiche
zeitweilig geradezu Heeresfolge geleistet (vgl = B 1 Reg 22:29)
wäre zu nennen.16

Kraus says that from v. 2, it is clear that the reference is to a serious threat to the
northern Israelite group of tribes in central Palestine: Ephraim, Benjamin, Man-
asseh. Ps 80 also indicates that Israel uniformly belongs to the past.17 He made room
for the possibility of dating the events of the psalm to the time of Josiah who crossed
the border into the territories of Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh,18 but even
Kraus himself had problems with his own opinion.19
48 The Vine, Israel and the Church
P. Giuchou thinks that after the destruction of Samaria in 722 BC Hezekiah tried
to use the favorable circumstances to effect a unification of the two kingdoms. He
believes that the psalm belongs to this period; hence he says:

Le present psaume . . . presente la priere suppliante des

Israelites echappes au massacre et de la deportation
refugies en Juda; ils pressent Dieu de retablir les tribus
du Nord dans leur conditions normales en ramenant tous
les deportés et fugitifs sous le sceptre d’l’homme de son
droite.20

E. Beaucamp considers the possibility of the composition of the psalm in Jerusalem,

because the reform of Josiah aroused interest towards the restoration of the kingdom
of David in its totality

On sait en effet l’interet que suscite, lors de la reforme de

Josias, la restauration de l’ancienne royaume de David dans
sa totalité.21

For M. Goulder, there has been natural reluctance to exclude Judah from the psalm
which he believes must have been used in Jerusalem. “You have fed them . . .” is a
hint that Judah was praying for her brothers.22 A. F. Kirkpatrick aligns Ps 80 with
the prayers of Jeremiah and Ezekiel for a united Israel and dates the psalm about 570
BC, during the exile.23

3.1.3 Post-exilic Composition of the Psalm

W. M. L. de Wette thinks that this psalm has affinity with Pss 74 and 79.

Wahrscheinlich bezieht sich dieser Ps auf denselben

Verhältnisse wie Ps 74, 79.

However he was prepared to date the psalm to the Maccabean period especially as it
expressed some hope for restoration of the United State of Israel.

Ephraim Benjamin, Manasseh bezeichen das ganze Volk:

das gerade Stämme genant werden ist vielleicht dichterische
Willkur doch liegt in der Erwähnung der Stämme Ephraim und Manasseh
der Wunsch, daß beide hälfte des Reichs, Juda und Israel, wieder
hergestellt werden sollen.24
 Psalm 80 49
J. Olshausen dates the psalm to the Maccabean period. In it he saw a remnant with
a very strong desire for the restoration of a united kingdom of Israel. Benjamin rep-
resents the South, Ephraim the North and Manasseh the Trans-Jordania.25

3.1.4 A Tradition—Historic Interpretation

W. Beyerlin turned away from the purely historical-geographical approach to a tradi-

tion-historic interpretation. According to him vv. 2–3 is the oldest stratum of the
psalm dating probably from the pre-monarchical era. The communal lament, vv. 5–7
17b –19, was integrated to vv. 2–3 by the use of the refrain in vv. 4, 8 and 20 and this
was done probably in the reign of Josiah when there was concern for the distressed,
occupied northern territories. The vine passage vv. 9–17 is an allegorical interpreta-
tion added to the psalm now comprising vv. 2–7, 17b-20 and this was done after 587.
Hence the opinion that the psalm originated after 587 is not groundless.26
The problem is very complex and the diversity of opinions among scholars does
not make the solution any easier. Nevertheless, scholars complement and enrich
one another with their different opinions. Consequently to understand and assess
the historical background of this psalm, certain points should be borne in mind.
The psalm is a prayer, hfLpi : T, tephillah, and a lament of the community. It would be
incorrect to imagine that this psalm used only once in Israel’s history. Such a beau-
tiful psalm would fit into many historical vicissitudes and its frequent use in cult
would with time, blunt the rough edges of meticulous and historical exactitudes.
The title, u(per touª A)ssuri/ ou, is an oral tradition which was later docu-
mented. Like other psalms with titles, especially those attributed to David or refer-
ring to certain events in David’s life, e.g. Pss 2, 7, 17, 34, 52, 54, 57, 59, 60, such tra-
ditions should be subjected to unmitigated exegetical scrutiny. A more reliable
criterion would rather be the study of the content of the psalm.
The psalm, even if composed in the Northern Kingdom, was used in the South
and it was from the sanctuary in Jerusalem that we received the psalm. This alone
lends itself to later additions to the psalm.
These notwithstanding, it does appear that the events of 732–721 BC gave rise
to the composition of the psalm. It was brought to Juda about 721 BC or later and
preserved in the temple in Jerusalem, and was used in cult. The divine name, Elohe
Sebaoth, which originated in Shiloh, is a glorious epithet for Yahweh in the
Jerusalem sanctuary. Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, in his book, In Search of God, gave
impressive arguments to show that Yahweh Sebaoth is a title par excellence for the
God of Israel in the Sanctuary in Jerusalem.27
There is no convincing argument to date the psalm to the Maccabean period.
This theory has not been supported by scholars this century and so can be regarded
as overtaken.
50 The Vine, Israel and the Church
The application of the psalm to the events of 1 Kgs 15:29; 1 Kg 22:29 as sug-
gested by H. Schmidt is inconclusive.28 The language of the psalm is not detailed
enough to warrant such identification.
Dating the psalm to the reign of Josiah is problematic. It is undisputable that
King Josiah made serious efforts to unite the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. He
wanted to restore the allegiance of the Northern Kingdom to the Davidic dynasty
which Yahweh had promised would last for ever. (2 Sam 7:5–16). However during
his reign, Israel was not threatened by any outside forces especially as Assyria was
battling for her life. Consequently this psalm hardly fits into the reign of Josiah.
The intercessory prayer, “the man of your right hand, the man your right hand
has strengthened” gives the impression that the monarchy was still in existence.
That man was to pilot the affairs of the kingdom now in distress.
To conclude, it would appear that the events of 732–721 BC gave rise to the
composition of the psalm. It can hardly be dated earlier than that. The psalm, if
composed in the Northern Kingdom, was brought to the temple of Jerusalem about
or soon after the fall of Samaria. It was from the sanctuary in Jerusalem that we re-
ceived the psalm. But constant use was made of the psalm and so created room for
some additions. The frequent use blunted the rough edges of historicity.

3.2 The Literary Genre of the Psalm

Ps 80 is without doubt a Community Lament (CL), volksklagelied. It reflects a

tragic condition, a desolate situation which promises no immediate change, except
by divine intervention.29
Cries of lament and plea for help, are neither new nor recent in Israel’s history.
They can be detected early enough in the cries of the children of Israel in the desert
(Exod 17:1–7; Num 14:1–9). In the period of the Judges, it was a cry of anguish and
distress in the face of oppression by foreign nations. In response to these, God sent a
judge to judge his people, and deliver them from their enemies (Judg 3:7–18:21;
10:1–16:31).

The people’s cry in the wilderness belongs here so that the

first beginnings or forerunners of the CL must reach back
into the time of Israel’s wandering in the desert.30

A special characteristic of the community lament is that it is always a cultic action.

In fact no worship observance in ancient Israel is as well known as the rite of lamen-
tation. It is always preceded by a national crisis, e.g. war, drought, plague, victory of
the enemy, threat of annihilation.
The community was summoned and no exception was made for women and
 Psalm 80 51
children: even nursing children were brought (Joel 2:16). Food and water were for-
bidden to all, even to animals (Jonah 3:7; Jdt 4:10). All had to be purified by fast
(Joel 1:14), put on garments of mourning especially sackcloth (Isa 22:12; Jer 4:8; 6:
26; Jdt 4:10), sprinkle dust and ashes on their heads (Josh 7:6; Neh 9:1), and rend
their garments (Joel 2:13). The priests and the ministers of Yahweh weep before the
vestibule and the altar (Joel 2;17; 1 Mac 7:36–38) and the people weep before the
Lord (Judg 20:23–26).
The Psalter does not exhaust Israel’s laments for many are found in other sacred
books. Community Laments are found in 1 Chr 20:5–12; Isa 59:1–20; 63:7–64:11)
while some examples of the Laments of the Individual are 1 Sam 1:19–27; Tob 3:2–
6, 11–15; Jdt 9:2–14; the prayers of Mordechai and Esther (Est 4:17a-z); 2 Kgs 19:
16–19 and Daniel (Dan 3:24–45).

3.2.1 Structure of the Lament

Ps 80 is considered such a classic example of a Community Lament that Claus

Westermann uses it as a paradigm for the genre.31 Its structure according to Wester-
mann is as follows:

Address
Complaint
Confidence
Petition
Vow of Praise32

The Address invokes God and sometimes has an introductory petition. The Com-
plaint contains what Westermann calls “accusation against God,” “we-complaint”
and complaint about enemies.33 Confidence emphasizes trust in God based on his
wondrous deeds of the past, his promises, the covenant. The basis for appeal to God is
his loving kindness, desx
e hÓ esed , amply demonstrated in his salvific deeds of the yester
years. As he intervened and saved in the past, so will he once again. In the Petition,
the suppliants turn to God and implore him to come to the rescue and sometimes it
contains petition against the enemies. It usually ends with a Vow of Praise.
Though this is the basic structure of the genre, the component parts have no fixed
sequence, primarily because they are spontaneous prayers said in varying historical cir-
cumstances. Consequently any section can appear more than once in the psalm.

3.2.2 The Refrain

Ps 80 is unique because of the triple refrain which occurs in vv 4, 8 and 20. V. 15 is

similar but nonetheless a different invocation. This led Oesterly to conclude that
52 The Vine, Israel and the Church
v. 15 was an abbreviated form of the refrain34 while some even suggested a recon-
struction of the refrain and the restoration of the “original order of strophes” in
which the refrain was introduced after v. 11. Oesterly said it is natural to suppose
that a similar line stood after v. 10.35 It may not be easy to justify the introduction of
the refrain after v. 11 especially as such a manipulation of the text is not supported
by any manuscript. Moreover, it would disturb the flow of the metaphor of the vine.
Above all, complete symmetry cannot be achieved merely by inserting the same re-
frain after v. 11 since as Oesterly himself says, vv 14b-19 contain only five lines in-
stead of six.36
We believe that the psalm should be left as it is because there is not sufficient
critical grounds to alter the basic characteristics of this psalm merely on alien view-
points. The problems posed are not insurmountable and will be studied when the
text will be analyzed. It can be said with a great measure of certitude that v. 15 is a
deliberate variant and not a corruption of the text.
The refrain is more probably a response by the attending community as it punc-
tuated the prayers of the psalm. Even though with time the refrain was used to di-
vide the psalm, originally it served a different purpose: it was the response of the
people.

3.2.3 The Meter

The meter for the most part is 3+3 but in the refrain of vv 4, 8 and 20, it is 2+2+2.
V. 15 presents a special difficulty as most probably it was not meant to be a simple
repetition of the refrain but a deliberate variant.
It is only in vv 9–20 that Israel is called “the vine.” A detailed study of Israel as
the vine will be done in the exegetical part of this chapter.

3.2.4 Similarity with Other Psalms

There is noticeable similarity between Ps 79 and Ps 80: in fact Goulder calls Ps 80 “a

natural successor to Ps 79.”37 Ps 79 ends thus

So we your people and the sheep of your pasture will give you thanks for
ever (79:13).

and it is immediately followed by

“Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel” (Ps 80:2).

Other similarities are:

 Psalm 80 53
Ps 79 Ps 80

v. 5 How long, O Lord? Will you v.5 How long will you fume
be angry for ever? as your people pray?

v. 4, 12 Taunt of enemies, derision v. 7 Derision of neighbors;

and scorn of neighbors sport of the foes

v. 2 Israel is God’s inheritance v. 2 Israel is God’s flock

v. 13 We will thank you for ever. v. 19 We will call upon your

name.

Another psalm with equally striking similarity is Ps 44:

Ps 44 Ps 80
Dispossession of the nations v. 2 v. 8
Planting of Israel v. 2 v. 8
Taunt of neighbors vv. 13, 15 v. 6
God saves with the light of
his face v. 3 vv. 4, 8, 20
Appeal for help v. 26 v. 19

3.2.5 Division of Psalm 80

Authors structure and divide the psalm according to their various viewpoints.
Kissane, for example, divides it as follows:

Prayer for help vv. 2–4

Israel’s plight vv. 5–8
Israel’s past glories vv. 9–12
The Ravaged Vineyard vv. 13–16
Appeal for Judgment vv. 17–2038

We, on the other hand, following the structure of Community Lament proposed by
Westermann39 divide it as follows:

Address vv. 2–4

Lament vv. 5–8
Vine vv. 9–14
54 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Petition vv. 15–18
Vow of Praise v. 19
Conclusion v. 20

This done, we now proceed with the exegesis of the psalm.

Ps 80

1 For the director: According to the “Lilies.”

A Testimony. Of Asaph. A Psalm.

2 O Shepherd of Israel, give ear:

lead Joseph like a flock.
O Enthroned on the Cherubs, arise.
3 before Ephraim,(Benjamin) and Manasseh.
Rouse your might
and come to save us.

4 O God, turn to us,

let your face shine
and we shall be saved.

II

5 O Yahweh, God of Hosts,

how long will you fume
while your people pray?

6 You have fed us with tears as our food

and given us tears to drink by the bowl.

7 You have made us the derision of our neighbors

and our enemies laugh us to scorn.

8 O God of Hosts, turn to us,

let your face shine on us
and we shall be saved.
 Psalm 80 55
III

9 A vine you brought out of Egypt

you drove out the nations and planted it.

10 You removed those who were before her,

you made her take roots
and made her fill the land.

11 The mountains were covered with its shade,

and the mighty cedars with its boughs.

12 You extended its branches to the Sea

and its shoots to the River.

IV

13 Then, why have you broken down its hedges

so that all who pass by pluck its fruit?

14 The boar of the forest ravages it,

what moves in the field feeds on it.

15 God of Hosts, turn, we pray,

look down from heaven and see:
(visit this vine).

16 Establish firm control over what your hand has planted

over the son you have strengthened for yourself.

17 Those who burnt it with blazing fire:

May they perish at your angry rebuke.

18 (May your hand be on the man of your right hand,

upon the son of man you raised up for yourself).

19 We will never turn away from you:

revive us and we shall call upon your name.
56 The Vine, Israel and the Church
20 Yahweh, God of Hosts, turn to us
let your face shine upon us
and we shall be saved.

3.3 Exegesis

v.2 O Shepherd of Israel, give ear. Although the term “Shepherd of Israel” is hapax,
Yahweh is often called “Shepherd” (Gen 49:24; Ps 28:9; Jer 31:10; Mic 7:14). In Ps
23:1, Yahweh is called “my Shepherd.” The Patriarch Jacob says that God has been
his Shepherd from birth (Gen 48:15). The Lord also made David his servant “shep-
herd” (Ps 78:70–72) and after him kings of Israel have been called “shepherds” (Jer
23:1–4; 49:19–20; Mic 5:4).
But most of these shepherds were negligent and fed themselves instead of feeding
the flock (Ezk 34:1–10). In v. 11 of the same pericope, Yahweh undertakes to look
after the flock himself. The culminating point is in v. 36 where Yahweh says: “I will
be a true shepherd to them.”
The prophet Jeremiah pronounces woe on the shepherds who destroy and scatter
the sheep. Therefore Yahweh will raise a shepherd who will care for the sheep: the
sheep will not fear him, and none will be lost (Jer 23:1–4). For this reason Yahweh
will raise a messianic king who will rule wisely and execute justice and righteousness
in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will dwell securely and his
name will be : “Yahweh-our-Righteousness” (Jer 23:5–6).
A classic image of Yahweh as shepherd is found in Deutero-Isaiah. The prophet
assures the timid Judeans returning to the land of Judah from the Babylonian exile
that Yahweh will feed his flock like a shepherd, gathering the lambs in his arms, car-
rying them in his bosom, and gently leading those that are with young (Isa 40:11).
This is one of the most beautiful passages and images of the Bible, true to Isaian tra-
dition. So tender is God’s love that he carries the lambs in his bosom as the owner
nurtured his ewe-lamb in the parable of Nathan (2 Sam 12:3).
The image of a shepherd leaving the ninety-nine on the hillside in search of the
single stray (Matt 18:13; Luke 15:40), which on finding he carries shoulder-high re-
joicing and on coming home celebrates the recovery (Luke 15:5–6), gives insight
into the shepherd/sheep relationship. He lays down even his life for his sheep. The
climax is found in the saying of Jesus:

I am the good (beautiful) kalós shepherd. . . .

The good (beautiful) (kalós) shepherd lays down his life for his sheep.
(Translation Mine: John 10:11)

The underlying metaphor provides a characteristic expression for the close God/
 Psalm 80 57
People relationship and emphasizes at the same time the Lordship of the guiding
God over his people.40 Also in this image, commitment and trust are exemplified.41
Right from ancient times people were aware how irresponsible sheep could be. “All
we like sheep have gone astray” (Isa 53:6). As sheep could be naïve and sometimes
stupid, to call Yahweh “the Shepherd of Israel” is an acknowledgement of the natural
stupidity and obstinacy in waywardness of Israel.42 But at the same time it attributes to
the Shepherd the highest quality of patience, endurance and self-sacrifice.
The God who is addressed in this psalm is the Shepherd of Israel. Does Israel
stand for the Northern Kingdom (Israel in the political sense) or for the entire peo-
ple of God (Israel in the religious sense)? One could easily argue that it was to the
Northern tribes that the reference was made especially as it was their territory that
was threatened. Moreover it stands in parallelism with “Joseph.” Anderson thinks
that Israel could denote either the Northern Kingdom or the people of God in its
totality.43
However it does appear that it is the entire covenanted people that is spoken
about. It is the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob who is invoked. That “Israel”
is parallel to “Joseph” is not overriding. It seems more in consonance with biblical
tradition to think of God as the Shepherd of the entire people of God than of the
schismatic tribes only. In Ps 81:6 we encounter a text where the entire covenanted
people is called “Joseph.”

As a command he imposed it on Joseph

when he went forth from the land of Egypt.

It is obvious that here the entire Jewish nation is called “Joseph.” Rashi notes that
Israel is parallel to Joseph and that it designates the entire covenanted people, but
he adduces a special reason for it.

All Israel are called by the name of Joseph because

he provided for them during the famine.44

Although this may be true, his argument is not convincing.

The Shepherd of Israel is requested to listen to the prayer of his flock. Israel is the
people of his pasture, the sheep led by his hand (Ps 95:7). Israel is repeating once
again the prayers it had uttered so often in the past; a plea to God to show himself,
to act and to save. Since no visible action on behalf of his people is evident, God
addressed anthropomorphically is requested “to hear.” To hear is “to take note, to
listen, to intervene, to save.”
If God to whom the prayer is addressed is indeed the “Shepherd of Israel,” who
has always shown such magnanimity in his dealings with his sheep, all the more rea-
son why he could not abandon his flock at this crucial moment of its history. If Israel
58 The Vine, Israel and the Church
was aware of being God’s people, the flock of his pasture (Ps 79:13), it thereby con-
fesses its utter inability for sustained moral rectitude and civic maturity.
God is called the “Shepherd of Israel” because the disaster which has befallen
some of the tribes is felt to be a common affliction which sinks all the old differences
into oblivion, uniting them under divine covenant. The tribes have a common re-
sponsibility which has its roots in the divine acts of guidance in Israel’s history and
in their various traditions.45
Lead Joseph like a flock. The MT reads gexon noheg which is kal ptc sing. But with
Dahood, we read gax: n neÓhag. which is kal imptv sg, because for stylistic reasons and
for variation, biblical poets occasionally employed the ptc as a substitute for the
imptv.46 Examples are found in Pss 9:14; 17:14.
It is Yahweh, the Shepherd of Israel, who is called upon to listen to the prayers of
the people. The result is that he will guide Joseph like a flock despite the naivete
and occasional obstinacy of Joseph. God has always led and guided his people. We
have a text which embodies all these ideas:

With your steadfast love lead this people

whom you have redeemed;
in your strength guide them
to your holy dwelling place (Exod 15:13).

O Enthroned on the Cherubs, arise. In the Psalter, Yahweh is said to be mounted on a

cherub (Ps 18:11) or enthroned on the cherubs (Ps 99:1; Isa 37:16). The term,
“cherub,” needs some explanation.
The etymology is uncertain. It is found in the Akkadian as kar¯abu to mean
“prayer, blessing” or “to bless, to pray, to consecrate.”47 D. N. Freedman and M.P.
O’Connor note that the root krb not attested in Biblical Hebrew whereas the root
brk “to bless” is attested in the North West Semitic.48 Some tried to derive krb from
rkb “to ride” because God mounts the cherub and rides on the wings of the wind
(Ps 18:11; 2 Sam 22:11; Ps 104:3) but such methathesis can hardly be proved or
justified.
However the root krb is attested in the Ugaritic in 1 Aqht:2; nt:1:12 but the ety-
mology and meaning are uncertain. Consequently probable meanings have been
proffered: “to consecrate, bring an offering, a place of worship, an amulet, to pray.”49
The cherubs appear in Babylonian and Canaanite mythologies either as mounts
for the deity or in association with sacred vegetation. They are rarely found as
human beings. Apart from later usage, they appear only in primeval history or in
technical descriptions of God’s throne and these are found in P (Exod 25–31) or in
Ezekiel (9:3–11:22; 28:14–16; 41:18–25).
As living beings they appear twice in the context of vegetation and each time as-
sociated with the garden of God (Gen 3:24; Ezk 28:14). God expelled Man from the
 Psalm 80 59
garden and in front of the garden he posted cherubs and a flashing sword to guard
the way to the tree of life. It will be necessary to study the text closely and not read
meanings into the text. Faithful to the text we note that the cherubs do not guard
the tree of life nor the gates of the garden: they do not appear in pairs nor are they
only two in number. They neither hold nor wield a sword nor do they drive the Man
and his wife out of the garden.50 Unlike the serpent, they do not act independent of
God nor oppose his will.
The cherubs bear the god in flight in vehicles drawn by one or other winged crea-
tures. Yahweh is said to ride on a cherub or fly on the wings of the wind
(2 Sam 22:11; Ps 18:11) and cherubs draw his vehicle (Ezk 1, 9, 11). In describ-
ing the creatures that support the throne, Ezekiel mentions many details: four living
creatures with human form (1:5); four faces, four wings (1:6); straight legs (1:7);
human hands (1:8); appearances resembling glowing coals (1:13); lightning move-
ments (1:13, 14).
These beings are dependent on Babylonian and Canaanite mythologies. These
features exemplify wisdom, strength and mobility which are the basis of God’s ac-
tions in the universe. Cherubs are not “angels” nor should be considered “a choir of
angels.” Rather they are concomitant elements of theophany. The cherub is associ-
ated with the throne. Yahweh rides through the heavens (Deut 33:26); on the
clouds (Ps 68:5); in the heavens, the ancient heavens (Ps 68:33); and comes to
Egypt riding on a swift cloud (Isa 19:1).
In the Ugaritic, Aliyan Baal is called “rider of clouds,” rkb‘rpt.51 He is the god of
thunderstorm and that is his image as he rides into battle. Yahweh, the God of Is-
rael, is said to ride on the cherubs and his full name is “Yahweh Sebaoth enthroned
on the cherubs” (1 Sam 4:4). That is Yahweh in the splendor of his theophany!!!
In Ps 80, the image is that of a holy war. Before the harrassed and even subjugated
tribes of Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh, Yahweh is called upon to appear in his
strength and splendor, in his heroic power that brings help and creates salvation.52
This divine epithet, “enthroned on the cherubs” is often a designation for Yah-
weh in time of war, because he is expected to lead his people to war and grant them
victory. Hezekiah, when threatened by the Assyrians with utter destruction ap-
peals desperately to “Yahweh, the God of Israel, enthroned on the cherubs” (Isa
37:16). Consequently it is an appropriate appellation of Yahweh in time of dire
distress.
hf(yipOhi hophˆı‘a—It is the Hiphil of (py yapha‘ “to shine.” The verb means “to
send out beams, to cause to shine.”53 This is the more common understanding of
the verb. God is called upon to shine forth brilliantly as in theophany. He seems to
be hiding his face thereby causing Israel untold misery. His shining forth brings
salvation.
That divine art of “shining forth” brings blessing and salvation is confirmed in
the Blessing of Aaron:
60 The Vine, Israel and the Church
May Yahweh bless you and keep
May Yahweh make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you
May Yahweh lift his countenance upon you and give you peace.
(Num 6:24–26)
(Translation: mine)

To let Yahweh’s face shine is a sign of his favor and benevolence. Hence he shines in
perfect beauty out of Zion (Ps 50:21) and shines forth as an avenging God (Ps. 94:
1). The same ideas are found in Ps 4:7; 31:17; 44:4; 119:135. In Ugaritic text, 1015:
9–10 we read

wpn ˇspˇs nr by mid

“And the face of the suzerain shine greatly on me.”

But yp’ in the Ugaritic has a variety of meanings including “to arise.”54 In text 151:
19 we read yp‘ b‘ al—“May Baal arise.” mn(m) ib yp‘ l’b‘l (‘nt:111:34, iv:48) “What
enemy arises against Baal?” ib yp‘ (‘nt:iv:49) “No enemy arises.”
Moriarty notes that it was T. H. Gaster who adverted that the basic meaning of
yp‘ was “to ascend, to climb, to arise.”55 Moriarty believes that Ras Shamra docu-
ments preserve the original meaning of yp‘ as is evident in psalms 50:2; 80:2; 94:1.56
Besides, translating (yipOh as “arise” fits the context better. God who appears not
to “hear,” not “to listen to” the prayers of his people is called upon to arise as if from
slumber. The Enthroned on the cherubs will rise and preside over the work of con-
quest for the salvation of his people and of their land.57 This is confirmed by Ps 68:1

Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered

let those who hate him flee before him.

The current inactivity of Yahweh in the affairs of Israel can be compared to a slum-
ber. It is weighing the people down. In fact, it is a dreadful punishment. Hence Yah-
weh is beseeched to arise and free his people.
Before Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh. Joseph and Benjamin are the two sons of
Jacob by his beloved wife Rachel (Gen 30:24; 35:16–18). Manasseh and Ephraim
are the sons of Joseph (Gen 41:50–52). Hence the tribe of Joseph was the principal
tribe of the Northern Kingdom, with Manasseh in the Trans-Jordania and Ephraim
in the Cis-Jordania. Ephraim grew so powerful and populous that sometimes the en-
tire Northern Kingdom was simply called “Ephraim” (Isa 7:2–17; 9:9, 21; 11:13).
With the schism, part of Benjamin remained with the North while another re-
mained with the South(1 Kgs 12:21; 2 Chr 11:1–4).
Why was Benjamin mentioned in this psalm especially as Benjamin in territory and
in number was so small? “There is Benjamin, the least of them in the lead” (Ps 68:28).
 Psalm 80 61
To answer that question we must first resolve the critical question: Is the appear-
ance of Benjamin in the text authentic? Herkenne says it is the greatest difficulty in
understanding the hymn.

Die Hauptschwierigkeit für die Eklärung des Liedes in v. 3a

“Erscheine vor Ephraim, Benjamin und Manasses.” Dieser
stichus mit 4 anstatt 3 Hebungen rythmisch abweicht, fällt
die Nennung Benjamins zwischen den beiden, sonst stets
zusammen gennanten Josephusstämme Ephraim und Manasses
auf.58

If “Benjamin were omitted, the psalm would be addressing the northern tribes only,
which would confirm that the crisis threatened first and foremost the northern
tribes. Omitting Benjamin would also restore the meter. The critical apparatus of
BH suggests the deletion of either Benjamin or Manasseh, but there is no support in
any manuscript for the deletion.
It should also be noted that during the Israelite journey through the wilderness,
the Rachel tribes of Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh journeyed close to the Ark
on the west side (Num 2:18–22). In all probability they stuck together. In the Book-
let of Consolations, Rachel mourned for her children, the northern tribes, carried
off into captivity (Jer 31:15).
It is possible, nay most probable, that “Benjamin” was added later after the fall of
Jerusalem, when the text was redacted to include the South represented by “Ben-
jamin.” Consequently the prayer was for Israel in the religious sense. The final
redaction would have taken place in the exilic or post-exilic period.
That Yahweh should rouse from his “slumber” and do battle for his people is not
new in biblical tradition. A parallel passage is found in the Psalter

Rouse yourself: Why do you sleep, Yahweh?

Awake! Do not cast us of for ever.
Why do you hide your face?
Why do you forget our affliction and oppression?
(Ps 44:23–24)

Yahweh is asked to arise and work his saving deeds for his people as in the days of
old.
O God, return to us. Un¢byi$ Áh haˇ sˆıb¯ enˆu “to turn.” It is the Hiphil of bU$ sub.
Hirsch thinks that the verse has to do with return from exile

The entire Psalm is dedicated to generations of Israel which, enmeshed

in the sufferings of exile, called upon God to return to them.59
62 The Vine, Israel and the Church
However the “turn” is not a “return” from the exile. The turn around is not in the
people but in God. It is for this metabasis that Israel is praying. The people, for their
part, promise their response—their anabasis.
v. 4 The affliction of the people is fundamentally a trial of faith. They suffer not
only because of the foe attacks but primarily by being separated from God, by being
subjected to his anger. Whether they had sinned or not is not the case in question.
Rather it is the fury and the anger of God that shakes them to the bone marrow.

uUn¢byi$Ah On this Weiser makes a very important comment. The term

comprises simultaneously man’s external metabasis and metanoia:
restoration of external circumstances and the turning of man’s soul to
God. Both of these happenings represent the “renewal of the con-
venant,” and both of them are possible only if God on his part . . . turns
again to his people and brings about that encounter in the theophany
from which all the divine blessings flow.60

The prayer of the psalm hopes to bring about that encounter between God and his
people. God is requested to turn around, to return to his people, to let his face shine
on them once more, and his people will have peace. It is the estrangement that re-
sulted in God hiding his face from his people. It is the absence of God, the absence
of the light of his face, that has brought the calamity. If Yahweh’s face shines on his
people, he blesses them with peace.
v. 4 Refrain. The refrain, one of the characteristics of this psalm, is found in vv. 4,
8 and 20. To avoid repetition, we study the three verses here.
A refrain is not peculiar to Ps 80: it is found also in Pss 46 (3x); Ps 67 (2x); Ps 59
(2x); Ps 107 (4x), though occasionally with minor variations. The refrain is the per-
sistent prayer to God, an untiring reminder to God of his people’s most pressing
need, a prayer that is not prepared to accept “no” for an answer. This prayer does not
care for stylistic variations; it is stubborn in its insistence often using identical words
(Matt 26:44).

The refrain uses various epithets in addressing God:

a) Elohim v.4
b) Elohim Sebaoth v. 8
c) Yahweh, Elohim Sebaoth v. 20

In the MT, v. 8 reads tO)fb: c {iyholE) Elohim Seb¯aˆoth. For quite some time these
words—Elohim Sebaoth –created grammatical and syntactical problems for schol-
ars. Normally one would expect tO)fb: s y¢holE), Elohe being in the construct. To solve
the problem, some scholars believe that Elohim was a mechanical substitution for
yhwh.61 Anderson thinks that originally the reading could have been “O God of
 Psalm 80 63
Hosts” as in vv. 7 and 14, while in v. 4 and 19 the reading was “O Lord, God of
Hosts,” which could have represented a mixed reading. Consequently he concludes

It is likely that Elohim was substituted for Yahweh, but familiarity with
the usual expression created the reading which is syntactically difficult.62

Reasoning along the same line Kraus says

In the Elohistically revised part of the Psalter, we should here read hwhy
instead of Elohim. In its refrain, Ps 80 shows traces of Elohistic tradi-
tion. {yhl) ¢is to be supplied in vv. 7, 19, and S.63

But the problem can easily be solved via the Ugaritic where the phenomenon “En-
clitic Mem” is found,64 which is also extant in Hebrew. Besides vv. 5 and 20, En-
clitic Mem is found again in Ps 84:9.
The Enclitic Mem is often associated with the genitive. It was used at the end of
a word and so was assumed to have been enclitic (to have leaned) on that word. In
Hebrew, sometimes it has the emphatic force and sometimes serves as a morpheme
for indetermination. It occurs with almost every part of speech—verbs, nouns, ad-
verbs, etc. Most common are its use in the middle of the construct chain. Enclitic
Mem is very common in poetry.65 Consequently, the correct understanding of the
text is “God of Hosts”, treating the “ Mem” in Elohim as enclitic. It does not affect
the translation significantly.
It is possible that the variation in the three invocations of God’s name was
strictly intentional and suggested the rising tempo in the earnestness of the people’s
prayer—“O God,” “O God of Hosts,” “O Yahweh, God of Hosts.” This is the opinion
of S. Terrien66 and is shared by Franz Delitzsch.67We share this opinion and some
rabbinical commentators have more to say.
Hence Hirsch says:

This is a three-fold cry of mounting intensity (vv. 4, 8, 20) calling upon

God to return to Israel. These degrees of urgency are expressed in a cor-
responding increase in the designations employed for the Name of God:
first {yql) then yO)bc a and finally yO)bc {yql) d.68

Then he continues:

though the Jews were guilty of idolatry, they had repented and thus be-
came one of God’s legions, one of the many groups and forces which func-
tion to do his will.69
64 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Hirsch also speaks about three separate exiles about which the Jews prayed—the
exile of the Ten Tribes, the Babylonian exile and the Roman exile.70 Feuer on the
other hand says

The exile of Ten Tribes is not commonly reckoned among the exiles be-
cause they are regarded as a rebellious offshoot, rather than an essential
part of the nation.71

For Rashi the three exiles are the Babylonian Exile, the Greek subjugation and the
Roman Exile.72
v.5 Yahweh Sebaoth. This divine name and title occurs 284x in the OT, out of
which 251x in prophetic writings. It is not found in the Pentateuch and occurs for
the first time in 1 Sam 1:3, 11, and frequently at the time of the Judges. The formu-
laic expression is “Yahweh who sits / is enthroned on the cherubs” (1 Sam 4:4; 2
Sam 6:2; Isa 37:16).
The title has its origin in Shiloh traditions and was used most regularly in the
context of the ark and of war. Yahweh, the Savior of Israel, shows forth his power
mainly in war: He leads his people to war and to victory. With the destruction of
Shiloh, the tradition was brought to the temple in Jerusalem where Yahweh was
worshipped not only as a warrior but also as King (Isa 6:5) and as the Holy One of
Israel (Isa 12:6).
It is necessary to emphasize that the name “Yahweh Sebaoth” is found mainly in
prophetic writings

Isaiah 1—39 56x

Jeremiah (MT) 82x (LXX 10x)
Isaiah 40—55 6x
Haggai 14x
Zechariah 53x
Malachy 24x

It is not found in Trito-Isaiah or Ezekiel and only 15x in the Psalter. Hence Met-
tinger says

The prophets have one notable feature in common: they represent a tra-
dition closely associated with the Jerusalem temple. Is the name Se-
baoth in some way contingent on this temple tradition?73

Sebaoth can mean “armies” or “military forces” (Judg 4:2, 7), “compulsory service”
(Isa 40:2; Job 7:1), “service of worship” (Num 4:3; 8:4) “heavenly bodies” (Deut 4:
19; 2 Kgs 17:6). With such a variety and complexity of meanings, it becomes more
 Psalm 80 65
difficult to define “Sebaoth.” Mettinger, because of the numerous associations of Se-
baoth with Yahweh seated or enthroned on the cherubs concludes that the designa-
tion has its home in the temple in Jerusalem; to God invisibly enthroned on the
cherubs in the Holy of Holies.

If the Sebaoth name refers to God as the heavenly King, and the term
s¯ab¯a in the singular is a common term for the heavenly host surrounding
the throne, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the Sebaoth
name is to be interpreted on the basis of this use of the word s¯ab¯a rather
than on the basis of its application to Israel’s mortal armies, or to the
universe in general, or anything else. The Sebaoth name speaks of God
as “yhwh of heavenly hosts.”74

In studying the divine name and title, Yahweh Sebaoth, Feuer noted that the name
comprised the tetragrammaton and Sebaoth. The name hwhy is composed of letters
of hfyfh, then hewoh and finally hewhiy—He was, He is, He will be—and this represents the
eternal aspect as the God of the entire development of history, from its genesis to
the most distant future. Hence Feuer translates Sebaoth as “God of the Legions”
and says it refers to God’s control over the forces of creation.76
But Mettinger’s understanding of Sebaoth, original and beautiful though it may
be, does not sufficiently take into consideration the etymology, its uses in and
around the sanctuary of Shiloh and many references to “God of Hosts” in the con-
text of war and victory. It is incontrovertible that the title was used of Yahweh as
God of War especially in the time of the Judges. There is the unresolved problem
whether the Ark was used as a palladium (1 Sam 4:3–11).
Sebaoth is very rich in meaning and the title Elohe Sebaoth was used for many
centuries in Israel’s history. Sebaoth refers therefore to all bodies, multitudes, masses
in general, the content of all that exists in heaven on earth, and under the earth. It
is in the light of this that the LXX translates the epithet as ku/ rioj twªn duna/
mewn Kyrios ton dyname¯on. It is a witness to an ancient tradition which understands
the name in terms of some power or forces. The earliest form tO)fb: Cah y¢hole) hOhy
YHWH Elohe hassebaoth (Amos 3:13; 6:14; Hos 12:6) is found 14x in the MT
whereas the shorter form is Yahweh Sebaoth.
Understanding Sebaoth is not a matter of either/or; we are not in the realm of
concepts which are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. Rich in mean-
ing, it was used for many centuries at various periods and circumstances of Israel’s
history. Fairness and objectivity compel us to admit development of such a house-
hold term.
However it is incontrovertible that the meaning has to do with force, energy and
dynamism. Hence we prefer to understand the term as God who is energy Himself
and the source of power in the Universe, in the tripartite division of the Universe.
66 The Vine, Israel and the Church

How long will you fume while your people pray? yatfm da( ad m¯athaˆy ¢is a cry and an
earnest prayer as well. It is used when the suppliant seems to have come to the end
of the road, a desperate plea to God to end the calamity. It occurs 43x in the MT
and means “how long,” “for how long,” “when?”
The verb }¢&a( ‘aś¯ en means “to smoke, to be wroth.”77 b }#(means “to smoke
against, to fume against, to be wroth with”. Briggs says that the hard breathing of
passion resemble smoke going forth form the nostrils.78 Hence reasoning along this
line, one would translate the text as “How long will you fume against the prayers of
your people?”
The LXX understands the psalm as God being angry with the prayers of his peo-
ple hence he inquires

ku/ rie o (qeo\j twªn duna/ mewn

Ewj po/ te orgi/ c$ e)pi \ th\n proseuxh\n toªu dou/ lou sou.
“Yahweh, God of Hosts,
how long will you be angry over the prayer of your servant”

The LXX calls Israel “servant” not “people.”

In the Aramaic }y¢&A( asˆen means “to be angry, to be heavy.” Applied to the text,
it would mean that Yahweh was angry with the prayers offered to him. But a ques-
tion immediately arises: How could God be angry with the prayers of his people?
There are texts which indicate that God did not take pleasure in his peoples’
prayers and turned his face away from them (Isa 1:15); rejected their fasts and
holocausts (Jer 14:11, 12; Isa 58:4). Israel’s sins created a gulf between God and
themselves and so God veiled his face from them (Isa 59:2). In Lamentations 3:4
we read

You have wrapped yourself with a cloud

so that no prayer can pass through.

However, there is great difference between God being angry with the prayers of his
people and God turning his face away from their prayers. In order to resolve this ap-
parent difficulty some scholars resorted to finding an alternate root for }#(.
According to G. R. Driver, the verb }#(when applied to anger, requires v) aph as
its subject (Deut 29:19; Ps 74:1). In Aramaic the root which means, also “to be
heavy, to be strong” metaphorically would mean “to be obdurate, to be hard-
hearted.” Hence according to Driver the text would be understood as “How long
will thou be obdurate ‘in the matter of’ or against thy peoples’ prayer.”79
Delitzsch thinks that the transferring of smoking of God’s nostrils (fuming; pant-
ing with wrath (Ps 74:1; Deut 19:9) to God himself is bold: however, it is in the
spirit of the biblical view of God’s wrath.”80
 Psalm 80 67

v) denotes “nostril, nose, face, anger.” hfrfx Óharˆah is “to burn, be kindled of
anger.” V) hrxha harah aph means that “anger was kindled” while b hrx Óharˆah be
means that “the anger was kindled against.”
Guichou concludes by asking how long would the anger of God continue to re-
sist the assault of their prayers. Moreover even the punishment was obviously so
grave that the pagan nations were already scandalized.

Jusque a\ quand la fureur de Yahweh va-t-elle resister a\

l’assault des supplications? Dailleurs le chatiment déja\
administré—suffit amplement, puisque le peuple se
rassassie exclusivament de larmes l’est-a-dire de
souffrance, et que son humiliation scandalize les paiens
eux-memes.81

However, the construction :b }¢&f(is not to be understood after b hrx for the prayer
of the people is not the object of wrath but only the means whereby wrath is laid
aside?82
Consequently, b should be translated as temporal “Why do you fume while your
people pray?” God seems to fume while his people pray. The lack of response on the
part of God is due to the absence of God, to his anger, to hiding his face. God’s si-
lence is a confirmation of God’s anger which is very oppressive to those suffering.
Hence we read in Isa 64:11

Yahweh, can you go unmoved by all this,

oppressing us beyond measure by your silence?
(Translation: Mine)

v.6. BREAD OF TEARS. It is bread or food consisting of tears running down the
cheeks of the suppliants and upon the lips of the fasting and praying people, thus be-
coming their food and drink. It is not bread eaten with tears but bread consisting of
tears. This image is quite common in the Bible.

“My tears have been my food night and day” (Ps 42:4). Isaiah speaks of
“bread of adversity and water of affliction” (30:20).

Om ¢q:$aTaw wataˇ sq¯ emˆo It comes from the root hq$ ˇ sqh “to give to drink, to drink
water.” When followed by b, it means “to give drink by means of something.”83
Tears by the bowl. $iylf$ ˇ s¯alˆıˇ s can mean “a third, three-stringed,” “an adjutant or
officer.”84 It is found in the Ugaritic as “t l t “a third, thrice or plow,”85 or a “metal,
probably bronze copper.”86 Some texts of the Scriptures confirm this understanding.
“Who has measured the dust of the earth in a bowl?” (Isa 40:12) “The blood of the
68 The Vine, Israel and the Church

grape you will drink by the bowl” (Deut 32:146). The LXX translates #yl# by en
metrw. en metro “in or by measure”.
Rashi offers an allegorical interpretation which renders $yilf$ ˇ salˆıˇ s as a cognate
of $yil:$ “ a third” or $olf$ “three.” “Three” describes the three exiles of the Jews—
the Babylonian Exile, the Greek subjugation and the Roman Exile. According to
Rashi, the first lasted seventy years, a third of the Egyptian bondage. The second,
the Greek subjugation, came after the two preceding exiles. The third, the Roman
Exile, was imposed by the Romans whom he calls the descendants of Esau.87
#yl#, however, is an instrument for measuring one third of an indeterminate ob-
ject.88 Though the third part of an ephah is a puny measure for dust of the earth, it is
a large measure for tears. The psalmist laments that the God of Israel has given his
people tears for food and made them drink their tears by the bowls. A very cryptic
description of their sad and tragic situation!!
The imagery of drinking tears in sorrow is found in ANE. In Ugaritic Text 49:1:
10, we read: tˇst hyn udm‘t = “She drank tears like wine”. A bowl of tears is not easy
to come by. Trouble and tears have become as much a part of the peoples’ lives as
food and drink for daily sustenance.89
v. 7 Derision of Neighbors. The MT says: You have made us }wdm madˆon to our
neighbors. }wdm means “strife, contention.”90 The text would then mean that Yah-
weh has made them an object of contention and strife to their neighbors, i.e. the
neighbors want to parcel out their land. They loot their property and even fight
over the loot. Briggs understands the text to mean that Israel’s neighbors fight
among themselves over the spoils taken from Israel whether land or other goods.91
Delitzsch says

The neighbors are the neighboring peoples to whom Israel has become
}wdm, an object of contention.92

Tate suggests that the text be understood that

the enemies use the strife for themselves, for their own interest (not
likely, “have strife among themselves”)93-

Syntactically :l }Odm madon le would be ethical dative or dative of interest which ex-
presses advantage or disadvantage.94 Waltke and O’Connor call it lamedh of interest
or (dis)advantage (dativus commodi et incommodi). 95
BH on the other hand proposes an amendment: to read dOnfm m¯anˆod “shaking,
wagging, shaking of head in derision.”96 The text would then mean: “You have
made us an object of head-shaking or wagging of head for our neighbors”, i.e. you
have made us an object of mockery among our neighbors. This would agree with Ps
44:14–15 where we read
 Psalm 80 69
You have made us the taunt of our neighbors,
The derision and scorn of those about us.
You have made us a byword among the nations
a laughing stock among the peoples.

This opinion is upheld by Gunkel who translates the word as “Schutteln des
Kopfes”97 e.g. “wagging of the head”
But Dahood does not follow the proposed emendation of BH. Instead he pre-
ferred to relate the word to the Ugaritic dnt which means “baseness, shame”98 which
is in parallelism with btt “shame” and tdmm “abuse.” He thinks that the root is
dana’a which means “to be vile, disgraceful” and would therefore yield the following
meaning “You have made us a vile object, a disgraceful matter, an object of deri-
sion.” He reinforces his position by comparison with a parallel passage in Ps 44:14
which reveals that madon and herpah “taunt” are synonymous.99
It does appear that the opinion of Dahood is more plausible. There is no need to
resort to textual emendation suggested by BH which has no support from any man-
uscript. The text therefore means that the plight of oppressed makes them a laugh-
ing stock to their unsympathetic neighbors.
The neighbors laugh among themselves. The critical apparatus of BH with the LXX,
S and luxta Hebraeos reads Unl l¯anˆu which means “laughs us to scorn” instead of the
Oml lamo i.e. “laugh among themselves.” The verb , ga(l l¯a‘g, means to “mock, de-
ride, jest.”100 There is no need to follow the proposed emendation as the text in it-
self makes perfect sense: in fact it gives clearer meaning than the proposed emenda-
tion and fits the context better. Israel’s neighbors make her an object of derision, an
object of drunkard’s song. (Ps 69:13). Later Judah was to become a laughing stock of
object of derision among the countries (Ezk 16:57). This is another instance of eth-
ical dative.
v. 9 The vine vv. 9–17. We come now to the third and to a very important part
of this psalm, which, because of the allegory of the vine, is the kefala/ion; the
kephalayon, the central section and therefore most important section of our study
of this psalm. We shall, however, not repeat what has been said earlier on the
vine. Cheyne says that vv. 9–12 are a fine allegorical picture of Israel as a vine
(comp. esp. Isa 3:14; 5:1–7; Hos 10:1; Gen 49:22).101 This section gives an ac-
count of the Heilsgeschichte in the individual form of allegory in which imagery
and interpretation intermingle. The vine typifies the Dionysian world of fecun-
dity and growth.102
Like the flock, the vine and vineyard represent a basic and a familiar possession
that was owned, cared for and prized as a primary good of life.

Chaque paysan Israelite cultivait une vigne

avec un soin jaloux et vigilant.103
70 The Vine, Israel and the Church
The vine is the most precious of Israel’s three royal plants (Cfr Judg 9:7–15) and
so seems an apt emblem of God’s people, which is the nation of nations.104 As sheep
demands more care than other domestic animals, so the vine needs more continous
and careful attention than any other produce of the land.105
Consequently Israel is the vine. Here the union of privilege and responsibility
finds very rich and sweet expression. Israel is a luxuriant vine that yields its fruit.
The vine emblem is common on Jewish coins and was admirably expressed in the
colossal golden vine which hung, for the reception of golden gifts, in the porch of
Herod’s temple and spreading its branches under the cornices.106 There are also
coins of vine branch with leaf and tendril and with the inscription }Oyc tdrx “the
deliverance of Zion.”107
The vine played an important role in life in Palestine and it is quite natural that
it should be used in literature as a symbol of greatness, blessings, fruitfulness, joy and
peace.
Hirsch believes that vv. 9–12 narrate the cry that comes from the third Galuth,
an exile that began but without any definite date set for its end. He says

Verse 9–12 give a description of what God has done for us, an allegori-
cal account of the manner in which he has set us up as His own plant in
the midst of mankind.108

This is clearly an allegorization of the psalm, applying it to a much later period and
without due reference to its Sitz im Leben.

3.3.1 The Mid-Section

This mid- section begins by placing God’s redemptive act at the Exodus firmly on
the basis of all that is to follow. It places the dark catastrophe of the present in front
of the bright background of the first fundamental salvific deeds of Yahweh. The im-
agery now changes: the image of the Shepherd of Israel is replaced by that of the
vine grower.
The section on the vine, which is the mid- section, is a very important part of the
psalm. It is neither an afterthought nor a diversion from the plea for mercy and
restoration. It is the central section of the psalm, its kefalaion kephalaion. What
preceded the section is a preparation for what is to follow as it summarizes the
teaching of the psalm and gives the reasons why God has to rouse himself and re-
store Israel. The Shepherd of Israel, because of Israel’s history and his commitment
to her, has to visit and protect the vine his right hand has planted, and so prove he
is Yahweh the God of hosts enthroned on the cherubs.
v. 9 A vine you brought out of Egypt. That the emphasis is on the vine is indicated
by its position in the text
 Psalm 80 71
“A vine you brought out of Egypt.” It recalls Hosea 11:1

When Israel was a child, I loved him

and out of Egypt, I called my son.

It was the Exodus that forged the various tribes of Jacob into a nation. The basis was
the promise made to Abraham (Gen 12:1–3; 15:1–20). This vine, this choice
plant, was taken out of Egypt. The vine can easily be moved from one place to an-
other and given good conditions, will bud and flourish.
In order to give Israel a home, Yahweh dispossessed the Canaanites. Giving Is-
rael the land of the nations is the planting of Israel. Yahweh, by a positive act of his
will, drove out the nations to indicate his displeasure in them (Deut 7:1–6; Exod
23:20–33). But he found pleasure in the children of Abraham: he loved them and
chose them as his special possession (Deut 7:6–8).
The Lord therefore drove away the inhabitants of the land to make room for Is-
rael. The word used , $rg grˇ s, is a strong word. The nations so dispossessed are the
Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and the Jebusites
(Deut 7:1), the seven nations regarded as the traditional enemies of Israel (Deut 20:
17–18; Exod 34:11).
The dispossession of the Canaanites is attested to in other biblical traditions. A
good example is found in the Psalter

You, with your own hand drove out the nations

but you did plant them.
You did afflict peoples
but you set them free (Ps 44:3).

The same idea is found in Ps. 78. Yahweh is said to lead his people like a sheep (vv.
52–53b), driving out the nations in order to give them an inheritance and settling
the tribes of Israel in it (v. 55).
Though vine grew in Egypt, the terrain was not ideal for viticulture. Palestine
presented more favorable conditions. Analogically Israel lived in Egypt for 400
years (Gen 15:13; Acts 7:6) or 430 years (Exod 12:40, 41; Gal 3:17) but because of
the Promise, Israel had to be transplanted to the Promised Land. This planting is di-
vine activity and the verb is (+n nt‘. The same verb is used of Baal’s activity. In UT
76:11:24 we read

nt‘n bars iby “we have planted my foes in the earth.”

The underlying idea is that Israel had become so great in Egypt (Exod 1:7; 22) that
it had to be transplanted. We read in Midrash Rabba on Exodus Ch. 44
72 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Why is Israel compared to a vine? Because just as a
vine, when its owners seek to improve it, is uprooted
from its place and planted elsewhere, and then it
flourishes, so when God intended to make Israel’s fame
known throughout the world, He plucked them out of
Egypt . . . .109

Also in Rabba Leviticus Ch. 36 we read;

Just as one does not plant a vine in a place, where

there are great, rough stones, but thoroughly examines
the ground and then plants it, so thou didst drive out
peoples and didst plant it. . . .110

v. 10 You removed those before her. The Hebrew text reads fhy¢nfplº f ityiniP pinnˆıth¯a
lepaneha which could be translated: “You cleared before it.” Hence BH in its critical
apparatus suggests that Ii\reD derek “a way or road” may have accidentally been
dropped from the text. With derek inserted one could then translate; “You prepared
the way (the ground) before her.”
Dahood does not see the need to introduce \rd into the text. Instead, based on
the Phoenician he translates “hlpnyhm” as “those who were before them” and
quotes Eccl 4:16 and Job 21:18 to prove that the preposition, “hlpnyhm” was used
as a substantive.111 Gunkel notes that fhy¢nfp: l ftiniP is a word play “Wortspiel” and
translated the verb as “ausräumen.”112 i.e. “to clean before”.
There us no need to introduce \rd especially a it is not attested in any MSS.
Hence we believe that the text should be translated as “You removed those who
were before her,” not “you cleared the ground” as in RSV and NIV.
As for the vine, many modern versions make }epeG the subject of the verb $er:$at: w
taˇ sreˇ s i.e. the vine took root. But the LXX and luxta Hebraeos make God the subject:
i.e. it is God who made the vine take root, and fill the land. This reading seems
preferable and more in consonance with the theology of the psalm which makes the
uprooting, the planting and the nurturing of the vine exclusively divine activities.
Hence instead of reading )¢Lam:Taw watemalle’ “and it filled the earth” with the MT; we
should with the LXX, S and luxta Hebraeos read )¢lfmiTaw watimm¯al¯ e’ as piel and
translate as: “you made her fill the land.”
To give more weight to his arguments, Dahood quotes the Ugaritic Text of 1
Aqht:159–60 ˇsrˇsk bar¸s al yp‘—“May your roots not flourish in the earth.” Then he
concludes

The psalmist depicts God as the immediate cause of the

heathens’ expulsion from Palestine, of Israel’s implantation
 Psalm 80 73
therein, and of her subsequent expansion throughout the
Holy Land.”113

By planting Israel in the land of Promise, which is ultimate goal of the Exodus, Yah-
weh fulfilled the promise he made to Abraham to give his descendants the land of
Canaan (Gen 12:7; 15:18–21). Planting is a decisive act: it is an act indicating per-
manence: it is the irrevocable will of God. God drove out ($rg) garas the nations
but planted ((+n) nata‘ Israel.
Because the planting and the taking of roots are direct actions of God, the con-
sequence is the phenomenal growth and fruitfulness of the vine. Hence the psalmist
says that the vine took deep roots in the earth and filled the land.
v. 11 The growth of the vine. The vine grew and flourished so that it covered the
mountains with its shades (an obvious hyperbolism) and the mighty cedars, the
“cedars of God” with its boughs. The branches are envisaged as climbing the top of
the highest of cedars of Lebanon and covering its mountain ranges. The cedars were
described as the cedars of El. Some commentators like Gunkel,114 Kraus,115 Briggs,116
and Weiser,117 translate it as “the cedars of God.” However, D. Winston Thomas
believes that divine names, El or Elohim, can be used as epithets with an intensify-
ing or superlative force e.g. {yiholE) )yi&: n ne si elohim “a mighty prince” (Gen 23:6),
le)y¢r: rah harre-el “great mountains” (Ps 36:7) and so “cedars of God” would mean
“the goodly cedars.”118 Dahood, in perfect agreement, cites an Amarna text and
quotes kasap ilanu “the very finest silver” and a Ugaritic text tlÓhn il “a splendid
table.”119 Therefore, the correct translation should be “the great or mighty cedars”
That the shades of the vine covered the mighty cedars of Lebanon portrays Israel’s
complete and undisturbed possession of the land.
The vine extended its branches as far as to the Mediterranean Sea and to the
River Euphrates. We have here the description of the wonderful growth of the vine.
The mountains are the desert hills of the South; the mighty cedars of Lebanon are
to the North; the sea is the Mediterranean Sea to the West; while the River, the Eu-
phrates, is to the East.120 In Deut 11:24, the land of Promise is described as extend-
ing “from the wilderness to Lebanon, from the River to the Western Sea.” On the
day of his enthronment a prayer offered for the King was that he rule from Sea to
Sea, from the River to the ends of the earth.” (Ps 72:8) The Mediterranean Sea
(The Sea) and the Euphrates (The River) were the ideal boundaries of the kingdom
of David; his kingdom as its zenith (1 Kgs 4:24; Zech 9:10). For David defeated the
Philistines, the Moabites, the Kindgom of Zobah on his way to the River and im-
posed tribute on the King of Hamath. He also subjugated the Ammonites, the
Philistines and the Amalekites (2 Sam 8:1–14).
God made space for Israel; secured it and gave it the possibility of unimpeded ex-
pansion. He made sure that Israel took roots and spread through the land. Setting
out roots and filling the land is an image that beautifully illustrates Israel’s right of
74 The Vine, Israel and the Church

ownership over the land. Israel was no longer an alien r¢G ger (Exod 22:10; Deut 10:
19) or a sojourn bf$OT tˇosaÓb (Exod 12:45; Lev 22:10) but had taken full control of
the encompassing territory. This recalls the oracle of Isaiah

In the days to come Jacob shall take root, Israel shall blossom and put
forth shoots, and fill the land with its fruits (27:6).

As in the Canticle of the Vine, the vine metaphor interprets the history of Israel. It
covers its history from the Exodus through the conquest to the possession of the
land right up to Davidic times. That was the Davidic empire at its zenith.
The metaphor serves as a recollection of the past which is the basis for this
prayer. If Yahweh had such grandiose plans and expectations for Israel and even
made them a reality, he certainly will continue to protect and prosper the vine for
his own name’s sake, not necessarily for the desserts of Israel. It would be very ap-
propriate to quote at length what some Jewish sage, as narrated by Hirsch, says
about Israel as a vine.

Thou didst cause }pg, a tribe of men destined for a

sublime purpose, to grow into a nation in Egypt. Then Thou
didst pluck it up from there in order to transplant it to a more
suitable soil. This transplanting was a matter of such importance
to Thee at the time, that Thou didst drive away other nations
from their dwelling places in order to implant this one ‘vine’
that is Israel. Thou didst clear away from before it all alien
vegetation (verse 10) that might inhibit its growth, so that
it might strike roots and fill up the soil assigned to it. And
it flourished (verse 11) growing high above all other great
nations and throwing them into the shade. And anyone
looking at its sons and tribes, could readily see that they
were indeed plants of God.121

He went on further to say

Israel occupied a central position in the world’s lanes of

commerce through the boundaries to the west and the
north (verse 12). It sent its harvest to the Mediterranean
Sea, which links nations and continents, and it benefited
from the products of the kingdoms on the Euphrates River.122

v. 13 Abandonment by Yahweh. The parable of the vine here introduces anguish and
bewilderment of the people over the contrast and contradiction between what God
began and what he is doing right now. The same vineyard which has been so care-
 Psalm 80 75
fully tendered by God is now abandoned by God Himself. God has withdrawn his
presence, hence the ensuing catastrophe.
The psalmist acknowledges that the plight of Israel was not due to the numerical
strength of the enemy, nor to his mighty arsenal not to superior military strategy,
but only because God had turned his face away from Israel. The responsibility of
their misfortune is entirely God’s. Hence in this section of the lament, You (sg) re-
ferring to God, is the primary subject, just as in setting up Israel as a nation. You,
God, are solely responsible. Hence we note

You brought a vine out of Egypt.

You drove out the nations.
You planted the vine.
You removed those before her.
You made her take roots.
You made her fill the earth.
You made her spread to the Sea and to the River.

But also towards the destruction of the vine, Yahweh did the following

You fume while your people pray to you.

You feed them with tears for food.
You give them their tears in bowls to drink.
You make them the derision of their neighbors.
You make their enemies laugh them to scorn.
You remove the hedges of your vineyard.
You make all passers-by pluck its fruit.
You cause the wild boar ravage it.
You make it possible for all creatures that live in the fields to feed on it.

With regard to the restoration, God is called upon to act once again. This time the
appeal is made in the Imptv. sg.

Look down from heaven and see.

Visit this vine.
Establish firm control over what your hand has done.

Changing the mood of the verb he continues

May the oppressors perish at your angry rebuke.

Revive us and we shall call upon your name.

Israel has one and only one problem:The Divine Thou.

76 The Vine, Israel and the Church

v. 13 Why have you broken down its fences? The root rdg gdr means “to wall off, to
wall up, to build a wall.” The noun redeG geder, tfered: G g‘dereth (f) means “wall, an en-
closing wall, a hedge.”123 The normal security enclosure for a vineyard is a hedge
(Num 22:24; Isa 5:5) though on rare occasions the vineyard can be surrounded with
a wall even after a hedge has been erected around it. Without this protection the
vineyard is doomed to destruction. Now the hedges are not only left unkempt; God
willingly and deliberately joins hands with the enemy to destroy the hedges and so
bring destruction and desolation to the vineyard. The question is: WHY? hfMl.
LAMMAH?
The psalmist asks the question using the polite hml lammah (etymologically l
“for” and hfm mâh “what”) instead of the more emphatic a(Udam, madûa 72 times in
MT (from the root (dy y¯adae) which means “on what account, wherefore, how
come?” The psalmist is not entirely surprised at God’s action hence hml; which is a
complaint as much as a prayer. It is like the prayerful yatfm-d(ad mathay (Cfr Isa 6:11
or Ps 6:6) which occurs 43x in the MT and means “for how long?”
Rather the psalmist is genuinely concerned about God’s anger. He is apprehensive
that his continued anger might result in the rejection of Israel and in the repudiation
of the covenant. That would spell doom—the end of the vineyard and the destruction
of Israel. By pulling down the hedges, the oracle of Isaiah in the Canticle of the Vine,
Isa 5:5, is fulfilled. In fact this psalm seems to be a partial fulfillment of the threat.
Moreover, the same punitive acts of breaking down the walls, despoiling Israel,
making her the scorn of her neighbors and covering her with shame are also found
in another tradition of the Psalter Ps 89:41–42. With the walls broken down and
the hedges removed, human beings passing by gain free entry into the vineyard,
while roaming animals move about unhindered.
Although the psalmist implies that the burning anger of Yahweh against vine-
yard is justified, surprisingly he does not admit any sin on the part of Israel. There
are many instances in biblical tradition e.g. the Babylonian exile, when Israel was
punished, but contumaciously refused to admit guilt. Rather she protested her inno-
cence and laid the blame not only on others but even on God. The following texts
in psalm 44 illustrate the point:

v. 17 All this has come upon us

yet we had not forgotten you
or been false to your covenant.

v. 18 Our hearts have not turned back

nor our steps departed from your way.

v. 20 If we had forgotten the name of our God

or spread out our hands to a strange God . . .
 Psalm 80 77
This psalm puts the burden of their suffering squarely on God
In Lamentations 5:7 we read:

Our fathers sinned: they are no more

and yet we bear the burden of their iniquity. (Translation:mine).

The famous texts of Jeremiah 31:29 and Ezekiel 18:2 are pertinent:

The fathers have eaten sour grapes

and the children’s teeth are set on edge.

Here, however, guilt is implied and the justice of God is not questioned. Rather Is-
rael pleads for mercy and asks for restoration. The congregation is aware that its suf-
fering is caused by God turning away his face. God’s promises are not questioned.

The prayer concentrates with a single focus, one thing

alone—“the divine Thou.” It addresses the God, the
actor of the congregation’s experience of salvation and
suffering and seeks God’s resumption of his earlier
work of restoration.124

The prayer is for God’s turning back. Every Israelite is aware of the enormous dis-
tance between the heavens and the earth: but God dwells in the highest heavens.
Nevertheless from the highest heavens he looks down with love and pity on the
“children of men.” Hence we read in Isaiah 63:15

Look down from heaven and see

from your holy and glorious habitation.
Where are your zeal and might?
The yearning of your heart and your compassion
are withheld from me.

Despite their prayer the congregation is aware that the distance between God and
his people has been widened. The distance confirms that the calamity they face can
only end if God narrows the gap. Hence Mays says:

The psalm is a witness that the congregation must in the

long last and in its extremity look away from its repentance
to a kind of repentance in God—in turning away from
wrath and returning to grace. The trust that God will in the
end do so is based on nothing in the congregation. It is
78 The Vine, Israel and the Church
based on the self-understanding that the congregation is the
work of God . . . . Believing that, the congregation can hope
that God will not abandon what he has begun.125

That explains why there is no confession of sin, no admittance of guilt, even though
the congregation does not presume to declare itself innocent or imply that God was
guilty.
By calling to mind the events of the Exodus, the psalm is not a recollection of
“the good old days” so that the present affliction may become more impressive
against that background: on the contrary it is the point where God and his people
meet, an encounter which has come to pass not only in the bygone days but which
takes place afresh during the representation of the Heilsgeschichte in cult. The past
and the present are here inextricably woven because it is God’s presence, then and
now, which is at stake.126 The calamity of the present contrasts with God’s redemp-
tive deeds of the past. Would God wish to destroy the works of salvation which he
initiated, to which he is committed and which he can still bring to fulfillment?
Sin is not the issue, but God’s anger: the anger that makes God turn away his face
from his covenanted people even while they pray with copious tears. The problem
now is: how does Israel link up with God again especially as the surest and the most
incontrovertible means of getting his attention and favor has failed? Would his
anger end in disowning Israel, destroying the people as he destroyed the seven na-
tions of Canaan?

They face the incomprehensible problem which calls into

question the meaning of their piety, that the way in which
they seek contact with God leads to their estrangement from
him, that they have to realize that God, upon whom they call
as their helper, is their adversary, and that they have to
experience his anger at the very point where they expected
comfort.127

Their exasperation is expressed in the complaint that their tears have now become
their bread; the tears they shed so plentifully can now satisfy them as food. The land
of promise is no longer a guarantee of divine blessings; they, the pride of the na-
tions, have become an object of mockery among their neighbors.
In the face of these tough conditions and insoluble problems, the people of faith
turn to God, undaunted in prayer. This is the paradox of Israel’s faith. Israel in her
trials does not lose faith in the face of incomprehensibility of God, for the hand that
strikes is the hand that heals (Job 5:18). Their one and only prayer is: return,
lord of hosts.
The boar of the forest. The Hebrew text reads r( yim ryizAx hazir miya‘ar meaning
 Psalm 80 79

“boar, swine” and also “wild boar.”128 ra(ay ya‘ar means “forest, wood, thicket,” hence
the rendering “the boar of the forest” or “the swine of the thicket.” r( yim is written
with suspended ayin ayin suspensum. According to the Babylonian Talmud, the (I is
suspended because it is the middle letter of the Psalter just as the w of }Oxg of Lev 11:
42 is the middle letter of the entire Torah.

The early (scholars) were called soferim because

they used to count all the letters of the Torah. Thus,
they said, the waw in gahon marks half the letters of
Torah; darosh darash, half the words; we-hithggalah
(half) the verses. The boar out of the wood,
doth ravage it: the ayin of yaar marks half of the Psalms.
(Kiddushin 30a)129

The rabbis also taught that there were 5888 verses in the Torah; the psalms exceded
this number by eight while the chronicles were less by eight.130 These statements
cannot easily be verified. However, it does appear that the suspended ayin is an indi-
cation to a marginal reading which with time found itself into the text.
The ryzx is an unclean animal (Lev 11:7; Deut 14:8; Isa 65:4; 66:17) and there-
fore a suitable symbol for Israel’s enemy—strong, wild, destructive, unclean, to be
dreaded and hated. Wild boars live by hundreds among the reeds of Lake Merom.131
In the East, the wild boar is looked upon as the most destructive enemy of the vine-
yard. Strangely enough, damage done by the wild boar to the vineyard is not
recorded anywhere else in biblical tradition though this phenomenon must have
been familiar and regular in the Levant.
Delitzsch prefers to understand the term not necessarily as a wild boar but as “an
untameable vigorous wild animal”132 In the Ugaritic the word is “hzr,” “swine,”133 or
“hnzr” with the same meaning.134
ro): y ye¯or is “the Nile.” The suspended ayin creates the possibility of a variant
reading. If one reads r)yim miyyor it would mean “the boar of the Nile” and therefore
an explicit allusion to Egypt.
To understand the text as “the boar of the Nile” would make the subject specific.
This is not impossible because the Bible has often used animals for countries. For
example, Egypt is called “flies” (Isa 7:18) and “the Leviathan” (Isa 27:1), while the
Pharaoh is “the Dragon” (Ezk 29:3; 32:2). The enemies of Israel have been called
“the beasts that dwell among the reeds” (Ps 68:31). Animals or their symbols are
used to punish Israel for its infidelity. Hence we read in Jer 5:6

A lion from the forest shall slay them, a wolf from the
desert shall destroy them. A leopard is watching against
their cities, everyone who goes out of them shall be torn
80 The Vine, Israel and the Church
to pieces; because their transgressions are many, their
apostasies are great.

Egypt has a long standing history of fomenting trouble and of creating crises in the
Levant to gain political, territorial and economic advantages for itself at the ex-
pense of smaller nations. It has always wanted to be a force to reckon with in the
Fertile Crescent with no scruples in using other nations as pawns. It preferred to use
Israel and other nations to distract Assyria and Babylonia to consolidate her gains.
Egypt often encouraged vassal states to rebel against their overlords. During King
Hezekiah’s reign, even though Judah had sworn allegiance to Assyria, Egypt made a
defense pact with Judah, a pact that Isaiah condemned in strongest terms (Isa 30:1–
5; 33:1–3). Hence the Assyrian cup-bearer-in-chief described Egypt as “the broken
reed of a staff, which pierces the hand that leans on it.” (2 Kgs 18:21)
The Pharaoh, Hophra (589–570) encouraged King Zedekiah of Judah to rebel
against the Babylonians, and even made a show of support and solidarity during the
siege of Jerusalem. But Egypt backed off as soon as the Babylonians advanced to-
wards them (Jer 37:5, 11). The end result was the total destruction of the city, the
razing to the ground of the city walls, the torching of the temple and of the city, the
untold suffering and humiliation of the Judeans (2 Kgs 25; Jer 22), thanks, in great
measure, to the “support” of Egypt.
Kraus135 following Martin Noth136 thinks that “the boar of the Nile” refers to
Neco’s incursion into Judah in the reign of Josiah. This we shall discuss later. But-
tenweiser on the other hand believes that by the “wild boar” the Edomites were
meant.137 He supported his argument from the Ethiopian Book of Henoch 89:12
which speaks of a “black wild boar” (89:42–43). No. 89:66 is very explicit.

So the lions and the leopards ate and devoured the

majority of those sheep: the wild boars also ate
along with them. Then they burnt that tower and
plowed that house.138

Buttenweiser thinks that while “the wild boar” was Edom, Assyria and Babylonia
were called “the lions” and “the tigers” respectively. Consuming the largest part of
the sheep was done by the Assyrians and the Babylonians, while Edom assisted the
Babylonians to overthrow Judah and burn the temple.139 The role played by Edom is
well documented in Israel’s history.

Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites

the day of Jerusalem
how they said: “Raze it, raze it
down to its foundations” (Ps 137:7)
 Psalm 80 81
This tragic memory lingered in Israel’s history as is evident in Ezekiel Ch. 35 espe-
cially vv. 5, 10; and also in Ch. 36, 2–3, 5. There it was recalled that after the fall of
Jerusalem, the Edomites pushed northward and annexed the southern end of Judah.
The Jewish sages see the swine as a symbol of deception and hypocrisy. The swine is
an unclean animal because, though it has cloven hoof, it is not a ruminant (Lev 11:
7). They also identified the swine with Esau and the Roman Empire. Because the
swine has only split hoof Rashi says

When the swine is lying down, it puts out its hoofs

as if to say “I am clean:” so does this wicked state
(Rome) rob and oppress, yet pretend to be executing
justice (Rabba Genesis II 65:1)140

Rashi in his commentary on the Psalm 80 says

Moreover it (the pig) has some of the identifying

marks of purity just as Esau has the merit of the
patriarchs.141

Briggs thinks that the Syrian neighbors could be considered “the boars of the forest”
and the Philistines the “beasts of the fields.”142 It does appear, however, that the
identity of the nations in question cannot be proved with any measure of probabil-
ity. The reading, “the boar of the Nile,” is disputed and identifying the nations will
depend to a large extent on the date of the psalm—an issue which has been dis-
cussed extensively.
The psalm is talking about enemies in general. The hostile acts consist in taking
advantage of the broken hedges to move in, pillage, loot and devastate the vineyard.
The enemies move in at will, destroy and devour Israel’s heritage. Metaphorically they
pull down the vine, devour its fruit, turning the vineyard into an uninhabitable place
and eating up the tender leaves. The picture of Isaiah 7:23–25 comes alive again.
h¢df& ziyz. ziz śad¯ eh ziyz is collective singular—and it means “moving things.”
Here we are dealing with “the moving things of the field.” This would include all
enemies of the vineyard especially predators and the wild boar. All these negative
forces collaborate to bring total destruction to the vineyard. This is highlighted by
verb hfNe(: riy yir‘ennâh “devour”, which in the piel found here, onomatopaeically de-
scribes how some of the animal kingdom devour the vine.
hfNem: s: rak: y yekarsmennˆah It can be derived from the root {sk kasas “to shear, to
clip.”143 It is hapax. In the Akkadian it appears as Kas¯amu “to cut to pieces,”
“zerschneiden.”144
Though it appears in our text as quadriliteral krsm, the basic root is ksm, with r as a
secondary addition to the root. Because of the difficulty the text presents bh proposes
82 The Vine, Israel and the Church

hfNeserehey from the root srh haras “to throw down, break up, tear down.”145 The
meaning then would be: because the hedges are pulled down, wild animals move in
freely, ravage and destroy the vine. Hirsch in his commentary says:

Why, then, hast Thou Thyself broken down all its defenses
now and delivered it up to destruction without means of
protection so that, at present, whoever passes along the way,
whatever power, great or small, that they may come upon the
proscenium of history—transient or lasting, may affect its fate.”146

Israel has had to suffer at the hands of every invading force. Every passer-by feels
welcome to pluck its fruit and so Israel had to suffer at the hands of all great empires
of history.
hfrf) ¯arˆah is the verb “to pluck” and one can see some similarity with the verb
hr(“‘rah” “to be naked”—hence to render bare, to denude.”147

3.3.2 Prayer for Restoration

This final section is an earnest prayer for the vine. It begins with the refrain in its
variant form. It is a passionate plea to Yahweh by his title of war “God of Hosts” to
turn around again. Being God, he has absolute power and his people can with trust
and confidence look back on the great foundational deeds of Israel as a nation—
deeds which created and saved Israel and so became paradigms for future salvific
deeds.
The people suffer not only because of the relentless attacks of the implacable foe
but primarily from being separated from God and subjected to his rage.

Dieu semble se desinteresser de la vigne qu’il a tant

choyeé. Mais d’un seul regard menacant, it peut
ruiner tous les ennemis.148

The complaint becomes more concrete as it sets the past and the present over
against one another. Dante says

Nessun maggior dolore

che ricordarsi del tempo felice
nella miseria

There is no greater grief than to remember days of joy

when misery is at hand.
 Psalm 80 83

The turn around, the conversion is on the part of God. bU$ ˇsuÓb “turn” is the end of
calamity and the beginning of a new era in God’s relationship with his people.
The psalmist is confident that this prayer will be heard which is the reason why
Israel is crying to her God. God could not and would not abandon the vine; the
work on which he expended so much. Israel’s history is the basis, the hope and the
assurance for this prayer. The often repeated refrain is to Yahweh Sebaoth to act as
he was wont. Israel is throwing herself into the arms of her Saving God (#Om
l)r#y-t) mˆoˇ sia‘ eth yisrael “the Savior of Israel” (1 Sam 14:39) for salvation and
restoration.
It is precisely because it is God not man who has proved to be Israel’s enemy: God
who made the covenant with Israel has appeared to have forgotten it. It is precisely
because their fate is solely in God’s hands—the God of the Exodus, the God who led
them across the Sea of Reeds, through the desert and planted them in the Promised
Land; the God of the Exodus and of the Conquest—it is to this God that Israel is of-
fering her prayers. God has chastised, therefore he will heal.
But restoration is possible only with the renewal of the covenant and this can
take place only if God turns again to his people and lets his face shine on them,
thereby bringing about an encounter in a theophany from which all blessings flow.
This is the focal point of the psalm: once achieved, Israel is restored and healed.
Having reached this point, they experienced their separation from God so intensely
that the best they could do is to offer him the short and powerful prayer—to turn
again.
)fn-bU$ ˇ sub n¯a “ turn, please”. It has the same meaning and force as Un¢byi$Ah, from
the same root, bU$ “to turn”.
Look down from heaven. The sentence indicates once again that there is separa-
tion between God and his people, which is emphasized by the verb, “look down,”
this time with pity.
Visit this vine. A visit is an action which can be for a gracious purpose or for pun-
ishment. A human can visit another for a good purpose (Gen 34:1; Judg 15:1; 2 Chr
18:2) and human beings can visit God i.e. “seek his face” (Isa 26:16). More often it
is God who visits his people (Exod 3:16; Job 7:18; Luke 7:11). God visits his people
as a Savior (Ps 106:4) and the Rising Sun comes from on high to visit his people
(Luke 1:78). Visit is divine presence, a dispensation of salvation and restoration
Hence God visits the earth (Ps 65:10).

Visit can also be God’s response in the form of punishment (Job 35:15;
Ps 59:6; Isa 10:3; Jer 8:12).

The text has some critical problems. bh suggests that “visit this vine” be deleted on
account of the meter. The reading makes perfect sense without it. Very probably it
was an early marginal reading, added to keep alive the imagery of the vine, which
84 The Vine, Israel and the Church
was later introduced into the text. The gloss had the advantage of effecting on easy
transition from the metaphor of the vine to the concluding section of the psalm.
Visit this vine is certainly a gloss and it is indicated in the translation.
v. 16 Establish firm control over what your right hand has planted. The key word to
understanding the text is hfnaK, kannah, a hapax, and it presents a lot of problems. Da-
hood calls it a stubborn puzzle,149 while Gunkel, who says it is vielgedeutet, i.e. sub-
ject to a variety of interpretation continues

hfNaK kann hier nicht fem zu }¢K “stelle gestelt”

sein; die Bedeutung “wurzel, Zweig” Hier, T ist
im Hebräischen sonst nicht belegt.150

Kraus prefers the reading hfnfG g¯anˆah (enclosure, garden).151 The LXX translating it
as kata/ rtisai katartisai—imptv first aor. middle—understands it as “restore”,
from the root }UK kun while S, T and luxta Hebraeos prefers to explain it as a noun,
hfnaK kanˆah “stem, root.” BDB explains the word hnk as “root, stock.”152
The text is difficult and no one solution commands the support of exegetes.
Hence following the guidelines of Dahood153 we translate:

Establish firm control over what your right hand has planted
over the son of man you have strengthened for yourself.

The Right Hand: It signifies “strength, power, privileged position.” The King sits at
the right hand of God (Ps 110:1) and God sustains the just with his right hand (Ps
18:6). God’s right hand and holy arm works wonders (Ps 98:1). He established Israel
with his mighty hand and outstretched arm (Deut 4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 9:29).
Yahweh takes care of the king; gives him the wisdom to rule (Ps 72:2) adopts him
as his son (Ps 110:4), thereby becoming his Father (Ps 89:26) and leads him to war
(Ps 20:9). Though the enemy may burn and devastate the land (Ps 89:38–45) be-
cause God is angry with his people (Pss 89:46; 13:1; 74:9; 79:5), God’s rage will turn
them into a blazing furnace, his anger will engulf them and his fire will devour them
(Ps 21:8–10). Hence the psalmist prays

The right hand of Yahweh does valiantly

the right hand of Yahweh is exalted
the right hand of Yahweh does valiantly!

I shall not die, I shall live

and recount the deeds of Yahweh (Ps 118:15b-18).

v. 17 Those who burnt it with blazing fire. The MT reads hfpur:& śeruphâh i.e. “one
 Psalm 80 85
being burnt,” but this does not make much sense in the context. While keeping
the consonants we punctuate it with BH as ahupar:&, “seraphuha” “those who burnt
her.”
The next difficult term is HfxUs: K kesuÓhâh “one being cut down.” With Dahood we
derive the root not from xsk “to cut off, cut away”154 but from hfxfs s¯ahÓ ah “to scrape,
scrape away, to clear.”155 The letter k is emphatic, modifying hxs. It is the piel and
here it means “to scrape, clean, to scour.”
Both BDB156 and Dahood157 see a close relationship between this verse and
Ezekiel 26:4. Speaking about Tyre, the text says

I will scrape (yity¢xis) its soil from it

and make it a bare rock.

The text is to be understood as follows: Those who have burnt the vine with blazing
fire; may they themselves perish at the blazing of God’s anger.
v. 18 May your hand be upon the man of your right hand. l( hOhy dy hyh “The hand
of YHWH came down upon . . . .” is the expression commonly used for the Spirit of
God that descends on a charismatic. It is found particularly in Eziekiel (1:3; 37:1;
40:1). It means that power and strength from God descends on the individual to
perform heroic deeds in God’s name.
The prayer is for the man of God’s right hand, the son of man he has raised up for
himself. Does this perchance refer to Benjamin (son of the right hand) of v. 3, or to
the king seated at the right hand of God’s throne? The context does not indicate
that it is the tribe of Benjamin that is in discussion.
“Son of man” means man as weak, ignorant, subject to sin, illness, death and cor-
ruption in the grave. “Son of Man” is also a messianic title (Dan 7:13). Could the
epithet refer to the “Royal Messiah”, Apocalyptic Figure, or to the King Yahweh has
appointed for himself?
It is certain that the Royal Messiah is not the figure in question. The text most
probably refers to the king on the throne whose kingdom is seriously threatened by
external aggression. Because of his weakness and utter helplessness, he is in word
and deed, “son of man.”
But more importantly this verse seems to be a gloss. It is an ancient editorial
elaboration of v. 16 which does not introduce any new idea or develop any existing
one. The following concepts in v. 16 are repeated in v. 18.

v. 16 “right hand,” “establish control,” “son,” “strengthen for yourself.”

v. 18 “right hand,” “hand be upon,” “son of man,” “raised up for
yourself.”

Briggs dates this editorial expansion to the Maccabean period.158

86 The Vine, Israel and the Church

v. 19 We will never turn away from you. The w in )lw “wel¯o” is em-
phatic indcating Israel’s resolve never to turn away from her God.

o gOsfn n¯asˆog. The verb is ordinarily translated as “to move away,” to backslide.” It
has also a secondary meaning of “to fence about.”159 Tate interprets the text as “we
will never be backsliders again” (cfr Ps 53:4; Prov 14:14; Ps 44:19; Isa 50:5; Ps 78:
57; Zeph 1:6).160 Dahood prefers to translate as “we have never turned back on
you” thereby translating the imperfect as completed action.161 This is grammati-
cally and syntactically possible especially as Israel can claim that as a nation, she
has never apostasized from Yahweh, and never repudiated Yahwism. This convic-
tion is strongly reaffirmed in Ps 48:18–23. Israel has not always readily admitted its
sinfulness.
However the future tense seems to fit the context better. Since Israel is pleading
for restoration and even though in this hymn, the sin of Israel has never been the
issue, the promise of fidelity will go a long way to temper the anger of God. For the last
time, Israel makes a giant leap of faith into the arms of God, her cause and the au-
thor of her salvation, confident she will be heard. The light of Yahweh’s face will
shine upon her and she will be safe.
Israel in gratitude will hold firm to her faith and so witness to humanity God’s
love and fidelity. She shall no more lapse into idolatry or rebellious conduct (Josh
24:16–25). Israel prays for her revival, a prayer she makes with unwavering faith.
I cannot think of a better conclusion to our study of Psalm 80 than a quotation
from the commentary of Hirsch on Ps 80.

The vine can be the noblest of all plants if it brings forth

the fruit expected of it: without its fruit, however, it would
be quite worthless, for its wood alone has no use whatsoever.
So, too, Israel is the noblest and most blessed among the
nations, provided it fulfills its purpose. However, if Israel
should be unfaithful to its calling, it will sink far below all
other nations and will be of no use or value whatsoever.162

Israel is the vine taken by Yahweh from Egypt and planted in the land of Israel. Yah-
weh does not regret his gifts. Yahweh will return and restore Israel.
 CHAPTER FOUR

The Parable of the

Wicked Husbandmen
(Matt 21:33–44)

T
he Sitz im Leben of the parable of the wicked husbandmen is the authority of
Jesus that was challenged by the Jewish leaders (Matt 21). Following the
Matthean tradition of placing the expulsion of the dealers from the temple
towards the end of the public life of Jesus (Matt 21:12–17), unlike John who placed
it at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (2:13–22); and since the purification of the
temple was the duty of the Messiah (Mal 3:1–4); by that very act, Jesus claimed for
himself both the title and the office of the Messiah. This the Jewish leaders resented
and therefore asked him: “By what authority are you doing these things and who
gave you this authority?” (Matt 21:23). It was in response to this question that Jesus
told them three parables:

• the parable of the two sons (Matt 21:28–32),

• the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Matt 21:33–44) and
• the parable of the Wedding Feast (Matt 22:1–14).

All these parables teach the same lessons:

• The call of the Jewish people

• Their inability—especially of their leaders—to respond to the call to
obedience and piety
• The call of the “others.”

This explains why Matthew in his arrangement begins the parable of the wicked
husbandmen with “Hear another parable (v. 33) and in Chapter 22 we read: “And
again Jesus spoke to them in parables.”
88 The Vine, Israel and the Church
But that is not all. Even though these three parables are distinct, placing them
one after the other, and assigning them chronologically to the end of Jesus’ earthly
ministry; the hagiographer wanted to make a special impact on his audience. While
each parable makes full meaning if interpreted in isolation, their full gospel mean-
ing is attained when interpreted in relation to the other.
While Jewish leaders question the authority of Jesus, he, by these parables wanted
to instruct them on the correct understanding of election, the obligations flowing
from it and the need to live up immediately to the demands of the kingdom values. It
is also a timely warning to the leaders on the need for repentance, to repent and be-
lieve the gospel (Mark 1:15), otherwise the kingdom would be taken from them and
given to a nation, a people, that would produce its fruit (Matt 21:43).
Hence the failure and the rejection of official Judaism, which runs through these
parables, is a theme which occurs frequently in Matthean tradition: (3:7–10; 8:11–
12; 12:38–42; 13:10–17; 15:1–9; 16:5–12), achieving its most explicit expression
in 21:43.
As tension between Jesus and official Judaism represented by their leaders con-
tinues to mount, Jesus began to teach that authentic Israel was to be found in him
and in his mission, no longer in official Judaism. This was enacted in Chapter 21 by
the cleansing of the temple (vv. 12–17) and in the symbolic destruction of the fig
tree (vv. 18–22). It will appear with greater emphasis in the denunciations of Chap-
ter 23 and culminate in Chapter 24 with the prediction of the destruction of the
temple.

It is in this sustained build-up that these three parables occupy an im-

portant place.1

Augustine Stock says that these three parables bespeak judgment on Israel because
of her repudiation of John the Baptist (21:28–32); of Jesus himself (21:3–46), and
of his messengers (22:1–10). Of particular importance to the plot in Matthew’s
story is the second of these parables, that of the wicked husbandmen (21:33–46).2
The parables of the Two Sons and of the Wicked Husbandmen have much in
common both in content and vocabulary. Both contrast the failure of the Jewish
leaders to recognize the prophetic authority of John the Baptist and the ministry of
Jesus and both conclude with the astonishing gift of the kingdom to those who
never expected to share in it.3 Both have four items of vocabulary, o/(steron hós-
teron “finally”, w(sautwªj hosaut¯os “similarly”, a)mpelw/ n ampel¯on, “vineyard” and
basilei/ a tou qeouª Basileia tõu Theou “kingdom of God”. But the distinctive el-
ement in the parable of the tenants in Matthew but not in the parable of the two
sons is the note of judgment (21:44).
This parable may have a wider context. Eduard Schweizer finds in this wider
context a fourfold pattern to which Matt 21–25 corresponds: it is a pattern of trial,
 The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 89
declaration of guilt, pronouncement of sentence and punishment. He goes on to say
that the planned attack on Jesus is transformed suddenly into a trial in which the
leaders are examined. The first parable is the verdict: what the tax collectors and
prostitutes have understood, the leaders of Israel have not recognized (21:32). The
second parable—the Wicked Husbandmen—brings the sentence: the taking away of
the kingdom from the Jews and giving it to a nation (21:43). In the third parable,
the wedding feast—the execution of the sentence: the destruction of the murderers
and the burning of their city (22:7). But the climax is yet to come. It is found in 22:
11–14 and is a warning to the community that they face the threat of this same
judgment if they behave as Israel did.4

4.1 A Parable or an Allegory?

The pericope of the Wicked Husbandmen is often referred to as a “parable.” Even

the biblical text itself calls it a parable; indeed another parable: a)/ llhn
parabolh\n a)kou/ sate (allen parabolén akousate (Matt 21:33). Some however be-
lieve it is an allegory. J. Jeremias says: “The whole parable is evidently an allegory.”5
But since its genre will impact its exegesis, it becomes necessary to speak briefly on
“parable” and “allegory.”
In the Greek New Testament, two words are used for this figure of speech:
parabolh/ “parabole” and paroimi/ a “paroimia”. Parabolh/ occurs 50 times
with the following meanings: “parable” sg. 30 times, pl. 15 times; “lesson” two
times; “speaking figuratively” (hapax); “illustration” (hapax) “proverb”(hapax).
Paroimi/ a—“parable, simile” is found five times. Both translate the Hebrew lf$fm
“m¯ash¯al” (40 times), to mean “oracle, proverb, byword, discourse, parable, ridicule,
taunt; or la$fm (17 times)—“to be like, to quote proverbs, to mock, to compare.”
la$fm has these shades of meaning:

in Kal: to make or repeat a proverb (Ezek 17:2)

in Niphal: to be or become like (Isa 14:10)
in Piel: to tell a riddle, speak in proverbs (Ezek 20:49)
in Hiphil: to compare with (Isa 45:6)
in Hithpael: to become like (Job 30:19)6

In classical Greek, parabolh/ has the basic meaning of “to set beside, to compare,”
from the verb paraballein paraballein and the noun parabolh/ which means
“similitude, parable.” In the New Testament parabolh / translates lf$fm with the
basic meaning—“to be like, similar,” except two instances Qoh 1:17; Sir 47:17.7
The synonym, paroimia, expresses an essential aspect of a proverb. It is not used
independently but is a sentence accompanying para, para amplifying or summing
90 The Vine, Israel and the Church
up what has been said. It states an experienced truth of popular wisdom in short and
pointed form.8
A parable therefore is an extended metaphor, frequently becoming a brief narra-
tive, for didactic purposes. An allegory on the other hand is an extension of a sim-
ile, often in a narrative form but since each term or concept has its peculiar mean-
ing, one ignores the literal meaning to discover new and hidden meanings in each
term used.
A parable presents one single point of comparison and the details are not in-
tended to have independent significances, while with the allegory, each detail is a
metaphor and each detail has a meaning on its own right.

A further point of contrast between the parable and the allegory is that
while the allegory is merely decorative illustration of teaching supposed
to be accepted on other grounds, the parable has the character of an ar-
gument, in that it entices the hearer to a judgment upon the situation
depicted, and challenges him, directly or by implication, to apply that
judgment to the matter at hand.9

A parable is a very important and popular form of speech. Found in other cultures,
it was highly esteemed in Israel. A Rabbi was expected to be familiar not only with
the sayings of the Sages of Israel, but an adept at creating parables and sayings of his
own. Jesus was simply exceptional in the parables he created.
The parables are probably the most characteristic element in the teachings of
Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. They have on them the stamp of a highly indi-
vidual mind in spite of the re-handling they have inevitably suffered in the course
of transmission. Their appeal to the imagination fixes them in the memory and
gives them an irreplaceable place in tradition. Certainly there is no part of the
Gospel record that has for the reader a clearer ring of authenticity than the para-
ble pericopes.10
The parables of the Gospels are true to life and nature. It is not easy to write or
speak in parables as a regular didactic method. One of the beauties of the parables of
Jesus is that they spanned all through his earthly ministry.

The hearers find themselves in a familiar scene where everything is so

simple and clear that a child can understand; so plain that those who
hear can say, “Yes, that’s how it is.”11

Among the special characteristics of the parables of Jesus is the fact that, step-by-
step, they reflect with peculiar clarity the character of his good news, the eschato-
logical nature of his preaching, the intensity of his summons to repentance and his
conflict with Pharisaism.12 The parables of Jesus reveal a definite personal character,
 The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 91
a unique clarity and simplicity, a matchless mastery of construction, a conclusion
that is inevitable.13
Since parables were a common and greatly appreciated method of illustration
and communication, the parables of Jesus were similar to the rabbinic parables but
far superior to them. Paul, incidentally, was not so fortunate at creating parables.
One would have to appreciate his teaching to be able to understand his parable of
the olive branches and the stock (Rom 11:16–24).
Scholars differ sharply from one another as to which of the teachings of Jesus
should be classified as an allegory, if any at all, especially as they could have been re-
interpretations by the Early Church. Snodgrass has questioned the dichotomy be-
tween parable and allegory in the teachings of Jesus and argued that Jesus could
have used allegories in his teachings. This permits him to re-integrate into the para-
ble of the Wicked Husbandmen elements which were considered by Dodd and Jere-
mias as secondary e.g. allusion to Isaiah 5, the number of sending of the servants and
the stone rejected by the builders.14 Jeremias15 and Dodd16 emphasize secondary
parts of the parable. However, in the Matthean account, the allegorical nature of
the story is evident.

Landlord — God
Vineyard — God’s people
Tenants — Jewish leaders
Servants — Prophets
Son — Jesus Christ
Fruit — Good works, fidelity to the Covenant

Snodgrass interprets the pericope allegorically and sees in the allegory the relation-
ship between God and His people.17 Jeremias supports the allegorical interpretation
and says:

The vineyard is clearly Israel, the tenants are Israel’s rulers and leaders,
the owner of the vineyard is God, the messengers are the prophets, the
son is Christ, the punishment of the husbandmen symbolizes the ruin of
Israel, the “other people” (Matt 21:43) are the Gentile Church. The
whole parable is evidently pure allegory.18

Crossan however believes that the story in its earliest form was a parable not an al-
legory and tried to read its meaning on the lips of historical Jesus.19 It is obvious that
Crosson is only attempting a reconstruction based on his ideas, as much as what can
be said about the historical Jesus depends on one’s perspectives and Weltanschaung.
Another point to consider is whether the parable has anything to do with the
kingdom. In the Matthean tradition it undoubtedly has (21:43). But Brad Young
92 The Vine, Israel and the Church
does not think so. He believes that either the redactor or Matthew himself inter-
preted it as being representative of the kingdom of God which he considers highly
improbable. He affirms that the parable deals with the sharecroppers of the vineyard
and their relationship to the owner.20 He goes on to say:

It is precarious to go beyond this theme and look for an allegorical mean-

ing for the vineyard—be it kingdom of God (Matthew), the people, the
Temple, the Judaism of the day, the leadership, the land of Israel or some
other allegorical interpretation . . . The parable addresses the action of
the wicked tenants, and the vineyard is of secondary importance.21

This opinion cannot be sustained because it would reduce the parable to a mere
story. Why would Jesus tell a story if not to instruct, especially if the story is not a
historical fact? Consequently this parable is an authentic teaching of Jesus and it is
a parable of the kingdom.

4.2 Interpretation of the Pericope

In preparing for the exegesis of the text, it will be helpful to survey briefly the opin-
ion of scholars on the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen.
C. H. Dodd finds the original milieu of the pericope in the revolutionary attitude
of the Galilean peasants since the revolt of Judas the Gaulonite (A.D. 6) which is
an attitude of Zealotism towards foreign landlords before the revolt of A.D. 66. He
thinks that it refers to an existing situation.22
A. Jülicher believes that it is a carefully constructed allegory by the early church
with the death of Jesus in retrospect.23
Joachim Jeremias says that, especially in Matthew, some of the parables of Jesus
are allegorized, e.g. the great supper (Matt 22:1–14); the parable of the Two Sons
(21:28–32) and our pericope. He says that the parable in its original setting indi-
cates the offer of the gospel to the poor, the ptwxoi pt¯ochoi.24
W. G. Kümmel says that the pericope in its present form is not the original set-
ting. However, it is impossible to work back from an allegory to a simple parable be-
cause of transmission and interpretations. The milieu, according to him, is not
Galilee in the time of Jesus but the church in the first century influenced by Isaiah
Chapter 5. The church identified “the son” with Jesus Christ but in the original set-
ting “the son” could have meant the final messenger. Kümmel goes on to say that no
Jew, hearing in the parable the story of the slaying of the “son” could have dreamed
of applying it to the sending of the Messiah.25
Rudolph Bultmann believes that the allegorical interpretation came from the
early church and therefore dismisses the parable as not coming from Jesus.26
 The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 93
For T. W. Manson, this parable is proof that Jesus claims to stand in special relation
to God, a relation which he himself chooses to describe as Father-Son relationship.27
C. F. D. Moule suggests that Jesus, in the climax of the story, the death of the
owner’s son, predicted that they would kill God’s own Son, thereby bringing disas-
ters on themselves by their atrocious deed. In this allegory, Jesus alludes to his
unique function and this veiled self-reference to himself is as striking as it is rare in
this Gospel.28 Dan Otto Via says that the parable illustrates the blind folly that in-
fuses the human mind. The violence of the tenants was so wanton that it violated
basic human norms of living.29
The story of the Wicked Husbandmen is at least a parable and a very serious case
can be made for an allegorical interpretation. A lot depends on the scholar’s per-
spective, which would make one lay more emphasis or not on a subject matter. I be-
lieve the pericope is an allegory.
This allegory is not what the Early Church could have produced. The context is
the immediate irruption of the kingdom of God. The antagonism of the Jewish lead-
ers raged unabated until it drove them to encompass the death of Jesus.
The pericope is both a warning and a threat. Jesus wanted the Jewish leaders to
realize the heinousness of their plot and the disastrous consequence of their action.
The obvious reference to the Canticle of the Vine (Isa 5:1–7) is a reminder that just
as Israel was unfaithful and paid the price for her infidelity with the national calami-
ties of 721 B.C. and later with that of 587 B.C., Israel of that day would not escape
divine wrath for slaying the SON.
If the pericope were a New Testament reconstruction, it would not be easy to find
justification for it. The Church was not responsible for the destruction of the Temple
and of Jerusalem. There was neither doctrine of atonement or expiation nor any clear
mention of the Resurrection. Its background and atmosphere is not post-Easter.30
This parable is of great theological importance in that it has direct bearing on an-
other future event in the terrestrial life of Jesus—his trial before the Sanhedrin (Matt
26:57–66). With this allegory, Jesus, for the first time in Synoptic tradition, pointedly
confronts the Jewish public in their leaders with his claim that he is the SON. What is
more, Jesus advances this claim in a striking fashion by drawing on a phraseology that
the heavenly voice employed at Baptism and at the Transfiguration—so as to appro-
priate for himself the evaluative point of view concerning his identity with God.31

4.3 The Text

The parable of the Wicked Husbandmen is one of the two narrative parables pre-
served in all three synoptic traditions (Mark 12:1–12; Matt 21:33–46; Luke 20:9–
19). The other parable is that of the sower (Mark 4:3–9; Matt 13:4–9; Luke 8:5–8).
It is important to note the parable of the tenants is one of the twelve parables in the
Coptic Gospel of Thomas (65) with synoptic parallels.32
94 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Matthew is the most elaborate and the most allegorical. At this point we shall
highlight the peculiarities of each Gospel.

4.3.1 Mark

The owner planted a vineyard, fenced it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower.
Then he leased it to husbandmen and traveled. At the appropriate time he sent
three servants, one at a time, to collect some of the fruit. But the husbandmen did
not cooperate with the emissaries but rather handled them badly.
They flogged the first, beat the second on the head, and killed the third. After
that the owner sent more servants: some they killed, others they thrashed. Then he
sent his son. Him they killed and cast out of the vineyard.
The servants were sent one at a time; doªulon, a)/ llon, a)/ llon, doulon, állon,
állon “a slave, another, another”. Neither Matthew nor Luke follows Mark to men-
tion the head injury. Is it a deliberate redactional insertion of Mark to allude to the
fate of John the Baptist 6:27 a)pekefa/ lisen apekephálisen “to cut off the head?”33
Mark arranged his narrative in an ascending order presumably to reach a climax.
But did he make it? If putting to death was the climax, then it was reached when the
third servant was put to death. If for Mark the climax was putting the Son to death,
then he made it.

4.3.2 Luke

A man planted a vineyard. There was no mention of a fence, a winepress, or a

tower. Then he leased it to tenants and traveled to another country for a long while;
a detail omitted by others.
At harvest time he sent his servants, one at a time, to collect some (not all) of
the fruit. The husbandmen beat the first and sent him away empty: the second they
treated shamefully and sent away empty. They wounded the third and threw him
out. Then the owner sent his son. Him the tenants killed and threw out of the
vineyard.
There is a climax in Lukan narrative. The third servant was not killed and the al-
legorical conclusion is omitted. Luke limited himself to three instances of sending
of servants, one at a time, trimming the three incidents into perfect symmetry. The
three sent are doªulon, e(/ teron, tri/ ton “ a slave, another , a third”. Though no
servant was killed, there is climatic increase in the gravity of the injury done.

4.3.3 Matthew

The owner, called the householder, planted a vineyard, fenced it, dug a winepress,
built a tower, and then leased it tenants. As vintage time drew near, he sent his
 The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 95
servants (pl), to collect his fruits (not some of them). But the tenants thrashed one,
killed another, and stoned the third. He sent many more and they treated the ser-
vants in like manner. Finally he sent his son. They threw him out of the vineyard
and killed him.
Matthew had his thought pattern—they beat a servant, killed a second, and
stoned a third. Was stoning the climax or a mere succession of events? A)poktei/ nw
“apoktein¯o” means putting to death especially by the sword. Did the stoning refer to
the stoning of the prophets and the various attempts made to stone Jesus?
Matthew, who was the most elaborate, exhibited heavy dependence on Isaiah 5:
1//Matt 21:33. In Luke and Thomas there is nothing of the language of Isaiah: the
relationship was between the owner and the tenants.34

4.3.4 Similarities

Some of the Synoptic gospels have some points in common.

In Matthew and Mark—the owner built a fence, a winepress, and a tower: in
Luke he did none of those.
In Matthew, Mark, and Luke—the owner departed from his people for another
country and Luke added “for a reasonable length of time.”
In Matthew—the owner sent his servants when harvest time was approaching:
in Mark and Luke he sent them at the appropriate time. Matthew and Mark consis-
tently used the verb a)poste/ llw apostéll¯o whereas Luke used a)poste/ llw once
and pe/ mpw pémpo the rest of the time. In Matthew, the owner wanted his fruits; in
Mark and Luke, he wanted some of the fruits. In Matthew, the householder sent ser-
vants (pl) at the first instance and many more after that: in Mark and Luke he sent
a servant, one at a time. The treatment meted out to the servants differed in each
synoptic gospel. In Matthew and Luke—the husbandmen threw the son out of the
vineyard and killed him whereas in Mark the son was killed in the vineyard and
then thrown out.
It is also worthwhile comparing the Synoptic Gospels with the apocryphal
Gospel of Thomas. In this writing, the owner was called a good man. It says nothing
about the fence, the vat, or the tower. The owner sent a servant, one at a time, to
get the fruit. He sent two servants and at the second instance he made excuses for
them: “Perhaps they did not recognize him.” This is the only tradition that makes
any excuse for the tenants. Then he sent his son. Realizing that he was the heir, the
tenants kill him. Nothing was said about the circumstances of his death. The
Gospel of Thomas then concludes, “He who has ears, let him hear.”
From this comparative study, certain conclusions emerge:

The Gospel of Thomas is the simplest text and least theological.

96 The Vine, Israel and the Church
There is consistency in sending the servants three times which in turn
might help to recall the customary pattern of three: three servants in
the parable of tenants, three temptations, three withdrawals, and three
appeals for prayer at Gethsemani.35

By and large there seems to have been the intention of making the death of the son
the climax of the text. Even if not the climax, the story reaches a focal point with
the killing of the son.
The story demonstrates the impenitence and the bad-will of the husbandmen, a
situation which leaves the owner with no other option but to bring them to jus-
tice.In fact, he should have done that after the sending of the first servant(s). Mark
and Luke say that he will destroy the tenants (they do not emphasize their bad
record) and give the vineyard to others. Matthew on the other hand says: “He will
evilly destroy those evil men” and give the vineyard to others and Matthew adds
“who will give the fruits at the appropriate time” (21:41). Matthew stresses the ab-
sence of moral rectitude on the part of the husbandmen and the necessity to give
the householder his fruits as and when due.
In Luke, as Jesus was about concluding the parable, the Jews said “God forbid”,
fully realizing that the foreboding message was addressed to them. However, all Syn-
optics agree in quoting Ps 118:22 and saying that the leaders would have readily ar-
rested him but for the crowd. It was only Matthew that pronounced the ominous
verdict that the kingdom would be taken away from them and given to a nation
that would produce its fruit.
Certainly the Matthean tradition is more detailed and more ecclesiological.

4.4 The Historical Setting of the Parable

The story of the wicked husbandmen may appear far-fetched, especially viewed
against the patience and the indulgent attitude of the owner; but it has great
verisimilitude to life situations in Palestine at the time of Jesus. There were many
absentee landlords who leased their vineyards or estates to tenants to receive from
them fruits of the land on agreed terms.
A lot had to be taken into consideration in preparing the lease—the weather,
natural disasters, and tribal wars. Above all, hard work and honesty of the tenants
were a dominant and determining factor on the yield. Laws were enacted to defend
the rights of the owner and of the laborers.
Palestine had been overrun by the Romans, but the country had not been paci-
fied. Political, economic, and religious reasons lay at the root cause of social unrests.
If large estates were often held by foreigners, it was reasonable to presuppose that
agrarian discontent went hand in hand with nationalistic feelings.
 The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 97
Galilee in particular was a disaffected region. Since the revolt of Judas the
Gaulonite in A.D. 6, the country had never been pacified. Galileans were tempera-
mentally prone to fight and all rebellion against Rome invariably started in Galilee.
If the owner was a foreigner who was away for reasonable time, conditions were in
place to refuse rent, murder the messengers, and eventually seize the estate.

The parable, in fact, so far from being an artificially constructed allegory,

may be taken as evidence of the kind of things that went on in Galilee
during the half century preceding the general revolt of A.D. 66.36

Given the character of Galilean lands, and the fact that Galilee was a zealot strong-
hold, and also that the zealots and their sympathizers were of the poor tenant class,
it seems likely that the parable of the wicked tenants in some way speaks to the vio-
lent methods of the zealots and their sympathizers.37 Most of Galilee, especially
along the shores of Gennesaret and a large part of Galilean uplands bore the charac-
ter of latifundia and were in the hands of foreign landlords.38 J. Duncan Derrett in
his book “Law in the New Testament” devoted a chapter to the “Parable of the
Wicked Vinedressers.”39 With scholarly erudition and expertise in rabbinics, he
tried to prove that the parable was true to life. Based on this assumption, he inter-
prets all the features of the story in great detail. One of the great merits of his work
is the background information on events at the time of Jesus, which certainly
throws a lot of light on the understanding of the parable. These points will be dis-
cussed and critiqued in the exegetical section of this chapter.
Another document worth referring to is Sifre Deuteronomy 32:9 c 312.40 It is a
commentary on the text:

For Yahweh’s portion is his people,

Jacob his allotted heritage.

This tannaitic midrash preserves an anonymous parable which contains a number

of motifs parallel to our text.

A king had a field which he leased to his tenants. When the tenants began
to steal from it, he took it away from them and leased it to their children.
When the children began to act worse than their fathers, he took it away
from them and gave it to (the original tenants’) grandchildren. When
these too became worse than their predecessors, a son was born to him. He
then said to the grandchildren: ‘Leave my property. You may not remain
therein. Give me back my portion so that I may repossess it.’

Though the two stories are similar the midrashic document differs immensely from
98 The Vine, Israel and the Church
plot and purpose of this allegory. While the allegory emphasizes that the husband-
men were not only ruthless but also stupid and foolhardy, the midrashic document
has another important lesson to teach:

For the portion of the Lord is his people,

Jacob his allotted heritage (Deut 32:9).

The Lord is patient with his people and does not revoke his gifts.
For analysis, our text is Matt 21:33–43. We shall make cross-references to other
synoptic gospels and occasionally to the Gospel of Thomas.

4.5 The Text—Matthew 21:33–43

33 “Hear another parable. There was a house-holder who planted a vineyard, set a
hedge around it, dug a winepress in it, built a tower and rent it to husbandmen
and traveled.
34 When the time for harvest drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen
to get his fruits.
35 But the husbandmen taking his servants beat one, killed the other and stoned
another.
36 Again he sent other servants, more numerous than the first, and they treated
them in like manner.
37 At least he sent them his son saying: ‘they will respect my son.’
38 But on seeing the son, the husbandmen said to one another, ‘this is the heir:
come on, let us kill him and take over his inheritance.’
39 And taking him, they threw him outside the vineyard and killed him.
40 Now, when the master of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those hus-
bandmen?’
41 They answered him: ‘He will destroy those evil men in an evil manner and give
out the vineyard to other husbandmen who will give him fruits in their seasons.’
42 Jesus said to them; Have you never read in the scriptures

The stone which the builders rejected

has become the corner stone.
This is the Lord’s doing
and it is wonderful in our eyes.
 The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 99
43 Therefore I say to you, that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you
and given to a nation that will produce its fruit.”

4.5.1 The Exegesis of the Pericope

V. 33 A)/ llhn parabolh\n a)kou/ sate allen parabolen akousate. “Hear another
parable.” The pericope begins with an invitation—nay a command—because the
verb is in the imptv.
–to hear yet another parable. Like the preceding parable of the two sons (21:25–
32), and the following on the wedding feast (22:1–14), the parable of the wicked
tenants makes a judgment on Israel. Here Jesus addresses the Jewish religious lead-
ers who questioned his authority.
The phrase, a)/ llhn parabolh\n, allen parabolen is unique to Matthew and is
found again in 13:24, 31, 33. It is a clear indication that Jesus makes frequent use
of parables while teaching, “indeed he said nothing to them without a parable”
(13:34) and Matthew concludes that section saying that by so doing he fulfilled Ps
78:2:

I will open my mouth in parables,

I will utter what has been hidden
since the foundation of the world.

The parable is about a “householder” oi)kodespo/ thj oikodespótes who planted a

vineyard. oi)kodespo/ thj means “master or steward of a house.” It can also mean
“a native ruler” as opposed to a “foreign emperor.”41
oi)kodespo/ thj is a favorite term in Matthew, though found 12 times in the
New Testament, it occurs seven times in Matthew out of which six times in the
context of parables. Sometimes it is combined with a)/ nqrwpoj anthropos (13:52;
20:1).

a)/ nqrwpoj oi)kodespo/ thj bei Matthäus v. 33 ist in dieser zusammen-

stellung ein Matthäischer Terminus Technicus, der das Verhalten des
Menschen zu Gott, dem Herrn, kennenzeichen soll.42

While Matthew calls him a)/ nqrwpoj oi)kodespo/ thj anthropos oikodespotes,
Mark and Luke designate him simply as a)/ nqrwpoj, while the Gospel of Thomas
calls him “a good man.” The advance of a)/ nqrwpoj to the first position emphasizes
its importance.
The Matthean text is dependent on the LXX version of Isaiah 5:2.
100 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Isaiah (LXX) 5:2 Matt 21:33
e)futeusa a)/ mpelon e)fu/ teusen ampelw=na
2 fragmo\n perie/ qhka fragmo\n au)tw=
perieqhken
3 w)kodo/ mesa purgon e)n me/ sw autou= w)kodo/ mhsen pu/ rgon
4 prolh/ nion w)/ ruca w)/ rucen e)n autw= lhno\n

Vineyards, date and olive groves, orchard and gardens require more careful cultiva-
tion, as the shoots are very tender and delicate. They constitute an on-going invest-
ment.43 This owner built a hedge, a vat, and a tower not only to secure the vineyard
but also to make life conditions more comfortable for the tenants. All these con-
structions indicate that the vineyard is both capital and labor intensive. Moreover,
it is obvious that vines have not been planted there before, or at any rate within liv-
ing memory. Hence we have not only new vines but also untried soil.44
The choice of the vine is not only dependent on the desirable allusion to the
Canticle of the Vine, but above all because of similarity of content. The image was
concrete and suitable for the teaching of Jesus.
For while Isaiah contrasts the care God lavished on the vineyard and the fruit it
produced, Jesus, in this parable, describes the excellence of the vineyard but high-
lights the wickedness of the tenants. Above all, it suggests to an informed reader
that the parable is an illustration of God’s troubled relationship with Israel, his
people.
The mentioning of the fence, winepress, and tower are not made for aesthetic
reasons but to illustrate the care and the diligence with which the vineyard was cul-
tivated. Some authors think that the fence, winepress, and tower are secondary.
This is reinforced by the Lukan tradition that omits it, though present in Mark.
Hence Klaus says that the focal point was no longer the vineyard but the husband-
men and the messengers.

Nicht mehr der Weinberg steht im Mittelpunkt sondern der Herr, die
Knechte und die Boten.45

It is true that there is no further mention of the fence, the winepress, and the tower
after verse 33, and these have no follow-up in the rest of the allegory, but that does
not make them secondary. Moreover all elements do not have equal importance in
any narrative. It appears, therfore, that these elements are integral to Synoptic tra-
dition, though they may not be of the same moment as other elements; e.g. the ser-
vants, the fruits, the son, the owner. However, link with Isaiah 5 is of paramount
importance especially in Matthew who appears to depend on it. Hence “the fence,
winepress and tower” should be retained and are of great moment for the correct
and full understanding and of the text.
 The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 101

e)cedoto exodoto aor. of e)k- di/ dwmi, ek-did¯omi which means, “to hand over in
agreement, to lease,” verpachten. The owner leases the vineyard to the tenants on
agreed terms.
gew/ rgoi gew/ rgoj ge¯orgos. “a farmer; one who tills the land.” The owner leases
his investment to farmers whom he presumes were experienced workers on the land,
confident that he would reap abundant harvest from them.
Some authors think that the estate should have been parceled out to different
tenants as was the custom of the day; hence the plural gewrgoi could be under-
stood in that sense as well. The lease could be on a long term too.46 However the
text does not say so, at least not explicitly: though such an arrangement was possi-
ble, we are not told that was what the householder did.
The owner planted new vines in untried soil. He rented it to farmers, but would
have to wait for four years before the vines would begin to bear grapes. During this
period he would have to support the farmers, buy manure and supplies for the vine-
yard, in the hope that in the fifth year he would reap some profit. A new vine was,
therefore, a venture not for immediate financial returns but rather for lasting results,
benefiting successive generations.47
The conditions of the lease were not indicated. From Mark 12:2 and Luke 20:10,
the master sent for “some” of the fruit, thereby permitting one to conclude that the
owner allowed the tenants to keep some of the fruit. In the Matthean tradition, the
owner asked for his fruits. Could that imply that he paid them their wages and so
could claim the fruits in their entirety? Both arrangements were possible in Pales-
tine at the time of Jesus.
Though the conditions of the lease were not spelled out, from the study of Hen-
ning on the subject, one can safely conclude that some of these obligations were
included:

• to do all the necessary work in their seasons (pp. 113–115) which included
proper irrigation, watering, and weeding.
• avoid causing damage to the property
• bear all costs of maintenance
• at the termination of the lease, hand over the property to the owner.48 in
good condition

The obligation to weed (m.B. Mes 9.4), to work on the property (m.B. Mes 9.5),
reduction in rentals in the case of natural calamity (m.B. Mes 9.6), and other gen-
eral regulations that governed the methods of cutting, uprooting, plowing are to be
followed. In cases when they apply, the sharing of the land’s produce between the
tenant and the landlord are included (m.B. Mes 9.1, 7). It is known that trailing
the vine, setting up poles or trellises, providing manure, removing dead stems, and
others are time-consuming and above all need dedication and expertise. There are
102 The Vine, Israel and the Church
other regulations in the law which the husbandmen must abide by:

You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the whole
yield be forfeited to the sanctuary; the crop you have sown and the yield
of the vineyard (Deut. 22:9).

The cultivation of the vines and other crops were regulated by strict laws of mixed
seeds.

On the first day of Adar, they give a warning of the shekel dues and
against (the sowing) of Diverse Kinds (Mishna: Shekalim 1:1).

It is important to note that in Israel, so much attention and importance was at-
tached to the vine that the Mishna had a tractate KILAIM devoted to the vineyard
and that includes the measurement of the beds, the winepress, the trenches; void
space within the hedge which were free from vines.
As KILAIM regulates the planting of vines (4–7), in case of non-conformity, the
public could interfere and uproot the vines if the laws were disobeyed. These were
some of the obligations laid on the farmers to which they were bound. That their
task was onerous could not be debated. Could that provide some insight into why
they reacted to the master the way they did?
Having provided all that was necessary for the vineyard with the hope of a fruit-
ful yield, the owner entrusted the vineyard to the husbandmen and then departed—
apedh/ mhsen. “apedemesen”
The verb is a compound term a)po\ apo dhme/ w demé¯o. dhmoj d¯ emos means “a
district, country, land” and more specifically “homeland.” The verb is inceptive
aorist, which according to Zerwick, could be translated “he went abroad.”49
The verb suggests a remote residence or a succession of residences, a sojourn in
some remote area. Not much hangs on the location as he was at all material times at
an inconvenient distance for direct supervision of the vinedressers.50
The verb could also mean that he left the country but not necessarily. Very often
rich landowners did not live in the village or farm but in a town or a far away city
where life was more comfortable. Obviously, such a man of means would have his
superintendents. There in the foreign land he awaited the fruit of his vineyard.
Hence Gaechter says:

Er pflegte aber wie der orientalische Großgrund-besitzer nicht auf dem

Lande zu wohnen, sondern in einer größeren Stadt wo es sich leichter
leben ließ.51
 The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 103
V. 34 When the time for the harvest drew near: The word used for “time” is kairos
and is used by all three Synoptics. It could mean “time of harvest” (Mark 11:13)
or the eschatological time (Mark 1:15) or when the Master would return to de-
mand an account from his servants (Mark 13:33–34). Prophetic literature often
associates the time of harvest with the appointed time of God’s judgment (Isa 17:
5; 18:4; 27:12). Hence ambiguity surrounding the term would put listeners on
the alert.52
However, kairo\j in our text does not have the definite article and would there-
fore mean “the agreed time, the appropriate time” not the eschatological time.

Weiter ist dann die eschatologische Bedeutung von hggisen o kairoj

(Ernte = Heilszeit oder gericht) nicht mehr zu übersehen.53

h)/ ggisen e)ggi/ cw engiz¯o (e)gguj engys = near) “to make near, to be near.” It can
have a messianic nuance peplh/ rwtai o kairo\j kai h)/ ggiken h (Basile/ ia
tou qeou “the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1:15).
Drawing near of the kingdom is found in Matt 3:2; 4:17; 10:7. It means “the accept-
able time, the time of redemption.” Does this text have any reference to Matt 21:1
where we read: “When they drew near to Jerusalem,” which also is in the context of
confrontation?
a)pe/ steilen apesteilen from a)poste/ llw “to send.” The verb has the special
nuance of “to send with a mandate” whereby the emissary is a delegate of the
sender; can act in his person; enjoys the status, dignity, respect, and the recognition
conferred on him by the sender. He is therefore an accredited ambassador. Hence it
differs from pe/ mpw, pempo that does not have that nuance. All the synoptics use
a)poste/ llw for the first sending but not after that. Only Matthew is consistent
with a)poste/ llw.
o( kairo\j tw=n karpw=n ho kairòs tõn karpõn. “Harvest time, season for fruits.”
Scholars have noted that the vine gives no commercial profit in the first four years.
In fact a new vineyard is notoriously unprofitable. That could partially explain why
the owner left for a distant country, even though from the text, it is probable he was
an absentee landlord.
Moreover, establishing a vineyard is an expensive investment especially with the
provision of supports—manure, water, poles, labor: in fact, more often that not, the
investment exceeds the returns. Indeed there is no return worthy of mention until
the fourth year is reached.54 It is unusual for the crop to equal the outlay for the year
but in the fifth year, some profit can be expected.
The owner sent his servants—tou\j dou/ louj au)tou=. tous doulous autous. The
word, dou=loj doulos, is found in the New Testament both in the primary meaning
of “slave” whom Varro describes an instrumentum genus vocale and in its secondary
104 The Vine, Israel and the Church
meaning of “servant, officer, dependent.” Derrett prefers this primary meaning “oth-
erwise the sending of the son loses some of its force.”55
It does appear that the term douloj should not be taken in its primary meaning
of “slave” but rather as “servants.” The verb apostello) argues for this. This increases
the guilt of the husbandmen for treating accredited ambassadors with such indignity
(2 Sam 10:1–14). These were officials delegated to act on behalf of their master. Of-
ficials of kings were simply called “slaves” of the king.
Matthew says that the owner sent his servants (pl.) while Mark and Luke speak
of a lone servant. It does appear that Matthew’s use of the plural is deliberate. Most
probably he imagined that the vineyard, given all the favorable conditions, would
produce such abundant harvest as would need many servants to transport.

Wenn Mk and Lk nur jeweils von einem sprechen, muß man an den-
jenigem Sklaven denken, der die Verantwortung für den Transport trug.

Moreover, since there was a contract between the owner and the tenants, some of
them could serve as witnesses. Also from the Old Testament perspective, God rep-
resented as the owner, acted through intermediaries like Moses (Num 12:7; Josh 1:
2, 7); David (2 Sam 8:2). In the New Testament God acts through angels (Luke 1:8–
22; 26–38), God did act through Israel his servant (Isa 43:10; 44:1; 48:20). Conse-
quently, the Matthean tradition in sending more than a servant, viewed especially
from the Matthean regular concept of God as king, is very understandable.
The owner sent the servants at the appropriate time to bring the fruits. This
verse reminds one of Ps 1:3 where the tree planted by the streams of water yields its
fruit in due season. Also there appears to be a major dependence on Ps 1:3, judging
from the words occurring there and their sequence in the LXX.
In Jewish law, the produce of the fourth year would technically be “the first
fruits.” The rules guarding the fruit of young trees, found in the Mishna, the orlah‘,
are very strict. The fruit of trees and of the vine could not be enjoyed till the fourth
year.

When you come into the land and plant all kinds of trees for food, then
you shall count their fruit as forbidden; three years it shall be forbidden
to you, it must not be eaten. And in the fourth year all their fruit shall be
holy, an offering of praise to Yahweh. But in the fifth year you may eat of
their fruit, that they may yield more richly for you (Lev 19:23–25).

If the fruits were to be enjoyed in the fourth year, they would have to be redeemed.
Because travelers used to help themselves to the grapes, vineyards which were still
Orlah‘ were marked with potsherds, but in the fourth year, they were marked with
clods of earth.
 The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 105
A Fourth Year Vineyard must be marked by clods of earth, the trees of
Orlah-fruit by potsherds.56 (Zeraim, Maaser Sheni v.1.),57

although

The leaves and the shoots and the sap of vines and newly fashioned
grape-berries are not forbidden under the laws of Orlah of Fourth Year
(Zeraim, Orlah 1:7).58

The question arises: When did the owner send his servants: before the fourth year,
in the fourth year, or after the fourth year? Since Jews were forbidden by Lev 19:
23–25 to enjoy the fruit of the vine before the third year, and since the fourth
year was “the first fruit,” it can be presumed that the owner sent his servants in the
fifth year.

When the harvest approached in the fifth year, he sent tenants to col-
lect some of the income.59

Derrett holds a different view. He says that right from the first year it would be pos-
sible for the owner to receive something by way of rent. No matter how small or in-
significant, it would be advisable he did so for it was a firm ground for establishing
ownership. If it was not spontaneously given, he should demand it. He even nar-
rates how a priest sent for two figs from his orchard and was furious with the tenants
when they refused them under the (false) impression that he would not come per-
sonally and chastise them. Hence it was important that the owner should make his
position clear by sending his servants to receive the agreed amounts a stated times.60
Leon Morris following Derrett believed that people could establish a claim to a
vineyard if they could prove that they had undisputed possession of it for three years
(Mishna, B. Bathra 3.1).61
It is obvious from the text that the parable is not concerned with the modalities
of payment as much as the actual payment. The parable highlights the fact that
when payment was due, the husbandmen refused to give the owner his dues.
Another important feature in the Matthean narrative is that he calls the fruits his
fruits. Mark says that the owner was to receive a)po\ tw=n karpw=n apo ton karpon
“some of the fruits” (pl) (Mark 12:2) and Luke a)po\ tou= karpou= apo tou karpou
“of his fruit” ((sg) (Luke 20:10). Matthew on the other hand emphasizes that the
owner sent his servants to collect his fruits. Fruits are in the plural to underscore that
the fruits of the vineyard belonged to him. However, neither context, nor grammar,
nor syntax gives enough ground to press that all the fruits of the vineyard belong ex-
clusively to the owner.
Nonetheless, Matthew emphasizes ownership: the vineyard, the servants, and
106 The Vine, Israel and the Church
the fruits belong to the owner. In v. 41 the owner would receive the fruits without
any qualification.
Although the details of the present lease are not available, what was in vogue in
those days was common knowledge. The owner received between a quarter and a
half of the produce. Hence Gaechter says:

Es ist nach der Landesseite vorausgesezt daß der Pachtnis in Naturalien

abgeliefert wurde von einem viertel bis zum Hälfte des Gesamtertrages.62

The position of the owner was clear from the narrative but the reaction of the hus-
bandmen was sudden swift, and decisive. There is a sudden change, a turn from the
spirit and flow of the narrative. There was no prior complaint, no dialogue. The un-
foreseen change is indicated only by kai which in Hebrew is waw avversivum. Kai
meaning “but” is found in the New Testament: Mark 12:12; John 14:30; Acts 10:
28b; 1 Cor 16:12b.
With the sending of the servants, the focus shifts from the vineyard to the hus-
bandmen, who in contrast are characterized by a string of initiatives of quite a dif-
ferent kind—seizing, flaying, killing, and stoning. A cruel game now ensues between
the owner and the tenants, what Wolfgang Trilling calls ein grausames Spiel.63
There seems to be an allusion to the various punishments and manners of death
in the Council.

The Court had power to inflict four kinds of death penalty: stoning,
burning, beheading, and strangling. R. Simeon says (their order of grav-
ity is) burning, stoning, strangling, and beheading (Sanh 7.1).

The Matthean tradition, by the succession of verbs, expresses the aggravation of

the situation, death by stoning being the worst.64 In this, it is in agreement with
R. Simeon.
The Synoptics do not agree in all the details about the ill treatment meted out to
the servants. Mark has his peculiarity—that the servant was hit or wounded in the
head—e)kefali/ wsan ekephalí¯osan (12:4). Could that possibly refer to the decap-
itation of John the Baptist? Moreover, a Jewish way to resist an unjust aggressor or
an exaggerated claim is to break the teeth of the foe (Ps 3:7; 58:6; Job 29:17). Prob-
ably hitting on the head included also breaking the teeth to reject what was consid-
ered the unjust claims of the owner. Matthew, however, has the following sequence;
flaying, killing, and stoning.

Die drei Ausdrucke verprügeln, töten, steine werfen’ sollen die Behand-
lung veraunschaulichen, welche die erstgesandten wie auch die auch
ihnen gesandten Sklaven erfuhr.65
 The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 107

de/ rw der¯o = “to flay,” but in its weakened form it means “to flog, to whip.” The verb
has a variety of meanings including the beating of waves into the boat (Mark 4:37).
It occurs 12 times in the New Testament.
derw technically means “flaying off of skin.” Lightfoot thinks that it is not amiss
to render the verb as “to beat or to whip” because the forty stripes save one did mis-
erably flay off the skin of the poor man.66 In Aramaic, the verb is gpUs hence the ex-
pression {y(br)h-t) gpys—beaten with forty.67
a)pe/ kteinan—apekteinan from a)po\-ktei/ nw apo- ktein¯o means to kill and tech-
nically to kill by the sword hence the preposition a)po\.
e)liqobo/ lhsan, liqo-bole/ w (li/ qoj + Ba/ llw) lithos + ballo, “to stone.”
Gaechter understands it to mean “to throw stones at people to scare or chase them
away”, because after the servant had been killed, stoning would no longer make
sense.

“Warfen steine nach” um sie zu vertrieben. Das Wort findet sich noch in
Mt 23:37 (Lk 13:34) heißt dort aber “steinigen,” kann also nicht hierher
übertragen worden sein. Dann nach toten “hat steinigen” keinen
Sinn.68

Stoning of animals (Ex 21:28, 32; Ex 19:13; Heb 12:20) and of individuals (Ex 8:
26; 17:4; Lev 20:2; 24:16; Numb 15:35) was not unknown in Israel. A false prophet,
a dreamer was put to death (Deut 13:5; 18:20; Jer 28:16). Scripture mentions ston-
ing of prophets of God’s messengers (2 Chr 24:21). Stoning suggests execution on
the basis of religious apostasy.
Sanhedrin 7.4 enumerates crimes punishable by stoning—false prophecy, idola-
try, blasphemy, sacrificing children to Molech, breaking the Sabbath, adultery, and
bestiality. They also include cursing parents, sorcery, being a stubborn or a rebel-
lious son.
This was the manner of execution by stoning. The place of stoning was twice as
high as a man. From the top of this, one of the witnesses striking him on his loins
felled him to the ground: if he died of this, well; if not, the other witness threw a
stone upon his heart. If he straightaway died, that sufficed; but if not, he was stoned
by all Israel for it is written:

the hand of the witness shall be first upon him to put him to death, and
afterwards the hand of all the people (Sanh 6.4).

Though the text says that some of the servants were stoned, biblical tradition
records only one stoning—of the prophet Zechariah, son of Jehoiada (2 Chr 24:21–
22). Nehemiah took the position of ascribing violent death to the prophets of the
monarchical era.
108 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Nevertheless they were disobedient and rebelled against you and cast
your law behind their back and killed your prophets, who had warned
them in order to turn them back to you and they committed great blas-
phemies (Neh 9:26).

2 Chr 36:16 speaks of the Israelites mocking the messengers of God, despising his
words and scoffing at his prophets. Other punishments given to the servants of God
besides stoning includes being sawn in two, killed by the sword, going about in skins
of sheep and goats, being destitute, afflicted and ill-treated (Heb 11:37).
In Matt 23:37 Jesus laments:

O Jerusalem killing the prophets

and stoning those who are sent to you (Matt 23:37).

In John’s Gospel, the Jews made many attempts to stone Jesus (8:59; 10:31; 11:8).
It is possible that putting God’s messengers and prophets to a violent death took
place more than was recorded in the Old Testament scriptures. But the prophets, as
a general rule, were persecuted for announcing the word of God.
V. 36 Again he sent other servants, this time more numerous than the first, and they
treated them in like manner. One cannot but be amazed at the action of the owner. If
he sent the first batch of servants who were ill-treated, and some stoned, others
killed, why would he send more as there was no evidence that he took some precau-
tionary measures to ensure their safety and the success of their mission? The narra-
tive does not say he was sending a punitive expedition force that would overwhelm
the husbandmen by sheer weight of numbers.
Bammel wanted to explore the meaning of “more servants”—more in number or
higher in rank—“mehr an Zahl oder höher an Rang” and he continues: “Darum fügt
Mt 21:36 pleionaj = mit grosserer vollmacht Begabte ein (69).
The text says that the tenants treated the second group of servants in like man-
ner. Since this is an unrealistic approach to a grave situation, could the term “ser-
vant” have a deeper meaning (an allegory) than one would immediately envisage?
Could the prophets be implied by the word “servants?”A quick survey of the Old
Testament will indicate that God sent prophets repeatedly to Israel. In Jeremiah we
read:

From the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt to this day,
I have persistently sent all my servants the prophets to them, day after
day (7:25).

The prophets were called servants (Jer 24:5; 26:5; 35:15; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6). Some
commentators believe that in the servants one should see the prophets. According
 The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 109
to Beare, Matthew thinks of the servants as the prophets of Israel and suggests that
God shows his patience and good will in increasing his efforts to win Israel to obedi-
ence by sending more and more prophets70 Hubaut believes that “sending” was
deeply embedded in OT theology and that doulos stands for the great servants of
God especially the prophets.

a)poste/ llw a un grand relief déjà dans l’AT et dans le NT pour de-
signer l’envoi en mission par Dieu. douloj qualifie les grand “servi-
teurs” de Dieu en particuliere les prophets dans l’AT, le judaisme et le
NT.71

Some have even wondered whether in the second sending there was an allusion to
the division in the Hebrew Bible between the Earlier and Latter Prophets. Hence
Klauch believes

Er bringt eine Sendung von zwei Gruppen was bei ihm sicher im Dienst
der allegorischen Deutung der Knechte als Propheten steht, ohne daß
man daraus zwingend schließen kann, hier werde auf die früher und die
späten Propheten (oder auf die vor und nach dem Exil) angespielt.72

The likelihood that the two sendings could refer to the distinction between the Ear-
lier and Latter Prophets is very remote. The sending of the second group of servants
and the treatment they received from the husbandmen highlight the progressive
disrespect and violence on the part of the husbandmen. In the Gospel of Thomas,
the owner sent a servant on two instances. According to Luke, he sent a servant on
three occasions (20:10–12) while Mark teaches that he sent a servant three times
and after the third servant was killed, he sent many others. In Matthew he sent ser-
vants in the first instance, after which he sent many more numerous than the first
time. In all four traditions, the servants were ill-treated and some were even killed.
The husbandmen made their point: they rejected the owner and his claims.
The very unfolding of the narrative evokes the strong suspicion that Matthew is
alluding to Yahweh’s sending of prophets to Israel so that his people could turn their
hearts to God and produce the fruits of repentance. As the parable unfolds, the
hearer will affirm or deny his allegorical intent.
The contrast between the owner and the husbandmen is becoming more evi-
dent. The owner sends more servants while the husbandmen kill more of the ser-
vants. The owner exhibited commendable forbearance. He did not meet force with
force nor nullify the contract.
V. 37 When the mission of the second group of servants failed, the owner did
not give up. He was confident, nay optimistic, that he could effect a change of
heart. He decided to send his son. One cannot help wondering why the owner was
110 The Vine, Israel and the Church
so simplistic and naïve as to send his son, unarmed and unprotected to a people
with a history of violence, vice, and bloodshed. The reason he gave: “they will re-
spect my son,” is pitiable; to say the least.
Derrett, however, thinks differently and believes the story was true to life. He
said that since the owner could not plead his case through an agent, he had to do so
through a representative. The son could not have gone to the husbandmen unat-
tended. Moreover, the son’s errand was to induce “respect” in the tenants.73
It might help at this moment to highlight some aspects of the parable which are
remote from real life.

• It is doubtful that a rich owner could hand over a new vineyard, a very im-
portant and expensive investment to tenants untried by him, for whose pro-
bity of character he could not vouch. Judging from the text, there was no
close monitoring. Rather he would send his servants not to oversee the
work at the vineyard but to receive the fruits at harvest time.
• It was the case of new vines on untried soil. If he received the fruit only in
the fifth year, one could presume that the husbandmen were on their own
for five years without supervision.
• With the ill-treatment given to the servants, it was possible for the owner to
institute legal action against the tenants and seek redress. It is difficult to un-
derstand why he should continue to send servants without adequate safe-
guards.
• As the servants were progressively mistreated, one needs an explanation
why he should send more and more servants? They had demonstrated a his-
tory of violence, cruelty, and bloodshed!
• With these hard facts at the background, why should he send his son, his
only son, his beloved son? Such an action was certainly crazy. But even the
wild imagination of the vinedressers, that by killing the son they would be-
come the heirs, is lunacy.
• After such a harrowing experience, would the owner be willing to lease the
vineyard to other tenants?

One cannot forget that this is a parable: but for a parable to teach convincingly, it
should be true to life otherwise it would be equiparated to a fable. How could one
explain these irreconcilable standpoints?
Trilling says it is a parable of unsurpassable force, and can hardly be said to keep
strictly to the framework of a general example in the narrative and the closing
words actually draw the conclusion in explicit terms.74 If it was not true to life, Der-
rett says, if Jesus taught by irrational and inexplicable parables, it would be a note-
worthy feature of his mission.75
It is evident that this parable is not entirely true to life. Jesus is telling a story that
 The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 111
would illustrate the way a compassionate and loving God acts towards sinners not
the way a businessman would act to protect his investment.76 It is a parable depict-
ing sin most treasonable and love incomprehensible. In the same breath, the para-
ble had the uncanny style of proclaiming the justice, the righteousness, and the ho-
liness of God.[
At last, he sent his son. The adverb, u(/ steron, hýsteron, is one of the peculiarities
of Matthew for, out of the eleven occurrences in the New Testament, it is found
seven times in Matthew. It means that the owner had exhausted all the possibilities
in the normal course of events. The story wants to regard the owner—the father—
as ready to send his only son as his last ditch effort to bring the husbandmen
around.77

L’ envoi du propre fils, unique et bien aimé la[isse prevoir qu’est ce la

derniere tentative, car on ne voit pas qui pourrai encore etre envoyé. Le
mot à cependant un grand relief, car il veut dire non seulement que le
fils “en derniere lieu” après une longue suite de prophets (Heb 1:2) mais
aussi que c’est la derniere occasion offerte a vignerons.78

Moreover, Mark says that he has one left to send, a son, whom he loved and then
continued: a)pe/ steilen au)to\n e)/ sxaton pro\j au)tou\j which can be trans-
lated “he sent him last of all to them” or “at last, he sent to them his son”. This
could add an apocalyptic dimension to the text; the apocalyptic coming of the Son.
Matthew introduces the son without any qualification. Luke calls him: “my son,
the beloved” ton u(io/ n mou to\n agaphto/ n (20:13), while Mark goes further to
say, “he had yet one, a son, the beloved.” e)/ ti e(/ na ei=xen, u(io\n a)gaphto/ n (12:6).
This reinforces some biblical texts: Gen 22:2, 12, 16; John 3:16; the apparition at
Baptism (Mk 1:11; Luke 3:22; Matt 3:17; and the theophany at the Transfiguration:
Mark 9:7; 17:5.
Klauch thinks that a)gaphto/ j in this context means “sole heir.”

Durch das Wort a)gaphto/ j wird natürlich die Bedeutung von klhrono/
moj (Alleinerbe) weit aus dem profanen Bereich herausgehoben und mit
seiner religiösen Bedeutung in den Rahmen der unchristlichen Tradition
gestellt (Rom 8:17; Gal 3:29; 4:1; Heb 1:2; 9:15).79

Derrett says that the owner could be making his last effort to retain his hold on his
property: it could be equally construed that he had transferred some, if not all his in-
vestments to someone younger and fitter than himself.80
The text is very clear in itself. The owner was convinced that out of respect for
him, the husbandmen would behave better this time, accord the son the respect and
rights due to him as heir-apparent and live up to the terms of the lease. Following
112 The Vine, Israel and the Church
the policy of doggedly repeating gentle measures, he sends his son, his only son, his
beloved son and heir, confident that he would accomplish what the servants had
failed to do.
The son is of higher rank: he is far superior to the servants. That is why the
owner reckoned: “They will respect my son.” The verb, e)ntraph/ sontai, en -
trepw means: “to look inside, ponder within, fill with shame, turn about, com-
mand respect.” In the middle-passive it means “to turn about, hesitate, especially
feel misgiving or compunction, give heed or regard, respect, reverence.”81 Probably
the owner imagined that on seeing the son, the tenants would be so embarrassed at
their past behavior, promptly sue for peace and ask for pardon.
V. 38 The husbandmen upon seeing the son said:” This is the heir. Come on, let
us kill him and the inheritance will be ours.” A plot was hatched forthwith and
summarily executed.
The sighting of the son recalls the story of Joseph (Gen 37:18–20). His brothers
sighted him from afar and before he came near them, they conspired his death.
They said: deu=te, a)poktei/ nomen au)to\n deute, apokteinomen autòn (v. 19),
“Come on; let us kill him” which are the ipsissima verba of Matthew 21:38. Both the
brothers and the husbandmen considered Joseph and the son respectively an embar-
rassment and an obstacle to their ambition and plans, and hence they felt the need
to get him out of the way, if their plans were to materialize.
The sight of the son stimulates the unhealthy feelings of anger, jealousy, envy,
avarice, and possibly hate. If he was removed, the undisturbed possession of the
vineyard would undoubtedly be theirs.

The tenants live in a self-centered world, and want to be lords not

tenants.82

And the tenants kill him to take over the inheritance. The acknowledgment that
he is the heir has the following implications:

• It heightens the tenants’ guilt by deliberately killing one whom they knew
to be the heir.
• It raises the question: To whom does the vineyard belong?
• It illustrates the blind folly of evil.83

This said as some introduction we resume a detailed analysis of the text.

V. 38 That the husbandmen thought differently is brought out clearly in the
Greek by oi de\. “They, however.” They upon seeing him, however, said within
themselves or to one another—en autois—can be translated either way. “This the
heir. Come, let us kill him and take over his inheritance.”
 The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 113

deu=te = “come on.” It is the adverb plural of deurw deur¯o “Come on, let’s do it.”
This would be translated in the Hebrew by the cohortative. It describes a unani-
mous concerted action. The reason for their action is that the death of the heir
would make it possible for them to take over the vineyard.
Klhrono/ moj klerónomos is usually translated as “heir.” But Derrett believes it
has the basic meaning of “acquirer, gainer,” whether of the estate of another or in-
deed of any property to which one had previously no shadow of claim.84 This opin-
ion, however, is highly hypothetical: it has not substantiated etymologically nor by
any document.
The action of the tenants was malice at its zenith. They had beaten, robbed, and
murdered and according to the Matthean tradition not once, not twice. Becoming
bold as brass because they had not been brought to justice, they take the daring and
defiant step of murdering not slaves any longer but the son of the owner, the heir to
the property.
Leon Morris adds that the tenants could have argued that if they treated also the
son very badly, the father who was a great distance away, could think that he had
had enough and would desist from his claim to the vineyard.85
The narrative becomes dramatic. One can almost visualize the scene played out
before one’s eyes. With three verbs all in the aorist to depict precision, decision, and
dispatch, and one action progressively and immediately leading to the other—they
took the son, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him ,labo/ ntej, e)ce/ balon,
a)pe/ kteinan..
One can even read in the actions of the husbandmen a cry of lament of the
prophet Jeremiah: 7:24–26.

But they did not listen, they did not pay attention; they followed the
dictates of their own evil hearts, they turned their backs to me and not
their face. From the day your forefathers went out of the land of Egypt
till the present day, I have sent you all my servants, the prophets, day
after day, early and late. But they have not listened to me, have not paid
attention: they have become stiff-necked and behaved worse than their
ancestors. (Translation: mine).

The allegory is so written to portray and dramatize the wickedness of the tenants
that no one could miss it. Their depravity must be as starkly emphasized as possible.
Some commentators would like to say that the crime of the tenants was so heinous
that they did not even care to bury the body.86 Jeremias adds:

The feature of the story simply emphasizes the full extent of the husband-
men’s iniquity: they go on to wreak upon the corpse the final indignity of
throwing it over the wall and denying the slain so much as a grave.87
114 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Reasoning along the same line, Kümmel says:

Die Pächter töten also den Sohn und werfen seinen Leichnam umbe-
graben auf das Feld, verweigen ihm also die einfachste menschliche
Ehre.88

Trilling, expressing his revulsion from the deed says it was a most shameful human
act, unparalled in its heinousness.

Welch schreckliche Geschichte menschlicher Bosheit, die nicht mehr

zu überbieten ist, wird da erzählt.89

They killed the son as though he were a common criminal and cast him out of the
vineyard. The killing of the son is narrated differently by the various traditions. The
Gospel of Thomas, 65, says that the son was killed: no further details were given.
Matthew 21:39 and Luke 20:15 declare that the tenants threw him out of the vine-
yard and killed him. Mark, on the other hand, says that they killed him and threw
him out of the vineyard. There are arguments which can be brought forward to sup-
port each tradition.
Matthew says that they seized him, threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
The verbs depict rage, violence, disrespect, decisiveness, and finality. In the Matthean
tradition, he would be thrown out lest they committed murder in the vineyard, thus
defiling the vineyard. That would make the vineyard unclean and contaminate the
fruits of the vineyard, and no one would buy them. The Mishnah teaches:

These convey uncleanness by overshadowing: a corpse or an olive’s bulk

(of the flesh) of a corpse . . . the skull or any (severed) member of a
corpse or any (severed) member from a living man that still bears its
proper flesh (Ohol 2.1).

Ohol 18:1 legislates how grapes can be gathered in a grave area.

Following the Markan tradition, one would have to conclude that the tenants
murdered the son in the vineyard and so polluted it and that their avarice and ha-
tred drove them to actions they did not weigh their overall consequences.
Derrett, going into his usual details, suggests that the son came with attendants.
The husbandmen, after ejecting the attendants, cornered the son and murdered
him in the tower. It would not be done near any part of the vines, because a death in
their proximity would be a breach of a code of conduct which the vinedressers, par-
ticularly at this juncture, would certainly obey. They would not endanger the sale of
the crops. The blood of a corpse entering the soil near the roots of a vine would, in
practice, lower the value of the crop and of the vineyard.
 The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 115
The death blow would be struck in the tower and the body could be carried alive
as far as the wall. The blood of man at the point of death does not carry with it the
problems mentioned above. They would not bury him either. They would leave that
to the first passer-by or to occupiers of the adjacent field. Moreover, a corpse has a
right to be buried where found (B. K. 81a).90
It is not necessary to go into all the meticulous details of Derrett. To appreciate
the parable, it is sufficient to note that the climax of the wickedness of the husband-
men lay in the murder of the son and it is for this and other acts of misdemeanor
that they are punished.
One can see some affinity with the Johannine text of the crucifixion of Jesus,
John 19:17. A comparative study of the texts reveals the following:

John 19:17 Matthew 21:39

pare/ labon to\n Ihsou=n they took Jesus labo/ ntej au)to\n taking him
e)ch=lqen they went out e)z/ e/ balon they threw
him out
e)stau/ rwsan they crucified him a)pe/ kteinan they killed
him

Does the killing of the son outside the vineyard insinuate the crucifixion of Jesus
outside the gates of Jerusalem? In Heb 13:12–13 we read:

So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people
through his own blood. Therefore, let us go forth to him outside the
camp and bear the abuse he endured.

Matthew and Luke require the son to be killed outside the wall in order that it may
be made plain that the son is to be understood as Jesus.91

4.5.2 Attempted Appropriation of the Vineyard

Why and how could the tenants imagine that they could take over the vineyard?
Joachim Jeremias believes that since the son was a)gapho/ j, hence the only son,
the removal of the sole heir would mean unhindered possession of the property.

The arrival of the son allowed them to assume that the owner was dead
and that the son had come to take up his inheritance.92

He also added that the husbandmen could claim the right of primi occupantis if the sole
heir was dead, and on the death of the owner, they could make a case of intestacy.93
116 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Derrett carried out extensive study of the tenants and their relationship with the
owner which I shall summarize because some of the views of Derrett throw some
light on the parable.94
The vinedressers were ariysiym. An ariys was a tenant—farmer and they had no
wonderful reputation to honesty and fair play. Most of these tenant –farmers always
wanted to exploit their masters which made their masters want to treat them with
an iron fist. It does appear that these tenants were entitled to a fixed proportion of
the produce—unlike other tenants who would pay a fixed amount to the owner and
keep the rest of the fruits for themselves.
The rent must be paid, be it even a token. Nonpayment of rent was considered
means of establishing ownership. Servants had to be sent to the tenants every year
as nonpayment for three consecutive years would thereby mean claim to the prop-
erty. This was the law of hazaqah hqzx, i.e acquisition by some form of prescription.
As Kümmel noted, a threefold repetition was needed in Jewish Law and custom to
make a title secure.95
Derrett goes on to say that the ariysiym were known to convert their tenure into
ownership even by dishonest means. He quotes Sonc 174 about a man in possession
of another’s property:

If you will sell it to me, well and good; but if not, I shall suppress the
mortgage deed and say I purchased it outright.

He also quotes the Mishna Ket XIII.7

If a man went beyond the sea and the path to his field was lost,
Admon says: He may go to it by the shortest way. But the sages say he
must buy another path even if it costs a hundred minas, or fly through
the air.

Derrett concludes:

The basic legal rule is that a claimant, who claims by a reasonable (even
if fake) title, is owner in law, if he has enjoyed the produce for three
consecutive harvests.96

The presence of the son would complicate matters. Evidence of murder or rob-
bery would render a claim impossible but a semblance of theft or murder could
suffice.97
However, S.R. Llewelyn, in a scholarly and well researched article based on the
study of early documents and the Mishnah argues vehemently, nay convincingly,
against some of the tenets of Derrett. Here are some of his arguments:
 The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 117
• The parable should be understood in the context of threat of judgment
against Jewish leadership.
• There were deeds which were not leases but labor agreements: wages were
paid to the workers, rents were not collected from them.
• Would the landlord lease the vineyard before it was redeemed? Such a lease
would amount to economic nonsense.
• In the case of default on the part of the tenants, the owner could petition
authorities to investigate his claim and take necessary action (y. B. Bat.
3.3).
• The tenant’s claim to ownership could only be valid if the lease agreement
never came to light and they alleged that a sale or a gift had occurred or that
the property had been pledged in debt.
• One reading Derrett’s article would get the impression that the rabbinic law
served the person who acted with fraudulent intent.
The law of hazaqah was not applicable. There is no mention of a three-
year period. Indeed M. Ket 2.2 assumes that the usurper’s claim was over-
turned if disproved by witnesses. The law of hazaqah went through various
stages of development in the first and second centuries.98

To sum up, it is not likely to produce arguments with which to prove that the ten-
ants had any legal stand to lay claim to the vineyard. Their use of violence and un-
fair measures could never legally win them the vineyard.
There is no scholar who would not appreciate the hard work and the depth of re-
search Derrett conducted in rabbinic studies to better comprehend this parable.
However, the details he went into had limited advantage and success towards a
sound exegesis of this pericope. It is important to recall the key message of the para-
ble: the husbandmen had become so avaricious, wicked, and disrespectful, that by
all means, fair and foul, they wanted to keep the vineyard which they had come to
consider theirs, contrary to all principles of justice.
V.40 Verse 40 ushers in a new trend of argument in the narrative. Jesus is sure
that the Jewish leaders understood the parable, the gravity of the issue raised and its
relevance to them. He changes from a narrative style to a question.
Is this a rhetorical question or a mere stylistic device used by the evangelist?
Matthew clearly indicates that the Jewish leaders answered the question and by so
doing condemned themselves (cfr 2 Sam 12:17). In Luke it was Jesus who answered
the question he himself had posed and when they realized that it applied to them,
recoiled from the answer and said “God forbid” (20:16). Assuming that it was a
rhetorical question that was put, Klauch says:

Die rhetorische Frage ist bei Mt 21:40f in einen Dialog umgestaltet wie
Matthäus es often tut (12:10; 22:42) cfr 2 Sam 12:1–7; 2 Sam 14:1–20,
118 The Vine, Israel and the Church

1Kg 20:39ff. Die Antwort hat stilitisch Die Forme paranomasie (kakou\j
kakw=j). Das ist kein Semitismus sondern klassisches Griechish.99

The answer is two-fold and double-edged:

kakou\j kakw=j a)pole/ sei

a)mpelw=na e)kdw/ setai a)/ lloij gewrgoi=j

He will destroy those evil men in an evil manner:

he will lease the vineyard to other tenants.

There is some literary affinity between this verse and Isaiah.

Isa 5:7 Mt 21:40

o( ga\r a)mpelw\n kuri/ ou sabawq oi)koj ku/ rioj tou= a)mpelw=noj
ti/ poih/ sw (5:4) ti/ poih/ sei

By this answer, a number of affirmations is made.

• The owner is no longer a)/ nqrwpoj—a mere man—(Mark and Luke) or

a)/ nqrwpoj oi)kodespo/ thj—a certain householder—(Matthew): more
striking is that all three synoptics now call him o(ku/ rioj tou= a)mpelw/
noj ho Kyrios tou ampelonos the Lord of the vineyard—and the three agree
on the question: ti poihsei? what will he do? He is called ku/ rioj. Is
that a direct reference to Yahweh? Does Matthew imply that just as the
friend of the bard in the Canticle of the Vine is Yahweh, in like manner,
in this parable, the owner is Yahweh?
• The owner is alive and his arms are not shortened. He will come to admin-
ister retributive justice.
• Though he may have been patient, he is not a weakling. He will act with
firmness and decisiveness.

The Lord of the Vineyard will destroy those evil men in an evil manner. This text is
generally understood to mean that he would put them to a shameful death. But
what is the force of the verb a)pole/ sei apolesei? -”destroy?”
The tenants are evil men. The Lord of the vineyard has power over life and death
and he means to exercise that power. He will bring them to a painful disgraceful
end. Gen 9:6 says clearly:

Whoever sheds the blood of a man

by a man shall his blood by shed;
 The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 119
for God made man in his own image
(cfr. Exod 21:12; Lev 24:17; Numb 35:16–34).

The answer is problematic especially in agrarian policy. Crossman has a different

view. He thinks that the idea of punitive expedition against the tenants is improba-
ble against the background of the rest of the story. If the owner had such force at his
disposal why didn’t he use it earlier instead of relying on the pathetic hope for re-
spect which now becomes ludicrous. Moreover, that an owner after such an experi-
ence would again give out his vineyard strains credulity; it would be contrary to the
probabilities of agrarian experience.100
But it is here that one discovers the lesson of the parable. The owner did not
punish, not that he could not, but he did not want. The punishment he gives, even
if it capital punishment, is rightly deserved to the wicked husbandmen. Leasing of
the vineyard is an accepted way of looking after the vineyard: the method is good
and because it is good, it can be used again. It is only the tenants who were wicked,
and need to be moved out of the scene.
The Lord of the vineyard will not permit his investment to go waste: he will not
permit his designs to be frustrated. Since the use of tenants is good, he will find a
new group of tenants who will give him his heart’s desire.
These new tenants will recognize that the fruits of the vineyard belong to the
owner. The text does not make any explicit provision for the tenants keeping some
of the fruits. The fruits (pl.) belong to the owner and he means to keep them.
The vineyard will not provide fruits sporadically or spasmodically. The plants
have their seasons (pl.) and they will produce their fruits in their seasons. That was
the only reason why the vineyard was set up. Consequently, the objective of the
vineyard will be realized.
V. 42 A new phase in the dialogue is introduced by Jesus asking a question:
“Have you never read? and quoting Ps 118:22–23. Ps 118 is a very popular psalm in
Israel’s worship. It is the last of the Hallel Psalms (111–118) and was probably used
at the feast of Tabernacles, especially as the procession entered the temple, v. 19. Its
popularity can be proved from its use at Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem (cfr
Matt 21:9 // Ps 118:25–26). Such being the case, it is to be expected that every Jew,
nay the Jewish leaders, would be familiar with it.
The text about the stone is found is Isa 8:14–15;

He will become a sanctuary

a stone of offense
a rock of stumbling
to both houses of Israel
a trap and a snare
to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
120 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Also in Is 28:16 we read;

Therefore thus says Yahweh Sebaoth: “Behold I am laying in Zion for a

foundation a stone, a tested stone; a precious cornerstone, of a sure
foundation: He who believes will not stumble.”

This text of Ps 118 quoted by Jesus was applied messianically to Jesus in the New Tes-
tament (Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:7) while Romans 9:33 quotes Isa 28:16. The stone which
the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. Luke stops with v. 22 while Mark
and Matthew add v. 23. “It is the Lord’s doing and is wonderful to behold.”
The quotation from Ps 118 is to be linked not with the preceding verses of our
pericope but with the following. The parable summarizes the Heilsgeschichte of the
Old Testament—from the call of Abraham, the infidelities of Israel, their rebellion
which is about to be consummated in what the Jewish leaders were plotting.

The parable tells in allegorical form the main events in the dealings of
God with his people: covenant, prophecy, the coming of Christ, Cruci-
fixion, the Church. One notable event is absent—the Resurrection.
This is now made good by the addition of the Old Testament quotation
which foretells the reversal of man’ judgments by God.101

The verb a)pedoki/ masan—a)po\ and dokima/ cw dokimáz¯o means “to approve,
sanction, approve after scrutiny, pass as fit to serve.”102 It means that the stone was
thoroughly examined by the builders and rejected as unfit for building.
Kefalh\ gwni/ aj kephale g¯onías—eckstein—“head of corner.” It is a stone placed
in a corner on which the structure depends; the capstone. It is not likely it should be
translated as “foundation stone” (Eph 2:20) but rather as “capstone,” the stone
which holds the walls of the building together.
It means therefore that the stone which the builders examined and rejected as
unsuitable has become the capstone. The judgment of the builders, despite their
professionalism and expertise is incorrect because the stone was destined to do the
work which God, the architect designed for it.
Jesus now applies the text to the parable. The son was rejected, killed and
thrown out of the vineyard as a person of no consequence. It was precisely because
of him that the anger of the owner would descend on the tenants. The death of the
son was the greatest tragedy in the career of the tenants.
The rejection of the stone was seen by New Testament writers as prefiguring
the rejection of Jesus and his subsequent vindication by God when he raised him
from the dead. This is truly the Lord’s doing, a wonder to behold. So he became
the corner-stone.
The builders—the wicked tenants as well as the chief priests and the elders—
 The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 121
were unable to recognize the value of the stone and consequently rejected it as val-
ueless, but for the Lord, the stone was of immense value and became the corner
stone for the new dispensation.
The citation of Ps 118:22 from the LXX makes an abrupt transition from the fig-
ure of the vineyard to that of a building. The transition has some problems because
it is not easy to see how to equate the murdered son with a stone at first rejected and
later elevated to a key position. The citation supplies what was missing in the para-
ble—a reference to the exaltation of the son.103 The tenants by killing the son de-
stroyed themselves, and the builders by rejecting the stone which later became the
capstone proved themselves incompetent.
Vs. 45 verdict. Now comes the solemn pronouncement of Jesus. It begins with
dia\ tou=to dia touto—“on account of the above reasons.” The parable was a prel-
ude and a preparation for this pronouncement. It was an authoritative response to
those who objected to the authority of Jesus. Since Jesus’ authority was challenged
by the Jewish leaders, he now teaches that he has the power and the authority not
only to expel the tradesmen from the temple but has more than that: in his person
the kingdom of God is established in a final and definitive manner because he is the
SON. The vineyard does not belong to the husbandmen: it belongs to the owner—
GOD, and he is the son and the heir.

“Therefore I tell you” is a solemn pronouncement and there follows a

most explicit statement in Matthew that there is going to be a new peo-
ple of God.”104

The text reads: “the kingdom of God” instead of the usual Matthean “kingdom of
heaven.” The kingdom of God here is certainly not God’s kingly rule but the sphere
of his rule; nor a future hope but a present reality; not a spiritual ideal but a concrete
community.105 The kingdom of God (personal) indicates God’s presence in his peo-
ple’s history and his gracious saving work among them.
The kingdom of God will be taken away form YOU. They will be identified in v.
45 as the Chief Priests and Pharisees while in v. 23, they are the Chief Priests and
the elders of the people. Although the Elders could come from any of the major
sects among the Jews, the distinction, I believe, should not be pressed because it
does appear the text has the same audience in view, because they are the religious
leaders and official representatives of the people.

4.6 Conclusion

However, there is more to it. We need to ask how v. 43 stands in relation to v. 41.
In v. 41, the owner will bring the wicked tenants to an evil end and lease out the
122 The Vine, Israel and the Church
vineyard to others. In v. 43, the kingdom will be taken away from you. Should there
be an identification of the tenants with the religious Jewish leaders? If they are the
same, what would be the reason to emphasize the leasing of the vineyard to others
while the tenants are no more? Is destruction a)pole/ sei synonymous with death?
Does the text simply say that the tenants would be punished and part of the punish-
ment would be to lease out the vineyard to others? On these matters authors differ.
Robert Smith says that the application of vv. 42–45 is restricted to the leaders:
they will be merely replaced not killed.106 Beare says that the tenants no longer fig-
ure the people of Israel but only those who have responsibilities of administration.
They had declared that the tenants deserved death but v. 43 threatens them only
with the cancellation of the lease.107 Young does not think that the parable refers to
Jewish leadership.

It is precarious to go beyond this theme (the leadership of priests) and

look for an allegorical meaning for the vineyard—be it the kingdom of
God (as in Matthew), the people, the Temple, the Judaism of the day,
the leadership, the land of Israel, or some other allegorical interpreta-
tion. None of these interpretations may be imposed upon the parable by
its context.108

It can also be construed that in the concluding part of the pericope, only a limited
group (priests, elders, and Pharisees) have been at fault and that God will remove them
from their positions of authority and entrust Israel to others, to more faithful leaders.
This opinion is rooted in the Old Testament where Yahweh promised that he would re-
place unfaithful shepherds with devoted ones (Jer 23:1–4) or God himself would be
the Shepherd or commission his servant David to take on the task (Ezk 34:1–24).
However, taking the parable as a unit, it does appear legitimate to conclude that
the religious leaders were acting on their capacity as representatives of the people
and official proponents of Judaism of their day. In questioning the authority of Jesus,
they were championing the cause of orthodoxy and integrity of Jewish faith. They
teach and decide for the nation and chart its course. Hence what they say and do in
that capacity affects the destiny of the nation, just as the sin of any leader (though
it may not be the sin of the nation) brings punishment on the nation. The people of
Israel suffered for the wrong decisions of Rehoboam (1Kgs 12), Ahab (1Kgs 16:29–
22:40), Ahaz (1Kgs 16), and Zedekiah (2Kgs18:1–20:21).
An important question now arises: Is the limited application of the allegory at
variance with the parable itself and with the Canticle of the Vine.? In the parable
all the tenants are guilty not only the overseers. In the Canticle of the Vine, the in-
habitants of Jerusalem and the men of Judea are guilty. In this allegory, is it the peo-
ple that is guilty or only their leaders? It does appear that only the leaders are blame-
worthy even though all the people may eventually suffer for their wrong decisions.
 The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 123
The destruction of the wicked husbandmen will usher a new beginning—the
leasing of the vineyard to others who will bring the fruits in all seasons. It is impor-
tant that the vineyard bears fruits in all seasons.
The kingdom will be given to a nation e)qnei ethnei. The text does not say it will
be given to the gentiles for in that case the word used would have been e)qne/ sin
ethnesin. The kingdom will be given to a new nation whose origin or composition is
not indicated. The only requirement for membership is that the members bear fruits
at the appropriate seasons.
This nation would be derived from all nations, Jew and Gentile, who now consti-
tute “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people set apart” (1 Pet 2:9//
Exod 19:5–6). The horizon goes beyond Israel.
Thus there is continuity and discontinuity. The kingdom of God continues but
now it is focused on a “nation.”

But the composition has changed, not just by the replacement of the
leaders whose future the parable has highlighted, but by a new principle
of a belonging of which has been set out in 3:8–10; 7:15–23; 8:11–12;
39–42; 21:28–31. It is a nation that produces fruit, not one whose mem-
bership is automatic.109

This nation is in direct contrast with Ezra 9–10 where inter-racial marriage was
considered a betrayal of Israel’s faith. Consequently, absolute need was felt at that
time not only to rescind such marriages but even to send away the women with the
children. This regulation was enforced with utmost severity especially among the
priests and the Levites. But here a new Israel is born, not according to the flesh.
The parable has a definite Christological focus especially seen as a response to
the challenge of Jesus’ authority by Jewish leaders. The murder of the son brings
about the inevitable destruction of the tenants and the rejection of the stone results
in its marvelous exaltation. The parable, therefore, teaches the parallel images of
the rejection of the son and the rejection of the stone.110
As the parable stands, the exaltation of the son cannot be portrayed by the vine-
yard parable: it needs to be linked to another text, this time to Ps 118 and it
achieves its full meaning in the rejection of Jesus. The stone then rejected is now
exalted.
The parable on its own stands as a dramatic story inviting judgment from hearers
and the application is clear enough without allegorizations. Jesus did regard his min-
istry as the culmination of God’s dealings with his people, and the guilt of all right-
eous blood from Abel to Zechariah would fall on that generation (Matt 23:35–36).
Mark placed this parable in its true historical context, in the passion narrative, to
which this part of the gospel is an introduction. The parable can be seen as enforc-
ing the challenge “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem.” (Matt23:37–39).
124 The Vine, Israel and the Church
The parable also helps to illuminate those sayings of Jesus in which he foretells
his own death, and the disaster which will befall the Jewish nation. The parable
makes a moral judgment on the situation but by implication it may be said to “pre-
dict” his own death and judgment on the slayers.
The Jewish leaders did understand the parable and did realize it was addressed to
them. Their spontaneous reaction of “God forbid” of Luke (20:10) proves this apo-
dictically. Surprisingly, with the message of the parable still ringing in their ears,
they wanted to arrest Jesus thereby proving perfect relevance of the parable to the
Jewish nation. So they repudiated the parable, its meaning, and its application to
them.
But most directly the parable of the wicked husbandmen points ahead to the trial
of Jesus before the Sanhedrin (Matt 26:57–58). At the trial, Jesus is faced again by
the same group to whom he had earlier addressed the parable. When placed on oath
by the High Priest, to tell the Sanhedrin whether he was the Messiah, the Son of
God (Matt 26:63) Jesus could not deny his identity.

What the High Priest does at the trial, therefore, is to seize on Jesus’
own claim, convert it from allegorical speech into literal speech, and
hurl it back at Jesus as a weapon by which to destroy him.111

The first tenants are deprived of their charge and new comers take their place. The
new people will be constituted by the blood of the covenant shed by Jesus himself
(Matt 26:28). The incomprehensible marvel takes place. The fruit will no longer be
human endeavor but the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22).
 CHAPTER FIVE

The Vine in John’s Gospel

5.1 Introduction: The Vine in John’s Gospel (15:1–8)

C
hapters 13–17 of John are unique in Gospel tradition. John’s Gospel is the
gospel of the WORD and the word of the WORD. John distinguishes him-
self from the Synoptics by long, important and solemn teachings of Jesus,
often introduced by “Amen, Amen I say unto you,” a phrase which occurs 25 times
in his gospel.
John records only seven signs of Jesus, which in most instances, are occasions for
solemn and revelatory teachings. Jesus taught individuals—Nicodemus (3:3–21) or
the Samaritan woman (4:10–22). He also taught the crowd after working a sign; e.g.

• the cleansing of the temple (1:13–25)

• the sick at the pool of Bethzatha (5:1–27)
• the multiplication of loaves (6:27–66)
• the cure of the blind man (9:35–41)

or at festivals

• at the Passover (1:13–25; 6:22–66)

• at an unnamed Jewish feast (5:19–47)
• at the feast of Tabernacles (7:16–52; 8:12–59)
• at the feast of Dedication (10:22–38).

In all these occasions, Jesus revealed his Person and his mission. But in the farewell
discourse (13:13–17:26) we do not have in any other place in the Bible, a series of
uninterrupted speeches by an individual. It has no parallel in the synoptic tradition.
Hence we come to study the pericope of the vine, which in the present arrangement
of John’s gospel, is found in the farewell discourse.
126 The Vine, Israel and the Church
This farewell discourse consists of three parts:

• the first farewell speech (13:31–14:31)

• the second farewell speech (15:1–16:33)
• the prayer of Jesus (17:1–26).

The second farewell speech has three parts:

• Jesus, source of life in the community (15:1–17)

• Tension between the disciples and the world (15:18–16:15)
• Sorrow in suffering and future joy (16:16–33).

The teaching of Jesus on the vine and its branches which is found in 15:1–6, con-
tains two paragraphs that are closely related to each other: vv. 1–4; vv. 5–6.

15:1–4 15:4–6
(i.) I am the true vine (1a) I am the vine (5a)
(ii.) Every branch of me (2a) You are the branches (5a)
(iii.) The fate of the fruitless branch (4) The fate of the fruitless
branch (6)
(iv.) Necessity for indwelling to bear fruit (2) Necessity for indwelling to
bear fruit (4, 5, 6).1

Scholars do not agree on the overall organization of vv. 1–17 and a review of litera-
ture indicates that opinion of scholars can be grouped into four.
A) Scholars like Lagrange2, Bultmann3, and Becker4 argue for a twofold division
of 15:1–17 with a break at 15:8, thus yielding two subsections: 15:1–8; and 15:9–
17. The first subsection develops the figure of the vine while the second teaches
love within the community.
Rudolf Bultmann can be said to be representative of this group and he did a
scholarly research work which can be summarized as follows:

• Both 15:1 and 15:9 begin with reference to the “Father”

• The imptv “abide” 15:4 is repeated in 15:9
• “You are clean” 15:3 is parallel to “You are my friends” (15:14)
• The prayer of the disciple will be heard (15:7 and 16)5

B) The second group holds to a twofold division but makes a break after 15:8; either
at 15:106 or at 15:11.7 The first subsection 15:1–10 (11) develops the theme of re-
maining in the vine and in Jesus, while the second 15:11 (12)-17 focuses on the
love of disciples for one another and concludes with a literary inclusion.8
 The Vine in John’s Gospel 127
C) The third group argues for a twofold division but with a break at either 15:6
or 15:79 and the second unit consisting of 15:7 (8)-17. Verse 7 serves as a transi-
tional verse either as a conclusion to the preceding or an introduction to what fol-
lows. The first develops the figure of the vine while the second is a parenetic devel-
opment of the figure.
D) The fourth group opts for a threefold division with the first break at either 15:
6 or 15:8; the second at 15:11 and the last section is 15:12–17.

15:1–6—the figure of the vine

15:7–11 or 9–11—love and the mandate to keep the commandments
and to remain in that love
15:12–17—the love of disciples for one another.10

The work of Fernando Segovia was very helpful in this critical study.11
It does appear that the first opinion is to be preferred because it indicates clearly
the unity between the figure of the vine and the necessity to bear fruit.
The second part of the farewell discourse (15:1–16:33) deals more fully with
some themes only mentioned in the first 13:31–14:31, namely

“the return of Jesus” 14:18–21 16:6, 22

“Love shown through obedience” 14:21 15:10
“the departure and the return of Jesus” 14:19 16:16
“the bequeathal of peace” 14:17 16:33
“the flight and the denial of the disciples” 13:36–38 16:32
“the new commandment” 13:34–35 15:12, 17
“the indwelling of Christ” 14:23 15:4–7
“the Holy Spirit” 14:26 16:7–15
“requests will be granted” 14:13 15:7

However, the second part includes other themes not found in the first: hostility
from the world (15:18–16:4), and future revelations of the Holy Spirit (16:12–15).
The second part projects into the future, to the fate of the disciples, to fellowship
within the community.
Even though there is some parallelism between the first and the second part of the
farewell discourse, a closer study will reveal that there are some notable differences.
The second while taking up some themes modifies their perspective significantly.
In the first part, the accent was on the departure of Jesus; that the disciples
would be left orphans: in the second part the emphasis was on union with Christ,
and unity among believers. In the first part the emphasis was on Jesus revealing
himself; in the second it was on union with Jesus and fraternal charity in the
community.
128 The Vine, Israel and the Church
15:1–17 is a literary unit, but even so, it can be subdivided into vv. 1–8 and vv.
9–17 with vv. 1–8 dealing exclusively with the vine. But these subsections have
much in common; Bultmann says “v. 9–17 läuft parallel zu v. 1–8,” with the first
having as its theme “remain in me” and the second “remain in my love.”12
The close relationship between vv. 1–8 and 9–17 cannot escape the attention of
any casual reader. Both speak about

“remaining in the vine” (4 and 9)

“remaining in the love of Jesus” (7 and 9)
“remaining in Jesus to bear fruit” (4, 5, 8, and 16)
“requests will be granted” (7 and 16)

However, even with all these similarities, there is a major development in vv. 9–17.
The image of the vine gives way to the person of Jesus and “servants” gives way to
“friends.”13
Coming to our pericope, vv. 1–8, we note that these verses speak about the vine, its
relationship to the branches, and the necessity to bear fruit. It is in line with Old Tes-
tament traditions, where the vine is expected to bear sound and abundant fruit. The
distinctive feature of this pericope is the need to remain in the vine to bear fruit.
This necessity is highlighted by the structure of vv. 1–8. In keeping with the
threefold pattern proposed for each major section, the literary structure of this peri-
cope can be outlined as follows:

a) 15:1–2 the vine—Jesus

the vinedresser—the Father
the branches—the disciples

b) 15:3–7 This is the central section of this sub-unit and the theme is
the need to abide in Jesus.
– the disciples are pruned
– without Jesus nothing is accomplished
– their prayers will surely be answered

c) 15:8 – the Father will be glorified

– the disciples will bear fruit in plenty
– they will be known as disciples of Jesus

5.2 The Context

15:1 begins abruptly with the proclamation: “I am the true vine.” Such introduction
is not usual with John, the only exceptions being 1:1 and 10:1. However one could
 The Vine in John’s Gospel 129

argue that the pericope actually began with 14:31—e)gei/ resqe egeiresthe, a)/ gwmen
agomen, e)nteu=qen enteuthen,—“arise”, “let us go”, “hence”: an idea also found in
Matthew 26:46 and Mark 14:42. However, there is marked difference in meaning
between this statement in Johannine and Synoptic traditions: for while in the Syn-
optics the command is to rise to meet the enemies of Jesus; in John it appears to be
an invitation to move either from the Cenacle or to a new agendum.
In Matthew and Mark, the words were uttered when Jesus invited the disciples to
get up from sleep, to shake up themselves from slumber and stupor to meet the ene-
mies led by Judas:

Behold the hour is at hand and the Son of Man is betrayed into the
hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going; see my betrayer is at hand
(Matthew 26:46)

In Mark we read:

It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of Man is betrayed into the
hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going; see my betrayer is at hand (Mark
14:41b-42)

In John, however, we read:

The ruler of this world is coming: he has no power over me.

But I do as the Father has commanded me. . . .
Rise let us go hence (John 14:30–31)

The adverb , e)nteu=qen, “hence” should be taken seriously. In itself it can have
three nuances:

Location: hence, thence, from here

Temporal: henceforth, thereupon
Causal: thence, from that source, therefore, in consequence14

It is not very difficult to see the similarity between the Johannine and the Synoptic
texts. In Matthew and Mark, it is Judas leading the mob; in John it is the ruler of
this world. In Luke, Jesus calls that time “your hour and the power of darkness” (22:
53); in John, the evangelist noted that when Judas left the apostolic college for his
deeds of darkness, “it was night” (13:30).
Taking the text as it is, one would wonder whether Jesus was inviting the disci-
ples to rise from the couch, or to go out of the Cenacle. Chapter 18:1 says that after
Jesus had said all these things, he crossed the Wadi Kidron. It is obvious that in
130 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Chapter 15, Jesus continued his farewell discourse. But was he on his way to the
Garden of Olives, crossing the Wadi Kidron?
Scholars are not agreed on the context of Chapters 15 and 16. Lagrange is open
to the possibility that the second part could have been pronounced before the first
for some of the following reasons:

the promise to depart and return caused consternation among the disci-
ples in 16:16 while it did not in 14:19.

In 16:5 Jesus lamented that none of the disciples inquired of him where he was
going whereas in 14:5 Thomas did. Hence Lagrange concludes:

. . . . XVI,5 parait anterieur à XIII, 33.36 et

XIV,5; mais d’autre part dans XV, 26 et
XVI, 7, le Paraclet est censé connu tel
qu’il est annoncé dans XIV, 16:1715

It has also been suggested that the materials contained in Chapters 15–17 were spo-
ken by Jesus in the streets of Jerusalem or in the temple precincts overlooking the
golden vine of Herod’s temple.16 This opinion taxes probability too far. It is not easy
to imagine Jesus talking to the Eleven as they snaked their way through the narrow
streets and hope that the Eleven would understand and appreciate such important
teachings. It is difficult to imagine that such a teaching so profound and so novel
would be given in such circumstances or that John would intend that to represent
the course of events.17 Haenchen corroborates this view:

If one were to think of this discourse as being spoken while in transit,

the result would not be a realistic picture.18

Moreover, the solemn prayer of Chapter 17, if recited then, would surely be out of
context.
The theory of displacement has been proposed as a solution, and for sake of
brevity, we consider the opinion of two scholars, Bernard and Bultmann, to illus-
trate the point. Bernard thinks that the arrangement of the farewell discourse
should run as follows in order to have a logical sequence of thought:

13:1–31a
15
16
13:31b-38
14
17 19
 The Vine in John’s Gospel 131
Bultmann, on the other hand, makes the following suggestion:

13:1–20
17
13:31–35
15:1–27
16:1–33
13:36–14:31 20

But there is not sufficient evidence to support the theory of displacement of texts. No
major manuscript or codex has any such arrangements. “The evangelist is not inter-
ested in itineraries,”21 and the movement of the gospel is dictated by theological
rather than by chronological and topographical considerations.22 There must have
been cogent reasons why the text has come down to us in its present form. It is there-
fore the task of exegetes to go beyond the sand of times and discover, if possible, the
reason(s) for the present ordering of the text. That certainly would be a more schol-
arly approach than attempting to re-write and re-arrange the gospel. Consequently,
we do not welcome the theory of displacement, at least in its present form.
Another important question to study is the form of speech used by Jesus when he
said “I am the true vine.” As scholars do not agree on different classifications of
forms of speech, this is not an exception. It is still a matter of debate whether 15:1–
8 is a metaphor, a parable, an allegory, a simile, or a symbolic teaching.
Lagrange says that this literary form is unique and so calls it “Parabole-Allegorie”
and goes on to say that it is “genre mixte de la parabole juive.”23 Borig calls it
“Bilrede” and says it is a uniquely Johannine form of expression that brings together
parabolic and allegorical elements. This form is not metaphoric but literal—Jesus is
the true vine.24 Schnackenburg calls it “figurative discourse”25 while for Brown it is
“mashal,” a Jewish term which covers all figurative illustrations without
distinction.26
This pericope has certain characteristics:

a) It is not a narrative: it is not a story.

b) There is identity between Jesus and the vine.
c) This form of speech is unique to our pericope.

However, there is some resemblance between 10:1–6 and 15:1–8.

e)gw/ ei)mi ego eimi 10:7, 9, 11, 14. 15:1, 5

I am the gate of the sheepfold 10:8, 9 I am the vine 15:5

I am the good shepherd 10:11, 14 I am the true vine 15:1
132 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Just as the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep (10:11, 15, 17) is dis-
tinguished from the hireling who flees at the approach of the thief (10:8, 10) and
the wild beast (10:12), in like manner the true vine is cultivated by the Father who
cuts and prunes the vine so that it can bear more fruit, while the worthless ones are
cast into the fire (15:6).
In 10:6 the pericope is called paroimi/ a which is a generic name for a figure of
speech. However in Chapter 15, it would have been difficult to reconstruct an ac-
tual parable out of general statements on viticulture.27 However, in contrast to
other sayings using the e)gw\ ei)mi “I am” formula, and speaking figuratively, this
image is developed in a powerful way. We prefer to use the terminology of Schnack-
enburg and call it “Figurative discourse.”

5.3 The Background to the Image of the Vine

Jesus calls himself “the vine, the true vine.” What is said in this section presupposes
all that has been said about the vine in the preceding chapters. Why did Jesus call
himself “the vine?” What was the background to the use of that imagery?
The opinions of scholars can be divided into three, namely:

a) The Eucharist as the background

b) The Old Testament as the background
c) Extra-biblical sources as the background.

5.3.1 The Eucharist as the Background

Some authors believe that since Jesus used wine in the eucharistic celebration of the
Last Supper, and if the farewell discourse was pronounced after the Last Supper, the
celebration could have given rise to Jesus calling himself the vine.

If Chapter 15 is originally the account of the Last Supper, and moreover

if the original account of the Last Supper included an account of the in-
stitution of the Eucharist, now utilized in Chapter 6, then the real refer-
ence to the real vine would have followed closely on that to the bread of
life and its eucharistic reference (hardly appreciable in its present posi-
tion) would have been unmistakable.28

Feuillet says that Chapters 15 and 16 can be viewed as an alternative to or a continua-

tion of the farewell discourse and therefore thematically tied directly to Chapter 13
which speaks about the Last Supper.29 Van den Bussche went further to say:
 The Vine in John’s Gospel 133
Déjà à Cana (2, 1–11) la quantité et la qualité du vin furent un présage
de la plenitude du salut qui serait communiquéé a “l’Heure”30

According to those who hold this opinion, the image of the vine is the Eucharist.
Like John, one passes from the idea of revelation to the idea of salvation and eternal
life. Bernard concurs and goes on to say:

We take the view that the vine of the allegory was directly suggested
here by the wine of the first Eucharist, which has just been celebrated.31

There is some literary affinity and even dependence between Chapters 6 and 15 of
John. Marks calls the cup of the Eucharist “the fruit of the vine:”

Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine, until
that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God (14:15).

Didache gives thanks to our Father u(pe\r th=j a(gi/ aj a)mpe/ lou Daui\d tou=
paido/ j sou= 32 “for holy vine of your servant, David.”
Guilding, however, argues differently and proposes that the background be
sought in the feast of Tabernacles. Her view is so unique that it needs to be quoted
at length.

The Feast of Tabernacles sets forth God as the giver of abundance—the

rainfall, the sunshine, and the fruit of the vine; at Tabernacles, Jesus
shows himself as the giver of living water, the light of the world and the
true vine. . . . The theme of the Supper Discourses is that all these Jew-
ish feasts are fulfilled in Jesus and his Church and that a single Christian
Feast, the Eucharist, is the fulfillment of the entire Jewish festal system.
It is for this reason that we have in the Supper Discourses a recapitula-
tion of the cycle of Jewish feasts placed in the historical setting of the
Last Supper.33

It will not be easy to prove apodictically that 15:1–8 was not pronounced after the
Last Supper. If the farewell discourse is taken as “unum quid,” it becomes easy to see
dependence of our pericope on the cup of the Eucharist. But if the image of the vine
were said to be eucharistic because of the wine of the Eucharist, it should be logical
to call every theme of the Farewell Discourse eucharistic because it was used after
the eucharist celebration or in that context. That certainly cannot be said. Conse-
quently other explanations have to be sought.
134 The Vine, Israel and the Church
5.3.2 The Old Testament as Background

Some see in the Old Testament the background for the figurative discourse on the
vine. Israel has been repeatedly called the vine (Jeremiah 5:10; 12:10–11; Ezekiel
15:1–6; 17:5, 10; 19:10–14; Psalms 80:9–12) and also the vineyard (Isaiah 5:1–7;
27:2–5). Some think that the wine refers to Israel as a sign of the love and the elec-
tion of which it was the object. Planted and protected by God it ought to have pro-
duced fruit in holiness and justice.34 Bruce thinks that the vine refers both to Israel
and to Jesus; in teaching that he is the true vine, Jesus says he is the true Israel.35
Barrett says that the vine is one of the most prized of plants and in allegorical usage
naturally represents the most privileged among nations and men. Hence he believes
that the pericope on the vine is taken from OT background.36
Very important to our study is a quotation from Ben Sirach:

Like a vine I caused loveliness to bud

and my blossoms became glorious and abundant fruit.
Come to me, you who desire me
and eat your fill of my produce. . . .
Those who eat me will hunger for more
and those who drink me will thirst for more. (24:17–21)

Worthy of mention is the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Bar. 36–39) where the
vine which opened its mouth, spoke and destroyed the cedar, prince of iniquities, is
the Messiah.

And it will happen when the time of fulfillment is approaching in which

it will fall, that at that time the dominion of my Anointed One which is
like the fountain and the vine will be revealed (no. 39).37

5.3.3 Extra Biblical Sources

There are some who prefer to quote extra biblical sources as the basis and founda-
tion for the figurative speech of the vine. For brevity we shall discuss only the opin-
ion of Bultmann.
Bultmann believes it is derived from the Mandean Tree of Life sometimes repre-
sented as the vine

Wie der Mythos von einem Lebenswasser und Lebensbrot träumt, so

auch von einem Lebensbaum.
 The Vine in John’s Gospel 135
Then he goes on to say:

Der Weinstock ist das Lebensbaum.

Und wie vom u(/ dwr cw=n und vom
a)/ rtoj und fw=j th=j cwh=j geredet wird,
so konnte es auch heißen h (a)/ mpeloj th=j cwh=j.38

“The vine is the tree of life. And as one would speak

about the living water, bread and light of life,so could
it also be called the “vine of life”.

There are a lot of sayings from Mandaean literature that speaks about the vine. In
the Mandaean religion not only the heavenly messenger, Manda dHaije, but a host
of beings from the realm of light are spoken of in terms of the vine.

Manda revealed himself in Judaea,

a vine appeared in Jerusalem
before whom is no wickedness. (Ginza 181,27).

Manda is called the Vine which in Ather was over the heavens and the earth

Du bist der Weinstock, der Du im Ather uber

dem Himmel und uber der Erde warst (Lit. 68, 7&8).

This vine is even an object of prayers.

On the banks of the great Jordan of the first life

there stands the wondrous vine
before which my daily prayers and praises ascend.(Lit 218, 9–13).

Hibil, one of the beings from the realm of light was called “the Soft Vine”, which was
planted in a luxurious plain and the Great Life was the planter (Ginza 301, 11–14).
The genuine shoots need to be united with the vine:

Thy pure shoots shall be united with thee

and shall not be cut off (Lit. 253.1).

The vine shall bear fruit otherwise it will be cut off.

The vine which bears fruits arises,

and that which does not is cut down . . . .
136 The Vine, Israel and the Church
whoever will not be enlightened and instructed by me
will be cut off and falls into the great Sea.
(Das Johannesbuch der Mandaer p. 204,34–38).

In Ginza p. 24,14 we read:

Root out the bad vine

and bring a good
and plant it instead.

It is evident that Mandaean literature has striking similarities with Johannine ideas
e.g. the origin of the vine, its careful planting, the need to bear fruit, the trimming and
pruning of fruitless branches. Did John, therefore, depend on Mandaean literature?
Before we give our opinion on the background to the figurative speech, we would
like to make an observation from St. Matthew’s Gospel. Following the Matthean
tradition and chronology, it would seem that Jesus employed the imagery of the vine
more frequently in the last days of his earthly life. This is evident from:

the parable of the workers in the vineyard (20:1–16)

the parable of the two sons (21:28–32)
the parable of the wicked husbandmen (21:33–43)

We would also add the Lukan story of the fig tree planted in the vineyard (13:6–9).
It is very evident that the image of the vine was used extensively both in Israel
and by Jesus as a useful source material for instruction. Now we give our opinion on
the origin of the figurative discourse on the vine:

• The pericope on the vine is unique because no clear story is told nor is any-
thing said about the fate of any particular vine or vineyard; rather there are
general statements on viticulture. Moreover, the whole pericope is gov-
erned by the powerful e)gw\ ei)mi.
• There does not seem to be any polemics directed against any one or any
group.
• Even if the context were the Last Supper it does not seem that the pericope
refers directly and immediately to the Eucharist. There is no mentioning of
the disciples drinking wine, the fruit of the vine, and no connection is made
with the blood of Jesus.
• The thrust of the argument is union with Jesus. Jesus is the real vine, the
fulfillment of all that the vine is expected to be. It is the vine more than any
of the three royal plants of Israel that bears degenerate fruit. It is the vine
 The Vine in John’s Gospel 137
more than any of these plants that the images used in the pericope are best
suited—trimming, pruning, immanence, withered branches being cast into
fire, and abundant fruitfulness.
• Judaism can hardly be expected to be in question because any comparison
should be between Judaism and the Church not with the person of Christ.
• The main thought is not the vine as the Church but of the vine as repre-
senting Him who is the source of the Church’s life.39
Here, Jesus is imparting a solemn teaching. It is part of the farewell discourse and
consequently a rare opportunity to say all that should and must be said. He uses the
image of the vine not to continue the Old Testament theology but to give a teach-
ing that is radically new. Hence Barrett says:

What must be noted here is a twofold transformation of the traditional

material which John has effected and which is visible in both form and
the substance of the parable.
a) John withdraws the point of the parable from the eschatological cri-
sis of the ministry of Jesus and applies it to the continuous life of the
Church.
b) the vine ceases to represent Israel and becomes a Christological defi-
nition applied to Jesus himself.40

The image of the vine is from the Old Testament but no longer as referring to Israel or
to anyone else. The image was borrowed from the Old Testament but radically trans-
formed. The vine is now Jesus and the thrust of the argument is immanence to bear
good and lasting fruit. A much more careful study reveals that John depended more
on OT for his theology which is very rich in itself than on extra-biblical traditions. So
we do not believe that John depended on the Mandaean religion for his thoughts.

5.4 The Text

1 I am the true vine,

and my Father is the vine-dresser.

2 Every branch of me not bearing fruit

he cuts trim,
but every branch in me that bears fruit,
he prunes that it may bear more fruit.
138 The Vine, Israel and the Church
3 You are already clean,
thanks to the word I have spoken to you.

4 Remain in me and I in you.

As a branch cannot bear fruit by itself
unless it remains in the vine,
so neither can you
unless you remain in me.

5 I am the vine: you the branches.

He who remains in me and I in him
he it is who bears fruit in plenty
because apart from me
you can do nothing.

6 He who does not remain in me

will be cast away like a branch: he withers.
They collect the branches, throw them into the fire,
and they are burnt.

7 If you remain in me
and my words remain in you,
ask whatsoever you will,
and it will be done to you.

8 In this is my Father glorified

that you may bear much fruit,
and you will be my disciples.

5.5 Exegesis

v. 1 “I am the true vine.” This verse begins abruptly with the proclamation: “I am the
true vine.” Such introduction is not usual with John, the only exceptions being 1:1
and 10:1.
This is not the only Johannine text where Jesus speaks metaphorically of himself.
Other texts are:

6:35 “I am the bread of life”

6:51 “I am the living bread”
8:12 “I am the light of the world”
 The Vine in John’s Gospel 139
10:7 “I am the sheep gate”
10:9 “I am the door”
10:11, 14 “I am the beautiful shepherd”
11:25 “I am the resurrection”
14:26 “I am the Way, the Truth, the Life”
15:1 “I am the true vine”
15:5 “I am the vine.”

Here we encounter the “I AM” formula. Used in 15:1 and repeated in 15:5, it is the
last in the farewell discourse and also the last in the Fourth Gospel. The emphasis is
not only on the “I”, the subject, but also on the predicate; on what Jesus wants to say
of himself. The predicate is not a definition but a description of an aspect of the life
and ministry of Jesus, how he stands in relation to the Father and to humanity.
In a manner reminiscent of his public ministry, Jesus combines a particularly
vivid and concrete metaphor with the “I am” formula, “the bread of life (6:35, 48),
“the sheep gate” (10:7,9), “the beautiful shepherd” (10:11, 14), and as in each of
these previous examples, this metaphor of the vine occurs also twice (15:1, 5).
Characteristic of Johannine symbolism, Jesus uses seven metaphors about himself:
bread/living bread, light, sheep gate/door, shepherd, resurrection, way, truth, and
life, and finally the vine. In the last of his seven self-declarations, in this gospel,
Jesus declares himself to be the true vine.41
Another peculiarity of the “I am” formula in this pericope is that besides being
the last in John’s Gospel, it is the only one that has an addition: “My Father is the
vine-dresser.”

5.5.1 The “I Am” Formula

It is a formula of identification found in Old and New Testaments and in non-biblical

writings. It is a formula of recognition and Bultmann calls it “Offenbarungsformel,” a
statement through which one reveals his identity: a formula of self revelation.
Bultmann classifies Offenbarungsformel into four:

Die Präsentationsformel : “Introduction”—By this one introduces himself

and answers the question: “who are you?” “I am El Shaddai.” Gen. 17:1
Die Qualifikationsformel; “Description”—It describes the nature of a sub-
ject and answers the question: “what are you?” with the possible answer
“I am the First and the Last.” Isaiah 44:6
Die Identifikationsformel; “Identification”—The speaker identifies himself
with another person or thing. Sometimes it is identified with the
Präsentationsformel. The goddess Ishtar is quoted as saying “I am all:
the one who was, who is and will be.”
140 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Die Rekognitionsformel: “Rcognition”—It is different from the rest be-
cause e)gw\—I, is the predicate. It separates the subject from the others.
In answer to the question “who has done all this?” The answer is “I.”42

Raymond Brown also notes that in John’s Gospel one can distinguish three uses of
“I am:”

• It can be used absolutely: “Before Abraham, I AM” (8:58) Other instances

are 8:24, 28; 13:19. Moreover I AM in John is a style for the deity that can-
not be shared with another.
• It can be used predicatively. As Jesus was walking on the lake, he reassured
his terrified disciples by saying, “I AM, do not be afraid.” (6:20)
• Jesus told the soldiers who came to arrest him at Gethsemani “I AM” (18:5)43
• But the fact that those who hear it fall to the ground when he answers, suggests
a form of theophany which leaves men prostrate in fear before God.44

Moreover “I am” has solemn and sacral use in the Old Testament, in other New Tes-
tament writings, in Gnosticism and in pagan Greek religious writings.45In John. 15:
1, following the analysis of Bultmann, one will have to conclude that we are dealing
with Identifikationsformel.
The frequency with which the personal pronouns e)gw/ “I”, h)mei=j “We”, su/
“YOU” (sg), u(mei=j “YOU” (pl) occur in John is a marked feature of Johannine
style. Thus e)gw is found 144x in John, as against 29x in Matthew, 17x in Mark and
23x in Luke. The e)gw\ ei)mi/ formula with its majestic formula for the deity is also
found in some Old Testament texts. “I am El Shaddai” (Genesis 17:1). Other im-
portant texts are Exodus 5:26; Ps. 35:3; Jeremiah 3:12; Isaiah 61:8. The same con-
cept is found in Revelation though with some minor variations:

I am the Alpha and the Omega (Rev. 1:8; 21:6; 22:13)

I am the First and the Last (Rev. 1:17)

There are some instances, when for the sake of emphasis, the e)gw\ ei)mi/ is repeated:
this is found especially in Deutero-Isaiah 51:12; 43:11, 13, 25; 48:15.
In an extra-biblical document, on the tombstone of Isis we read the following:

“I am Isis, the queen of every land

I am the eldest daughter of Cronos, the youngest god
I am the wife and sister of Osiris
I am the first that devised fruit for men
 The Vine in John’s Gospel 141
I am the mother of Horus the King
I am she that riseth in the dog-star.”46

In sorcery an enchanter would try to identify himself with powerful and terrible
deities in order to impress the demons he wanted to overcome. Here we have an-
other “I” style for the deity.

“I am the headless demon, having eyes in my feet, the strong one, the
deathless fire
I am the truth who hateth that evil deeds are in the world
I am he that lighteneth and thundereth
I am he whose sweat is a shower falling on the earth to make it fruitful
I am he that begotteth and begetteth again
I am the grace of aeon.”47

It is clear that from biblical and extra biblical sources that e)gw\ ei)mi\ is a formula for
the deity. In the context of 15:1 Jesus is revealing himself; not just as a mere man
making a self introduction. Here it is a formula for a deity, hence the theological im-
portance of “I am the true vine.” It is a Christological revelation, Hence Blank says:

“Ich bin der wahre weinstock” muß daher zunächst als christologische
Offenbarungs-Aussage verstanden werden.48

Also in the Synoptics the formula “I am” can be used by Anti-Christ in order to de-
ceive others (Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8). All he needed to say was “I am.”

Dieses e)gw\ ei)mi/ begegnet auch bei den Synoptikern, dort sogar so, daß
in den Vorzeichen der Parusie sich ein falscher Christus einfachhin ein-
führen kann durch das absolut gebrauchte e)gw\ ei)mi.49

5.5.2 The True Vine

The adjective, true, is a)lhqinh/ alethine. There are other derivatives from the same
root to designate “truth, the true” and Brown enumerates them as follows:

Synoptics John I-II-III John Revelation Total Total

Johannine New Testament
a)lhqe/ ia 7 25 20 — 45 109
a)lhqh/ j 2 14 3 — 17 26
a)lhqi/ noj 1 9 4 10 23 2850
142 The Vine, Israel and the Church

a)lhqi/ noj means “true, real, genuine, authentic.” Brown says that it also implies
exclusivity in the sense of “the only real” as opposed to “putative or would be”51 or
“imagined, unreal.” Borig concurs and affirms that “true” carries with it the note of
exclusivity.

Wir erweitern damit die Bedeutung von

a)lhqi/ noj : über die Aufgewiesene
qualitative Bestimmung hinaus trägt es
deutlich einen exklusiven Akzent.52

Special attention should be paid to these two words, h( alhqinh/, because they are
emphasized by being placed after the noun. Translated literally, the text, should
read: “I am the vine, the true one.” Jesus therefore says that he alone is the vine, the
only true and authentic vine. In him all the qualities and attributes of a good vine
are verified.
One sees close parallelism between this verse and some texts of John 6: “I am the
living bread” (6:51) and especially 6:58.

This is the living bread which came down from heaven:

not such as the fathers ate and died:
he who eats this bread will live forever.”
Confer also 4:23 and 6:32.

The true is opposed to ko/ smoj kosmos that pretends to offer real life but in reality
offers nothing that has anything to do with life, making it look like vital energy, but
thus deceiving man’s longing for real life.53
In Jeremiah 2:21 we read: “Yet I planted you a choice vine.” In the MT it is called
E (arze hfLKu q¢ro& soreq cullah zera’ emeth while the LXX translates it as e)gw\ de\
tem)
e)feutesa se a)/ mpelon karpofo/ ron pa/ san a)lhqinh/ n ego de epheutesa se am-
pelon karpophoron pasan alethinen—I, however, planted you a fruit bearing vine wholly
authentic”. Here we meet a)/ mpeloj a)lhqinh/ ampelos alethine “ true vine” which is
distinct from degenerate and stinking grapes. Is Jeremiah dependent on Isa 5:2?
There is a minor variant. Tatian, Ef, Af and Cyril read a)mpelw=n = vineyard. How-
ever in Koine Greek, the two terms vine and vineyard are used indiscriminately.
Jesus introduces himself with e)gw\ ei)mi\ and proclaims himself the true vine.
Here no attention is paid to the grapes or to wine or to any product of the vine but
solely to the vine and its branches. The shoots are perfused with vital power from it,
from the tree they receive their power to grow and bear fruit and the wither away if
they are cut off from it.
Jesus is the true vine, the vine of royal stock, meeting all the expectations, and
 The Vine in John’s Gospel 143
does not become anything else in the process. By speaking of the true vine, the
verse refers to the vine’s positive purpose—fulfilling and fruit-bearing
character.54But why did Jesus choose the vine for his teaching?

“A vine has none of the dignity of the olive with its fine trunk and
spreading branches.55

The olive was a familiar sight in Jerusalem as the “Mount of Olives” indicates.
Though vines were plentiful in Judea, for strength and stateliness, they were much
inferior to the olive. Hence Ezekiel says:

How does the wood of the vine surpass any wood . . . ? Is the wood taken
from it to make anything? Do men take a peg from it to hang any vessel
on? Lo, it is given to the fire for fuel (Ezekiel 15:2–4a).

But Ezekiel also praised the vine planted by the water, whose strongest stem became
a scepter towering aloft among the thick boughs, seen in its height with the mass of
its branches (19:10–11).
The vine has had an unhappy history in OT theology especially when used figu-
ratively of Israel. Israel was a soreq that produced stinking grapes (Isaiah 5:1–2). Is-
rael was the true fine that became degenerate (Jeremiah 2:21). Israel was a luxuri-
ant vine that will be overtaken by divine judgment (Hosea 10:1–15). Israel was a
vine transplanted from Egypt but broken and now ravaged by wild beasts (Psalms
80:8–13). In the Old Testament whenever Israel was compared to the vine, there
was invariably a lament over her degeneracy. Even in the New Testament, the vin-
tage of the earth would be gathered and thrown into the wine press of God’s anger
(Rev 14:19).
Since, in the Old Testament, the vine represented Israel, would Christ be pro-
claiming himself the new Israel, but with nothing in common with the sins of Israel
of old? Blank is of the opinion that Jesus was using of himself an imagery that was al-
ways used of Israel but radically different from it. Hence he goes on to say

Diese Deutung, nach der das Jüdische Weinstock-Bild als Symbol für Is-
rael nun auf Jesus übertragen wird, daß also Jesus an die Stelle des alten
Israel tritt, entspricht auch der johanneischen Theologie am besten.56

Jesus did not use the OT imagery of Israel when speaking of himself. He used the
term but radically changed its meaning just as he used the image of bread and wine
to speak of his body and blood in Ch. 6 of John’s gospel, but gave it radically a new
meaning and interpretation.
144 The Vine, Israel and the Church
5.5.3 My Father Is the Vine-Dresser

The Greek, gew/ rgoj georgos, a “farmer,” a “tiller of the earth,” would hardly be a
term that would aptly apply to the vineyard. gew// rgoj here would mean “one who
tends the vine, a vine-dresser.”
The term, gew/ rgoj, occurs 19 times in the NT; 16 times in the parable of the
wicked tenants, once in 2 Tim. 2:6, once in James 5:7, and of course in John 15:
1. The special characteristic of this pericope is that Jesus is the vine while the
vine-dresser is not a hired laborer who may work with varying zeal and dedication
in the vineyard. The vine-dresser is the FATHER. In the Canticle of the Vine,
the vineyard belongs to Yahweh Sebaoth. In other OT texts, the owner is un-
doubtedly Yahweh. In Ps. 80, it was Yahweh who brought the vine out of Egypt,
planted it and made it fill the land. Here Yahweh is not called the owner: he is
the vine-dresser.
Van den Bussche thinks that the Father is mentioned here not so much as to
stimulate confidence in his paternal solicitude as to guarantee the authenticity of
the vine.57 Hoskyns thinks differently: the Father is the owner of the vine and the
prime agent in the care and production of fruit.58
The Father is now included in this figurative discourse, not after secondary con-
sideration, but as a key figure in the life and activity of the vine. His activity leads to
bearing fruit. By calling God his Father and assigning to him the role of the vine-
dresser, Jesus declares that his existence is grounded on his existence from God.
Jesus is the vine living and growing and in the Father’s cultivation. The Father cares
for the vine, gives it what it needs to thrive and his care is long, lasting, and unin-
terrupted.59 Hence the Father cares for the vine with heavenly solicitude and cares
for the genuineness and abundance of its fruit.
v. 2 pa=n klh=ma = every branch. klh=ma klema is found four times in the New
Testament and only in John 15; vv. 2, 4, 5, 6. In the LXX it is habitually used for the
“shoot” of the vine (Numbers 13:24; Ezekiel 17:6) as distinct from kla/ doj klados,
which is the branch of other trees. Kladoj is the smaller branch of any tree (Matt
13:32; 21:8; Mark 4:32; 13:28; Luke 13:9, Rom 11:16–21).
It is necessary that the branch that Jesus is speaking about remains in him. “In
me”, e)n e)moi\ en emoi is the key word and is repeated six times between vv. 2–6.
John does not say that any branch anywhere will be cut off. Rather the branch in
the vine which is Jesus, that does not bear fruit, will be cut away. Hence one cannot
be in Jesus and not bear fruit. The emphasis is “in me.”
Every branch: the adjective pa=n pan does not admit any exceptions. Its position
at the beginning of the sentence stresses its importance. Hence every branch which
does not bear fruit, my Father cuts away, ai)/ rei airei; but every fruit-bearing branch
he prunes, kaqai/ rei kathairei.
The Father’s activity is expressed paranomastically by these two verbs ai)/ rei
 The Vine in John’s Gospel 145

and kaqai/ rei: they have the same assonance. The play on words is most probably
intentional. kaqairein means freeing from excrescences and useless shoots which
are a drain on the branch. kaqairein is more a ritualistic term and not the most
suitable verb for “pruning” which is the obvious meaning in the context. ai)/ rei
means “to take away, cut away.” Hence Brown concludes:

So it would seem that both verbs were chosen not because of their suit-
ability for describing vineyard practices but for their applicability to
Jesus and his followers.60

The vine-dresser ensures that the vine produces much fruit by two activities. In
winter, he cuts away all the dry and withered branches. These are gathered and used
for fire. This is done so that new and vigorous branches may grow. In spring, he
trims the young branches that are not likely to bear fruit. This makes the other
branches sturdy. Those branches, which left to themselves would not be able to bear
fruit, but nevertheless would take nourishment from the vine, Lagrange calls “les
gourmands, qui absorbaient la séve au detriment de bonnes branches.”61 In the first
instance they are cut away, in the second they are trimmed.
Although kaqairein is not commonly used either for agriculture or viticulture,
it is nevertheless found in classical Greek, especially with reference to the growth of
the vine. Xenophon in Oeconomicus xx,20 says:

In fact, between good work and dishonest slothfulness there is as wide a

difference as between actual work and actual idleness. Suppose the
vines are being hoed to clear the ground of weeds; if the hoeing is badly
done that the weeds grow ranker and more abundant, how can you call
that anything but idleness.

O(/ tan spapto/ ntwn, i (/ na u(/ lhj kaqairai

a(i a)/ mpeloi genwntai, ou(/ tw skaptw/ sin,
w(/ ste plei/ w kai kalli/ w th=n gignesqai.62

Cutting away some branches or even the destruction of the vine is not unknown in
the Bible. In Jeremiah 5:10 we read:

Go through the vine rows and destroy

make indeed a full-end
strip away her branches
for they belong not to Yahweh
(Translation: mine)
146 The Vine, Israel and the Church
In John, any branch not producing fruit is already dead. The trimming is not some
punishment for non-bearing branches. If the branch does not bear fruit, it is worth-
less and fit for the oven. In Johannine dualism there is no intermediary between
light and darkness, life and death. Hence either a branch is alive and productive or
unproductive and dead. Hence the fig tree full of leaves but without fruit may ap-
pear to be alive (even though it was not the season for figs) was cursed because it
had no fruit. Concretely it was dead. Though this narrative is found outside Johan-
nine tradition (Mark 11:12–14; 20–24 // Matthew 21:18–19) it brings out the
need to bear fruit on all seasons. To bear fruit is to be alive, not to produce fruit is
to die.
In the work of salvation, the role of the Father is of paramount importance, so
important that Jesus says: “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted
will be rooted up” (Matthew 15:13). The Father’s activity is not once for all; it is
continuous: “My Father is working still and so am I” (John 5:17). Speaking about
watchful care over his vineyard Yahweh says

That day, sing of the delightful vineyard!

I, Yahweh, am its keeper;
every moment I water it
for fear its leaves should fall
night and day I watch over it

I am angry no longer
If thorns and briers come
I will fight against them
I will burn every one of them (Isaiah 27:2–4)

The vine proves it is genuine by bearing rich and lasting fruit, and for this needs the
perfect vine-dresser. Bearing fruit is a dominant theme of the discourse (vv. 4–5).
The Father is mentioned again in v. 8 where he is glorified in Christ’s disciples by
their bearing much fruit.
However, one must distinguish between bearing fruit and remaining in Jesus.
Abiding in Jesus has a deeper meaning than bearing fruit, even though bearing fruit
is one of the effects of remaining in Jesus. “Abiding” means partaking of the very life
of Jesus himself.
The cutting off of dead and non-bearing fruit branches should not be understood
as referring either to Judas or to some apostate members of the early Church. As said
earlier, it does not seem that the discourse is polemic. Jesus is reiterating concrete
praxes in viticulture which are well known. These principles and praxes, when ap-
plied to his followers, are valid for all times for every non fruit bearing branch is cut
off and burnt.
 The Vine in John’s Gospel 147
Damit wird das Fruchtbringen zum entscheidenden Moment für das Da-
sein der Rebe: bringt sie keine Frucht, ist ihr Schicksaal besiegelt, und
sie wird entfernt.63

The purpose for the cutting and the pruning of the vine is that it may bear more
fruit. Bearing fruit is repeated in vv. 2, 4, 5, 8, 16. How is this fruit to be understood?
Van den Bussche gives the answer: he believes it has more to do with fecundity in
the service of the gospel than with personal sanctification.

. . . Le fruit abundant vise moins la sanctification personelle que la fe-

cundité au service de l’Evangile.64

v.3 Here the figurative speech is interrupted for Jesus is now addressing only his dis-
ciples. Without this verse the text would flow better. Schnackenburg thinks that
the verse could be a reflection on John 13:10b.65 Jesus declares the disciples clean, a
word which besides here, occurs in John only in 13:10 and 11. In 13:10 the primary
meaning is bodily cleanliness, which however does not exclude the spiritual. This is
a follow up on v. 2 which speaks of the branches that are pruned.
The disciples are already clean: they are not the useless, barren, dead branches.
Now he tells them the source of their cleanliness. The disciples are clean dia\ to/ n
lo/ gon; on account of the word. dia\ dia with the accusative (John 6:57) can mean
“for the sake of, thanks to” and is to be distinguished from dia\ with the genitive
which would indicate, “an instrument.”66

The text here is not with the genitive which would suggest that the
Word of Jesus is the instrument of cleansing rather it is because of the
Word abiding in them that they are kept pure.67

Hence it is the word that cleanses and purifies. The word is personified.
The word that purifies is lo/ goj, logos. lo/ goj is to be distinguished from rh=ma
rhema (15:7; 17:18) which emphasizes the actual words of Jesus whereas lo/ goj is the
sum total of teaching and actions of Jesus. lo/ goj is not the ipsissima verba. The lo/ goj
of Jesus is active and sometimes personified: it judges people; o(lo/ goj o(/ n e)la/
lhsa, e)kei=noj krinei= au)to\n ho logos hon elalesa, ekeinos krinei auton it is the word
which I have spoken that will judge him” (12:48). It is spirit and life (6:63).
The word which is in them and which they have assimilated (5:38; 8:43) is the
totality of the message and instruction of Jesus. It includes not only words but also
deeds. In so far as these instructions have made their home in the disciples, they are
clean.
Hoskyns says that there is a double element in the purification of the disciples:
the initial purgation wrought by the words of Jesus in the Upper Room where they
148 The Vine, Israel and the Church
were declared and symbolized in 13:1–11, and the conservation of this purification
through permanent union with him. The retention of this cleansing is a task for the
future.68
Our text is not inconsistent with 13:10, 11 for in Chapters 13 and 15 John speaks
of what Jesus meant and did for his own. In Chapter 13, the washing of the feet rep-
resents his loving service which culminated in his death: in Chapter 15, however,
he asks his own to remain in him to bear abundant fruit. The disciples are clean (13:
10) and they are clean through Christ’s word, because keeping the words of Jesus is
the prerequisite for the Father and the Son remaining in them (14:23). In Chapter
15, they have to remain in him and become his disciples.
Though the Father cuts off some branches and prunes others, the text does not
say that he performs this exercise on the disciples. They are clean already. There is
some distinction in the roles of the Father and of Jesus. The Father cuts away and
trims the branches; Jesus remains in the disciples and both activities have the same
result: they bear abundant fruit. Since the disciples have been cleansed, all they
need to do is to remain in Jesus.
The word that purifies is the word that Jesus spoke—lela/ lhka lelakeka—to
them. lalein lalein is different from e)pei=n, epein for la/ lein has the nuance of
revelation. It is the revelatory teachings and instructions that cleanses and purifies.
Hence Van den Bussche says:

On affirme enfin, de façon formelle, que les disciples ont reçu déjà la
purete essentielle en meme temps que la Parole, c’est-a-dire par la reve-
lation faite en Jesus (John. 13:10). La parole est donc tout à la fois le
principe de nouvelles purifications, et la source permanente de la vital-
ité chretienne.69

v. 4 Remain in me and I in you: “Remain in me” stands at the beginning and end
of this verse, thereby making it a small but complete unit by itself and forming a lit-
erary inclusion. Between vv. 4–10 “remain in me” occurs ten times.
“Remain in me and I in you” has been used earlier in Johannine tradition. In 6:
56 we read. . . . e)n e)moi\ me/ nei, ka)gw\ e)n au)tw= en emoi menei, kago en auto menei
“he who eats my flesh. . . . remains in me and I in him” but the promise was not
turned into a precept until here.
The verb “remain” mei/ nate meinate is aor. imptv and this form of the verb oc-
curs in John as more authoritative than the present imptv which may denote con-
tinuous action; cf 5:7, 8; 6:10; 7:24; 9:7; 11:39; 12:27; 13:27; 15:9; 21:10.70

Das Joh hier wie oft den Imperativ Aorist gebraucht, gibt der Mahnung
noch mehr Gewícht, indem er sie auf den jeweíls vollzug dieser Haltung
richtet.71
 The Vine in John’s Gospel 149
The motif “remaining in” is characteristic of he Fourth Gospel and occurs here with
greater emphasis than elsewhere. Probably this can be explained by the farewell
context in which Jesus is urging his disciples to remain faithful to him.
In the sentence “Remain in me and I in you” we note that the second part has no
verb—it is supplied. This sentence can be understood in three different ways:

• “Remain in me AS I remain in you.” Kai would be understood as a com-

parison.
• “IF you remain in me, I remain I you.” “Remain in me” would be the prota-
sis, “ and I in you” would be the apodosis. It would be conditional.
• “Remain in me WHILE I remain in you.” The two clauses are balanced. It
would mean: “Let there be mutual indwelling.”

Ad i. There cannot be any basis of comparison between the life and activity of
Jesus with that of the disciple. Jesus can act in the disciple, but how can the disciple
REALLY act on Jesus?
Ad ii. The conditional abiding cannot be supported by Greek grammar for the
verb is imptv. It must be admitted that it makes perfect reading but it woefully falls
short of the depth of Johannine theology. The abiding of the disciple in Jesus is not
a condition for Jesus abiding in him.
Ad. iii The syntax would be strange as it would change the aor. imptv into a
hortatory subjunctive.
It does appear that the most plausible interpretation would be that these two
clauses are integrally bound together. Being in Jesus is not static and the result is
bearing fruit. Jesus not only wants but commands union with him. By so doing they
become his disciples.

Remaining in Jesus and having Jesus remain in the disciple are parts of
a whole, for there is only personal relationship between Jesus and his
disciples.72

The metaphorical use of this imagery can be seen in the deeper significance of “en,”
i.e. of the disciples being in Jesus. It has a greater meaning than that of a branch
being attached to the vine. This is highlighted by “You in me and I in you.” The
branches can be attached to the stem but can the stem be attached to the branches?
This alone draws attention to the degree and manner of the indwelling. Schnacken-
burg calls it “reciprocal immanence formula.”73
John is talking about organic growth, internal growth, driven by the pulsating
life of the vine in the branch. The branch is given the responsibility of remaining in
the vine which means continuous dependence, reliance, and persistent imbibing of
the life of the vine. This is not growth by external accretion. Life that is not im-
pelled by life within brings forth dead crystals not fruit.74
150 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Without this reciprocal remaining in him and him in them, they will fall back on
themselves either in total unfruitfulness or lapsing into the wild growth that is no
longer shaped by his word, into activism or idealism that is neither derived nor di-
rected to him.75 There is no abiding in Jesus without bearing fruit nor is there any
bearing fruit without abiding in him.
The vocabulary “fruit” or “bearing fruit” is not typically Johannine. “Fruit” is
found only eight times in the Gospel out of which six times in 15:2–16: the other
two instances are 4:36 and 12:24. It is not found in the letters of John and four times
in Revelation. However, it is a dominant theme in the discourse on the vine.
v. 5 The verse begins once again with the solemn I AM formula and repeats v. 1
without the adjective “true.” The theme of Jesus’ teaching in this verse is to “remain
in me.” V. 5 repeats v. 4 but in a more concise, pungent style.

L’idee du v. 4 est reprisé avec une expression positive et affirmative, for-

tifiée par la forme negative à laquelle se rattache la conclusion;\ xwri\j
e)mou=.76

The thrust of the argument is that Jesus is the vine and the disciples are the
branches. Remaining in Jesus, the disciple bears abundant fruit but apart from him
he accomplishes nothing.A disciple would be a complete failure if he bore no fruit
and would be cast away. Hence Blank says:

Wer nicht in Jesu bleibt und ohne ihn leben und wirken will, der wird
hinausgeworfen (cfr. Matthew 5:13; 21:39).77

Hence v. 5 is not mere repetition of v. 4: it makes the admonition to abide in Jesus

more insistent and gives it a deeper foundation. Above all, it creates the intimate
nexus between remaining in Jesus and bearing fruit which is a constitutive element
in discipleship.
This argument is reinforced by the double negative: xwri\j e)mou= ou) du/ nasqe
poei=n ou)de/ n choris emou ou dunasthe poien ouden “without me you can do nothing”.
It corresponds to xwri\j au)tou= e)ge/ neto ou)de\ choris autou egeneto oude “without
him was not anything that was made” of the Prologue 1:3. It demonstrates the radi-
cal incapability of the disciple to operate without Jesus. This is fundamental to any
disciple if he is to understand himself and his activity not only in relation to Jesus
but to everything else. Without Jesus the disciple can do absolutely nothing. St.
Augustine summarizes this succinctly:

Ne quisquam putaret saltem parvum aliquem fructum posse a semetipso

palmitem ferre, cum dixisset “hic fert fructum multum,” non ait, quia
sine me parum potestis facere; sed “nihil potestis facere.” Sive ergo
 The Vine in John’s Gospel 151
parum, sive multum, sine illo fieri non potest, sine quo nihil fieri potest.
In Jo Tractactus LXXX.3 PL 35:1842

The translation follows:

That no one might think that a branch can bear at least

some little fruit of itself, when he had said: “This one
bears much fruit”, he did not say, “For without me you
can do a little”, but “You can do nothing”. Whether a
little, therefore, or much, it cannot be done without
whom nothing can be done.

Blank also adds that only in union with Jesus does the promise of “much fruit” hold
good for apart from him is absolute fruitlessness.

Nur die Verbundenheit mit Jesus hat die Verheißung “reicher Frucht”
dagegen bedeutet die Trennung von ihm ebenso radikale Fruchtlösigkeit.78

This is confirmed by the post resurrection story of fishing by some of the disciples.
Peter, John, and a few others go fishing and despite their expertise and experience,
they catch nothing. But at Jesus’ word, they net 153 large fish, and even with this
number, their net did not break (John 21:1–11).
v. 6 The main thoughts of vv. 1–4 are repeated in vv. 5–6 without “the gar-
dener”(v.1) and “the pruning” (v.2). The realities are set down in a language that
does not care for style or embellishment. Remaining in Jesus means bearing fruit
and consequently life: not remaining in Jesus is doom and utter destruction.
There is a sequence of five verbs in v. 6 in quick succession which dramatizes
the scene and tells the awful story of what befalls the branch that does not remain
in the vine. Such a branch is (a) cut off (b) dries up (c) is collected (d), thrown
into the fire (e) and is burnt. No opportunity is given for a farmer to hoe around it,
to manure it and give it a second chance as in Luke 13:6–9. Its destruction is final
and irreversible. Nothing would be left to recall its existence. Verse 6 is a threat,
and a threat that will take place inexorably given the circumstances.
There is a sudden change in the language and style of the speaker. The language
is uncompromising with its absolute imperatives. No concessions are given, no ex-
cuses accepted, no allowances made. The only redeeming factor is that both the
promise and the threat apply. Any branch that does not remain in the vine is
doomed: it will face maximum penalty: it will be destroyed and burnt; whereas re-
maining in him, one is blest with abundant fruit.
The combination of tenses in v. 6 creates some problems. “If anyone does not re-
main ((men$ mene—present subjunctive), he is like the branch that is thrown away
152 The Vine, Israel and the Church

(e)blh/ qh eblethe—aor. passive), it withers (e)zhran/ qh exeranthe—aor. passive), they

collect it (suna/ gousin synagousin—present indicative), they throw it into the fire
(ba/ llousin ballousin—present indicative) and it burns (kai/ etai kaietai—pas-
sive present). In one sentence this is an agglomeration of the present subjunctive,
aor. passive, present indicative and passive present.
The construction and the tenses change but not the meaning. The third person
plural active is sometimes used for the passive in a manner that recalls Hebrew and
Aramaic occasional preferences for the third person active for the passive, e.g. Luke
12:20; John 20:2.79 Hence “they collect it // it is collected; they throw it // it is
thrown into fire.”
The verb e)zhra/ nqh does not occur again in John. It is found in Mark 4:6, “used
of the withering seed that has no root.” In this verse, the vine shoot has no “root” in
the vine; it is no longer in the vine, hence it withers.
We have two verbs in the aor., e)blh/ qh and e)zhra/ nqh. How should these
aorists be understood especially as aorists indicate actio unica?” The answer is neces-
sary for on it depends the exegesis of this verse. Here are some possible explanations.

• Translated as the aorist one could read: “If anyone does not remain in me
(present), he has been thrown away (aor.), and has withered (aor.). The reason
why the branch does not remain in the tree is that is that it has been rejected
already.
• Some understand the aorists either as gnomic (used in axioms and proverbs
for stating a generally accepted principle) or as proleptic (treating as past
what takes place in the future).80
Barrett says that these are “timeless aorists.”81
• Carson believes that the choice of the aorist is consequent on the idea of
completeness of action which the speaker wants to relay. The branch that
does not remain in the vine is thrown away and withers: the judgment is
complete and decisive.82

We would prefer to say that the aorist is gnomic. It is common knowledge that the
branch that does not remain in the vine is cut off, it withers and so becomes fuel for
fire.
The burning of the withered branch should not be considered as a mere figure of
speech. It indicates the lot that awaits anyone who does not remain in the vine.
Like the prince of this world, he will be cast away (12:31). Matthew teaches that
such people are cast into exterior darkness where there be weeping and gnashing of
teeth (8:12; 2:13; 25:30).
The branches that do not remain in the vine are cast into fire. Fire symbolizes
judgment and punishment (Gen 19:24; Lev 10:2). One should not think of gehenna
 The Vine in John’s Gospel 153
(Mark 9:43–47) for gehenna does not feature in John’s thought pattern. Not remain-
ing in the vine is consummate destruction.
Divine severity in dealing with agents that do not bear fruit is found in many
texts of the New Testament. In Matthew we read that salt that is no longer savory is
thrown own and trodden underfoot by men (5:13); the darnel is burnt in fire (13:
30; 40–42;) a limb that causes one to sin is cut off and thrown into fire (18:8, 9).
Paul in Romans 11:22 says:

Note, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity towards those
who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in
his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

There is a contrast between those who are cast away and those who are not.

All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me
I will not cast out (John 6:37).

St. Augustine summarizes this verse beautifully:

Unum de duobus palmiti congruit, aut vitis aut ignis; si in vite non est,
in igne erit; ut ergo in igne non sit, in vite sit. (In Jo Tractatus LXXXI 3,
PL 35:1842) The translation reads thus:
One of two things is suitable for the branch, either the vine or the fire; if
it is not in the vine, it will be in the fire. Therefore, that it may not be in
the fire, let it be in the vine.

The useless branch is thrown into the fire—ei)j to\ pu=r eis to pyr—with the definite
article. Why should “fire” have the definite article? The tree that does not bear fruit
is thrown into fire—ei)j pu=r eis pyr—without the definite article (Matt 3:10).
Which fire could the evangelist be referring to?
As was said earlier, it is probably not gehenna. Wescott thinks that it could be
the fire in the Wadi Kidron where the vine prunings were burnt.83 Probably it can
be explained by the frequent use of the definite article in parabolic narratives.
John leaves the image of the vine and its branches and returns to the theme of
“abiding in Jesus.” The one idea that John has repeatedly accentuated is that the dis-
ciple should bear fruit. To bearing fruit, John adds the gift of efficacious prayer: all his
petitions will be granted, and these are some of the blessings of remaining in the
vine.
This is a departure from the Synoptic tradition where faith is the prerequisite for
prayers to be answered.
154 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Therefore I say to you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you will
receive it and it will be yours (Mark 11:24).

“All things are possible to him who believes” (Mark 9:23). If the disciples had faith
as small as a mustard seed, they could command the sycamore tree to be rooted up
and planted in the sea and it would obey (Luke 17:6). Faith in Jesus is more than be-
lief in his teachings or fitful attraction to his Person; it is continual abiding “in
Him.”84
This verse has a minor critical problem. Most mss read ai)th/ sasqe aitesasthe
aor. imptv. middle of the verb ai)te/ w aiteo. A few mss like Ta a sysp read the future
aith/ sasqai aitesasthai. The future can be explained by the influence of the next
verb genh/ setai genesestai—fut. With most mss we keep the aor. imptv ai)th/
sasqe.
Verse 7 has a few peculiarities. The threat of v. 6 is followed by a promise in v. 7.
Vv. 5b-6 is in the third person, possibly to stress the fundamental character of the
statement: v. 7 is a return to the second person.
Lagrange worries about the placement of this verse. He believes that the text
would have flowed better if v. 7 were considered out of place. It would then be a sort
of parenthesis which recalls Mark 11:24 more than John 14:13, 14 where in Mark
the accent is praying in the name of Jesus, a phrase absent in John 15:7. Lagrange
concludes by saying that the disciples, terrified at the prospect of eternal loss, re-
ceived from Jesus a practical solution to the mystery of salvation: recourse to
prayer.85
There is no doubt that v. 7 could create the impression of an after-thought, but
that is not the only perspective from which the verse can be studied. The verse nar-
rates one of the many joys and blessings of remaining in Jesus. The assurance that
ALL prayers, no matter what, will be answered, is cause for great rejoicing especially
to the disconsolate disciples. This assurance is found in John 14:13 and conse-
quently integral to the teachings of the Farewell Discourse. Moreover there is no
MSS that has a different arrangement. Hence the text should be left as it is espe-
cially as it is authentic Johannine theology and makes perfect sense in the context.
The text begins with e)a\n mei/ nhte ean meinete “if you remain” which is followed
by a variation of the immanence formula—kai\ ta\ rh/ mata/ mou= e)n u(mi\n mein$
kai ta rhemata mou en hymin meine “and my words remain in you”—instead of the usual
ka)gw\ e)n u(mi=n kago en hymin “and I in you”. The use of rh/ mata rhemata which
seems to refer to 14:10, insist on the words of Jesus making their home in the disciple.
Lagrange says that if the disciple remains in Jesus, and Jesus’ words remain in
him, this is not a mere explanation of the first formula, because there exists now a
new condition instead of simple reciprocity,

car il y a une nouvelle condition au lieu d’une simple reciprocité.86

 The Vine in John’s Gospel 155
It can be presumed that anyone who believes in Jesus, keeps his words; but v. 2
warns about the branches in the vine that do not bear fruit.
The assurance that the petitions of the disciples will be granted is stated more
freely and more boldly here than elsewhere. Jesus promises: o(\ e)a\n qe/ lhte ho ean
thelete “whatsoever you may wish.” No seal is placed and no exception is made. A
blank cheque is given to the disciples: but why?
It is from the situation of immanence that certainty that prayer will be heard
comes. With Jesus dwelling in the disciple and his words dwelling in him, the disci-
ple cannot pray but like a disciple; he can only but possess the mind of Jesus (Phil 2:
5). Petitions prompted by the indwelling words of Jesus cannot fail to be in har-
mony with Divine Will. It is a boon not granted arbitrarily but as an inevitable con-
sequence of immanence.
The text does not say who will grant the request; the Father or Jesus. Schnacken-
burg thinks it is the Father and argues from the fact that the Father is mentioned in
v. 8.87 But from the context and especially with the use of the passive voice, it could
be either Jesus or the Father. This, however, does not make any significant differ-
ence—the prayer of the true disciple will always be heard.
v. 8 e)n tou/ tw en touto “in this.” It is the disciples’ abiding in Jesus and Jesus’
words abiding in them that is the foundation for the following: the glorification of
the Father, bearing much fruit, evidence of being the disciples of Jesus.
“My Father is glorified.” e)doca/ sqh edoxasthe is the aor. which can be under-
stood either as gnomic—“the Father is always glorified”—or proleptic—“the Father
will have been glorified.” Both interpretations are possible. John speaks more usu-
ally of the glorification of the Son (19 times) than of the glorification of the Father
(9 times). The Father glorifies his Son (13:32–33) and the Son glorifies the Father
(17:4). The Father is glorified in the Son when the Son, by his obedience, accom-
plishes perfectly the will of the Father.

I have glorified you on earth, and finished the work you gave me to do
(17:4).

Now the Father is also glorified in the work of the believers who remain in Jesus.
With this glorification, the picture is complete. The disciples will glorify the Father
by continuously bearing fruit in plenty.
It is possible to emphasize the aorist—the once-for-all dimension of the verb.
The Father is glorified in the Son and the disciples united with Jesus glorify the Fa-
ther in the one only act of glorification. This will then highlight and emphasize the
importance and the effect of remaining in Jesus.
The gew/ rgoj “farmer” is always glorified if the trees of his planting are fruitful.
Trito-Isaiah says:
156 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Those who mourn in Zion, to whom the message of comfort is sent will
be called terebinths of integrity, planted by Yahweh to glorify him (61:3).

The Father is glorified because he is the vine-dresser, intent on abundant yield.

The Father’s activity and that of the disciples came together in the production of
fruit and Jesus as the “vine” is the “place” where this is made possible.88

The Father prunes the branches and the disciples who remain in Jesus
produce fruit. The Son is intent only on the glorification of the Father
(13:31–32; 14:13; 17:1) and after his return to the Father makes use of
the disciples for the same purpose.

5.5.4 Becoming Disciples of Jesus

kai\ genh/ sesqe e)moi\ maqhtai/ kai genesesthe emoi mathetai There is a variant:
the following p66 D B L q it vg sah read genh/ sqe genesthe. Carson calls the variant
“one of the most difficult in the entire Gospel of John.”l39 genh/ sesqh is the future
indicative and the translation would be: “in this is my Father glorified that you bear
much fruit and you will be my disciple.” The variant, genh/ sqe, is the aor. subjunc-
tive giving the meaning “that you may bear much fruit and become my disciple.”
This latter version would be dependent on ina (/ hina and would be parallel to fe/
rhte pherete. Carson proposes this translation: “Bearing fruit is to my Father’s glory
and thus you will be my disciples,” and concludes:

Fruit bearing is so bound up with genuine discipleship that one stands

by metonomy for the other.90

It does appear that genh/ sesqe should be preferred, working on the axiom lectio
difficilior praeferenda est. Moreover it is easy to see how genhsqe could be intro-
duced because it would be parallel to fe/ rhte.
One would, however, believe that Jesus was addressing those who were already
his disciples. Hence in either case “will become” or “may become” does not make an
easy reading.
It does appear that the text should be understood: thus “Bearing much fruit” and “be-
coming my disciples” are not two different actions, one consequent on the other. It does
not mean that when they bear fruit, then they become his disciples: rather it is in their
bearing fruit that they demonstrate and prove apodictically that they are disciples.
However there is not much difference in meaning between the two readings, be-
cause both insist on bearing fruit and on being the disciples of Jesus. Discipleship is
not static but dynamic. It is growing and bringing to maturity the new life received
from Jesus. The true disciple is always becoming more fully a disciple.91
 The Vine in John’s Gospel 157
Translating the text literally one would read: “. . . . and become disciples to me.”
This expresses the relationship more affectionately and more intimately. It indi-
cates a more thorough possession; the disciple now becomes a personal possession
of Jesus. The immanence is now perfect and the fruits can be seen. There is no
abiding in Jesus without bearing fruit nor is there any bearing fruit without abiding
in him.92
The disciples bear fruit when they make known to others the glory of the Father
manifested in the Son: not only because they have seen his glory (1:14; 13:31), but
above all because they continue the salvific work of the Father realized in the Son
(14:13; 16:14; 17:22).

Ce serait affaiblir le texte johannique que de ramener cette glorification

à la reconnaissance de la gloire divine par les hommes don’t il est ques-
tion dans MATT 5,16.93

No limit is set to the work of glorification and of bearing fruit. The Father is the be-
ginning of the work; the Son is the end of the entire salvation history.
The authentic disciple carries in himself such divine energy which cannot be
held back but must of necessity reach out irresistibly to others. That is how the dis-
ciple not only bears fruit but bears it in plenty and such divine energy is incontro-
vertible evidence that this is the handiwork of God.
In Johannine theology, to “be a disciple” and “to remain in Jesus” are basically
the same and complement each other. The active and total dependence of the dis-
ciple on the Son is the glorification of the Father. The result is the abundance of
fruit. Fruitfulness is the joy and the glory of the vine-dresser. Fruitlessness is threat-
ened by fire since it does not glorify God.

5.5.5 My Father

This verse forms an inclusion with v. 1 where the Father is called the vine-dresser.
The Father cuts and trims the vine: the vine produces more fruit. That work is con-
tinued in the Son by the disciples.
With this John comes to the end of his parabolic discourse on the vine which dif-
fers toto caelo from the Old Testament images. In the Old Testament, Israel was the
vine, here Jesus is the vine. The vine in the Old Testament either did not bear fruit
or yielded stinking grapes; here the vine bears fruit abundantly and makes sure that
the branches remain in the vine and both bear fruit.
The climax of the Old Testament image of the vine is found here, and it surpasses
infinitely all the Old Testament expectations about the vine. The vine, once a fig-
ure, now becomes a reality. The vine often unfruitful bears fruit not only on the
stem but also in the branches. The purpose of the vine is fulfilled—the vine is Jesus.
 CHAPTER SIX

Israel as Vine

T
he understanding and use of the vine in Holy Writ differs significantly as
one reads the historical, the didactic, and the prophetical books of the Old
Testament. In the historical books, the vine is used to designate:

• One of the three royal plants of Israel (Judg 9:7–15)

• The richness and the fruitfulness of the land of Canaan (Numb 13:23)
• Divine benevolence (Deut 32:14)
• Support given the orphans, widows and aliens especially at harvest time
(Lev 25:5)
• The bounty of Messsianic times (Gen 49:11)
• Sign of prosperity and peace: everyone sitting under his vine and fig tree (1
Kg 4:25)

In the didactic books, the use of the vine is not frequent but is nevertheless found to
designate:

• The wife of a truly blessed man (Ps 128:3–4)

• The bride in the Song of Songs (7:8)
• The wicked who will disappear like the vine stripped of unripe grapes (Job
15: 33)
• For Israel (Ps 80:8–16)
It is mainly in the writings of the prophets that the vine is used as a symbol for Is-
rael, and this presupposes what has been said of the vine especially in the historical
books. We restrict ourselves to the study of the vine as representing Israel in Hosea
10:1–2, Jeremiah 2:21, Ezekiel 15:1–7, and Ezekiel 17:1–8.
 Israel as Vine 159
6.1 Hosea 10:1–2

Israel is a luxuriant vine

that yields abundant fruit.
The more its fruit increased,
the more altars it built;
as its country improved,
it improved its pillars.

Their heart is slippery;

now they must bear their guilt.
Yahweh will break down their altars,
and destroy their pillars.

This unit is part of a larger pericope (10:1–8) and our unit cannot be understood
unless as part of the pericope. It begins with a positive statement about Israel, and
especially about her past. The prophet calls her “Israel” not “Ephraim:” therefore
speaking about the past of the entire people of God. He reminisces her history, her
prosperity, her days of bounty and divine protection which she enjoyed since settle-
ment in Canaan.
The unit is about Israel viewed as a luxuriant vine. The gift of the land, its pros-
perity and other divine munificences are blessings from Yahweh and received by Is-
rael as such. Hence fruitfulness, development, cult, priesthood, and kingship are
among the very many gifts given to Israel to enable her respond to the covenant.
Consequently, the approving note on which the unit begins only helps to highlight
the tragedy that will befall Israel when she eventually falls.
But the pericope 10:1–8 does not say that Israel acknowledged these gifts, nor
does it deny it either. Neither does our text say that Israel ate to her satiety and for-
got Yahweh (13:6). Hosea was consistent in asserting that Yahweh lavishly pro-
vided for Israel (2:10a; 11:2–4). Israel was particularly prosperous in the reign of
Jeroboam II (783–743) which can be styled “the second golden age of Israel.”
Israel interpreted her prosperity religiously: in it she saw the hand of God,
though her gratitude was not necessarily expressed according to the terms of the
covenant. The more prosperous she grew, the more she multiplied her altars and sa-
cred pillars tOB¢cam; masseboth and the more she indulged in syncretistic cult. Her
prosperity was exhibited in grandiose worship and more embellished and decorated
sacred pillars.
Israel had with time bought the Canaanite concept of the deity as an amoral god;
one who did not care for the moral code but was quite content with sacrifices and
160 The Vine, Israel and the Church
cultic acts at the prescribed times. A guarantee that there would be no end to the
deity’s munificence was in innumerable and interminable cultic acts.
The sacred pillars twbcm maÓ sÓ s¯ ebˆoth were forbidden by the law (Exod 23:24; 34:
13; Deut 12:3) but with inroad of Canaanite practices into Israel’s religion, sacred
pillars found their way into Israel’s worship. Probably they represented a deity, a
dead ancestor,1 or fertility rites.2 Israel used them also as memorials and com-
memorative steles (Gen 31:13; 35:20; Josh 24:26–27).
In our unit, i.e. 10:1–2, it is amazing how quickly the prophet changed his atti-
tude towards Israel. Introduced as a luxuriant vine yielding abundant fruit (10:1a),
the prophet follows it immediately with severe criticism of Israel’s cult (10:16). The
more Israel grew in prosperity, the more altars it fashioned. Hosea did not view
those acts of worship as pleasing to God. Were those cultic practices believed to be
occasions for obtaining more material gains from the deity?
A very important question comes up for discussion: Why was Yahweh dis-
pleased with Israel? Hosea answers it in v. 2. their hearts were not faithful to Yah-
weh: they were false; they were slippery. They uttered false words, swore false
oaths, engaged in unlawful alliances, worshipped the calf at Beth Aven/Bethel;
which calf eventually would be carried off as a trophy to the Assyrian king (10:4–
9).
Hosea singled out Bethel for condemnation. He derisively called it Beth-Aven
(House of Evil) or simply Aven (10:8). At Bethel Yahweh was worshipped under
the symbol of a calf (1 Kgs 12:28–33). The prophets had long condemned that pre-
stigious sanctuary (1 Kgs 13:1–10; Amos 3:14–15) and Hosea had predicted that
the calf of Samaria would be broken (Hos 8:4–7).
For Hosea the sin of Israel was that she was worshipping Yahweh with a divided
heart, serving Yahweh and Baal. The absence of a dominating unifying will to serve
God resulted in worship preserved for other objectives which renders those acts fu-
tile, self-defeating, and finally unacceptable to God.3
Numerous altars and sacred pillars were built because Israel had learnt to call on
Yahweh in her moment of need and to her material advantage (Hos 2:7; 16) even
though her life was not Yahweh orientated. She did not seek to discover the will of
God, but rather sought opportunities to take her destiny into her hands; indepen-
dently of Yahweh. She sought pleasure from cultic celebrations (Hos 4:13–14; 8:
11–13) but without metanoia (Hos 2:1–8). Besides insincerity in cult, social injus-
tice was unrestrained (Hos 4:1–3; 6:7; 6:7–7:2). The resultant effect was that a
major catastrophe would overtake Israel, so disastrous that people would say to the
mountains on which they worshiped “cover us” and to the hills on which they sac-
rificed “cover us” (Hos 10:8). Yahweh would then tear down the altars and destroy
the sacred pillars (10:3).
Israel received blessings from Yahweh but gave glory and thanks to Baal. Hence
we read:
 Israel as Vine 161
I will lay waste her vines and fig trees
of which she said,
“These are my hire
which my lovers have given me” (2:12).

Indulging in syncretistic cult, Israel interpreted her affluence as divine approval which
deserved more altars and more sacred pillars. The moral depravity of Israel was con-
demned repeatedly by Amos, especially when he recounted the social ills of Israel—
unjust laws, exploitation of the poor and the powerless, reduction of people into slav-
ery (Amos 8:4–8; 4:1–3), and acts which readily recalled the Egyptian bondage.
One of Israel’s great tragedies was her complacency. Misinterpreting affluence for
divine approval, Israel no longer listened to the voices of the prophets, especially to
Amos and Hosea. Obstinacy, impenitence, mockery of the word of God (9:7–9)
would lead to Israel’s eventual destruction. This was divine verdict which would be
executed in due time.
The idolatrous altars would be torn down, the high places destroyed to be over-
grown with thistles and brambles and the sanctuaries would no longer prove to be
places of refuge (10:8; 13–15).
This is a story of unfaithful Israel who though blessed by Yahweh was not loyal to
the covenant. The dominance of syncretistic cult was in diametrical opposition to
absolute and uncompromising monotheism which was the hallmark of Israel’s faith.
Material prosperity even provided Israel with opportunity to drift away from her
creator and savior by the erection of more and more sacred pillars and altars. Un-
willing to repent despite admonitions from God’s messengers, Yahweh will then
break those altars and sacred pillars and will also destroy the people.
Israel was a luxuriant vine that yielded abundant fruit. The fruit was not appre-
ciated and used in the spirit of the covenant. Abundance proved a snare to Israel
which with greater allurement created a rift between her and her God. Israel was
unrepentant and prophetic utterances were of little avail. To vindicate his holiness
Israel had to drink the cup of God’s wrath. The luxuriant vine would be destroyed.

6.2 Jeremiah 2:21

Yet I planted you a vine

wholly of pure seed.
How then have you turned degenerate
and become a bastard vine?

In Chapter V we studied the saying of Jesus: “I am the true vine” (John 15:1) a saying
which appears to have literary dependence on Jer 2:21. Jeremiah more than any other
162 The Vine, Israel and the Church
prophet spoke about the vine: “vine,” four times; “vines,” two times; “vineyards,”
seven times; and he more than any other prophet used the vine metaphor for Israel.
Here the prophet, addressing Israel in Yahweh’s name, says that Yahweh planted
Israel as a soreq, genuine and unadulterated; which following the laws of nature
should bear genuine fruit. Unfortunately that was not the case.
To appreciate Jer 2:21, it is necessary to put the unit in its overall context. It is part
of a literary unit (2:20–28) where Jeremiah narrates the lies and infidelities commit-
ted by Israel. Here are some of her lies and their refutations by Jeremiah. Israel says:

v. 20 “I will not serve”—but Israel serves Baals under every tree and
high place.
v. 23 “I am not defiled, I have not run after Baals”—whereas her foot-
prints are found in every valley.
v. 24 “Who cares?”—but she knows that Yahweh cares for her
v. 27 Israel says to a piece of wood or stone “You have begotten me”—
whereas Yahweh Sebaoth is the Maker of Israel.
v. 27 Israel turns her back to Yahweh—but in moments of trouble she
shouts to God: “Get up! Save us!

Israel becomes a living falsehood, and for the above reasons is rightly described as a
soreq “high quality grape” that produced beushim “stinking grapes”. Judah destined to
be royal and loyal, has turned out to be a wild frantic camel in her heat, desperate to
find any partner.
By her activities, Judah flouted the basic rule of nature whereby like produces
like. Instead of high quality grapes, she produces stinking grapes. The result is that
the sins of Judah are so heinous that no scrubbing can remove them (v. 22).Judah’s
case is hopeless, beyond recovery. Jeremiah proves his case:

Judah is a slave who openly rebels and says, “ I will not serve.” v. 20
Judah abandoned Yahweh and lusted after Baals. v. 23
Judah is a prostitute, like a she-camel in heat: v. 23
Judah is like a thief caught in her disgrace. v. 26
Judah is a soreq that produces b‘ushim. v. 21

For all these sins, Judah will be destroyed. What makes it impossible to stave the
punishment is Judah’s refusal to admit her sinfulness.

You say “I am blameless;

his anger has turned away from me.”
And here am I passing sentence on you
because you say “I have not sinned” (v. 35).
 Israel as Vine 163
In v. 23 we read too:

How dare you say, “I am not defiled,

I have not run after Baals.”

So Judah will be destroyed: the invaders will loot her repeatedly and the following
verse will be appropriately applied to her.

Glean thoroughly as a vine

the remnant of Israel;
like a grape gatherer pass your hand again
over its branches (Jer 6:9).

Even though gleaning the vineyard was forbidden (Lev 19:9; 23:22), the invaders
and the looters will do precisely that, almost ensuring that there would be nothing
left for Judah. Judah then becomes barren and produces no fruit.

When I would gather them, says Yahweh,

there are no grapes on the vine,
no figs on the fig tree:
even the leaves are withered
and what I gave then has passed away from them (Jer 8:13).

There is no redeeming factor for Judah. Judah will be destroyed and be without a
remnant, and this because the soreq produced beushim.

6.3 Ezekiel 15:1–8

The word of Yahweh came to me as follows:

“Son of Man, how is the wood of he vine better than wood from the
branch of any forest tree?

Is the wood taken from it used to make anything?

Do men make a peg out of it to hang a vessel?

See: it is given for fuel to the fire.

When fire burns both ends of it and its middle is charred;
is it useful for anything?
164 The Vine, Israel and the Church
When it was whole, it was good for nothing,
how much less when fire has consumed it and it is charred;
can it be used for anything?

6 Therefore the Lord Yahweh says this:

“Like the wood of the vine among the forest trees
which I have given for fuel to fire,
so will I give up the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

I will set my face against them though they escape from fire,
fire will nevertheless consume them.
And you will know that I am Yahweh
when I turn my face against them.

I will make the land desolate because they have acted faithlessly”—
it is Yahweh who speaks.

An interesting image of Israel as a vine is our present text!! It talks about the wood
of the vine and compares it with wood of any branch of the forest trees. It is obvious
that nothing can be carved from the wood of the vine: it cannot even serve as a peg.
Hence it is thrown into fire and it burns easily. This piece of wood burns at both
ends and is charred in the middle. When it was whole, it was no good: how much
more when it is burnt at both ends and charred in the middle?
This parable has some problems. The vine is relished not for its wood but for its
fruit.

There is nothing particularly natural or enlightening in the idea of judg-

ing a vine by the material value of its timber and comparing it with any
forest tree.4

Israel was upbraided for producing stinking grapes (Isa 5:2, 4) and not genuine fruit
(Jer 2:21), but here Ezekiel changes course. Instead of concentrating on the fruit, in
consonance with biblical tradition, in a surprising change of interest, he goes to
consider the wood of the vine. By this sudden and deliberate change, the prophet
destroys completely the dignity of the vine.

From royal dignity the vine sinks under this unsuitable perspective to a
position of contemptible uselessness and is now no longer distinguish-
able from the useless brushwood of the forest.5

In Ezekiel, the vine never was an object of divine predilection, and has never been
 Israel as Vine 165
depicted as bearing any fruit, let alone useless fruit. The vine is radically worthless
and useful only as fuel for fire.
The comparison is not between the quality of the vine and other trees but a com-
parison of their destinies.6 The comparison goes so obviously against all the natural
facts as to make obvious the intention with which it was made.
The comparison is directed against the popular philosophy and theology of Is-
rael—the superiority of its race and assurance of divine protection in all circum-
stances. The prophet sets out to expose the faux pas of this boast, the groundlessness
of the gift of election without the corresponding obligation of fidelity to the cove-
nant. Hence the reason for its pride is the foundation for its shame.
Israel is the vine, one of the three royal plants of Palestine, transplanted from
Egypt and towering higher than the cedars of Lebanon. The beauty and the gran-
deur of the vine, especially of soreq, is that it produces plenty of high quality grapes,
not in the narcissistic contemplation of its beauty.
The parable is intended to strike at the false understanding and application of
election. Just as the vine cannot be judged by the quality of its wood, so Israel can-
not be judged by the fact of election.
In this parable, Ezekiel is not talking about a piece of wood which is presumed al-
ready dead: but more than that. The wood in question is the wood of the vine, burnt
at both ends and charred at the center. This seems to symbolize the Assyrian captiv-
ity (722 B.C.), the deportation of Jehoiachin and of the royal officials (597 B.C.),
while the charred middle represents the rump state of Judah with Jerusalem as its
capital.
Zimmerli thinks that what we have is not mere prophetic teaching: it is the pro-
nouncement of divine verdict.7 The destruction of Judah is not the consequence of
facts of history or inevitable decisions by political or military leaders: it is the judg-
ment of God.
The decision is made because Israel by its conduct does not justify the arrogant
claim that she is the vine; the chosen race: rather the true worth of Israel consists in
the study of its wood. Israel’s infidelity to the covenant empties all the advantages of
election.
Just as the wood of the vine is no better than any other wood of the forest, so Is-
rael has no cause for pride when compared with other nations: in fact, as other trees
have better quality timber, so other nations have more advantages and prerogatives
than Israel—military, economic, cultural and technological superiority—which in
comparison with Israel, she pales in significance. What makes Israel unique is the
free gift that Israel undeservedly received from Yahweh—election. This is clearly
enunciated in Deut 7:6–8.

For you are a people holy to Yahweh your God: Yahweh your God has
chosen you to be his own out of the peoples on the face of the earth. It
166 The Vine, Israel and the Church
was not because you were more numerous than any other people that
Yahweh set his love on you and chose you: in fact you were the fewest.
But it is because Yahweh loves you and is keeping the oath he swore to
your fathers, that Yahweh brought you out with a mighty hand and out-
stretched arm. . . .

Yahweh, besides turning his face away from his people symbolized by the Assyrian
captivity and the first deportation into Babylonia, he now declares his intent:

Like the wood of the vine among the forest trees

which I have given to fire for fuel
so I will give up the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
I will set my face against them,
though they escape from fire,
fire will nevertheless consume them (Ezek 15:6–7).

The focus of Ezekiel is not on isolated acts of law-breaking—idolatry, breaking of the

Sabbath, oppression of the poor—rather it is in the inward perversion of faith which
precludes any meaningful conversion. Israel prides herself on election, puts false hope
on the “Inviolability of Zion” but without living up to the responsibilities that flow
from such privileges. Rather there was growing contempt for the nations, the goyim.
Obviously Yahweh chose Israel for himself out of all the nations of the earth
(Deut 14:2). It is the election that makes Israel “the People of Yahweh” (Judg 5:11).
Hence Micah could say:

All the peoples walk

each in the name of its god,
but we walk in the name of Yahweh our God
for ever and ever (Micah 4:5).

In Numbers 23:9 Israel is described as:

A people dwelling alone

not reckoning itself among the nations.

But there was a religiously impregnated nationalism which was fostered with the
thought that Israel could evade the unconditional authority of divine norms and
still safeguard itself from evil simply by a cultic attitude:

Is not Yahweh among us?

No evil shall come upon us (Micah 3:11).
 Israel as Vine 167
This sense of security is found also in some Zion psalms (cfr Pss 46, 48). Referring to
the temple, the Judeans said in the time of Jeremiah “God is with us, we are secure”
(cfr Jer 5:12; 7:4, 10). Hence they continued to shout “peace” when there was no
peace (Micah 3:5; Jer 6:14; 8:11; Ezek 13:10, 16).

Israel called herself “the first of the nations” (Amos 6:1). But the same
was said of Amalek:

Amalek, first among the nations:

But his posterity shall perish for ever (Numb 24:20).

Will Israel suffer the fate of the Amalekites?

Amos fought bitterly the self complacency of Israel based on the false conception of
election. After all, according to Amos, Israel cannot claim monopoly to God’s prov-
idential care. Hence he says:

“Are you not like the Ethiopians to me

O people of Israel?” says Yahweh
“Did I not bring up Israel from the land of Egypt
and the Philistines from Caphtor
and the Syrians from Kir? (Amos 9:6)

Other important texts of Amos read as follows:

Pass over to Calneh and see

and thence to Hamath the great,
then go down to Gath of the Philistines.
Are they better than these kingdoms?
Or is their territory greater than yours? (6.2)

Election when abused can lead to punishment.

You only have I known

of all the families of the earth
therefore I will punish you
for all your iniquities (Amos 3:2).

Divine election does not mean primacy or dominion. Exodus does not give Israel
precedence over any nation: Rather it is a summons to righteousness and right liv-
ing and allegiance to the covenant. In any case, what interest has Yahweh in Israel’s
material greatness?
168 The Vine, Israel and the Church
More importantly, election negatively considered means rejecting anything and
everything opposed to Yahweh. It means uncompromising monotheism, destruction
of Canaanite altars, dashing the masseboth to pieces, hewing down the Asherim, and
burning the graven images (Deut 7:5, 25)—because these are abominations to Yah-
weh. Now comes the question: How did Israel live up to these moral obligations?
Another compelling motive for election is love. God loved Israel and chose her
descendants in her ancestors (Deut 7:8). Neither the size of her territory, nor mate-
rial advantages nor moral integrity (Deut 9:5) could have won for Israel the free gift
of election since Israel had neither the history nor the reputation to these.
This Israelite misconception of election brought her into direct collision with
the prophets. Concretely there was conflict between belief in election and the im-
plications of the covenant. The collision can be found among others in Amos 7:10–
17; Jer 7, 26, 28, 37; Isa 1:10–20; Ezek 15; Amos 4:4–12.
However, with a politically orientated belief in election, Israel could not con-
vince herself that Yahweh could ever deliver to shameful slavery the people he
brought out of Egypt, out of smelting furnace (Deut 4:20) and established as his own
nation.
The unfruitful vine was deprived of protection and trampled underfoot. Jerusa-
lem would become like Shiloh (Jer 7:12–14) and Yahweh would drive out the Jeru-
salemites as he drove away their kinsmen, the entire race of Ephraim (Jer 7:15).
Here we have the history of Israel from the beginnings to the destruction of Jeru-
salem presented in a most succinct form and it is unfortunately a history of radical
failure.8 The sad aspect of this parable is that there is no promise of a remnant, no
future regeneration. The anger of Yahweh is depicted as blazing forth without any
signs of abating. The wood of the vine is burnt at both ends and the middle is
charred. Those left in Jerusalem should not imagine that they are safe: divine chas-
tisement will overtake them.
It should not be understood that Yahweh is implacable: rather since those left be-
hind would not desist from apostasy like their kinsmen; divine justice will continue to
hound them. The text ends on a sad note: the destruction will be colossal and total.
The conclusion is very disconsolate. When this happens the exiles will learn that
it is Yahweh who has done all this, who has set his face against them, making the
land desolate because of the perfidy of the people.

6.4 Ezekiel 17:1–10

1 The word of Yahweh was addressed to me as follows:

2 “Son of Man, propound a riddle, and speak in allegory to the house of

Israel:
 Israel as Vine 169
3 Say: ‘Thus says the Lord Yahweh:
A great eagle with huge wings and wide span;
rich in plumage of many colors, came to Lebanon.
He took hold of the top of the cedar

4 broke off the topmost of its young twigs

carried it off to a land of trade
and set it in a city of merchants.

5 Then he carried off a seedling vine

and planted it in a fertile soil:
he placed it beside abundant waters,
he set it like a willow twig.

6 It sprouted and turned into a vine

not tall, but well spread out;
its branches grew towards the eagle
while its roots grew down.
So it became a vine,
it brought forth branches and put forth foliage

7 Then, there was another great eagle

with large wings and much plumage.
Behold, this vine turned its root towards him
and shot its branches towards him,
away from the bed where it was planted
for him to water them.

8 It was in a fertile field, by abundant waters

that the vine was planted,
to bring forth branches and bear fruit
and become a noble vine.’

9 Say: thus says the Lord Yahweh:

‘Will it thrive?
Will he not pull out its roots
and snap off its fruit
so that all its fresh sprouting leaves wither?

It will not take a strong arm or many people

to pull it from its roots.
170 The Vine, Israel and the Church
10 Behold, it is transplanted: will it thrive?
Will it not shrivel when the east wind blows?
Will it not wither in the bed where it was growing?

Ezekiel speaks about the vine using zoomorphic image of apocalyptic literature. It
is in the form of a fable (Judg 9:7–15) and its literary form is elevated prose. Plants
and animals play significant roles in apocalyptic literature (Ezek 19; Dan 4, 7, 8;
Rev 13).
Ezekiel describes a great eagle and compares it with another eagle. The difference
and the superiority of the first over the second is evident.

first eagle second eagle

The Great Eagle lOdfGah re$eNah a great eagle lOdfG re$en
Great Wings {iyapfn: Kah lOd: G great wings {iyanfp: K lOd: G

The difference lies in the definite article. The first eagle had the definite article and
the definite article can denote persons or things that are unique (G-K c126e) or ex-
press the superlative(G-K c 133g).
The first eagle had long pinions and thick feathers, rich with colored plumage.
The eagle is the king of the birds and the lord of the skies, remarkable for its
strength, velocity (2 Sam 1:23; Jer 4:13; Hab 1:8) and grace. The eagle is the only
bird that can stare at the sun without being dazed. The eagle, however, does possess
sinister and destructive powers (Lam 4:19; Job 9:26), all tallying with the descrip-
tion of the great eagle with the large wingspan and splendid coloring.
This eagle comes and alights on the splendid mountain range of Lebanon, a
range impressive with its cedars. It alights on the top of a cedar, plucks off its top
branch and carries it to the land of merchants. Then it carries off a seedling vine
and plants it in a fertile soil by flowing waters. The seedling turns to be plant, not
tall—probably the eagle wanted it so (not to compete with the vine of Ps 80:8–
11)—but possessing average height and well spread out. Nothing is said about the
cedar tree; all attention is on the eagle, royal and magnificent in splendor.
The eagle plants the seedling in a fertile soil by generous streams. It is as one
would plant a willow twig in a fertile and well-watered garden plot. The result is im-
mediate and spectacular. It grows, thrusting its root to the ground and sprouting
new shoots and branches directed towards the eagle, which certainly takes keen
interest in its growth. The eagle takes the branch to the city of merchants: then the
eagle suddenly becomes a gardener. He plants the seedling by flowing waters to en-
sure its fruitfulness.
The second eagle is now introduced. This eagle is gadol “great” but not haggadol
the great: it has large wings g‘dol k‘naphaim “large wings” but no” the large wings”
gedol haken¯aphaim. He has thick plumage raÓb n¯osˆah but not the fullest plumage.male
 Israel as Vine 171
hann¯osˆah. Nor is there any mention of this eagle’s colorful appearance.9 What is cap-
tivating is the passive attitude of this new arrival: it does nothing; it is just there.
Then action moves on to the vine. Instead of the vine continuing to send its
roots into the soil, it turns them towards the second eagle and stretches its branches
towards him. It pulls itself away from the bed where it was planted and turns itself to
the second eagle to water them.
It is helpful to make some observations about the vine:

It was planted in a fertile field

It was planted beside a wide flowing stream
It was to branch out and bear fruit
It was to become a noble vine
But It turned away from the eagle that had carefully and amply provided for
it and opted for the second eagle whose primary characteristic was inertia.

The vine has betrayed its benefactor. The story of the Canticle of the Vine (Isa 5:1–
7) is repeating itself. Just as the vine was condemned to destruction in the Canticle,
here judgment is passed on the vine.
The tragic end of the vine is announced in these rhetorical questions:

Will it thrive? v. 9
Will he not pull out its roots?
Will he not cut off its branches?
Will all its sprouting leaves not wither?

Will it thrive? v. 10
Will it not shrivel when the east wind blows on it?
Will it not wither in its bed?

Though the east wind brought Israel salvation at the Exodus (Exod 10:13; 14:21; Ps
78:26) Ezekiel is thinking about the sirocco blowing east from the desert which
dries and destroys every herbage on its way, akin to the scorching wind in Jonah 4:
8. By directing its roots away from the water to the eagle, the vine deprives itself of
its source of life—water—and renders itself vulnerable to the east wind of the
desert.
The great eagle without doubt is Nebuchadrezzar II of Babylonia (605–562),
while the lesser eagle represents Egypt under Necho II (609–594), Psammetichus II
(594–589), and Hophra (588–566). The young shoot carried off from the top of the
cedar is Jehoiachin (598–597) while the city of commerce is Babylon. The seedling
which was planted is Zedekiah (598–587). Nebuchadrezzar takes a seed from the
land, a son of the soil, who otherwise could never have got the throne and makes
172 The Vine, Israel and the Church
him king so that the land may remain modest and without ambitions. Moreover on
becoming a vassal king, he was made to swear an oath of fidelity and allegiance to
Nebuchadrezzar.
But the vine, Zedekiah, decided to rebel: perjuring himself he asked for arms,
horses, and troops from Egypt. Egypt has had the long standing tradition of inciting
smaller states to rebel to their detriment against their overlords, promising support
which rarely came. The prophets had consistently and persistently condemned mil-
itary alliances with foreign nations, especially with Egypt (Hos 10:3; Isa 30:1–5; 31:
1–3; Jer 2:18; 37:5–10; Ezek 16:26). The Assyrians called Egypt “the broken reed
that pricks and pierces the hand of the one who leans on it” (2 Kgs 18:21; Isa 36:6).
Zedekiah, instead of focusing his attention on Nebuchadrezzar, turned his gaze to-
wards a rival kingdom, Egypt, desiring to be watered by it. That action removed him
from the generous stream where he was watered; he will now shrivel and dry up.
According to Ezekiel, Nebuchadrezzar provided well for Judah who therefore had
no need to look for assistance elsewhere. Babylonia was the great eagle, prodigious
and stupendous, lord of the skies and ruler of the world at that time. Moreover
Judah swore an oath of allegiance to which she was bound.
But Judah broke faith, an act which had disastrous consequences for the nation.
According to the parable, Judah will be pulled out form its roots and the people will
be uprooted from the land of promise. The “fresh sprouting leaves” and “its fruit”
will be snapped off and wither—the cream of the population will be uprooted from
the land of promise and transported into Babylonia. It will not cost Nebuchadrezzar
or any power much human or material resources to bring about devastation of Judah
because Yahweh will fight against the nation.
Judah will be thoroughly ravaged, utter desolation will overtake her like the si-
rocco of the desert. Transferring her allegiance to Egypt is symbolized by the trans-
plantation of the vine; but it is the very opposite of the transplantation of the vine
in Ps 80. Here we find an excellent paradox: at Exodus Israel was transplanted by
God from Egypt into Canaan; there it became a big vine-tree, towering higher than
the “cedars of God” in Lebanon. Now the reverse is the case: the vine transplants it-
self on its own initiative, contrary to God’s command and approval, from Israel into
Egypt. The result is that it will wither, dry up and shrivel: it will not thrive because
God is not with her.
With the Promise, the Covenant, the Davidic Dynasty, the Temple, its cult, and
the prophets; Judah had all the divine blessings and guidance that it needed. Judah
was to remain humble and submissive to Yahweh to guide her to her destiny. But
Judah preferred foreign alliances to trust in God.
As in the days of Ahaz when Judah rejected the waters of Shiloah flowing in tran-
quility to melt before the mighty and deep waters of the River (Isa 8:6) so Judah was
once again rejecting God’s plan of submitting to Nebuchadrezzar which was like the
waters of Shiloah, and prefers the waters of the River—palpable support and alliance
 Israel as Vine 173
with Egypt. Hence Yahweh in turn will bring upon her the mighty and deep waters
of the River, the mighty forces of Nebuchadrezzar, which will inundate Judah,
spread its wings the whole breadth of the country, bursting the banks (Isa 8:7–8)
but this time covering the neck. This is also the sin of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:13–19;
37 // Isa 36 and 37). Even the Northern Kingdom of Israel was warned against mili-
tary alliances (Hos 5:13; 12:2). History continues to repeat itself.
Ezekiel goes on to explain his parable in vv. 11–21. Jehoiachin and the elites of
Judah were deported so that the kingdom of Judah would remain modest and with-
out ambition and so much easily maintain the treaty faithfully (17:14). But Zede-
kiah rebelled by sending envoys to Egypt to ask for horses and troops, thereby break-
ing the oath he swore in the name of Yahweh.
Perjury is a crime in Israel because it is profanation of the name of Yahweh (Lev
19:12). To break an oath is to make God a liar. Hence an oath must be kept even to
one’s hurt (Ps 15:4); this applies to rash oaths (Lev 5:4) and rash vows (Judg 11:29–
40). Consequently Ezekiel inveighed against Zedekiah for breaking his oath.

Can he break a covenant and yet escape? As I live, says the Lord Yah-
weh, surely in the place where the king dwells who made him king,
whose oath he despised, and whose covenant with him he broke, in
Babylon he shall die . . . . Because he despised the oath and broke the
covenant, because he gave his hand and yet did all these things, he shall
not escape (Ezek 17:15b-18).

Zedekiah committed a twofold crime—he broke the treaty with Nebuchadnezzar,

and committed an act of treason against Yahweh (v. 19). For these acts, Pharaoh’s
army will be of no avail: siege works and trenches will be useless to him. Yahweh
will throw a net around him; his pick soldiers will fall by the sword, and the survi-
vors will be scattered to all the winds. His evil deeds will recoil on his head because
of the many abominable acts he has committed.
For Ezekiel this is a just verdict of Yahweh based on the heinous crimes of Zede-
kiah and Judah. It is an irrevocable decree because Yahweh swore by his very self
(vv. 16 and 19). Yahweh is holy who would neither condone nor brook perfidy so
that his holy name be not profaned.
Chapter 17 goes on in vv. 22–24 to promise a future, a remnant and restoration
to Judah. It raises an important critical question: Are these verses a letter addition?
There are reasons for the doubt:

• vv. 11–21 are in prose whereas vv. 22–24 are in poetry.

• vv. 22–24 are alien to the main thrust of the arguments exposed in Ch. 17.
• The teaching of vv. 22–24 belong to the Restoration: it presupposes return
to Judah and Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple.
174 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Therefore I say that these verses are a posterior gloss, written to convince the Ju-
deans that on account of the Promise made to Abraham, Yahweh will not abandon
his people Israel for ever.
According to the glossator, action taken this time will be neither by the eagle
nor by the vine but by Yahweh himself. Yahweh will take a shoot from the top of a
cedar, from its highest branch and plant it on the top of a very high mountain, no
longer on Lebanon range or any other mountain but on the mountain of Israel,
where it will sprout, bear fruit and this time become not a vine but a cedar. All the
birds of the air will find shelter on its branches. Then all creation, the trees in-
cluded, will learn that he is Yahweh, who stunts tall trees and makes low ones grow,
who withers the green and makes the withered green. Yahweh has spoken and will
do it.

6.5 Conclusion

The vine, the epitome of good fruits, is the joy of the vineyard, symbol of life and
fertility and symbol of Israel. As wine, the fruit of the vine, makes the gods and
kings happy and merry (Judg 9:13), and also gladdens the human heart (Ps 104:15),
so Yahweh is supposed to find happiness and joy in Israel and especially in Jerusalem
“the joy of the whole earth” (Ps 48:3). Yahweh loves the gates of Zion, preferring it
to all gates of Jacob (Ps 87:2), for Yahweh is great in Zion (Ps 99:2).
The vine symbolizes prosperity, restoration, and national peace. A foretaste of
paradisiacal peace is found in “everyone dwelling under his vine and fig tree” (1
Kgs 4:25). In eschatological times, each nation will possess its vine and fig trees
(Mic 4:4).
The vine plays a very important role in Israel’s cult. The most joyful of Israel’s
feasts is the feast of grapes and it is called by various names—the feast of Taberna-
cles (2 Chr 8:13); the feast of Ingathering (Exod 23:16; 34:22); the feast of Booths
(Lev 23:34; Deut 16:13; Zech 14:16). It is called “the feast of Yahweh” (Lev 23: 39;
Judg 21:19) or simply “the Feast” i.e., the feast par excellence (1 Kgs 8:2, 65; 2 Chr
7:8; Neh 8:14; Isa 30:29; Ezek 45:23, 25). Many symbols are associated with this
feast—water, light, twigs, the Lulab.
Israel is a vine planted by Yahweh and destined to bear abundant fruit. It is to
bear authentic fruit at the appropriate season. Israel, unfortunately, bore stinking
grapes (Isa 5:2) and degenerate fruit, thereby becoming a bastard vine (Jer 2:21).
When Yahweh comes to his vineyard to gather fruits (Jer 6:9) he discovers to his
utter dismay that “there are no grapes on the vine, no figs on the fig tree; even the
leaves are withered” (Jer 8:13).
There is no ethical outcome of faith proper to Israel, no manifestations of the
covenant. There is complete incongruity between the expectations of Yahweh and
 Israel as Vine 175
the failure of Israel, an incongruity so fundamental as to require judgment and rejec-
tion.10 By now the vine has become completely fruitless. Such is the natural pro-
gression of a people who reject the covenant.”11
In the Old Testament, the image of Israel as vine is not a happy one. The history
of Israel is history of failure. She was not docile to the teachings of the prophets and
did not interpret accurately the signs of the times—e.g. the Assyrian Captivity.
Judah appeared to drift aimlessly as though determined to meet her doom, which in
the first instance came with the Babylonian Exile. We read from one of the Sages of
Israel:

“As the vine will accept no graft from another tree ,so the Community of Israel
accepts no master but God.” (Zohar: Genesis 239b).
But God who is faithful will not abandon his people: he does not take back his
gifts nor revoke his choice (Rom 9:29).
“Like the fruit of the vine, first trodden, then placed on the royal table, Is Israel,
first oppressed ,but destined for greatness”. (Talmud: Nedarim 49b).
That is why the Exile is followed immediately by the Restoration. From the
Remnant, a New Israel will be born, a New People of God.
 CHAPTER SEVEN

The Church as Vine

When the fullness of time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman,
born subject to the Law, to redeem those under the Law,
so that we might receive adoption as sons. (Gal 4:4–5)

J
esus, Word made flesh, who pitched his tent among us (John 1:14), began his
public ministry saying:

The time is fulfilled,

the kingdom of God is at hand;
repent and believe the Gospel (Mark 1:15).

His saving ministry of teaching and healing was accompanied by signs and wonders
that confirmed it (Mark 16:20).
In the New Testament, the word “vine” is found seven times: three times in the
passion narrative, at the institution of the cup when Jesus spoke about drinking of
the fruit of the vine (Matt 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18). It is found three times
also in John (15:1–8) in the parable of the true vine, and once in Revelation (14:
18) in the context of the eschatological vintage.
“Vineyard” occurs 26 times in the New Testament but mainly in Matthew:

• in the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, 20:1–16 (recorded by Mat-

thew only);
• in the parable of the two sons, 21:28–32 (recorded by Matthew alone);
• in the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Matt 21:33–43; Mark 12:1–12;
Luke 20:9–19);
• in the parable of the fig tree in the vineyard, Luke 16:3–9 (recorded by Luke
only).
• “Vineyard” in the plural is not found in the New Testament.
 The Church as Vine 177
From these statistics, it is evident that the theme vineyard/vine is dear to Matthew.
This is understandable from the author’s background and the influence of Isaiah on
his Gospel especially “the Canticle of the Vine.” “The vineyard of Yahweh Sebaoth
is the house of Israel” (Isa 5:7) seems to have made a deep impression on him.
The vine, therefore, is an image of the chosen people (Isa 5:1–7), used to illus-
trate how faithfully or not they walked the paths of the covenant. Jesus speaking
about the vine/vineyard, neither called it nor compared it with the kingdom of
heaven. Jesus used the parables to teach important doctrines but without any imme-
diate reference to the mystery of the kingdom.
Since in the Old Testament “the vine/vineyard” was used of Israel, it will be nec-
essary to study how Jesus used the vine for the House of Israel and how eventually it
could be applied to the Church.

7.1 Jesus, the Vine/Vineyard and the Jews

Jesus was a Jew of Jewish ancestry, a Hebrew of Hebrews. Matthew was careful to
trace his genealogy to David and to Abraham (1:1–16), thus making him son of
David and son of Abraham. His background, his milieu and the faith he lived and
practiced was Jewish. Luke was anxious to underscore that the parents of Jesus
obeyed the Law: they circumcised him on the eighth day (2:21) and presented him
in the temple (2:22–35). They undertook the annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem for
the Passover (2:41–43) and did everything in fulfillment of the Law (2:39).
Jesus in his turn obeyed the Law: he worshiped at the synagogue in Nazareth on
the Sabbath as was his custom (Luke 4:16), and addressed the synagogue as some
Jews of his day customarily did (4:16–27). He went to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage
feasts of the Passover (John 2:13; 6:4; 13:1–2), of the Tabernacles (John 7:1–24)
and of the Dedication (John 10:22–23) and paid the temple tax (Matt 17:24–27).
After curing the leper, Jesus insisted that he show himself to the priest and make the
prescribed offering for a proof to the people (Luke 5:14). Though he corrected the
excesses in the interpretation of the Law (Matt 12:1–14; 23:16–26), he summed up
his attitude towards the Law in these solemn words:

Think not that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets: I have
come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till
heaven and earth pass away, not one iota, not one dot, will pass from the
Law until it is accomplished (Matt 5:17–18).

In order to highlight the place of the Chosen People in God’s plan of salvation,
Jesus deliberately restricted his ministry to the confines of Israel. On sending out the
Twelve he charged them:
178 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans:
go rather to the lost sheep of the house or Israel (Matt 10:5b-6).

To the Syro-Phoenician woman who requested the cure of her little daughter, Jesus
gave this reply:

Let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children’s food
and throw it to the dogs (Mark 7:12).

Was Jesus repeating the ignominious epithet of “the dog,” “the Gentile dog” used
frequently by the Jews when speaking about non-Jews? Speaking to the Samaritan
woman by Jacob’s well, Jesus said:

You worship what you do not know;

We worship what we know,
for salvation is from the Jews (John 4:22).

The Twelve who would sit on the throne, to judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt
19:28) were Jews. From these few biblical references, it is clear that Jesus had re-
spect for the Jewish Law, customs, and traditions, for that was part of God’s plan for
human salvation.
This, however, is only a face of the coin. Jesus had problems with some members
of his race especially with their spiritual leaders. This we shall consider both from
the Synoptic and Johannine traditions. Reflection on Paul will come later.

7.1.1 The Synoptic Tradition

We use Matthew as representative of the Synoptics because the evangelist is more

eloquent than Mark and Luke on this issue. The Pharisees and Sadducees who came
for baptism without metanoia were called “brood of vipers” (3:8). Amazed at the
faith of the Centurion and contrasting it with the unbelief of his people, Jesus
warned that many would come from the East and the West to sit with Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob while the subjects of the kingdom would be turned out into the
dark where there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth (8:10–12). Accused of
casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul, he warned that sins against the Holy
Spirit would not be forgiven (12:32). These adversaries constituted a wicked adul-
terous generation always looking for signs (12:39).
Those whom Jesus targeted in his speeches were the Jewish leaders, especially
the Scribes and the Pharisees. The Sadducees, the Chief Priests, and members of
the priestly families began to feature prominently in the last period of his public
ministry, especially during his passion. These leaders were hypocrites (15:7), blind
 The Church as Vine 179
leading the blind (15:14). Because of their ways and teachings, Jesus warned his dis-
ciples to keep away from their yeast (16:6).
It is necessary to note that Jesus’ language towards his adversaries grew stronger
as the events of his earthly life unfolded. The more consistently the Jewish leaders
challenged his authority and persistently grew in their unbelief and consequently
determined more than ever to kill him, the stronger Jesus’ language became. In
Chapter 21, where the Chief Priests and the Elders challenged him:

By what authority are you doing these things,

and who gave you the authority? (v. 23),

Jesus replied with three parables—the parable of the Two Sons; of the Wicked Hus-
bandmen and of the Wedding Feast (21:28–22:14). By means of these parables
Jesus taught that those called did not honor the invitation, thus making it impera-
tive to call others to take their place. Chapter 23 records the strongest and harshest
language on the lips of Jesus in the entire Biblical tradition—the seven woes di-
rected against the Scribes and the Pharisees and also holding them responsible and
liable for the blood of every holy man that has been shed on earth: from the blood
of Abel to the blood of Zechariah (23:25–36).
Jerusalem that consistently killed the prophets and stoned those sent to her
would even at his late hour refuse the protection and salvation of Jesus, who wanted
to gather her as a hen gathers her chicks (23:37). Rather Jerusalem finished up the
work that her ancestors began (23:32).
In the great eschatological discourse of Chapter 24, the destruction of the temple
foreboded the destruction and the dispersion of the Jewish race and the first thunder
of the final day of judgment. It was also a sign of his return in glory and the anticipa-
tion of the end of the world. In the story of the Ten Bridesmaids and of the Talents
(25:1–30) we encounter a people who did not respond adequately to their call—the
vine that did not bear abundant fruit.
During his Passion, the Scribes and the Pharisees were joined by the Chief
Priests and the Elders to encompass his death. False witnesses had to be brought,
and even with their false accusations, they could not make any cogent, coherent
case against Jesus (26:59–60). At the trial, Pilate who came to realize that Jesus was
innocent (27:18), wanted to release him (27:11–26) and above all publicly ab-
solved himself of all responsibility for this man’s death, to which the Jews replied:
“His blood upon us and upon our children” (27:26).
It would appear, according to the Matthean tradition, that it was not the crowds,
oi) oxloi, hoi ochloi, nor the rabble, but the Jews o( la/ oj ho laos—{(i.e. “the Peo-
ple of God” readily accepted the responsibility of Jesus’ death; an onus Pilate did not
dare take on himself. After the Resurrection, the Chief Priests bribed the guards to
say that the disciples stole the body while they were asleep (28:11–15).
180 The Vine, Israel and the Church
From the Synoptic tradition, exemplified in Matthew, right from the beginning
of Jesus’ ministry, he frequently came into opposition with the Jewish Leaders, the
opposition, which grew with time. Cases of disagreement began with the interpreta-
tion of the Law and its application. The seed of separation was sown early enough.
This hardly created an atmosphere for the vine to bear abundant fruit. That Jesus
would cause the rise and the fall of many in Israel was already being realized. The
vine was not yielding “high quality grapes” but producing only “stinking grapes”.

7.1.2 The Johannine Tradition

In John’s Gospel, the word “Jew” came to assume a special meaning in contradis-
tinction to “Israelite”. While “Israelite” meant members of the chosen race, whom,
while following the Law were nevertheless open to the teachings of Jesus and al-
lowed themselves to be convinced by the teachings, the miracles, signs, and won-
ders wrought by Jesus. The word “Jew,” on the other hand, came to signify those ele-
ments in Judaism that pertinaciously and indefatigably opposed Jesus, that rejected
his doctrine; those for whom the signs and wonders caused all the more reason to
put him to death (11:45–51). This group was found mainly among the leaders.
Feasts provided Jesus occasions for longer and more detailed instructions (5:1–
47; 6:26–66; 7:16–52; 8:12–58; 10:22–38) the climax being (13:12–17:26) which
was pronounced in the context of the Passover. In the heat of argument Jesus did
not hesitate to tell the Jews that the devil was their father, who was the liar and the
father of lies. Their desire to murder Jesus was walking in the footsteps of their
father who was a murderer from the beginning (8:44). To this the Jews retorted by
calling Jesus a Samaritan and one possessed by the devil (8:48).
The Gospel of John constituted a dialectic of light and darkness, life and death,
heaven and the kosmos. Some of the teachings of Jesus were diametrically opposed
to the beliefs and praxes of the Jews. The cleansing of the temple, at the first Pass-
over of Jesus’ public ministry, which recalled the oracle of Mal 3:1–4, implicitly
claimed for Jesus the mission of the Messiah.
For John, Jesus was not a man born of the Jewish race who became the Messiah:
on the contrary, he was conceived as the pre-existent Logos who took flesh. His di-
vine nature was ever present to the evangelist as he wrote his Gospel. How would
that doctrine be received by the Jews?
It was clear from the Synoptic and Johannine traditions that not all the teach-
ings of Jesus were welcome. Antipathy grew which with time developed into hatred.
The authority and the popularity of Jesus challenged the position and the stand of
the Jewish leaders. The major point of disagreement was the Law and with time the
person and the mission of Jesus became the real issue. Jesus’ claim that God was his
Father (8:16), that he was the Son of God (19:7) constituted blasphemy for the
Jews.
 The Church as Vine 181
In conclusion, for various reasons and from different approaches, the Gospels all
agree that the Jewish leaders could not tolerate Jesus any more and therefore sought
the death penalty which they obtained. Since Israel was the vine, would this action
produce the desired abundant fruit?

7.2 The Church and Judaism

Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity, two of the great world’s religions, emerged from
the same matrix—Second Temple Judaism.1
From the foregoing, it would be incorrect to imagine that Jesus was not loved,
followed, appreciated, and cherished by the populace. On the contrary, the Gospels
bear abundant witness to the fact that Jesus pulled crowds: in fact, they could follow
him for three days without caring about their feeding (Matt 15:32). His miracles
were indications that he indeed was the prophet who was to come into the world
(John 6:15) and in him, God had visited his people (Luke 7:16). The crowd was im-
pressed by the style of his teaching because he taught with authority, unlike the
Scribes and Pharisees (Matt 7:28). The crowd was equally amazed at the gracious
words that came from his lips (Luke 4:22). Even his enemies were forced to admit:
“No man ever spoke like this man” (John 7:46).
While the Chief Priests and the Elders were plotting his death, they were careful
to ensure that the arrest should not be on a festival, lest there be a tumult among the
people (Mark 14:2; Matt 26:4–5; Luke 22:1–2). On Jesus’ way to Golgotha, he was
followed by a large number of men and women who mourned and lamented for him
(Luke 22:27).
The last week of the earthly life of Jesus recorded his popularity at its apex. That
was his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, his victory march into his capital city, com-
parable to the victory parade of a Roman conqueror returning to Rome leading the le-
gions loaded with slaves and spoils of war. This victory march is one of the few events
in the life of Jesus that is recorded by the four evangelists (Matt 21:1–9; Mark 11:1–10;
Luke 19:28–38; John 12:12–19). The welcome was such that if the children and the
crowd did not shout songs of praise, the very stones would have cried out (Luke 19:40).
The Great Sanhedrin, perplexed by the miracles and signs of Jesus was compelled
to admit defeat:

What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go
on thus, every one will believe in him (John 11:47–48).

Even the Greeks who came for the Passover wanted to see Jesus (John 12:20–30).
From the above, it is clear that the teachings of Jesus were well received by the
ordinary people, the jr)h-{( am haareÓ s literally:” the people of the land”. Israel,
182 The Vine, Israel and the Church
the vine, bore fruits and good fruits even though, among the grain, there were tares
(Matt 13:24–30). It was mainly the religious leaders who opposed Jesus but they
were in the minority, though a powerful minority. Even with the Great Sanhedrin,
Jesus had sympathizers; Joseph of Arimathea whom Mark recognized as a prominent
member of Council (15:43, cf Luke 23:50) and Nicodemus (John 3:1; 7:50).
The situation was very complex. The person and the mission of Jesus remained
an enigma to the crowd:

How long will you keep us in suspense?

If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly (John 10:24).

The determination of Thomas: “Let us go too, and die with him” (John 11:16), is
not an expression of faith. The enduring concern of the disciples about their places
in the kingdom (Matt 20:20–23; Luke 22:24) and their anxiety about the restora-
tion of the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6) prove that the spiritual nature of Jesus’
kingdom to Israel was still foreign to them, even though the three announcements
of his passion and resurrection were dutifully reported in all synoptic traditions.

Matthew (16:21; 17:22–23; 20:17–19)

Mark (8:31–33; 9:31–32; 10:32–34)
Luke (9:22; 9:44; 18:31–34)

Incidentally, Luke more than other Synoptics recorded Jesus’ predictions of his
passion and resurrection as coming from his own lips (2:33–35; 12:50; 17:25; 24:
7, 26, 46). But in spite of all these monitions, the actions of the Twelve were dis-
concerting: lethargy of the chosen three at Gethsemani (Matt 26:36–46); the
betrayal of Judas (Matt 26:47–50); desertion by the Twelve (Matt 26:26); and the
denial of Peter (26:69–75). It was, therefore, not surprising when the women
gave the Twelve the news of the resurrection they considered it utter nonsense
(Luke 24:11).
Consequently, it is not easy to assess the performance of the vine in Israel’s time
during the ministry of Jesus. Jesus was loved and doted on by the crowds. Judging
from his miracles, the crowd had little difficulty with hailing him as “Son of David,”
“the Messiah,” “the one who is to come into the world.” Did their acclamation fall
short of belief in his divinity—did they acclaim him as “Son of God” (Matt 22:41–
46)? How is Martha’s proclamation of John 11:27 to be understood? It is only with
his resurrection that his divinity was manifested.
The ministry of Jesus did not produce soreq in his lifetime. The crowds were peo-
ple of little faith; the apostles were no exceptions (Matt 8:26; 14:31; 17:20; Luke
12:28). However, the seed was planted. That seed was to die with the physical death
of Jesus to bear much fruit (John 12:24).
 The Church as Vine 183
7.3 The Early Days of the Church

The Church was born on the Cross of Christ. Hence St. Augustine teaches:

Ex latere Domini dormientis, id est, in passione morientis, et in cruce

percusso de lancea (Joan. xix, 34) manaverunt Sacramenta, quibus for-
maretur Ecclesia (Enarratio in Ps cxxxviii, 2) i.e. “From the side of the
sleeping Lord, i.e. in the passion of his death, struck with the lance on
the cross, came forth the Sacraments by which the Church was
formed.”

The Gospel relates that when Christ had died and was still hanging on the cross . . .
a soldier pierced his side with the spear, and at once there came out water and
blood. The one was a symbol of baptism, the other of the mysteries. . . , especially
the Eucharist. It is from these two that the holy Church has been born . . . Now the
symbols of baptism and the mysteries came from his side. It was from his side, then,
that Christ formed the Church, as from the side of Adam, God formed Eve (Cfr
John Chrysostom: Cat 3:13–19).
The Church was born from among Jews resident in Judaea and Galilee, who were
acquainted with Jesus during his lifetime (John 19:34). On Pentecost day, these and
others were to learn publicly about the resurrection of Christ, a proclamation that
was supported and vindicated by signs and wonders wrought by the Apostles (Acts
2). These gave their allegiance to Jesus and were baptized into his death and resur-
rection and sealed with the Holy Spirit.
The little community remained faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the
brotherhood, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer. Sharing their goods in com-
mon, they made sure no one was in want (Acts 2:42–45).
Christians initially were Jews both in race and in religion, worshiping in the
Temple (Acts 3:1), frequenting synagogues both in Jerusalem and in Damascus
(Acts 9:20–22). On Pentecost day, Peter addressed the crowd as Men of Israel (Acts
2:22) and the exaltation of Jesus for granting repentance and forgiveness to Israel
(Acts 5:31). God’s people, o laoj, ho laos is still co-terminus with the nation of Is-
rael (Acts 7:34; 10:2, 41).
The Apostles continued to preach every day in the temple and in private homes:
their proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus was never interrupted (Acts 5:42). The re-
sult was that the word of God continued to spread, the number of disciples in Jeru-
salem greatly increased, and a large group of priests made their submission to the
faith (Acts 6:2).
There were, however, some distinguishing features about his new community
besides those mentioned earlier in Acts 2:42–45. Even though they prayed with
other Jews in the temple, they alone, as followers of Jesus, met in homes for the
184 The Vine, Israel and the Church
breaking of bread (Acts 2:46). This alone is a mark of identity and also of separa-
tion: the Church and the Synagogue were beginning to go their separate ways.
On Pentecost day, all were welcomed into the new community: no one was ex-
cluded on any grounds whatsoever, not even one’s past records. The only require-
ment was profession of faith in Jesus who died and rose whom they proclaimed
MESSIAH and KYRIOS (Acts 2:36). As a sign of faith one would be baptized; be
totally immersed into the mystery of Christ as a sign and effective means of incorpo-
ration into His Body. Though the majority of the believers were Jews, the Church
by its very nature, was not culturally, or ethnically bound.
The Church walked the path of Israel. The Apostles did not disassociate them-
selves from the temple or the Synagogue: in fact, they observed the Mosaic Law
(Acts 15; Gal 2:11–14). Even after his third missionary journey, Paul discharged his
vows in the temple and paid the expenses for four Nazarites performing their vows
(Acts 21:24) .James, the brother of the Lord, remained a firm practicing Jew at all
times (Acts 15:13–21; 21;24).
The Church, however, remained a human society and consequently not immune
from problems. Even from earliest times there were tensions, the first narrated being
between the Greek speaking and Aramaic speaking Jews. This led to the Institution
of the Seven, who, besides looking after the material needs of the community took
on also to evangelism. Stephen debated with members of the Synagogue of Freed-
men (Acts 6:9), a debate which later ended in his death.
The death of Stephen brought a new dimension to the life and growth of the
early Church. Prior to that, the followers of the Way had remained primarily in Je-
rusalem, especially the apostles, but with the bitter persecution against the Church,
which started in Jerusalem, the disciples fled to the country districts of Judaea and
Samaria while the apostles remained in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1). These disciples
preached the good news wherever they went, and traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cy-
prus, and Antioch—the second most important city of the Roman Empire after
Rome. These preached primarily to the Jews whereas those from Cyprus and Cyrene
preached to the Greeks as well (Acts 11:18–20).
Philip preached in a Samaritan town (Acts 8:5) and baptized the Ethiopian eu-
nuch (Acts 8:26–40) and preached from Azotus to Caesarea (Acts 8:40). The be-
lievers in Samaria were strengthened in their faith by the reception of the Holy
Spirit through the imposition of hands of Peter and John (Acts 8:14–17).
With persecution, the greater number of converts came from the Gentile stock.
This form of evangelization assumed a new dimension with the call of Paul, the
Apostle of the Gentiles, a special vessel of election to bring the name of Jesus to the
pagans, before kings, and to the entire people of Israel (Acts 9:15).
Paul in his missionary journeys preached to the Jews first. This would invariably be
followed by persecution on the part of the Jews and so compel Paul and his co-workers
to turn to the Gentiles. At Antioch in Pisidia, Paul was constrained to tell the Jews:
 The Church as Vine 185
It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you.
Since you thrust it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal
life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46).

Such attacks were recorded also at Iconium (Acts 14:4–5), Lystra (14:19), Thessal-
onika (17:5–9), Beroea (17:13), Ephesus (19:8–9) and of course in Jerusalem. At
Corinth, when the Jews opposed and reviled him, Paul took his cloak and shook it
in front of them:

Your blood be upon your heads! I am innocent.

From now on, I will go to the Gentiles (18:6).

That is a strong statement and a powerful gesture; just a he shook off the dust of his
feet at Antioch in Pisidia and proceeded to Iconium (13:51). These notwithstand-
ing, Paul as recorded in the Acts, continued to give priority attention to the Jews.
He was invariably disappointed and his last encounter with Jews in Rome recorded
his boundless disillusionment in this soliloquy:

Let it be known to you then that this salvation of God has been sent to
the Gentiles: they will listen (Acts 28:28).

The Acts ends on a sad note; the Jews who rejected Jesus, now continue to reject
his Gospel. The Gentiles welcome it and are glad. This is a turning point in the his-
tory of salvation and particularly of the Early Church.
Within the very bosom of the Church, however, there were divergent views and
practices which had to be reckoned with. Among the neo converts were not only
the jr)h-{( but also priests (Acts 6:7) and Pharisees (15:5). With the admission of
Gentiles into the Church, not only doctrinal issues, e.g. the importance and role of
the Law in salvation, but also practical issues, e.g. Jews and Gentiles living and wor-
shiping together, had to be given serious and immediate attention.
Would the Gentiles have to be naturalized into Judaism and accept circumci-
sion and the observance of the Mosaic Law and the traditions of the fathers to be
saved, or was faith alone in Jesus Christ sufficient to save? For salvation through
Jesus Christ alone meant that the validity of the Law as a means of salvation
ended.2
Though the Council of Jerusalem gave a ruling (Acts 15:22–29), the problem
persisted both in Palestine and in the Diaspora. In Jerusalem, the charges brought
against Paul were not his preaching about Jesus but his observance and non-
observance of the Law: preaching against the Jewish nation and profaning the tem-
ple (Acts 21:28–29)—the same charges brought against Jesus (Matt 26:51) and
Stephen (Acts 6:13–14).
186 The Vine, Israel and the Church
The Law alone did not create a rift in the Church: even though, with the minis-
try of Paul and other evangelizers, the Church became more and more Gentile and
less and less Jewish. It would appear that the Jews of Palestine did not persecute the
Church as much as those of the Diaspora. Those who challenged Stephen were Jews
from Cyrene and Alexandria (Acts 6:9); Saul was from Tarsus (Acts 9:11; 21:39);
those who made life impossible for Paul and his followers were Jews from Asia
Minor; those responsible for Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem were Jews from Asia (Acts 21:
27). Persecution of Christians both within and outside Palestine put serious strain
on Jewish/Christian relationship. Christianity was no longer considered a Jewish
sect (a(/ iresij hairesis Acts 24:5,14; 28:22).
Although dispute between Jesus and the Jewish leaders centered on the Law,
with time, the person and the mission of Jesus became the issue. The Christians
who believed and preached publicly that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God
(John 20:31) claimed also for themselves, the patriarchs, and the prophets as their
forerunners in faith. The WAY was the fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham:
the Cross of Jesus was the enactment of the new (Jer 31:31) and the eternal cove-
nant (Ezek 16:60; 37:26) in the blood of Jesus which gave birth to a new People of
God, a new hwhy {(-am YHWH , la/ oj tou= qeou=, laos tou Theou , the Church.
Salvation came no longer from the Law but from faith in Jesus Christ who died and
rose and who is ku/ rioj kai xristo/ j Kyrios kai Christos LORD and CHRIST
Acts 2:36): xy#m MESSIAH aand above all hwhy,. YHWH.
The Christians took over the Jewish Bible, especially the LXX, which they made
their patrimony and used extensively in the Liturgy, Catechesis, and also persua-
sively in the disputes with Jews. To crown it all, the Christians boldly asserted that
the Church was the fulfillment of Israel’s hope.
With these affirmations, and each side holding tenaciously to its convictions,
there was only one option: rupture in relationship.

7.4 The Rupture

These are some fundamental tenets of Judaism which Dunn calls “the Four Pillars of
Second Temple Judaism;” namely Monotheism, Election, Covenant, and the Land.3
To these I would like to add: Messianism and the Remnant.
The Jews studying and reflecting on Holy Scriptures believed that Israel was
called in Abraham (Gen 12:1–9). The Promise which was made to Abraham was
unconditional and without any obligations on his part (Gen 15). The same applied
to the permanence of Davidic dynasty (2 Sam 7:14–16). Sin and God’s just punish-
ment were mitigated by the teaching on the Remnant, with the assurance that
Shear JasuÓb “A remnant shall return” (Isa 7:3).
After divine chastisement, the Remnant will return to Yahweh and when the
 The Church as Vine 187
Messiah comes, together with him, they shall establish God’s kingdom in a final and
definitive manner. Consequently, election will last like the sun in the firmament.
With some basic tenets of Christianity, analogically corresponding to the Four
Pillars of Second Temple Judaism, e.g. the Trinity, the Messiahship of Jesus, His
Resurrection, the Role of the Church in Salvation, it was imperative that a rupture
would inevitably take place. And indeed it did take place. However, it was neither
immediate nor sudden. We report the events as they occurred in the Scriptures and
some Jewish writings.
It began even in the lifetime of Jesus with his attitude towards the Law and the
temple; calling God His Father and calling himself Son of God. Acceptance or not
of his resurrection would inexorably lead either to belief in his Messiahship and Di-
vinity or to their denial.
Along side with this was the mission of the Church. The little flock was man-
dated to witness to Jesus in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and indeed to
the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). They were commanded to make disciples of all na-
tions pa/ nta ta\ e)/ qnh panta ta ethne (Matt 28:19).
With time, resistance of the Jews to the Gospel grew stiffer and the mood espe-
cially with regard to evangelism deteriorated from opposition to pessimism; a situa-
tion rather reinforced by Jewish persecution of Christians. A perplexing situation
arose: while the Jews, the People of the Covenant, opposed the Gospel and this te-
naciously; the Gentiles, the goyim, welcomed it. Some explanation had to be given
to this phenomenon.
Searching the Scriptures, Christians discovered a pattern of thought and action
in Jewish history, which is succinctly summarized in the Acts:

You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always re-
sist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the proph-
ets did not your father persecute? They killed those who announced be-
forehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now
betrayed and murdered. You who received the Law as delivered by the
angels and did not keep it (Acts 7:51–53).

The arguments between Jesus and his opponents especially in the Fourth Gospel
was hardly about the rabbinical interpretation of the Law but faith in Jesus and in
his testimony. The rejection of prophets and teachers sent by God to Israel was
seen to be characteristic of the Jews. Was there any prophet who had it easy with
the Jewish people—Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea? It would appear
that obduracy of the Jews was preordained (Matt 13:14–15 following the LXX of
Isa 6:9–10).
Many parables of Jesus, could from hindsight, be interpreted as response of the
Jews—the Tares (Matt 13:24–30), the Two Sons (Matt 21:28–32); the Wedding
188 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Feast (Matt 22:1–14). In the eschatological discourse of Matthew (24:1–44 // Mark
13:1–37; Luke 21:5–33), Jesus made specific reference to the destruction of Jerusa-
lem and actually wept over the city (Matt 23:37–39).
The destruction of Jerusalem, its aftermath, its theological interpretation by
Christians, was a landmark in Church/Synagogue relationship. With the crushing
of the Jewish revolt and the destruction of the Temple, Jewish sects disappeared: the
Essenes in A.D. 68; the Sadducees in A.D. 70; the Herodians and the Zealots in
A.D. 73 or 74. Only Pharisaism survived. Many Christians interpreted the fall of Je-
rusalem and the torching of the Temple as God’s just punishment for disowning and
crucifying Jesus, the Son of God.
With the formal rejection of Christianity by the Synagogue, the Pharisees be-
came the uncontested leaders of Judaism. Those who did not take part in the great
Revolt obtained permission from the Romans to found a Rabbinical Academy at
Javneh (Jamnia), first under Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai and later under Rabban
Gamaliel II. The academy set out to reformulate Judaism and to save it from extinc-
tion and absorption. The work done culminated in the mishna c.A.D. 200. Phari-
saic Judaism was the strongest, the spiritual, and the most effective opponent of the
Christian faith before and after the fall of Jerusalem. It was the cause of the relative
unsuccess of Christian teaching.4 Could that explain why in the Gospels it was the
pharisaic party that got the most castigation from Jesus?
The first and the most important consequence of the Academy of Javneh was the
parting of ways between Judaism and Christianity. Jews and Christians no longer
worshiped together: suspicion and animosity intensified. False, vicious tales and dis-
paraging statements were directed against each other. Some Jews spat when they
called the name “Christian” or “Jesus Christ.” What began as a Jewish fight for sur-
vival resulted in bitter and relentless hatred. A sad page in Jewish/Christian rela-
tionship had begun which would last for centuries.
One of the works attributed to the academy is the Birkat-ha-minim, literally a
blessing of heretics. It was far from being a blessing; in fact it was a curse upon those
whom the Jews considered heretics. It was inserted into the Shmoneh Esreh.
The Shmoneh Esreh, the eighteen blessings, were considered by the Jews as prayer
par excellence and hence recited three times daily by every pious Jew. The minim was in-
serted after the Twelfth Blessing. It was considered an effective way of identifying
Christians and of discouraging their attendance of the Synagogue worship. Some great
names associated with the minim were Rabban Gamaliel II and Samuel the Small.
I wish to present two versions or editions of Birkat ha-minim:

As for slanderers, let there be no hope, and let all wickedness perish as
in a moment; let all these enemies be speedily cut off, and the dominion
of arrogance do thou uproot and crush, cast down and humble speedily
 The Church as Vine 189
in our days. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who breakest the enemies and
humblest the proud.5

Jocz records another edition of the same prayer which he says was found in a
Cairo Genizah by S. Schecter and it runs thus:

For the renegades (lameshummadim,), let there be no hope, and may

the arrogant kingdom (= Rome?) soon be rooted out in our days, and
the Nazarenes (we-ha-nozrim) and the minim perish as in a moment
and be blotted out from the book of life and with the righteous may they
not be inscribed. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who humblest the arrogant.6

It is almost certain that for historical expediency the minim may have undergone al-
terations for fear of censorship and possible accusation of blasphemy. It does appear
that the original text mentioned “Christians” as in the edition found by Schechter
because the Fathers repeatedly asserted that the Jews cursed Christians in their Syn-
agogues three times daily. St. Jerome says:

. . . . :quod provocati a Domino ad poenitentiam, et postea ab Apos-

tolis ejus, usque hodie perseverant in blasphemiis, et ter per singulos
dies in omnibus synagogis sub nomine Nazarenorum anathematizent
vocabulum Christianum
(Jerome : In Isaiam Lib. II Cap v, 81)

At the death of Jesus on the Cross, the veil of the temple was rent from top to bot-
tom (Matt 27:51; Mark 15:38), thus announcing a rupture. In the Markan tradi-
tion, in the verse which follows v. 38 immediately, the Gentile centurion proclaims
Jesus, “Son of God” (v. 39). Jesus will indeed cause the rise and the fall of many in
Israel as predicted (Luke 2:34).
Following the minim, Christians were excluded from the synagogue which was
one of the greatest punishments that could be meted out to any Jew. It meant exclu-
sion them from the community of Israel and banishment from cult. It was John who
first spoke about excommunications:

a)posunagw/ gon poien (John 16:2)

a)posunagwgon gene/ sqai (John 9:22; 12:42)
Luke uses the verb a)fori/ cein ˇ(6:22).

With excommunication all contacts, personal, or business was forbidden. About

those excommunicated we read:
190 The Vine, Israel and the Church
One does not sell to them or receive from them or take from them or
give to them. One does not teach their sons a trade, and does not obtain
healing from them. (t. Hull. 2.20–21).

The parting of the ways took place gradually but in the second century it was com-
plete. Relationship became bitter, followed by mutual accusations and recrimina-
tions. The Jews who once knew and followed God turned their academy into a
school of ignorance about Jesus. “You do not know Him” (John 7:28).
A statement of Jesus during one of his polemics with the Jews at the feast of Tab-
ernacles then comes alive:

You do not know me, nor do you know my Father;

if you did know me, you would know my Father as well (John 8:19).

Since they rejected the Son whom the Father sent, they have refused to honor the
Father (John 5:23). Jesus goes on to say:

You have never heard his voice

You have never seen his shape
and his word finds no home in you (5:37).

all because you have not believed in the one the Father sent (v. 38).
The rupture was the figure and sign of God’s final judgment. The parable of the ten
bridesmaids (Matt 25:1–13): of the talents (25:14–30) of the wedding feast (Matt 22:
1–14); of two men in the field and two women at the mill (Matt 24:40–41); all culmi-
nated in the eschatological judgment of Matthew 25:31–46 which spoke about the sep-
aration of sheep from goats. This rupture will be so intense that in some circumstances
it would break solidarity even within families (Matt 10:34–38; Luke 14:26).
The rupture was the end of all dialogue and often occasion for persecution. Each
side claimed to be fighting on God’s side anchoring itself on the Promise and the
Covenant. Such a situation hardly created a healthy atmosphere for the vine to pro-
duce good quality fruit.

7.5 Continuity Between the Synagogue and the Church

Jesus had foretold that he would be rejected and crucified (Mark 8:31). That, how-
ever, did not mean the end to God’s design for human salvation. In the choice of the
Twelve, Jesus wanted to constitute a new community of the People of God, a new
Israel of twelve tribes, whose membership would not be determined by laws of biol-
ogy, geography, or culture but by the gift of the Holy Spirit.
 The Church as Vine 191
The existence of a newly constituted “People of God” which is not purely Jewish
calls into question the meaning of Israel. This new community which was brought
to birth by the shedding of the blood of Jesus on the Cross; this new community of
believers: how does it relate to Israel of the Temple, especially as there were con-
vincing arguments that Jesus wanted to establish a new community based on the
Covenant of his blood?
It is not easy to define the relationship between the Synagogue and the Church;
and attempts so far have not been entirely satisfactory. The Church has been called
“The New Israel,” “The True Israel,” “A Replacement of the Old People of God.”
For Jesus, it is certain that the two realities, though not opposed were nonetheless
distinct. Christianity was to have its identity, its independent existence. Hence
Jesus warns that no one pours new wine into old wine skins (Matt 9:37; Mark 2:22;
Luke 5:37) and asserts categorically “New wine must be put into fresh wine skins”
(Luke 5:38). “What is old only gets more antiquated until in the end it disappears”
(Heb 8:13).
Since the argument of new wine and fresh skins stems from the question of fast
among the disciples of the Pharisees and John the Baptist, Jesus’ answer is unambig-
uous: the Spirit of the Gospel cannot be brought into harmony with the spirit of
pharisaic observances.7
It is self evident that while there was discontinuity between the Synagogue and
the Church, there was considerable measure of continuity. The Church is not aliq-
uid inauditum. It was not an aeon, an extra-terrestrial entity which descended and
overpowered humanity. The Church, to be able to carry out her mission, must be
thoroughly human, just like the founder.
The overwhelming evidence for continuity makes Dodd say:

A manifest disintegration of existing system is to be preliminary to the

appearance of a new way to embody it. And yet it is the same temple,
first destroyed, that is rebuilt. The new community is still Israel: there is
continuity through the discontinuity. It is not a matter of replacement
but of resurrection.8

The Church inherited a lot from Judaism—the Promise, the Covenant, the Sacred
Books, Authentic Tradition. This patrimony included Jesus and the Twelve who were
all Jews. Jesus’ love and respect for authentic Jewish traditions was unquestionable.
Matthew teaches a continuity between Israel and the community of the Gospel.
This kingdom is the fulfillment of ancient prophecies, the ultimate realization of
the Torah and Judaism. This new order is not the abrogation of the ancient cove-
nant: rather it is its fulfillment. A change would take place but within Israel. The
people of Israel, the community of salvation, the vineyard of Yahweh Sebaoth, will
continue to exist though not through the same leaders nor subjected to the same
192 The Vine, Israel and the Church
ordinances.9 The covenant broken (Exod 32) and renewed (Exod 34) will give way
to the new and eternal covenant.
Jesus foretold the overthrowing of the temple (Mark 13:1–2) and the destruction
of Jerusalem (Mark 13:14–20) but said no word about the future of the Jewish peo-
ple. The temple must disappear because its order is superseded; it must disappear vi-
olently because its leaders were unfaithful. These events will therefore initiate the
eschatological kingdom promised in the chapter.
Fulfillment implies continuity and discontinuity. As long as the followers of Jesus
were drawn almost exclusively from the Jewish race, the new community would
constitute no more than a community of restored Jewish people, a continuation of
Israel kata\ sa/ rka—Israel according to the flesh. However, it told a different
story when the majority of members were Gentiles. Membership alone signaled
both continuity and rupture as well.
No New Testament texts speak about total apostasy of Israel. On the contrary
the Acts was careful to highlight the increase of the Jewish population in the com-
position of the Early Church. On Ascension Day, the little flock numbered 120 (1:
15). On Pentecost day, it grew to 3000 (2:41). After the appearance of Peter and
John before the Sanhedrin, the number grew to 5000 (4:4); in 6:7 it is said that a
good number of priests made their submission to the faith, as well as the Pharisees
(15:5).
It would be more accurate to say that there were not many converts from Judaism
to Christianity as there were from the Gentile race. Neither would it be correct to
say that the Gentiles embraced the Christian faith because the Jews repudiated it.
Judaism had prior to Christianity taken on to evangelism proved by the increasing
number of “God-fearers” and “Proselytes.” Jesus speaks about Scribes and Pharisees
who traverse land and sea to make a single proselyte (Matt 23:15). On Pentecost
day, proselytes and God-fearers from every nation under heaven were in Jerusalem
(Acts 2:5; 11). The conversion of Cornelius and his household had nothing to do
with historical Jewish—Christian relationship (Acts 10:34–48).
In this new community, the leadership is renewed (Matt 21:31–32), new tenants
will give the produce of the vineyard in due season (Matt 21:41, 43). The wedding
hall will be filled with guests (22:10) but not primarily with those who were initially
invited. Rather for those initially invited their city would be burnt (22:7).
France notes that with the burning of the city, judgment falls on everybody in-
cluding the innocent. The military campaign is a little forced into the story, he says:

Their presence in the parable adds a ridiculously incongruous touch to

the story.10

Consequently, it is a community radically revitalized. A new covenant, a new dis-

pensation, a new priesthood, a new law, new teachings and praxes characterize the
 The Church as Vine 193
new order. New leaders and new regulations emerge. The new covenant does not
invalidate the old: rather it reforms it. The Church is the embodiment of the au-
thentic and orthodox faith of Israel, even if it has transcended the ancient religion
of Law.11
The Church, however, does not succeed Judaism; in that sense it cannot be
called: A New Israel. The Church was never meant to be a continuation of histori-
cal Israel. Rather it is the embodiment of the true and authentic traditions of the
Law: a fulfillment of divine promises, and above all a consummate realization of all
divine plans for Israel. The Church stands on its feet and has its mission. It has its
own kairos.
But Luke speaks about a new covenant (Luke 22:20). There is a sense in which
we can speak about “A New Israel,” “A New People of God.” This should not be
understood chronologically as successive stages in Jewish history—The Call, the Ex-
odus, the Covenant, the Choice of the New Israel—it should rather be understood
ontologically: a new people constituted in the blood of Jesus Christ; a new people
from all nations under heaven; a community whose Law is love; a trinitarian people.
This New Israel is not according to the flesh but according to the spirit. This new
dispensation is neither continuity nor discontinuity but rather fulfillment in a most
eminent way.
The Church is not the “Remnant” of the Old Testament.12 The Remnant is what
is left over after a calamity or devastation, out of which a new breed is born. This
does not apply to the Church because it is the same breed which survives the calam-
ity that constitutes the Remnant. Rather the Church is a community of faith, called
and constituted by the blood of the Lamb; a community that believes in Jesus and
commits itself to the plan of God as realized in the saving mysteries of Jesus Christ.
Consequently, the Church is the beginning of a new order: the old order has
given way to the new. With the death and resurrection of Jesus, the community of
salvation has passed from the age of the temple to the age of the Gospel. As God’s
purposes in salvation, hitherto effected in and through Israel is consummated, a
broader and more perfect outreach is created.
It is in this context that the interpretation and application of the parable of the
Wicked Husbandmen finds its natural application. The parable was addressed to
Jewish leaders who guided and shaped the destiny of Israel. They not only refused to
hand over the produce of the vineyard to the owner, they maltreated and killed
some of the servants sent to collect he fruits. The climax was that they even killed
the beloved son, the heir to the vineyard. In consequence, the owner brought them
to a shameful end and leased the vineyard to others who would produce fruit at the
appropriate time.
Matthew intends something much more radical than mere change in leadership
in Israel. A new community will be born, a new age will dawn, a New Israel will
emerge from the old. The membership is neither la/ oj, which translating {(could
194 The Vine, Israel and the Church

be imagined to signify the Jewish people. Neither is it e)/ qnh (plural) which could
easily call to mind the goyim—Gentiles: rather the vineyard will be leased to an e)/
qnoj—eqnesi, whose background would be of little consequence as long as it bears
fruit at appropriate times.
Israel is judged by its productivity: the relevance of the new nation, of the new
lease is assessed by its ability to deliver fruits. With regard to expectations from the
community, there is continuity. While the old dispensation could not function be-
cause of its unfruitfulness, expectations are high from the new community, which is
believed that, having learnt the lesson of the former community, would now bear
fruits under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

7.6 Continuity and Discontinuity in Paul

It will be necessary to conclude thus chapter by studying continuity and discontinu-

ity in Paul. Paul was very proud of his Jewish background. An Israelite, circumcised
on the eighth day, he was of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, who be-
longed to the sect of the Pharisees. He was so zealous for the Law that he persecuted
the followers of the Way (Php 3:5–6a; 2 Cor 11:22).
It was not for racial or cultural reasons that Paul appreciated his Jewish back-
ground, nor did he attribute any anthropological superiority to being Jewish. This
notwithstanding, it was not a matter of indifference to him that he descended from
Abraham, spe/ rma A)braa\m sperma Abraam (2 Cor 11:22). This joy obviously
was founded on the Promises made to Abraham and to his descendants.
Paul teaches that there is every advantage in being a Jew. It was to the Jews that
God’s message was entrusted (Rom 3:2). They were the adopted sons: to them were
given the glory, the covenants, the Law and its rituals, and the Promises. They were
descended from the Patriarchs and from their flesh and blood came Christ who is
above all: God forever blessed (Rom 9:4–5).
Because of the foregoing, the Gospel is God’s power saving all who believe—Jews
first and Greeks as well (Rom 1:16). Israel kept her privileged position even when
unfaithful (Rom 11:2).
Besides reflecting a high esteem for the moral superiority of the Jews, Paul did
exhibit what could be called a religious contempt for the godless ways of the Gen-
tiles. The Gentiles were ignorant of God (1 Thes 1:9; 4:5; 1 Cor 12:2). They wor-
shiped images and went after their lower instincts (Rom 1:24). Paul painted a
dreadful and dreary picture of Gentile morality, with special references to the
vices of his days (Rom 1:26–31). To walk in the way of the Gentiles was to lead a
sinful life (Eph 4;17; 1 Thes 4:5; 1 Cor 5:1). Even in his letter to the Galatians,
where Paul with all eloquence vindicated the Christian doctrine of justification by
faith, and the Christian radical independence on the Law because of Christ, Paul
 The Church as Vine 195
could not resist the temptation of quoting: “We are born Jews and not Gentile sin-
ners” (2:15).
But all humanity sinned, Jews and Gentiles alike: the Gentiles outside the Law,
the Jews within the Law (Rom 2:12–16). In like manner there will be tribulation
and distress for any one who does evil: Jews first and the Greeks as well (Rom 2:9).
Just as salvation came first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles, retribution due to
sin will come first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles.
The Jews sinned, not in violation of nature or of the order of creation, but in
transgressions against the Law (Rom 2:17–24). The Jews were sinners and it was
their sin within the context of the Law that hardened them against the Gospel.
The two peoples, Jews and Gentiles, sinned and provoked God’s wrath: the Jews
because they did not obey the Gospel; the Gentiles because they do not know God
(2 Thes 1:8).
Paul admitted freely that the Jews sinned against the Gospel and we quote in full
a Pauline text that contains very harsh language against the Jews:

For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ

Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own
countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus
and the prophets, and drove us out, and displeased God and opposed all
men by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be
saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God’s wrath
has come upon them at last (1 Thes 2:14–16).

Paul then goes on to say that the real Jew is not one who is outwardly a Jew, nor is
the true circumcision something external and physical. The true Jew is one who is
inwardly a Jew and the real circumcision is a matter of the heart; spiritual not phys-
ical (Rom 2:28–29). Because of the sins of the Jews, God’s name has been blas-
phemed (Rom 2:24 cfr Ezek 36:20).
Paul is the only New Testament writer who addressed at length the problem of
the salvation of the Jews. This concern is borne from the historical fact that the ma-
jority of the Jews, despite their election rejected, the Gospel. Many of them, like
Paul, aggressively persecuted the Church. They constituted the greatest stumbling
block that the Early Church experienced. This made Paul wonder what their place
in the Messianic Kingdom was.
Paul’s experience of the Jews during his apostolic travels was negative. Although
he always gave them pride of place, by preaching the word first to them, their re-
sponse was cool, then negative, then aggressive: they would not only chase away
and even stone Paul and his companions but even took steps to ensure that the
Gospel was not preached to the Gentiles. Moreover it could not be said that the
Jews were exemplary in observing the Law.
196 The Vine, Israel and the Church
With their frame of mind, their pattern of conduct was repeated town after town,
city after city; Paul tried to find out what went wrong and above all attempt a solu-
tion. It was the fruit of his reflection into the problem and the solution that he pro-
posed that are found in Romans 9–11.
The problem is delicate. One cannot deny the opposition of the Jews to the Gos-
pel. What could be the reason? Other more important questions are: Can Jews be
saved by the Law only, without Jesus? What is the meaning and the importance of
Jesus in salvation history?
Will the Jews ever come to believe in Jesus? How will the Promise and the Cove-
nant be understood in the face of Jews negating Jesus? Paul attempts answers which
are as follows:

• Paul’s sorrow is great and his mental anguish endless: he is even ready to be-
come anathema and be cut off from Christ if that would help his flesh and
blood; the historical Israel. God blessed Israel with the Promise, the Cove-
nant, the Rites and Rituals; the climax of all his blessings is Christ Jesus.
• God is faithful to his promises to all the “true” children of Abraham because
not all who are physically descended from Abraham are his true progeny.
What about Ishmael and Esau? It is only through the true sons of Abraham
that the blessings of the Promise and the Covenant are transmitted.
• Though God is faithful to the Promise, He remains perfectly free to choose
and call whom he may wish. Through a great act of God’s generosity, the
Gentiles were found righteous not through their works but through faith,
even when they were not searching for righteousness.
• Jews have fervor for God but their zeal for the Law is misguided. Substitut-
ing their own righteousness for the righteousness that comes from God,
they failed to realize the true meaning of the Law which with Christ, has
come to an end.
• Israel has no excuse: it heard God’s word, but failed to understand the mes-
sage and consequently remained disobedient and rebellious.
• God, however, has not rejected his people: his promise is everlasting. Even
among the Israelites there is a minority—a remnant that remained faithful.
The Jews only stumbled: they did not fall off forever. However, their defec-
tion proved an occasion for the Gentiles to be converted. Since they have
not fallen off forever, their rising will be momentous and can be compared
to rising from the grave.
• Paul goes on to use the metaphor of the olive tree for Israel. This metaphor
does not come near in beauty or in concrete description to the parables and
other forms of speech found either on the lips of Jesus or in the Old Testa-
ment. Israel is the olive and her children are the branches. If the root is
 The Church as Vine 197
holy, the branches are holy. The branches were cut off so that the wild olive
shoot, the Gentiles, could be grafted in. This is all God’s grace, and no ones’
deserts. The Gentiles should tremble with fear, because if God did not spare
the natural branches, he is not likely to spare the branches grafted in.
• The Jews defected but only for a while. They were God’s enemies but only
with regard to the Gospel; but as chosen people, they were still loved by
God. God never revokes his gifts. Eventually the Jews will be converted.

Paul’s theological reflection on the fate of his kinsmen, the only of its kind in the
New Testament, is a Gospel of hope. The Jews will be converted. Paul prefers to use
the image of the olive to that of the vine. It is not easy to guess what his reasons
could have been.
My opinion is that in biblical tradition, the vine, as symbol of Israel, has been the
symbol of unproductivity, bearing disheartening fruits, doomed to spoil and destruc-
tion. The olive, on the other hand, with its sturdy stem and tough branches, brings
out more easily the idea of permanence, stability, and endurance. The olive has
been known to survive for centuries. They wade more easily the storm of time and
weather than the vine. The olive is a tree; the vine is a plant. Above all the olive is
more adaptable to grafting.
For Paul, Israel that survived the crucible of the exile, the potter’s wheel of the
Maccabean and Roman periods, will eventually come to terms with the Gospel in
God’s good time and duly acknowledge Jesus as the awaited Messiah and Kyrios.
For Paul, Israel will survive and bear fruit; her future is bright. Israel, despite her
temporary defection, will be converted. Even now, Israel has a remnant, a remnant
chosen by divine grace. If a wild olive branch could be grafted to a cultivated olive,
how much easier would it be for the natural branch to be grafted to the tree. Hence
Israel will return to her God and acknowledge Jesus.
The Church is the vine. Like the vine that took root and filled the country, tow-
ering higher than the cedars of Lebanon and covering the mountains, extending its
tendrils to the sea and its offshoots to the River (Ps 80:8–11); the Church has
spread to the four corners of the earth. Like the vine planted in fertile soil beside
flowing rivers, with branches well spread out (Ezek 17:5–7) the Church has not
only the capability—nay the mandate—to reach out to all nations. It has the mis-
sion to bear fruit, fruit that will last (John 15:16).
The demands made of Israel of the Old Covenant will not be less than the de-
mands made on Israel of the New Covenant, a covenant ratified in the blood of
Jesus Christ. The demand to bear fruit is all the more insistent and urgent because
time is short (Rev 12:12) and the Lord is nigh (Php 4:5). Moreover, there is a lesson
to learn from Israel of old: if God did not spare the natural branches, he is not likely
to spare the grafted branches (cfr Rom 11:21).
198 The Vine, Israel and the Church
The Church is the vine, and the vineyard of Yahweh Sebaoth. All the favors and
responsibilities of Israel are now with the Church. The challenges are there but di-
vine providence is forever present: “I am with you always, yes to the end of time”
(Matt 28:20). The Church has a mission to all humanity—to bear fruit—to yield
soreq to Yahweh Sebaoth, the Holy One of Israel.
 Epilogue

The vineyard of Yahweh Sebaoth is the house of Israel

the men of Judah the chosen plant (Isa 5:7)

T
his vineyard of Yahweh Sebaoth has had its odyssey in history. Today it com-
prises the Jewish and the Gentile worlds: those who were apart have been
brought together by means of the blood of Jesus. He is the peace, making the
two peoples into one and breaking down the barriers which used to keep them
apart, i.e., the rules and decrees. He has created a single New Man out of the two by
restoring peace. Through this Cross he has united both in a single body. Through
Christ, both now share in the same Spirit and the way to the Father. Everybody is
now a citizen and member of God’s household (Eph 2:13–19).
The Church born in April of A.D. 30 has given and born fruit. It has spread to all
the continents of the globe. Evangelism attained unparalleled strides in the 19th
and 20th centuries.
The Church has suffered major reverses. Divided by the early Christological
heresies, losing great ground to Islam; it has had to reckon with the great Eastern
Schism and the Reformation. Buffeted by heresies, torn apart by the scandal of divi-
sion, it is still plagued by atheism, secularism, and many other philosophical ideolo-
gies contrary to her Gospel. Threat to its physical existence has been experienced
and continues to be experienced even today through persecutions and some legisla-
tions that militate its structural growth.
These are the challenges of the Church in the Jubilee year of 2000 and beyond,
into the third millennium. What does the Church learn from the vine/vineyard of
the Old Covenant? The threat of unproductivity is very real. Chastisement conse-
quent on fidelity is not remote. The fact that the Church comprises approximately
twenty percent of humanity makes her mission real and truly urgent.
Having been well provided for by the Master like the vine in the Canticle of
Isaiah (5:1), in Ps. 80 and in the Matthean allegory 21:31–43, the Church has no
excuses to give for not bearing fruit.
200 The Vine, Israel and the Church
It means that methods of evangelization have to be studied, revised, and updated
to be relevant to the days’ needs: dialogue and evangelism have to be pursued; none
to the detriment of the other.
The picture changes tremendously in John where Christ teaches that he is the
vine. The Church is identified with Christ. The vine grower is no longer the hus-
bandmen but the Heavenly Father. Pruning is a constant daily process. It is by the
Church abiding in Christ as Christ abides in the Father, that the Church will sur-
mount all difficulties and incarnate Christ in time and space.
 Notes

Chapter 1

1. AHw 1: 281.
2. AHw, ibid. 281.
3. CAD v. 44–45.
4. Cyrus Gordon, Ugaritic Manual, An Or 35 (Rome: PIB, 1965), 381.
5. John Wortabet & Harvey Porter, English—Arabic Dictionary for the use of schools (Cairo:
al Muktafat Printing Ofice n.d.), 440.
6. Victor Hehn, Kulturpflanzen und Haustiere in ihrem Übergang aus Asien nach Griechenland
und Italien sowie in das übrige Europa. (Hildersheim: George Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung,
1963), 65–95.
7. R. Hentschke, “ gephen” TDOT III: 54.
8. ANET, 228.
9. ANET, ibid., 19.
10. R. Hentschke, ibid., 57.
11. ———, ibid., 58.
12. R. K. Harrison, “Vine” International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia Vol. IV. ed. G. Bromiley
(Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1988), 986.
13. James H. Charlesworth, ed., “Apocalypse of Baruch.” n.29 Old Testamenta Pseudepigrapha
Vol I (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co. Inc. 1983), 630.
14. B-D-B., 40.
15. ANEP; No 90, 26.
16. J. P. Harland, “Vine of Sodom,” IDB IV: 786.
17. ANET, 280.
18. James B. Pritchard, “Industry and Trade at Biblical Gibeon,” BA 23, 1 (1960): 23–29.
19. J. F. Ross, “Wine” IDB IV: 850.
20. Leon Klenicki, ed., The Passover Celebration (Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications,
1985), 20.
21. B-D-B., 1059.
22. Mishnah. “Kethuboth” 4:6.
202 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Chapter 2

1. William Whedbee, Isaiah and Wisdom. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971), 44.
2. A. S. Herbert, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah—Chapters 1–39. Cambridge Bible Commen-
tary: (Cambridge University Press, 1973), 47.
3. H. Renkens, The Prophet of the Nearness of God. (De Pere, WI: St. Norbert Abbey Press,
1969), 133.
4. Ronald Ernest Clements, Isaiah 1–39. (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1981), 56.
5. H. Renkens, ibid, 133.
6. Berhardt Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja. (HKAT III Abteilung, 1 Band Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1902), 32.
7. Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12. Tran. by R. A. Wilson. Old Testament Library (Westminster
Press; Philadelphia, 1972), 61.
8. Christopher R. Seitz, Isaiah 1–39. Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1933), 47.
9. J. Vermeylen, Du Prophete Isaïe à l’Apocalyptique Isaïe I-XXXV. Tome I. (Paris: Librairie Le-
coffre, 1997), 160.
10. H. Gressmann, “Die literarische Analyse Deuterojesajas” ZAW, XXXIV (1914), 254–297.
11. L. Koehler, “Deuterojesaja stilkritisch untersucht” BZAW, 37(Giessen 1923), 110–120.
12. Antoon Schoors, “The Rib-Pattern is Isaiah XL—LV” Bijdragen, Tijdschrift voor Filosofie
en Theologie, DEEL ARTIG—1969—AFLEVERING I. 25.
13. Claus Westermann , Grundformen prophetisher Rede (B. Ev. Theol., 31 Munchen 1960),
120.
14. ———ibid., 122.
15. Georg Fohrer, Das Buch Jesaja. Züricher Bibelkommentare. 1 Band Kapitel 1–23. 2nd ed.
(Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1960), 75.
16. ———ibid. 75.
17. J. Vermeylen, ibid., 161.
18. ———ibid., 167.
19. ———ibid. 167.
20. J. Skinner, Isaiah i–xxxix (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910), 16.
21. Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary of Prophecies of Isaiah. Tr. from 3rd Ed. by James Den-
ney. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, s.d.), 117.
22. John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah—Chapters 1—39. New International Commentary on the
Old Testament. (Grand Rapids: Wm Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986), 150
23. Christopher Seitz, ibid, 47.
24. B. Duhm, ibid, 32.
25. J. Vella, “La Guistizia Forense di Dio: RB It. Supp. vol 1: Brescia (1964), 81–88
26. Paul Joüon, Gramaire de l’Hebreu Biblique. (Rome PIB: Edition photomecanique corrigée,
1965). No. 114d. GKC 108b, 108c.
27. AHw , 149.
28. UT, 254.
29. John J. Hayes & Stuart A. Irvine, Isaiah, His Times and His Prophecy. (Nashville: Abing-
don Press, 1987), 100.
30. Angelo Penna, Isaia. (Roma: Marietti, 1958), 75,76.
31. George B. Gray, Isaiah 1—27. ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912), 84.
32. Boltmar Heintrich, Der Prophet Jesaja 1–12. ATD (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ru-
precht, 1950), 75.
 Notes 203
33. Bruce D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum. Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes.
(Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987), 10.
34. B-D-B, 901, 902.
35. Edward T. Young, ibid., 194.
36. George B. Gray, ibid., 85.
37. Hans Eberhard Mayer, The Crusades. tr. by John Gillingham (Oxford University: 1972),
131, 132.
38. H. Haag., Ben TDOT II: 149.
39. George B. Gray, ibid., 85.
40. B-D-B, 740.
41. B-D-B, ibid., 709.
42. GKC, No. 52h.
43. John Oswalt, ibid., 153.
44. B-D-B, 977.
45. ———ibid, 977.
46. Edward T. Young, ibid., 196.
47. B-D-B, 875.
48. B-D-B, 92–93.
49. AHw, 131.
50. Edward T. Young, ibid., 197.
51. Otto Kaiser, ibid., 91.
52. Boltman Heintrich, ibid., 76.
53. ———ibid, 76.
54. T.K. Cheyne, “The Book of the Prophet Isaiah” in The Polychrome Bible. ed. Paul Haupt.
(London: James Clarke & Co., 1898) Notes on Prophecy 2, 135.
55. B-D-B, 962.
56. ———967–968.
57. Edward T. Young, ibid., 201.
58. George B. Gray, ibid., 86.
59. B-D-B, 144.
60. Paul Haupt, “Isaiah’s Parable of the Vineyard”. AJSL vol 19 (July 1903), 198.
61. AHw, 144.
62. D. Baly, “Rain”. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 4. Ed. G.W. Bromiley.
(Wm Eerdmans Publishing Com pany: Grand Rapids, 1988), 35.
63. Boltman Heintrich, ibid., 77.
64. John Oswalt, ibid., 154.
65. Edward T. Young, ibid., 203.
66. John Oswalt, ibid., 155.
67. Boltman Heintrich, ibid., 77.

Chapter 3

1. Artur Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary, trans Herbert Hartwell, 5th ed. (London: SCM
Press, 1962), 547.
2. A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, vol. 2, The New Century Bible Commentary (Grand
Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publications, 1983), 581.
204 The Vine, Israel and the Church
3. Claus Westermann, The Psalms, Structure and Content, trans Ralph D. Gehrke (Minneap-
olis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1980) 30.
4. James Luther Mays, Psalms, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1944), 264.
5. Claus Westermann, ibid., 32.
6. ———ibid, 32.
7. Mitchell Dahood, Psalms 11, 100–150, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday &
Company, 1968), 255.
8. Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. 2, trans David Eaton (New York: Fung &
Wagnalls S.A.), 438.
9. Eduard König, Die Psalmen (Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann Verlag, 1927), 356.
10. Otto Eissfeldt, “Psalm 80”, Geschichte und Altes Testament. BHT 16 (1953), 74.
11. ———“Jahwe Zebaoth,” Miscellanea Academica Berolinensia II 2(1950), 128–150.
12. Artur Weiser, ibid., 547.
13. W.O.E. Oesterly, The Psalms II (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1939), 366.
14. A. A. Anderson, ibid., 582.
15. Eduard König, ibid., 356.
16. Hans Schmidt, Die Psalmen HAT, 15: (Tübingen: Verlag von J.C.B. Mohr, 1934), 154.
17. Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60–150, A Commentary: trans Hilton C. Oswald (Minneap-
olis: Fortress Press, 1989), 139.
18. ———ibid., 140.
19. ———ibid., 140–141.
20. Pierre Guichou, Les Psaumes Vol II (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1957), 174.
21. E. Beaucamp, Le Psautier 73–150, Source Biblique (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1979), 45.
22. Michael Goulder, The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch (Sheffield: Sheffield Academy
Press, 1996), 138.
23. A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1903),
483.
24. W. M. L. de Wette, Kommentar über die Psalmen ,vierte, verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage
(Heidelberg: J.C.B. Mohr, 1836), 467.
25. Justus Olshausen, Die Psalmen (Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1853), 336.
26. Walter Beyerlin, “Schichten im 80 Psalm”, Das Wort, und die Wörter, eds Horst Balz &
Siegried Schulz (Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1973), 10–19.
27. Trygve N.D. Mettinger, In Search of God, the Meaning and Message of the Everlasting Names
trans. Frederick H. Cryer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 128–131.
28. W.O.E. Oesterley, ibid., 366.
29. Claus Westermann, ibid., 30.
30. ———ibid. 30.
31. ———Praise and Lament in the Psalms ibid, 52.
32. ———The Psalms, Structure, Content and Message ibid, 31–43.
33. ———Ibid, 34.
34. W.O.E. Oesterly, ibid., 366.
35. ———ibid., 367.
36. ———ibid. 367.
37. Michael Goulder, ibid., 137.
38. Edward Kissane, The Book of Psalms (Dublin: The Richview Press, 1954), 47.
39. Claus Westermann, Ibid., 35–43.
40. Hans-Joachim Kraus, ibid,, 141.
41. James Luther Mays, ibid., 117
 Notes 205
42. Samuel Terrien, The Psalms and their Meaning for Today (Kansas City: The Bobbs-Merrill
Company, 1952), 128.
43. A.A. Anderson, Ibid., 582.
44. Mayer Gruber, ed., Rashis’ Commentary on Psalms 1–89 Books I-III. (Atlanta, Georgia:
Scholars Press, 1998), 375.
45. Artur Weiser, ibid., 547–548.
46. Mitchell Dahood, ibid., 255, 205.
47. AHw I , 445.
48. D.N. Freedman & M.P. O’Connor, kerûÓb TDOT 7 (1984), 308.
49. Cyrus Gordon, Ugaritic Texbook (Roma: PIB, 1965), 422.
50. D. N. Freedman & M.P. O’Connor, ibid., 311.
51. Cyrus Gordon, ibid., 484.
52. Hans-Joachim Kraus, ibid., 141.
53. B-D-B, ibid., 422.
54. Cyrus Gordon, ibid., 413.
55. Theodore H. Gaster, “Ezekiel XXVIII, 17.” The Expository Times (January 1951), 124.
56. Fredrick Moriarty, “A Note on the Rooy ypc,” CBQ 14(1952), 62.
57. E. Beaucamp, ibid., 46.
58. Heinrich Herkenne, Das Buch der Psalmen, 2 Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments vol 2
(Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlagsuchhandlung), 136.
59. Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Psalms, Book Three. (Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers,
1978), 74.
60. Artur Weiser, ibid., 548.
61. Charles Augustus Briggs & Emile Grace Briggs, The Book of Psalms. Vol 2 ICC (Edinburgh:
Clark Publishing Company, 1966), 203.
62. GKC, ibid., 125h.
63. A. A. Anderson, ibid., 583.
64. Hans-Joachim Kraus, ibid., 80.
65. Cyrus Gordon, ibid § 11: 6–8.
66. Bruce K. Waltree & M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Syntax. (Winona Lake: Ei-
senbrauns, 1990), §9.8.
67. Samuel Terrien, ibid. 128.
68. Franz Delitsch, ibid., 438.
68. Samuel Raphael Hirsch, ibid., 74.
69. Avrohom Chaim Feuer, Tehillim Vol 3 (Brooklyn, Mesorah Publication, 1982), 1016.
70. Samson Raphael Hirsch, ibid.
71. Avrom Chaim Feuer, ibid., 1013.
72. Mayer Gruber ed., ibid., 376.
73. Trygve N.D. Mettinger, ibid., 125
74. ———ibid., 134.
76. Avrohom Chaim Feuer, ibid., 1016
77. BDB, ibid., 798.
78. C. A. & E. G. Briggs, ibid., 204
79. G. R. Driver, “Textual and Linguistic Problems of the Book of Psalms” HTR XXIX (1936),
186–187.
80. Franz Delitzsch, ibid., 441.
81. Pierre Guichou, ibid., 175.
82. Franz Delitzsch, ibid., 441.
206 The Vine, Israel and the Church
83. B-D-B, ibid., 1052.
84. ———, ibid., 1026.
85. Cyrus Gordon, ibid., 503.
86. Mitchell Dahood, ibid., 257.
87. Mayer Gruber, ed., ibid., 376.
88. Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions, trans John McHugh (Grand Rap-
ids: Michigan: Wm B. Eerdmans Publising Company, 1997), 199.
89. A. A. Anderson, ibid., 583.
90. B-D-B, ibid., 193.
91. C. A. & E. G. Briggs, ibid., 205.
92. Franz Delitzsch, ibid., 441.
93. Marvin Tate, Psalms 51–100, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, Texas: Word Books
Publishers, 1990), 306–307.
94. GKC, ibid., 119s, 135.
95. B. K. Waltke & M. O’Connor, ibid., 207–208.
96. B-D-B, ibid., 541.
97. HermannGunkel,DiePsalmen5e Auglage(Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,1968),354.
98. Cyrus Gordon, ibid., 386.
99. Mitchell Dahood, ibid., 258.
100. B-D-B, ibid., 541.
101. T. K. Cheyne, The Book of Psalms (London: Kegan Paul Trench & Co., 1888), 226.
102. Artur Weiser, ibid., 549.
103. Pierre Guichou, ibid., 176.
104. A. A. Anderson, ibid., 584.
105. W. O. E. Oesterley, ibid., 368–369.
106. Josephus Flavius, Ant. XV. 11, 31. Mishna: “Middoth,” iii 8.
107. H. Hamburger, “Money Changer,” IDB II, 434.
108. Samson Raphael Hirsch, Ibid., 80.
109. H. Freedman, ed., “Exodus”, Midrash Rabbah, Ch. 44:1 (London: The Soncino Press,
1961) 507.
110. H. Freedman, ed., “Leviticus”, Midrash Rabbah, Ch. 36:2 (London: The Soncino Press,
1961) 457.
111. Mitchell Dahood, ibid., 258.
112. Hermann Gunkel, ibid., 354.
113. Mitchell Dahood, ibid. 258.
114. Hermann Gunkel, ibid. 354.
115. Hans-Joachim Kraus, ibid., 554.
116. C. A. & E. G. Briggs, ibid., 202.
117. Artur Weiser, ibid., 547.
118. D. Thomas Winston, “A Consideration of Some Unusual Ways of Expressing the Superla-
tive in Hebrew” VT III (1953), 710.
119. Mitchell Dahood, Psalms 1–50, Anchor Bible (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1965
& 1966), 220.
120. Patrick Boylan, The Psalms Vol. 2 (Dublin: M. H. Gill and Sons, 1924), 49.
121. Samson Raphael Hirsch, Ibid., 80–81.
122. ———ibid. 80–81.
123. B-D-B, ibid., 154–155.
124. James Luther Mays, ibid., 264.
 Notes 207
125. ———ibid., 264.
126. Artur Weiser, ibid., 549.
127. ———ibid., 548.
128. B-D-B, ibid., 127.
129. I. Epstein, ed., Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud “Kiddushin :30a” trans H.
Freedmann (London: The Soncino Press, 1977).
130. ———ibid.
131. Franz Delitzsch, ibid., 443–444.
132. ———ibid 443.
133. Cyrus Gordon, ibid., 401.
134. ———ibid., 403.
135. Hans-Joachim Kraus, ibid., 143.
136. Martin Noth, The History of Israel (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1960), 127.
137. Moses Buttenweiser, The Psalms (Chicago: The Chicago University Press, 1938), 234.
138. James H. Charlesworth, ed., “The Ethiopian Apocalypse of Henoch,” The Old Testament
Pseudopigrapha. Vol. 1 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1983), 65–68.
139. Moses Buttenweiser,ibid., 234.
140. H. Freedman & Maurice Simon, eds., “Genesis II Ch.65:I” The Midrash Rabba trans. H.
Freedman (London: The Soncino Press, 1961), 581.
141. Mayer Gruber, ed., Ibid., 378.
142. C. A. & E. G. Briggs, ibid., 206.
143. B-D-B, ibid., 493.
144. AHW, ibid., 453.
145. B-D-B, ibid., 249.
146. Samson Raphael Hirsch, ibid., 81.
147. ———ibid. 81
148. Pierre Guichou, ibid., 176.
149. Mitchell Dahood, ibid., 259.
150. Hermann Gunkel, ibid., 355.
151. Hans-Joachim Kraus, ibid., 138–139.
152. B-D-B, ibid., 492.
153. Mitchell Dahood, ibid., 260.
154. B-D-B, ibid., 492.
155. ———, ibid., 695.
156. ———, ibid., 695.
157. Mitchell Dahood, ibid., 261.
158. C. A. & E. G. Briggs, ibid., 202.
159. B-D-B, ibid., 691.
160. Marvin Tate, ibid., 147.
161. Mitchell Dahood, ibid., 261
162. Samson Raphael Hirsch, ibid., 80.

Chapter 4

1. R. T. France, Matthew, Tyndales’ New Testament Commentaries (Leicester: Inter-Varsity

Press, 1985), 306.
208 The Vine, Israel and the Church
2. Augustine Stock, The Method and Message of Matthew (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical
Press, 1994), 331.
3. Ivor Harold Jones, The Matthean Parables (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 371.
4. Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew, trans. David E. Cohen (Atlanta:
John Knox Press, 1975), 402.
5. Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, Revised Edition, 1963 trans. S. H. Hooke (Lon-
don: SCM Press, 1963), 70.
6. Gerald Wilson, “ mashal”, New International Dictionary of the Old Testament and Exegesis.
vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 1134.
7. Friedrich Hauck, “parabole” TDNT, V: 745–747.
8. ———, “paroimia” ibid., 854.
9. C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom. (Digswell Place: James Nisbet Company, 1961), 11.
10. ———, ibid, 1.
11. Joachim Jeremias, ibid., 12.
12. H. D. Wendland, “Von den Gleichnisen Jesu in ihrer Botschaft,” Die Theologin, II (1941),
17–29.
13. Joachim Jeremias, ibid., 12.
14. Klyne Snodgrass, The Parable of the Wicked Tenants. (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1983), 3–8.
15. Joachim Jeremias, ibid., 70
16. C. H. Dodd, ibid., 97–101.
17. Klyne Snodgrass, ibid., 1.
18. Joachim Jeremias, ibid, 70.
19. John Dominic Crossan, “ The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen” JBL (1971), 451.
20. Brad H. Young, Jesus and His Jewish Parables. (New York: Paulist Press, 1989), 289.
21. ———, ibid., 290.
22. C. H. Dodd, ibid., 96–97.
23. A. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisse Jesu. (Freiburg i. B.: J.C.B. Mohr, 1889), 385–406.
24. Joachim Jeremias, ibid., 76.
25. Werner Georg Kümmel, “Das Gleichnis von den bösen Weingärtnern (Mk 12:1–9)” Aux
Sources de la Tradition Chretienne. (Neuchâtel, Paris: 1950), 130.
26. Rudolph Bultman, The History of Synoptic Tradition. trans. John Marsh (Oxford: Blackwell,
1963), 177.
27. T. W. Manson, The Teachings of Jesus. (Cambridge: University Press, 1967), 104.
28. C. F. D. Moule, The Gospel According to Mark. The Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cam-
bridge: University Press, 1965), 93–94.
29. Dan Otto Via, The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension. (Philadephia: Fortress
Press, 1967), 136.
30. F. V. A. Filson, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Harpers New Testa-
ment Commentaries (New York: Harpers Brothers, 1960), 228.
31. J. Kinsbury, “The Wicked Husbandmen.” JBL 105 (1986), 652.
32. W. G. Morrice, “The Parable of the Tenants and the Gospel of Thomas” Expository Times
98 (1986–87), 104.
33. John Dominic Crossan, ibid., 452.
34. F. W. Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew. (Oxford: Blackwell Press, 1981), 427.
35. ———, ibid, 427.
36. C. H. Dodd, ibid., 97.
37. Jane and Raymond Newell, “The Parable of the Wicked Tenants.” Nov. T 14 (1972), 235.
38. Joachim Jeremias, ibid., 74–75.
 Notes 209
39. J. Duncan Derrett, Law in the New Testament. (London: Darton, 1970), 286–312.
40. Leon Nemo ed. Sifre on Deuteronomy Yale Judaica Series Vol XXIV, trans. Reuven Ham-
mer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), 318.
41. Liddell-Scott, ibid., 1204.
42. Hans-Josef Klauch, “Das Gleichnis vom Mord im Weinberg” Bibel und Leben II (1970),
122.
43. S. R. Llewelyn and R. A. Kearsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (NSW,
Australia: Macquarire University, 1992), 89.
44. J. D. M. Derrett, ibid., 290.
45. Hans-Josef Klauch, ibid., 122.
46. Hermann Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, erläutert aus Talmud
und Midrasch (München: C. H. Beckshe Verlagsbuchandlung, 1922), 871.
47. Simon J. Kistemaker, The Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House,
1980), 90.
48. D. Henning, “Die Arbeitsverpflichtungen der Pächten in Landpachtverträgen aus dem
Fajum” ZPE 9(1972), 111–131.
49. Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek, English ed., adapted from the Fourth Latin Edition,
trans Joseph Smith (Rome: P.I.B, 1963), § 185.
50. J. D. M. Derrett, ibid., 291.
51. Paul Gaechter, Das Matthäus Evangelium (Innsbruck: Tryolia Verlag, 1963), 682.
52. Aaron Milavec, “A Fresh Analysis of the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen in the Light
of Jewish-Catholic Dialogue” Parable and Story in Judaism and Christianity ed. Clemens
Thoma and Michael Wyschogrod, Biblical Theology Bulletin 20 (1970), 43.
53. H-J. Klauch, ibid., 123.
54. J. D. M. Derrett, ibid., 290.
55. ———, ibid., 296.
56. Paul Gaechter, ibid., 682.
57. Herbert Danby, The Mishna (Oxford: University Press), 80.
58. ———, ibid., 89.
59. Simon J. Kistemaker, ibid., 91.
60. J. D. M. Derrett, ibid., 292.
61. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Pub-
lishing Co., 1992), 540.
62. Paul Gaechter, ibid., 683 cfr Strack-Billerbeck, ibid., 873.
63. Wolfgang Trilling, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus 2 Teil (Dusseldorf: Palmos Verlag, 1965), 207.
64. Daniel Patte, The Gospel According to Matthew (Phildelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 298.
65. Paul Gaechter, ibid., 683.
66. John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from Talmud and Hebraica. Matthew—
1 Corinthians, vol. 2 (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers 2nd Printing, 1995), 283.
67. ———, ibid., 284.
68. Paul Gaechter, ibid., 683.
69. Ernst Bammel,” Das Gleichnis von den bösen Winzern (Mk.12:1–9) und das judische Er-
brecht “ Revue Internationale des Droits de l’Antiquite 3rd Series 6(1959),12.
70. F. W. Beare, ibid., 429.
71. M. Hubaut, La Parabole des Vignerons Homicides (Paris: Gebald, 1976), 38.
72. Hans-Josef Klauch, ibid., 124.
73. J. D. M. Derrett, ibid., 303.
74. W. Trilling, ibid., 206.
210 The Vine, Israel and the Church
75. J. D. M. Derett, ibid., 288.
76. Leon Morris, ibid., 541.
77. Aaron Milavec, ibid., 32.
78. M. Hubaut, ibid 42.
79. H-J. Klauch, ibid., 124.
80. J. D. M. Derrett, ibid., 306.
81. H. Liddell-R. Scott, ibid., 577.
82. David Garland, Reading Matthew (New York: The Crossroads Publishers Co., 1933), 218.
83. ———, ibid., 218.
84. J. D. M. Derrett, ibid., 306
85. Leon Morris, ibid., 543.
86. F. W. Beare, ibid., 429.
87. Joachim Jeremias, ibid., 73.
88. W. G. Kümmel, ibid., 123.
89. Wolfgang Trilling, ibid., 208.
90. J. D. M. Derrett, ibid., 307.
91. J. Drury, “The Sower, the Vineyard and the Place of Allegory in the Interpretation of
Mark’s Parables” JTS N.S. xxiv (1973), 367–369.
92. Joachim Jeremias, ibid., 75.
93. ———, ibid., 76.
94. J. D. M. Derrett, ibid., 291–303.
95. W. G. Kümmel, ibid., 122.
96. J. D. M. Derrett, ibi., 300.
97. ———, ibid., 303.
98. S. R. Lleywyn & R. A. Kearsley, ibid., 95–97.
99. H-J. Klauch, ibid., 125–126.
100. J. D. Crossman, ibid., 454.
101. J. C. Fenton, The Gospel of St. Matthew The Pelican Gospel Commentaries (Baltimore:
Penguin Books, 1963), 344.
102. Liddell & Scott, ibid., 442.
103. F. W. Beare, ibid., 430.
104. R. T. France, ibid., 310.
105. F. W. Beare, ibid., 430.
106. Robert H. Smith, Matthew. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. (Minneapolis,
MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1989), 254.
107. F. W. Beare, ibid., 430.
108. Brad H. Young, ibid., 290.
109. R. T. France, ibid., 310.
110. M. Black, “The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament.” NTS
18/(1971–72), 13.
111. J. Kingsbury, ibid., 652.

Chapter 5

1. Charles H. Talbert, Reading John—A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth
Gospel and the Johannine Epistles. (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 211.
 Notes 211
2. Josef–Marie Lagrange, Évangile selon Saint Jean 3rd ed. rev. (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1927), 400–
405.
3. Rudolf Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1964), 406.
4. J. Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes vol. 2 Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar
zum Neuen Testament 4 (Gutersloh: Gutesloher Verlaghaus Mohr; Würzburg: Echter,
1979–81), 229.
5. R. Bultmann, ibid., 406–415.
6. R. H. Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel, A Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), 283.
7. Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1972), 488–493.
8. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to John Vol 3 (Tunbridge Wells, Kent: Burns
& Oates, 1992), 92–93.
9. Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John Anchor Bible 29A (Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1966–70), 665–666.
10. J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John Vol
2) ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, Reprinted 1985), 477–485. cfr Jose Maria Bover, Com-
mentario al Sermón de la Cena 2nd ed. Biblioteca Autores Cristianos 68 (Madrd: La Edito-
rial Católica, 1955), 86, 96, 99.
11. Fernando Segovia, The Farewell of the Word (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 127–130.
12. Rudolf Bultmann, ibid., 415.
13. D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991),
50.
14. H. G. Liddell & R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon. 1996 ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1996), 576.
15. J. M. Lagrange, ibid., 397.
16. cfr B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to John (London: John Murray, 1882), 216.
17. J. H. Bernard, ibid., 557.
18. Ernst Haenchen, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapters 7–21. Trans. Robert W.
Funk (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 131.
19. J. H. Bernard, ibid., 453–581.
20. Rudolf Bultmann, ibid., 357–489.
21. R. H. Strachan, The Fourth Gospel, its Significance and Environment. 3rd Edition. (London:
Student Christian Movement, 1941), 81.
22. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John—A Commentary. 2nd ed. (Philadelphia:
Westminister Press, 1978), 24.
23. J. M. Lagrange, ibid., 401.
24. Rainer Borig, Der Wahre Weinstock (München: Kösel Verlag, 1967), 21–23.
25. R. Schnackenburg, ibid., 96.
26. R. Brown, ibid., 668–669.
27. J. N. Sanders & B.A. Martin, The Gospel According to St. John (London: Black, 1968),
336–337.
28. ———ibid., 336.
29. André Feuillet, Johannine Studies trans. Thomas Crane (Staten Island, New York: Alba
House, 1965), 87.
30. H. van den Bussche, Le Discours d’Adieu de Jesus: Commentaire des Chapitres 12 à 17 de
l’evangile selon Saint Jean trans. by C. Charlier et P Goidts (Tournar: Castermann, 1959),
102.
212 The Vine, Israel and the Church
31. J. H. Bernard, ibid., 478.
32. M. J. Rouet de Journel, Enchiridion Patristicum 24th ed. “Didache” 9.2 (Rome: Herder,
1969), 2.
33. Aileen Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960),
118.
34. Ernest Lussier, Christ’s Farewell Discourse (New York: Alba House, 1979), 41.
35. F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Wm Eerdmann’s Publishing Co., 1983), 305.
36. C.K. Barrett, ibid., 472.
37. James H. Charlesworth “The Apocalypse of Baruch.” no. 39 The Old Testament Pseudepi-
grapha vol. 1 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, 1983), 633.
38. Rudolf Bultmann, ibid, 407.
39. J. H. Bernard ibid., 478.
40. C. K. Barrett ibid., 471.
41. R. H. Lightfoot, The John’s Gospel, A Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), 282.
42. R. Bultmann, ibid., 167–168.
43. R. Brown ibid., 533–534.
44. ———ibid., 534.
45. ———ibid., 533.
46. Adolf Deissmann Light from the Ancient East trans. Lionel R.M. Strachan (London: Hod-
der & Stoughton, 1910), 135.
47. ———ibid., 139.
48. Josef Blank, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1981), 143.
49. Rainer Borig, ibid, 25.
50. Brown, ibid, vol.1 499.
51. ———ibid., 499.
52. R. Borig, ibid., 32.
53. R. Bultmann, ibid., 408.
54. Hermann Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmanns Publishing Co., 1997), 516.
55. J. H. Bernard, ibid., 477.
56. Josef Blank, ibid., 143.
57. Henri van den Bussche, ibid., 105.
58. Edwyn Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (London: Faber & Faber, 1947), 475.
59. Adrienne Von Speyr, The Farewell Discourses trans. E. A. Nelson (San Francisco: Ignatius
Press, 1987), 161.
60. R. Brown, ibid., 660.
61. J. M. Lagrange, ibid., 402.
62. Xenophon, Memorabilia and Oeconomicus tr. E.C. Marchant (London, William Heine-
mann, 1938), 516–517.
63. R. Borig, ibid., 39.
64. Henri van den Bussche, L’Evangile du Verbe (Jean 1–4) 84.
65. R. Schnackenburg, ibid., 98.
66. M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek trans. Joseph Smith (Rome: PIB, 1963), § 112.
67. J. H. Bernard, ibid., 480.
68. E. Hoskyns, ibid., 475.
69. Henri van den Bussche, “Le Discours”, ibid., 106.
70. J. H. Bernard, vol. I, 76.
71. R. Borig, ibid., 44.
 Notes 213
72. R. Brown, ibid., 678.
73. R. Schnackenburg, ibid., 99.
74. D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to St. John (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press,
1991), 516.
75. Hermann Ridderbos, ibid., 517.
76. J. M. Lagrange, ibid., 403–404.
77. Josef Blank., ibid., 146.
78. ———ibid.
79. M. Zerwick, ibid., § 1.
80. ———ibid., § 256 & 257.
81. C. K. Barrett, ibid., 474.
82. D. Carson, ibid., 519.
83. B. F. Wescott, ibid., 216.
84. J. H. Bernard, ibid., 482.
85. J. M. Lagrange, ibid., 404.
86. ———ibid., 405.
87. R. Schnackenburg, ibid., 102.
88.
89. D.A. Carson, ibid., 519.
90. ———ibid., 519.
91. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John The New International Commentary on the
New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmanns Publishing Co., 1971), 673.
92. R. Bultmann, ibid., 536.
93. Henri van den Bussche, Le Discours, ibid., 108.

Chapter 6

1. G. I. Davies, Hosea, New Century Bible Commentary. (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co., 1992) 235.
2. Hans Walter Wolff, Hosea, trans. Gray Stansel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974) 173–
174.
3. James M. Ward, Hosea, A Theological Commentary. (New York: Harper & Row, 1966)
178.
4. Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel, A Commentary. Old Testament Library trans. Coslett Quin
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970) 193.
5. Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel I trans Ronald E. Clements (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979)
319.
6. Daniel Block, The Book of Ezekiel 1–24 (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1997) 456.
7. Walther Zimmerli, ibid 164.
8. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel—Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990) 76.
9. Daniel Block, ibid 531.
10. Walter Brueggemann, To Pluck Up, To Tear Down International Theological Commentary
(Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmanns Publishing Co., 1988) 86.
11. J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980) 302.
214 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Chapter 7

1. James D. G. Dunn, The Parting of the Ways (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International,
1991), 1.
2. George Johnston, The Doctrine of the Church in the New Testament. (Cambridge: University
Press, 1943), 62.
3. James D. G. Dunn, ibid., 18–36.
4. Gregory Baum, The Jews and the Gospel. (Westminster: The Newmann Press, 1960), 47.
5. Jacob Jocz, The Jewish People and Jesus Christ. (London: S.P.C.K., 1962), 53.
6. ———ibid.
7. Gregory Baum, ibid., 62.
8. C.H. Dodd, The Founder of Christianity. (London: The Macmillion Company, 1970), 90.
9. Gregory Baum, ibid.
10. R.T. France, Matthew, Teacher and Evangelist. (Grand Rapids, MI: Academic Books, 1989),
224.
11. Gregory Baum, ibid., 63.
12. James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue. (New York: Hermann Press,
1974), 183.
 Primary Sources and Reference Works

Bible Texts

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia eds. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph Editio funditus renovata.
Vierte, verbesserte Auflage (Stuttgart: Wüttembergische Bibelanstalt Stuttgart,
1990).
Septuaginta 8o Editio Alfred Rahlfs ed. (Stuttgart: Wüttembergische Bibelanstalt Stutt-
gart, 1965).
The Greek New Testament 3rd ed. K. Aland, M. Black, C. M. Martini editors (London:
United Bible Societies, 1975).
The Aramaic Bible “The Isaiah Targum” Bruce C. Chilton, ed (Wilmington: Michael Gla-
zier Inc., 1987)
The Jerusalem Bible (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1966).
The Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (London: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1966).
Millar Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls—translation (New York: Viking Press, 1955).

Lexica

F. Brown, S. R. Driver, C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon to the Old Testament
(Oxford: Clarendon Press. Reprinted 1957).
Henry George Liddell & Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon with Revised Supplement
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996).
Wolfram von Soden, Akkadisches Handworterbuch (Bande 1–111) (Wiesbaden: Otto Har-
rassowitz, 1965–1981).
Cyrus Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (Rome: P.I.B. 1965).
John Wortabet &Harvey Porter, English—Arabic Dictionary for the Use of Schools (Cairo: al
Muktafat Printing Office n.d.).
216 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Concordances

Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae Hebraicae atque Chaldaicae Solomon Mandelkern, ed.

(Graz: Akademischer Druck—Verlagsanstalt, 1955).
A Concordance to the Greek Testament W.F. Moulton & A. S. Geden 4th Edition (Edin-
burgh: T & T Clark, 1963).
The NIV Exhaustive Concordance ed. Edward W. Goodrick and John R. Kohlenberger III
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990).
A Concordance to the Septuagint and Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament by Edwin
Patch & Henry A. Redpath (Graz: Akkademische Druck—und Verlagsanstalt, 1954).
Concordance of Ugaritic Cyrus Gordon ed (Roma: P.I.B., 1956).

Grammar Text Books

Gesenius Hebrew Grammar ed. and enlarged by E. Kautsch 2nd Edition revised by A. E.
Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966).
Paul Joüon, Grammaire de l’Hebreu Biblique (Rome: ed photomécanique corrigée, 1965).
Bruce K.Waltree & M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Syntax. (Winona Lake: Eisen-
brauns, 1990).
Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek English edition adapted from the Latin Edition tr. Jo-
seph Smith (Rome: P.I.B., 1963).

Bible Dictionaries

The Anchor Bible Dictionary. vols I-VI. David Noel Freedman ed. (New York: Doubleday,
1992).
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 1–12 Frank E. Gabelein ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zonder-
van Publishing House, 1979–1981).
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia 1–4 G.W. Bromiley ed. (Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1979 –1988).
The International Bible Commentary William R. Farmer ed. (Collegeville,MN: The Liturgi-
cal Press, 1998).
Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible with the Supplement I-V George Arthur Buttrick ed.
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962–1976).
New International Dictionary of the Old Testament & Exegesis I-V Willem A. Van Gemeren
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997 –
The New Interpreters Bible I-XII (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 194 –1998).
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament I- X tr Geoffrey W. Bromiley Grand Rapids, MI:
Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1964–1976).
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament I—XI G. Johannes Botterweck & Helmer Ring-
gren eds. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1974–2001).
 Primary Sources and Reference Works 217
Other Primary Sources

Ancient Near Eastern Pictures ed. James B. Pritchard (Princeton, N.J.: 1965).
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament 2nd ed. (Princeton, N.J.: 1965).
Enchiridion Patristicum, Marie Joseph Rouet de Journel ed. 24th ed. (Rome: Herder, 1969).
James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1–11. (Garden City, N.Y.:Dou-
bleday & Co, 1983).
The Mishnah—A New Translation by Jacob Neusner (Yale:University Press, 1988).
The Mishnah—- tr Herbert Danby (Oxford: Oxford Press, 1967).
I. Epstein ed., Hebrew—English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud. KIDDUSHIN tr. H.
Freedman (London: The Soncino Press, 1977).
Moses Hadas, The Complete Works of Tacitus tr. Alfred John Church & William Jackson
Brodribb (New York: The Modern Library, 1942).
Xenophon, Memorabilia and Oeconomicus tr E.C.Marchant (London: William Heine-
mann,1938).
This page intentionally left blank
 Bibliography

W. F. Albright & C. S. Mann, Matthew The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday & Com-
pany Inc., 1978).
A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, Psalms 73–150, Vol. II. New Century Bible Com-
mentary, ed. Ronald E. Clements & Matthew Black. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerd-
mans Publishing Co., 1983).
Paul Auvray, Isaïe 1–39 Source Biblique (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1972).
David Mark Ball, “I AM” in John’s Gospel. Literary Function, Background and Theological
Implications. Journal for the Supplement of the New Testament Supplement Series
124 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
D. Baly, “Rain.” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia Vol. 4 ed., G. W. Bromiley
(Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988) 35–36.
Ernst Bammel, “Das Gleichnis von den bösen Winzern (Mk 12, 1–9) und das jüdische Er-
brecht” Revue Internationale des droits de l’Antiquité. 3rd Series 6 (1959) 11–17.
C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John—A Commentary. 2nd ed. (Philadelphia:
Westminister Press, 1978).
Gregory Baum, The Jews and the Gospel (Westminister: The Newman Press, 1960).
Francis Wright Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981).
Evode Beaucamp, Le Psautier. 73–150 Source Biblique, Librairie Lecoffre (Paris: J. Ga-
balda, 1979).
J. Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes Vol. 2 Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar
zum Neuen Testament 4. (Gutersloh: Gutesloher Verlagshaus Mohn; Würzburg Echter
1979–81).
H. D. Beeby, Hosea—Grace Abounding International Theological Commentary (Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989).
G—M. Behler, The Last Discourse (Baltimore: Helicon, 1965).
Johannes Behm, “a)/ mpeloj” TDNT 1:342–343.
J. H. Bernard, The Gospel According to John. Vol. II ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1985).
Walter Beyerlin, “Schichten im 80 Psalm”. Das Wort und die Wörter, eds Horst Balz &
Siegfried Schulz. (Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1973).
M. Black, “The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament” NTS 18
(1971–72) 1–14.
220 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Josef Blank, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (Düsseldorf, Patmos Verlag, 1981).
Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel Interpretation. (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990).
Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chs. 1–24. The New International Commentary on
the Old Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997).
Patrick Boylan, The Psalms (Dublin: M. H. Gill & Sons, 1924).
Charles Augustus Briggs & Emile Grace Briggs, The Book of Psalms Vol. II ICC
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986).
John Bright, A History of Israel. 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1981).
Colin Brown, “Vine.” Dictionary of the New Testament Theology. (Exeter: Pater Noster
Press, 1978) 918–922.
Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John 1-X11 Anchor Bible 29 (New York: Dou-
bleday & Co. Inc., 1966).
———-,The Gospel According to John X111-XX1 Anchor Bible 29A (New York: Doubleday
& Co Inc. 1970).
F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984).
Walter Brueggemann, To Pluck Up, To Tear Down International Theological Commen-
tary. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988).
Rudolf Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1964).
———, The Gospel of John, A Commentary tr. G. R. Beasley—Murray (Oxford: Basil Black-
well, 1971.)
———, The History of the Synoptic Tradition. tr. John Marsch (Oxford: Blackwell, 1963).
Henri van den Bussche, Le Discours d’Adieu de Jesus: Commentaire des Chapitres 12 à 17 de
l’evangile selon Saint Jean. tr. C. [Charlier et P. Goidts (Tournai: Castermann, 1959).
———, L’Evangile du Verbe
Moses Buttenweiser, The Psalms (Chicago: The University Press of Chica[go, 1938).
Keith W. Carley, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1974).
D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John. (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991).
Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah. A Commentary. Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: West-
minister Press, 1986).
P. Cersoy, “L’Apoloque de la Vigne au Chapitre Ve d’Isaïe (versets 1–7)” RB Jan (1899) 40–49.
James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigraph. Vols. I & II (Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday & Co., 1983 & 1985).
T. K. Cheyne, The Book of Psalms (London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1888).
———, Introduction to the Book of Isaiah (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1895).
———, “The Book of the Prophet Isaiah” The Polychrome Bible ed. Paul Haupt. (London:
James Clarke, 1898).
Bruce Chilton, The Isaiah Targum Introduction, Translation, Apparatus, & Notes (Wil-
mington: Michael Glazier Inc., 1987).
Ronald Ernest Clements, Isaiah 1–39. The New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rap-
ids, MI: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981).[[
Peter C. Craigie, Page H. Kelley, Joel F. Drinkard, Jr., Jeremiah 1–25 Word Biblical Com-
mentary (Dallas, Texas: Word Book Publishers, 1991).
 Bibliography 221
John Dominic Crossan, “The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen” JBL 90 (1971) 451–
465.
Mitchell Dahood, Psalms II 50–100 Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday & Co. Inc.,
1968).
G. I. Davies, Hosea. New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1992).
B. Dehandschutter, “La Parabole des vignerons homicides (Mc 12:1–12) et l’Evangile
selon Thomas (logion 65)” L’Evangile selon Marc: tradition et redaction. ed. M. Sabbe
Gembloux, Duculot (1974) 203–219.
Adolf Deissmann, Licht vom Osten (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1909).
———, Light from Ancient East tr. Lionel R. M. Strachan (London: Hodder & Stoughton)
1910.
Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on Prophecies of Isaiah Vol. I. tr. from third ed. James
Denney (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, [n.d.]).
———, Biblical Commentary on Psalms Vol II tr. David Eaton (New York: Funk &
Wagnalls, [n.d.]).
J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Allegory and the Wicked Vinedressers” JTS 35 (1974) 426–432.
———, Law in the New Testament (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1974).
C. Dietzfelbinger, “Das Gleichnis von den Arbeitern im Weinberg als Jesuswort” EvT 43
(1983) 126–137.
C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1954).
———, The Founder of Christianity (London: The Macmillian Company, 1970).
———, The Parables of the Kingdom (Digswell Place, Welwyn Herts: James Nibet & Com-
pany, 1961).
William J. Doorly, Isaiah of Jerusalem (New York: Paulist Press, 1992).
G. R. Driver, “Textual and Linguistic Problems of the Book of the Psalms” HTR XXIX
(1936) 171–195.
J. Drury, “The Sower, the Vineyard and the Place of Allegory in the Interpretation of
Mark’s Parables” JTS N.S. XXIV (1973) 367–369.
B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja (HKAT, 50 edition Göttingen, 1968).
James D. G. Dunn, The Parting of the Ways (London: SCM Press, 1991).
Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel, A Commentary Old Testament Library, tr. Cosslett Quin (Phil-
adelphia: The Westminister Press, 1970).
J. K. Elliot, The Aprocrypha New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).
Otto Eissfeldt, Psalm 80 Geschichte und Altes Testament (BHT 16. Göttingen, 1953).
———,”Jahwe Zebaoth”, Miscellanea Academica Berolinensia 11 2(1950), 128–150.
J. C. Fenton, The Gospel of St. Matthew. The Pelican Gospel Commentaries (Baltimore:
Penguin Books, 1963).
Avrohom Chaim Feuer, Tehillim Vol. 3 (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 1982).
André Feuillet, Johannine Studies (Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1964).
F. V. A. Filson, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Harper’s New Testa-
ment Commentaries (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960).
G. Fohrer, Das Buch Jesaja. Züricher Bibelkommentare Bd I, 2 Auflage (Zurich: Zwingli
Verlag, 1966).
222 The Vine, Israel and the Church
R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew An Introduction and Commentary. The Tyn-
dale New Testament Commentaries, I (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985).
R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Pub-
lishing Co., 1989).
H. Freeman & Maurice Simon eds., Midrash Rabbah “Genesis II” tr. H. Freeman (London:
The Soncino Press, 1961).
———, Midrash Rabbah, “Leviticus” tr. H. Freeman (London: The Soncino Press, 1961).
———, Midrash Rabbah, “Exodus” tr. S. M. Lehrman (London: The Soncino Press, 1961).
Paul Gaechter, Das Matthäus Evangelium (Innsbruck: Tyrolia Verlag, 1963).
David E. Garland, Reading Matthew (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Co., 1993).
Theodore H. Gaster, “Ezekiel XXVIII, 17” The Expository Times (January 1951) 124.
Martin Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea (Cambridge: University Press, 1987).
Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch. Studies in the Psalter, III Jour-
nal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 233 (Sheffield: Sheffield Ac-
ademic Press, 1996).
A. Gray, “The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen” The Hibbert Journal 19 (1920–21) 42–
52.
George Buchanan Gray, Isaiah 1–27 The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh:
T & T Clark, 1912).
H. B. Green, The Gospel According to Matthew New Clarendon Press (Oxford: Oxford
Press, 1975).
H. Gressmann, “Die Literarische Analyse Deuterojesajas” ZAW XXXIV (1914) 254–297.
Mayer I. Gruber, Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms 1–89 (Books I-III) (Atlanta, Georgia:
Scholars Press, 1998).
Pierre Guichou, Les Psaumes (Paris: Les Edition du cerf, 1959).
Aileen Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960).
R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art. (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishing Co., 1982).
Hermann Günkel, Die Psalmen Funfte Auflage (Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1968).
H. Hamburger, “Money Changer” IDB III: 435–436.
Ernst Haenchen, A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 7–21. tr. Robert W. Funk;
eds. Robert W. Funk and Ulrich Busse (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).
Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, The Prophetic Gospel (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991).
Douglas R. A. Hare, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel Accoding to
Matthew Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, Gen Ed. Matthew
Black (Cambridge: University Press, 1967).
Douglas R. A. Hare, Matthew. Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993).
J. P. Harland, “Vine of Sodom” IDB IV: 786.
Daniel Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew Sacra Pagina Series Vol. I (Collegeville, Mn:
The Liturgical Press, 1991).
R. K. Harrison, “Vine” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia Vol. IV ed. Geoffrey
W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988) 986–987.
Friedrich Hauck, “parabolh/” TDNT V: 744–761.
 Bibliography 223

———, “paroimia” TDNT V

Paul Haupt, “Isaiah’s Parable of the Vineyard” AJSL Vol. 19 (July 1903 no. 4) 193–202.
John H. Hays, & Stuart A. Irvine, Isaiah, His Times and His Preaching (Nashville: Abing-
don Press, 1987).
Victor Hehn, Kulturpflanzen und Haustiere in ihrem Übergang aus Asien nach Griechenland
und Italie sowie in das übrige Europa (Hildersheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung,
1963).
D. Henning, “Die Arbeitsverpflichtungen der Pächten in Landverträgen aus dem Fajum”
ZPE 9 (1972) 111–131.
R. Hentschke, “” }epeG” TDOT III: 53–61.
A. S. Herbert, Isaiah 1–39 The Cambridge Bible Commentary Gen eds. R. K. Ackroyd, A.
R. C. Leaney, J. W. Packer. (Cambridge: University Press, 1973).
Heinrich Herkenne, Das Buch der Psalmen Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes v. 2
(Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1936).
Boltmar Herntrich, Der Prophet Jesaja 1–12 ATD. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1950).
Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Psalms, Book Three (Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, 1978).
David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI:
Wm E. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982).
Edwin Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (London: Faber & Faber, 1947).
Michel Hubaut, La Parabole des Vignerons Homicides Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 16
(Paris: J. Gabalda et Cle Editeurs, 1976.)
Stuart A. Irvine, Isaiah, His Times and His Prophecy (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987).
Hank Jagersma, A History of Israel in the Old Testament Period (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1983).
Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus 2nd Revised Ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1972).
Jacob Jocz, The Jewish People and Jesus Christ (London: S.P.C.K., 1962).
George Johnson, The Doctrine of the Church in the New Testament. (Cambridge: University
Press, 1943).
Alexander Jones, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1965).
Ivor Harold Jones, The Matthean Parables (Lieden: E. J. Brill, 1995).
Douglas Raulinson Jones, Jeremiah The New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992).
A. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu I-II (Tübingen, 1910).
Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12, A Commentary. 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1983).
Edmund Kalt, Herder’s Commentary on the Psalms (Westminister: The Newman Press,
1961.)
Edward Kissane, The Book of Isaiah Vol. I Brown & Nolan Ltd. (Dublin: The Richview
Press, 1941).
———, The Book of Psalms Vol. II Browne & Nolan Ltd. (Dublin: The Richview
Press, 1954).
A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902).
Simon J. Kistemaker, The Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980).
224 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Hans Josef Klauck, “Das Gleichnis vom Mord im Weinberg” (Mk 12:1–12; Mt 21:33–46;
Lk 20:9–19) Bibel und Leben II (1970) 118–145.
Leon Klenicki ed., The Passover Celebration (Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications,
1985).
G. A. F. Knight, Psalms Vol. 2 (Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1983).
L. Koehler, “Deuterojesaja stilkritisch untersucht” BZAW 37 (Giessen 1923) 110–120.
Eduard König, Die Psalmen (Gutersloh: C.Berttelsmann Verlag, 1927).
Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60–150 A Commentary, tr. Hilton C. Oswald (Minneapolis:
Augsburg Fortress, 1989).
W. G. Kümmel, “Das Gleichnis von den bösen Wiengärtnern (Mark 12; 1–19)” Aux
Sources de la tradition chretienne Melanges offerts á Maurice Goguel & la occasion de son
soixante dixaine anniversaire. (Neuchatel—Paris (1959) 120–131.
M—J Lagrange, Evangile selon St. Marc (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1922).
———, Evangile selon Saint Jean Etudes Bibliques 4eme ed. (Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre,
1927).
R. H. Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel, A Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957).
John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from Talmud and Hebraica Mat-
thew—1 Corinthians Vol. 2 Matthew—Mark (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Press,
1989.
F. A. Lenssen, The Bible on Exodus (De Peres, WI: St. Norbert Abbey Press, 1966).
Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John NCBC (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub-
lishing Co., 1972).
S.R. Llewelyn & R. A. Kearsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (NSW, Aus-
tralia: Macquarire University, 1992).
Ernest Lussier, Christ’s Farewell Discourse (New York: Alba House, 1979).
T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus: Studies in its Form and Content (Cambridge: Univer-
sity Press, 1967).
E. W. G. Masterman, “Cedar” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia Vol. I. (Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1979).
Hans Eberhard Mayer, The Crusades, tr. John Gillingham (Oxford: University Press,
1972).
James Luther Mays, Psalms Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994).
John P. Meier, Matthew New Testament Message Vol. 3 (Wilmintgon: Michael Glazier
Inc., 1980).
Richard E. Menninger, Israel and the Church in the Gosple of Matthew (New York: Peter
Lang, 1994).
Trygve N. D. Mettinger, In Search of God, the Meaning and Message of the Everlasting
Names, tr. Frederick A. Cryer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988).
J. Ramsey Michaels, John New International Biblical Commentary. (Peabody, MA: Hen-
drickson Publishers, 1989).
Aaron Milavec, “A Fresh Anaylsis of the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen in the Light
of the Jewish-Catholic Dialogue” in Parable and Story in Judaism and Christianity, eds.
Clemens Thoma & Michael Wyschgrod. Biblical Theology Bulletin 20 (1976), 43.
 Bibliography 225
J. Maxwell Miller & John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. (Philadelphia:
Westminister Press, 1986).
Fredrick Moriarty, “A Note on the Root yp‘” CBQ 14 (1952) 62.
W. G. Morrice, “Parable of the Tenants and the Gospel of Thomas” Expository Times 98
(1986–87) 104–107.
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub-
lishing Co., 1992).
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John The New International Commentary on the
New Testament, ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1971).
C. F. D. Moule, The Gospel According to Mark. The Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cam-
bridge: University Press, 1965).
Robert H. Mounce, Matthew New International Biblical Commentary. N.T. editor, W.
Ward Gasque (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1985).
J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1993).
Sigmund Mowinckel, Psalms in Israel’s Worship (Two Volumes in One). (Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1922).
———, He That Cometh (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1954).
L. Mowry, “Allegory” IDB I:82–84.
———, “Parable” IDB III: 649–654.
Franz Mussner, Die bösen Winzer nach Matthäus 21, 33-.Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament.
Exegetische und systematische Beitrage Herausgegeben von Willehad Paul Eckert
(München: Chris Kaiser Verlag, 1967).
N. Nairne, The Gospel According to St. John (Cambridge: University Press, 1929).
Jane E. & Raymond R. Newell, “The Parable of the Wicked Tenants” Nov T 14 (1972)
226–237.
Kirsten Nielsen, There is Hope for a Tree. Journal for the Study of Old Testament Supple-
ment Series 65. (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1989).
Martin Noth, The History of Israel 2nd Edition (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers,
1960).
D. N. Freedman & M. P. O’Connor bUr: K TDOT VII:307–319.
W. O. E. Oesterley, The Psalms II (New York: The Macmilton Company, 1939).
Justus Olshausen, Die Psalmen (Liepzig: Verlag von S. Herzel, 1853).
John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1–39 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub-
lishing Co., 1998).
James Parkes, The Foundations of Judaism and Christianity (Chicago: Quandrangle Books,
1960).
———, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue (New York: Herman Press, 1974).
Daniel Patte, The Gospel According to Matthew (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989).
Angelo Penna, Isaia (Roma: Marietti, 1958).
James B. Pritchard, “Industry and Trade at Biblical Gibeon” BA 23, I (1960) 23–29.
O. Prockosch, Jesaja I Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Leipzig: 1930).
226 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Henricus Renkens, The Prophet of the Nearness of God—Isaiah, tr. James M. Boumans (De
Pere, WI:St. Norbert Abbey Press, 1969).
H. N. Ridderbos, Matthew Bible Students Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1987).
———, The Gospel According to St. John. tr. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerd-
mans Publishing Co., 1997).
J. F. Ross, “Vine” IDB IV:785–786.
Leopold Sabourin, The Gospel According to Matthew Vol. I (Bombay: St. Paul’s
Publications, 1982).
J. N. Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John (London: Adam &
Charles Black, 1968).
J. N. Sanders & B. A. Martin, The Gospel According to St. John, ed. by J. N. Sanders & com-
pleted by B. A. Martin (London: Black, 1968).
John F. Sawyer, Isaiah Vol. I. 1–32 (Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1984).
Lawrence H. Schiffman, “At the Crossroads: Tannaitic Perspectives on the Jewish Chris-
tian Schism” Jewish and Christian Self-Definition Vol. II eds. P. Sanders, A. I. Baumgart-
ner & Alan Mendelson ((Philadelphia: Fortress Press)
Josef Schmid, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1952).
Hans Schmidt, Die Psalmen HAT 15. (Tübingen: Verlag von J. C. B. Mohr, 1934).
Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John Vol. III (Chapters 13–21). (Tun-
bridge Wells: Burns & Oates, 1992).
Julius Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus II. Das Neue Testament Deutsch (Göt-
tingen: Vandenhoecht & Reprecht, 1954).
Anton Schoors, The Rib-Pattern in Isaiah XL-LV Tijdschrift voor Filosofie en Theologie
Bijdrangen: Deel Derlig Aflevering (1969), 25–38.
Eduard Schweitzer, The Good News According to Matthew tr. David E. Green (Atlanta:
John Knox Press, 1975).
A. Y. Scott, Isaiah 1–39 IB V:165–381.
Fernando Segovia, The Farewell of the Word (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991).
Christopher Seitz, Isaiah 1–39. Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993).
Robert H. Smith, Matthew Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. (Minneapolis,
MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1989).
Klyne Snodgrass, The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Sie-
beck]), 1983.
———, “The Gospel of Thomas: A Secondary Gospel” The Second Century 7 Spring
(1989–90) 19–38.
J. Alberto Soggin, A History of Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1984).
Adrienne von Speyr, The Farewell Discourses Meditations on John 13–17, tr. E. A. Nelson.
(San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987).
Graham N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T & T,
1992.
David Stern, “Jesus’ Parables from the Perspective of Rabbinic Literature: The Example of
the Wicked Husbandmen” Parable and Story in Judaism and Christianity eds. Clemens
Thoma & Michael Wyschograd New York: Paulist Press (1989) 43–69.
 Bibliography 227
R.H. Strachan, The Fourth Gospel, its Significance and Environment. 3rd ed. (London: Stu-
dent Christian Movement, 1941)
Augustine Stock, The Method and Message of Matthew (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,
1994).
Hermann L. Strack & Paul Billerbeck,Das Evangelium nach Markus, Lukas und Johannes
und die erlaütert Apostelgeschichte aus Talmud und Midrasch (München: C. H. Becksche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1924).
Kenzo Tagwa, “People and Community in the Gospel of Matthew” NTS 16 (1969–70)
149–162.
J. A Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980).
Charles H. Talbert Reading John. A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth
Gospel and the Johannine Epistles (New York: Crossroads, 1992).
R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to John The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries
(Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1989).
Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100 Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 20 (Dallas, Texas: Word
Book Publishers, 1990).
Michael Taylor, John: The Different Gospel (New York: Alba House, 1983).
Samuel Terrien, The Psalms and their Meaning for Today (Kansas City: The Bobbs-Merrill
Company, 1952).
D. F. Tolmie, Jesus’ Farewell to the Disciples John 13:1–17:26 in Narratological Perspective
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995).
Wolfgang Trilling, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus 2 Teil (Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag,
1965).
D. Winton Thomas, “A Consideration of some unusual ways of expressing the superlative
in Hebrew: VT III (1953) 209–224.
———, “Some further remarks on unusual ways of expressing the superlative in Hebrew
VT XVIII (1968) 120–124.
Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions tr. John McHugh (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997).
Dan Otto Via, The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1967).
J. Vella, “La Giustizia Forense de Dio” RB It. Supp. Vol I: Brescia (1964) 81–88.
J. Vermeylen, Du Prophète Isaïe à l’Apocalyptique Isaïe, 1-XXXV Tome I (Paris: Librairie Le-
coffre, 1977–78).
Artur Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary. tr Herbert Hartwell 5ed (London: (SCM Press,
1962).
H.D. Wendland, “ Von den Gleichnisen Jesu in ihrer Botschaft” Die Theologin 11 (1941)
17–29.
B.F. Westcott, The Gospel According to John (London: John Murray, 1882).
W.W.L. de Wette, Kommentar über die Psalmen. vierte, verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage.
(Heidelberg: J,C.B. Mohr, 1836).
Gerald Wilson, “ “ New International Dictionary of the Old Testament and Exegesis. vol.2.
(Grand Rapids,MI Zondervan Publishing House, 1977).
228 The Vine, Israel and the Church
Hans Walter Wolff, Hosea tr Gary Stansel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974).
Xenophon Memorabilia and Oeconomicus, tr. E. C. Marchant (London: William Hein-
mann, 1938).
Brad H. Young, Jesus and His Jewish Parables Rediscovering the roots of Jesus’ teaching (New
York: Paulist Press, 1989).
Edward Young, The Book of Isaiah Vol. I (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1972).
Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel I, tr. Ronald E. Clements (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979).
 Studies in Biblical Literature

This series invites manuscripts from scholars in any area of

biblical literature. Both established and innovative methodolo-
gies, covering general and particular areas in biblical study, are
welcome. The series seeks to make available studies that will
make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse.
Scholars who have interests in gender and sociocultural
hermeneutics are particularly encouraged to consider this series.

For further information about the series and for the submission of
manuscripts, contact:

Hemchand Gossai
Department of Religion
Muhlenberg College
2400 Chew Street
Allentown, PA 18104-5586

To order other books in this series, please contact our Customer

Service Department:

(800) 770-LANG (within the U.S.)

(212) 647-7706 (outside the U.S.)
(212) 647-7707 FAX

or browse online by series at:

WWW.PETERLANGUSA.COM