וְעַתָּה֙ אוֹדִֽיעָה־נָּ֣א אֶתְכֶ֔ם אֵ֛ת אֲשֶׁר־אֲנִ֥י עֹשֶׂ֖ה לְכַרְמִ֑י הָסֵ֤ר מְשׂוּכָּתוֹ֙ וְהָיָ֣ה לְבָעֵ֔ר פָּרֹ֥ץ גְּדֵר֖וֹ וְהָיָ֥ה לְמִרְמָֽס׃
Maka sekarang, biarlah kuberitahukan kepadamu apa yang akan kulakukan terhadap kebun anggurku: aku akan menyingkirkan pagar durinya sehingga kebun itu habis dimakan ternak; aku akan merobohkan tembok batunya sehingga kebun itu menjadi tempat yang diinjak-injak.
Akeidat Yitzchak
The Midrash quoted at the outset of this chapter, listing a variety of comparisons for the Israel/G-d relationship, refers to the various temples. The first example, the shepherd and his dwelling, refers to the tabernacle in the desert. G-d’s function in the desert was to provide all the needs of the people directly. (Manna-water-meat) Solomon's temple,-since it did not endure-, was referred to as a hut, the need of the guardian to keep manning his observation post. Israel was referred to as the vineyard during that epoch. (Compare Isaiah chapter five or Song of Songs chapters one and eight) In the first chapter of Isaiah we find that after the destruction of Solomon's temple, Israel is described as having been abandoned like a hut in a vineyard. These various prophecies envisage the rebuilding of something permanent. None of the prophecies concerning rebuilding can be matched to historic events that have already occurred. A temple that lacked the holy ark, to mention but one of the many items missing in the second temple, and one that had been built at the direction of, or at least with the consent of a gentile government to which Israel owed allegiance, cannot possibly be something that manifests G-d’s reign on earth. Chaggai and Ezekiel clearly refer to the temple of the future. If it is an honour for the father to be surrounded by his children as the Midrash says, the small number of Jews that returned to Israel during the reign of Cyrus etc., surely cannot confer much honour on the father. This latter condition will only come about as we read in Psalms 126, "when the Lord returns to Zion we shall be as dreamers," during an era of which we can truly say "then our mouth will be full of laughter and our tongue will be filled with jubilation." That the expanded temple in the days of Herod- a slave of the Hasmoneans-, his hands bloodstained by much Jewish blood, could not be the temple envisaged by our prophets, goes without saying. One must therefore view the entire relationship between Israel and G-d as that between groom and betrothed. The proper husband/wife relationship is to be consummated when the permanent temple will be built. An alternate view of the opening Midrash would be that it refers to parts of the tabernacle. The inner sanctuary would be referred to as the house, the sanctuary proper, heychal, as the hut, and the courtyard as the enclosure, the pen. In the latter event, "enclosure," G-d has a claim on us because He provides food and shelter. In the case of "hut, He can demand more, since He has also given us the Torah. In the case of "house," since He is prepared to act as our father, providing All, He can expect that we prepare His abode accordingly. The author clearly refers the first approach.