6. Listen to another parable. There was a landowning man who planted a vineyard, and set a wall around it and dug a winepress in it etc., up to, And it will be given to a nation producing its fruits ^[126]. To the person who does not examine the things of the parable further nor inquires closely into each text, the present [reading] might seem to be a sufficiently clear explanation. The vineyard planted by the landowner^[11] in the parable was the people [of Israel] before us, being indeed the “portion” of God ^[127], and the wall^[12] around it was the supervision of God. The tower was the temple, the winepress was the place of the drink offerings, and the [vineyard] tenants were the elders and sages of the people. The journey abroad of the master was the time when the Lord was with them in a cloud “of day” and “a pillar <of fire”> by night ^[128], until he planted them, bringing [them] “unto” his “holy hill and unto his tabernacles” ^[129],^[13] [at which time] he no longer appeared to them in this way. The approaching season for fruit was the time of the prophets who demanded the fruit from the tenants and the vineyard, in order that they might demonstrate that, having received the law, they were living in accordance with it. The servants who were sent to the vineyard tenants to receive the fruit are the first group of prophets, some of whom the rulers and the sages of the people struck violently, some they destroyed, and others they stoned to death. The other servants after these, who were more numerous than the first, is the season (kairos) of the many prophets, whose names are written in the Second [Book] of Paraleipomenon and in the [book] of Jeremiah, and in the Twelve, and in Daniel. For one might say that Ananiah, Azariah, and Misael had also been prophets ^[130]. And they treated this multitude [of prophets] in the same fashion as the first group, striking, destroying, and stoning. So lastly the landowner sends his son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is able to turn [the situation] around with the vineyard and the tenants. But when the chief priests and the elders and the sages of the people see the son, being not altogether unaware of their own eminent position, they realize that he is the heir. But they dare to kill him so that they themselves might become lords of the vineyard, and casting him out and numbering^[14] him outside the affairs of Israel they killed him. And immediately the Lord of the vineyard whom they killed appears, having arisen from the dead, and he wickedly destroys the wicked tenants on one hand,^[15] and on the other, he hands over to other tenants— [that is,] his own apostles—the vineyard, that is, those who believe from the nation whom are yielding the fruits to the landowner in their own seasons. Then, about the same ones who inquired after the parable above, saying, “By what sort of authority do you do these things?” ^[131], the Savior answers them with the things from [the text], He will wickedly destroy the wicked, teaching them from the prophets that he would be rejected as unworthy by these <builders>, but in regard to God he is the honored head of the whole building and of the fitting together according to it, and [that he is] the head who is marvelous in the eyes of those who see it ^[132]. Then, prophesying concerning the calling [of those] from the nations, he says to those teachers of the Jews who do not believe on him, that the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and will be given to a nation producing its fruits.

But, as we mentioned before, this explanation is something of a general overview^[16] and not according to the letter.^[17] Let someone who is “spiritual” and is able to examine “all things” ^[133] analyze the many things [about this passage], knocking on^[18] the [passage’s] obscurit<y, that is, the> closed door of the noetic things hidden here, and let him who inquires rightly find and let him who asks from God receive. Indeed we also, according to our own capacity, entertain such [ideas] about this passage, that the landowning man is God, concerning whom it is written: “The Lord your God cared for you in the way a certain man would care for his son” ^[134]. For in this way, because he cares for men and it works to the benefit of men that he bear a human figure, in certain parables he is said to be a man. And here he is called a landowning man because of the vineyard and the wall surrounding the vineyard and the winepress which he dug and the tower which he built and the servants whom he possessed and sent to the vineyard tenants and the second larger group he sends. And as a landowner he lent out the vineyard to tenants, from whom he takes it and gives to others. Yet again in the passage above he is said to be a landowing man through these [words]: “For the kingdom of heaven is similar to a landowning man who went out early to hire workers for his vineyard” ^[135].^[19] Indeed, as a landowner, he has a vineyard and hires tenants, and there belongs to him a manager to whom he says, “Call the workers and pay [them] the wage, beginning from the last up to the first” ^[136]. In the parable concerning the wedding feast of his son and of the call ^[137] he is not said to be a landowner but a king, for he is greater than a landowner who, as a king, sends out troops and who destroys those who hold “his servants” and who abuse and kill them, and who in kingly authority, not only as a landowner, “says to the attendants” to bind “feet and hand” of him who entered into the wedding feast not having a “wedding garment” and to cast “him out into outer darkness” ^[138]. And when in the passages above it is said, “A man had two children” ^[139], he is named neither a landowner, nor a king, but simply a man.

Therefore, just as there are many concepts (epinoiai) for God in the divine Scriptures, it is the case that there are different ways [that God] is named a man, whether simply [as “man”], or as landowner, or as king. Such is the case with Matthew, but according to Luke the similar [passage] to the present parable also calls him a man: “A man planted a vineyard, and lent it out to tenants” ^[140]. Mark also says, “A certain man planted a vineyard, and he set around it a wall” ^[141]. Again, in Luke’s version of the parable of the call, he says “a certain man put on a great feast, and he called many” ^[142]. And you, gathering wherever God is named a man and discerning “spiritual things by spiritual things” ^[143] in the word concerning this, and seeking rightly the things about these passages, you may find in your investigation an abundance of comparable passages where God is called a man. This landowning man planted a vineyard, about which let us now more carefully inquire, so that this parable is not passed by without examination.

7. Is the vineyard, which the landowning man planted, different as relates to the first tenants and the second [group]? The vineyard is first given to insolent tenants, but second, against the defendants^[20] concerning the vineyard, it is given to other tenants who will produce its fruit in their seasons, according to the Savior who says, “The kingdom of God will be taken from you and will be given to a nation who produces its fruits” ^[144]. So, then, should it be said that the Kingdom of God itself is the vineyard, which is taken from the first <tenants> and given to a nation producing its fruit, or rather [should we say] that the vineyard is something other than the Kingdom of God? Let us first observe, as we furnish [proof] from the Scripture that the people are called a vineyard, if it is possible to harmonize all things regarding this passage with this explanation. Isaiah therefore says, “Now I will sing to my beloved a song of my beloved concerning my vineyard. My beloved had a vineyard on a high hill in a fertile place. And I set a wall around [it], and fenced [it] off, and I planted a choice vine,” etc., up to, “and it brought forth iniquity; and not righteousness, but a cry.” ^[145].

I have quoted the song of Isaiah with the purpose of examining it together with <this> parable [to see] if in each Scripture the vineyard serves to signify the same thing. Note indeed that the texts quoted have certain similarities as well as certain differences, in order that, seeing the differences between the similaries and the dissimilarities, you may thus understand the mind of Scripture. The passage, he planted a vineyard, and set a wall around it, and dug in it a wine press and built a tower, is similar to “My beloved had a vineyard on a high hill in a fertile place. And I set a wall around [it], and fenced [it] off, and I planted a choice vine, and I built a tower in its midst, and I dug a wine vat in it” ^[146]. For do compare he planted a vineyard to “I planted a choice vine,” and he set a wall around it to “I set around [it] a wall,” and he dug in it a wine press to “I dug in it a wine vat,” and he built a tower to “and I built a tower in its midst.” But there is <dissimilarity> with the regard to [how] both passages describe the fruits of the vineyard, for Isaiah that “I waited for it to produce grapes, yet it produced thorns” ^[147], while in the Gospel parable it is clearly not the vineyard that is being accused, as though not having produced fruits when their season was drawing near, but rather the vineyard tenants, whom received the servants of the landowner which they thrashed, and killed, and stoned. And when he sent another group of servants more numerous than the first, again the tenants are accused for treating them in the same way. The third time the tenants are accused, saying, This is the heir; come, let us kill him and take his inheritance, and casting him out of the vineyard, and killing him. In Isaiah also, the word threatens the vineyard, saying, “I will take away its hedge, and it shall be for spoiling; <and> I will pull down its wall, and it shall be for trampling. I will forsake my vineyard; and it shall not be pruned, nor dug, and thorns shall come up upon it as on barren land” ^[148]. But also when he promis<es to command> “the clouds not to rain any rain upon it” ^[149], he threatens the vineyard, which the prophet says is the house “of Israel” and the “man of Judah,” which is not producing the fruit of “judgment” and righteousness, but is rather producing the thorns of “lawlessness” and a “cry” ^[150]. But in the Gospel we find nothing about the vineyard experiencing suffering, but rather (if I may speak in this way) as being foreknown^[21] to bear the fruit proper to itself for the landowner, for He foreknows about the vineyard that he will take it from the first tenants who answer the Savior when he inquires, saying, When, therefore, the lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do to these tenants? ^[151]. And they say, whether out of constraint by the word and [its] sequence or indeed involuntarily prophesying (if I may speak thus) the things concerning themselves, that when the lord of the vineyard comes he will wickedly destroy the wicked tenants, and foreknowing the vineyard he will give it to other tenants, such as will give to him the fruits in their seasons. But in Jeremiah following [the passage], “for the vineyard of the Lord Sabaoth is the house of Israel, and a man of Judah is a beloved new planting,” it is said about the sinning people, “but I myself planted you a fruitbearing vineyard, completely true” ^[152], which is comparable to “I waited for you to produce grapes, but you produced thorns” ^[153], as also to this [passage], “I waited for you to produce judgment, but you produced lawlessness, and not righteousness, but a cry” ^[154]is to, “How did you turn to bitterness, the vineyard that is foreign?” ^[155].

Therefore, observe in the prophetic texts that the people is said to be a vineyard which was planted by him who destroys it and who says to it, “I will remove its wall, and it will be for plundering,” etc. But in the Gospel texts there is no blame presented against the vineyard, but all [blame] is on the tenants, and there is no destruction to the vineyard which is under his providential care, in order that it might produce the fruits in their seasons for the landowner. Indeed you may not be able, if you desire to preserve the precision of the Gospel scripture, to demonstrate clearly that the people is a vineyard. But perhaps the vineyard in the Gospel [parable] is the Kingdom of God, which is the very thing that occurs in the teaching of the Scriptures with the oversight of God. For [the text] The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits which is presented in the parable concerning the vineyard clearly (I think) indicates that the vineyard, which the landowning man planted, is mentioned as itself being the mysteries of the kingdom of God. This vineyard, which is (as I think) the law and the prophets and all divine Scripture, the Lord leased to the tenants of the vineyard—first to this people [of Israel] (for indeed “they were” first “entrusted the oracles of God” ^[156]), second to a nation producing its fruits, [that is,] to the church from the nations. When the vineyard is understood in this way with respect to the Gospel [parable], the matter is resolved about the wall which surrounded [the vineyard], which experiences no suffering such as was the case with <the> “wall” in Isaiah, concerning which it is written, “I will remove its wall, and it will be for plundering” ^[157], and the winepress which was dug out in it, and the tower that is built.

And let us see if, on one hand, we can say that the vineyard is the natural science (φυσιολογίαν) according to divine Scripture, and on the other hand, [if we can] call the “fruit” of the vineyard the life which follows the true natural science which bears fruit in virtue and the most beneficial practices (καλλίστοις ἤθεσι), and [if we can] understand the wall which surrounds the outside of the vineyard to be the logical discipline (λογικὸν τόπον) and whole letter of Scripture, since the vineyard and especially the fruit hidden within it are not to be observed by those outside.^[22] The depth *** of the soul who receives these fruits, after casting away all that is on the surface, is the winepress that is dug in the vineyard. The “tower” that is built in the vineyard, having prominence, elevation, and height over the vineyard, the wall, and the winepress, is (I think) the word (logos) concerning God, which is the temple of the divine meaning in it. It is about this tower that I reckon the Savior to have said, “Who among you, desiring to build a tower, does not first calculate,” if he is able to lay the foundation, and to finish [it], “so that those who are observing might not begin to ridicule [him]” when he does not finish? ^[158]. For through the parable it seems to be said there that one who is beginning to theologize should examine if you are able to complete all the things that the word (logos) demands of you, lest by not beginning with the teachings of piety you thereby leave the tower concerning God in an unfinished state, and you do not build up a border for it. For if you do not build up a border, someone may fall from the understanding concerning God, and die. This vineyard (as we have recounted) God leased out to tenants, to the people before us (i.e., Jews), and He goes on a journey to his own summit, giving resources to the tenants, from which he himself had planted, surrounded, dug out, and built for [them] to bear fruits in their seasons. The seasons of the fruits drawing near, therefore, [refers] I think both to each [person individually], but also <generally> to the whole people. But to explain the drawing near of the seasons of the fruits precisely is for someone at a higher state than us and who has a much purer and more perceptive heart than us. Nevertheless, let us, according to [our] ability, devote ourselves in this way to the passage, beginning from things one by one.

8. Indeed, let the “grapevine” which has been planted by the “Landowner” ^[159] be understood as the reason (logos) that is in each soul ^[160], and the “vineyard” is the resources of all defences necessary for salvation. Therefore, just as there is a certain season for vineyards when it produces foliage, and another when it shows even slightly the beginnings of fruits, and another when its blooming is plainly seen, <and another when it is unripe>, and another when it ripens, and another when it is the season to gather in the fruits that have been matured and prepared with quality for making wine—so also, let the first season of life for humans according to infancy pertain to the grapevine which has nothing surrounding it, and all it has is life. Then, as soon as reason begins to suffuse [a person], let that season be the first bloom. As the soul being cultivated continues to advance, in such a fashion also the vineyard being cultivated produces samples of the coming grapes, which indeed, while they are blooming, bear at the beginning a sweet-smelling savor ^[161] (of the virtue to come), yet after [emerging] are still unripe, when vice is <inherent in youth> but does not endure, but is necessarily resisted^[23] and is never inclined to what is worse, but is continually (if one must put it in such a way) travelling to virtue. But if vice endures, and we do not make use of another pathway, as though for virtue, leading [the soul] continually to the advancement unto virtue, [then] it becomes sour grapes, which, according to the prophet, when one eats, “sets [one’s teeth] on edge” ^[162]. But someone who is advancing further has, as it were, a bunch of grapes that is turning dark but is not yet perfected. There is indeed an excellent^[24] state (katastasis) that comes after advance, when the grapevine that has been cultivated bears fruit, the grape cluster of perfect love, joy, peace, and longsuffering, and all the rest which are listed by the Apostle ^[163] and in a myriad of other Scriptures. For one kind of grape cluster is indicated with, “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” and another with, “Blessed are those who mourn,” and another with, “Blessed are the meek,” and another with, “Blessed are the peacemakers,” and another with, “Blessed are the pure in heart” ^[164]. Yet why must I list [all] the grape clusters that are the causes of blessedness? But I examined these things to such an extent because I wanted to understand and clarify this [text], When the season of fruits drew near ^[165].

9. It is for the “landowner” <alone> and for his divine understanding to know the season of each person in humanity, what time the season of fruits is drawing near and at what time it is still far away. For our part, if we might understand further by comparing the time from which we were called to the whole time of our faith, we may be able to see how certain people, just as “those who ought to be teachers on account of time,” have “need again” of being taught “certain elementary principles <of the beginning> of the oracles of God” ^[166]. In the same way there are certain people who, as far as the time of the economy of God and to the [time] of everyone with regard to their calling, ought already to be bearing fruits, yet they do not <have> all [their fruit] <or while they ought to have perfect [fruit]> what they have is blooming out of season and is not ripening in [its] season. If this is how you might understand [the passage] with regard to individuals, how should one understand the text, But when the season of fruits drew near, one must transfer (if one is able) [the passage] to the word about those who received the law through Moses, for indeed the season of fruits drew near at that time for those people and he sent his own servants to the first tenants who had believed “the oracles of God” for the sake of receiving the fruits of the vineyard in each [of them]. It is easy, then, to say that he calls the servants the prophets. But one must inquire how they are sent to the tenants to receive the fruits of the vineyard. For one might say that the prophets are not sent so as to receive the fruits, but rather to tend [the vineyard] and to co-labor for the fruits.

See, then, if we could say that the spiritual fruitages^[25] are the divine offerings that those who are tending the vineyard give to the servants who are sent, in order that they, acting as priests, might bring to God the fruits which the <people> offer up. But the tenants among the people took the servants who were sent to receive the fruits of the vineyard, and some they beat, as with “Michaiah” whom “Zedekiah son of Canaan” “struck on the cheek” when also the false prophet said to him who was prophesying, “What manner of spirit of the Lord is it that speaks by you?” ^[167]; some they killed, as with Zechariah “between the temple and the altar” ^[168], and some they stoned, as with Azariah son of Jodae the priest, just as it is written in the second [book] of Paraleipomenon, for when “the spirit of God came upon Azariah the son of Jodae^[26] the priest, and he arose before the people and said: ‘Thus says the Lord: why do you walk against his commandments? And you do not keep on the good path, for you have forsaken the Lord, and he will forsake you’,” [then] “they attacked him, and they stoned him at the command of king Joash in the court of the house of the Lord. So Joash did not remember the mercy which Jodae his father had shown him, and he killed his son. And as he was dying, he said, ‘May the Lord see and may he judge’” ^[169].

10. Next in the parable it is [said] that again he sent other servants more numerous than the first, and they treated them in similar fashion. The Scripture is full of the things that befell the prophets, whom he sent for the sake of the people, in order that the [prophets], as holy priests, might offer up the [people’s] fruit to God through [their] prayers. Later, after the prophets, he sent his son, the Christ. But you should inquire how when he sends the Son he says, They will respect my son, and yet he speaks as though he is not anticipating what was about to happen to him, for according to the letter they do not appear respectful of him. Yet it would be impious to say that in these matters the father did not know beforehand what would happen when he sent the son, but that he was deceived when he spoke about one set of things and other things happened. And furthermore, to say that the tenants respected him is contrary to the evidence, for when the tenants see his son they say to themselves, ‘This is the heir’ etc. Someone, then, may say in regard to these things that it must necessarily happen that they will respect my son, even if it did not occur at that particular time. But someone else might say that the father, when sending the son, did not say, “My son will receive the fruit from the tenants,” but that they will respect [him]. For on the one hand they did in fact respect [him] in that they knew that this was the son and in that they said among themselves that This is the heir, but on the other hand, not completely, since they respected and yet abused him from the beginning, as they had already done the things of people who have regard [for him].

11. At the same time, one must also inquire about these vineyard tenants who say, This is the heir; come, let us kill him. For the Jews do not appear to have killed him as though^[27] a son of the landowner. And to this issue one might say that when they converse with one another as to who he may be, some of them say that “This is the Christ,” to whom others answer, “When the Christ comes, no one will know from where, but we know from where he comes” ^[170]. So, since they were struck with awe from the signs and wonders and divine powers, they thought him to be the Christ of God, but they do not confess [him], such that it is both true that they will respect my son, and true when it is said, This is the heir; come, let us kill him (for they had rejected that he was the son). On this account the Savior says, “You know me and you know where I come from” ^[171]. Someone who inquires into the things written concerning Herod, when he learned from the magi that the king “of the Jews” had been born ^[172], will see that those who killed the Savior were capable, while recognizing that he was son, of having perpetrated no small scheme against him. For indeed when Herod learns from the scribes that “the Christ is to be born” “in Bethlehem” ^[173] and agrees that the one who was born was the Christ, he sends them, saying, “As you go inquire precisely concerning the child, in order that I may go and worship him” ^[174], but when they departed he perpetrated no small scheme against the child, while not disbelieving that he was the Christ. For anyone who was completely disbelieving would not destroy all the children “that were in Bethlehem and its regions from age 2 and down according to the time which he determined from the magi” ^[175]. But he did indeed believe him to be the prophesied Christ and he intended to kill him and insofar as it was up to him he would have killed him.

In the same way, then, those who conspired against the Savior could have known [that he was the Christ] (or else they would not have spoken their word to one another, for they said among themselves, This is the heir), <yet> destroyed him nonetheless. For when they killed the Christ, not understanding about his resurrection (“for if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” ^[176]), they were intending for themselves to become the lords over the matters [of the vineyard], since their vice had blinded them and they did not understand the mysteries of God. And so, not understanding these [mysteries], they cast the son out of the vineyard and killed him. This text, “they cast him out of the vineyard,” suggests to me that, insofar as it related to them, they judged him to be a foreigner to both the vineyard and the tenants, when they cast the condemning vote for his death. The Savior inquires about these things from, indeed, the wicked tenants themselves, when he says to them, When the Lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do to these tenants? And they say to him–[anticipating] from their own mouth that they will be judged and will be condemned as the wicked who are destroyed wickedly and as about to no longer possess “the oracles of God” ^[177]—that he will destroy the wicked ones wickedly, and the vineyard will be given to other tenants, such as will give to the fruit in their seasons. They are, as it were, prophesying in a fashion similar to Caiaphas the high priest “of that year,” who <prophesied> because he was “high priest” but did not speak the truth “from himself” ^[178]. But they are prophesying concerning the nations that they will give the fruits in their seasons to the landowner.

12. Then, with passages from their own Scriptures, the Savior silences those who consider themselves to be the builders of the people, [saying] that he is the very stone which was rejected by them which the Father will put as the head of the whole building, connecting the two corners of the Old and New Covenants and the two buildings of nations. For such is the text, Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone which the builders rejected, this one has come to be the head of the corner; this has happened from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? ^[179]. The text comes from the 117th Psalm, which is placed in order just before the Psalm of many verses (πολυστιχωτά), and whose text reads in this way: “The stone which the builders rejected, this has come to be the head of the corner; this has happened from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord made, let us rejoice and let us delight in it” ^[180]. And if something else of the things prophesied concerning Christ is able to silence the one who investigates without any sense the things that have been written, let this also be applied to them. For unless the prophet says these things in reference to an insensate rock (λίθου ἀναισθήτου), as someone might say that a man is “stone-dumb” (ἠλίθιος),^[28] it should be obvious that Jesus who was rejected by the sages and high priests and elders and scribes among this people, this One truly became the head of the corner as the head of the church, uniting and gathering the two covenants into one and the same [building]. Indeed he is the head which is a gift given from the Lord to whole building and the head is marvelous in our eyes, those [of us] who are able to see it. And on account of this, since the builders rejected this stone, “the oracles of God” ^[181]—in which was the Kingdom of God—were taken from these tenants and these builders, but was given to a nation producing its fruits. But if it is true that <the kingdom of God will be taken from you and> will be given to a nation producing its fruits, manifestly the kingdom of God is not given to those who do not produce the fruits of the Kingdom of God, for the Kingdom of God is given to no one who is being ruled by sin.

But someone might say, if the Kingdom of God is not given to anyone who does not produce its fruits, how was the Kingdom of God given [in the first place] to those ones from whom it was [then] taken, in accordance with what is said: The Kingdom of God will be taken from you? Even though we are in such a great difficulty with a problem that has no ready solution, do attend if, having inquired into the difference of the things said first concerning the vineyard and second concerning the kingdom of God, we are able to elucidate the question that has been asked. What is said concerning the kingdom of God is not said concerning the vineyard. For it is written concerning the vineyard in the first place that he rented it out to the tenants, but concerning the kingdom of God that it will be given to a nation producing its fruits. The issue with this passage would be unsolvable if the [phrase] he rented it out to the tenants <which was> written about the first, was also said in reference to the second: “he will rent it out to a nation producing its fruits,” and if, just as it was said concerning the second, it will be given to a nation producing its fruits, it was also said concerning the first that “he gave it to tenants.” These are the questions we have raised about this passage and we have spoken what occurred to us. But should there be one who is better both at understanding and speaking, do listen to him rather than us.