The allegory ends with the destruction of the vineyard. When combined with the indication that evil will once again creep into the vineyard, we are clearly seeing the description of the final events. Satan will be released at the end of the Millennium, and the final phase of this earth will come in fire
We know the image of the final destruction by fire, but does that make any sense in the allegory? How is it that the Lord, who has resisted all attempts at destruction up until this point, suddenly decides to burn the vineyard after it has finally been successful?
The answer lies in understanding the essential botanical basis of the allegory. First, while the efforts of the Lord clearly takes time, this time is all described as part of a season. At the end, we are told that "And then cometh the season and the end." Although historical time takes place over thousands of years, the allegorical time takes place in a single "season." This allegory demonstrates the efforts of the Lord of the vineyard to produce valuable fruit for the "season."
At the end of a season, it was part of some ancient practices to burn a field, and start up in a new area. This certainly would not be done in a short "season" for anything as long-lived as an olive tree, but the botanical image of fire is one of renewal as much as of destruction. It is through the burning of the fields that nutrients are returned to the soil. Therefore, this burning at the last days is not pictured as a devastation, but rather as a transformation. It is a renewal of life rather than a cessation of life.
Literary: Of course the allegory of the olive tree comes to us in written form, and was certainly in written form when Jacob copied it from the brass plates. The structure of the allegory, however, is suggestive of oral literature.
In an oral literature, structure, and particularly structured repetition, serve as devices to develop the story while decreasing the sheer quantity of material that must be remembered. Thus repetition serves not only as reinforcement but also as a means of lengthening the story for a more dramatic telling. Very simplistic examples of repetition in oral texts are the children's tales of Chicken Little, the Gingerbread Man, and the Little Red Hen. In each of these oral texts, there is a set structure, even having particular set phrases. The story is developed by adding episodes into the basic structure of the repeated piece. Of course the ending has to have a variation on the theme for contrast with the set pieces, but that is the reason they are retold is the juxtaposition of the unexpected after the establishment of the expected.
The basic structure of the allegory breaks down into four easily remembered pieces. We start with a single tree, from root to branch. In the second phase, branches are removed and placed in a separate location. In the third phase, wild branches are grafted in to the main tree, and the final phase has the reuniting of all pieces into a single tree. A narrator only has four main elements to hold in his head (one may expect that the majority of the storytellers of ancient Israel would have been male, given the male dominance of the society).
Within each structural piece we have the Lord and servant, and the conversation between the two becomes the dynamic that moves the story. In the pieces we see the repetition of plan/implementation, where the information is virtually identical and it is only the context of the plan or implementation phase that differs. The story teller therefore needs only remember the crucial conflict of the segment, and can expand the tale dramatically by working the language or implementing pieces in various ways.
Of course there is no more evidence than this structural speculation to elucidate the ultimate origin of the allegory, but the structure would be at home in an oral literature. It may be that Zenos was the author, or it may be that he was merely the recorder. Understanding that there is no proof, the hypothesis does provide one interesting side effect. If Zenos is recording an oral source, it is possible that this oral source is ultimately behind the city man Paul's allegory using the same themes. There are no other written texts save Zenos' and Paul's, but if this were a part of oral culture, the essence of the allegory could be passed through the culture to arrive at Paul without the need of a written text.
Narrative: As noted with verse 1, Jacob's excursion into Zenos' allegory is specifically to answer a question he has posited: "Jacob 4:17 And now, my beloved, how is it possible that these, after having rejected the sure foundation, can ever build upon it, that it may become the head of their corner?"
Hoskisson provides a very personalized and modern interpretation of the message of Jacob's use of Zenos:
"I cannot complete this discussion of the allegory of the olive tree without returning to the beginning, the reason Jacob gave the allegory: How can we be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ? If I were writing in good Hebrew style I would expect the reader at this point to know, from the allegory itself and the above discussion, how reconciliation takes place. But I am not, and I would be untrue to my own heritage if I did not to the best of my ability clearly explain how we can be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. As the allegory suggests, the process is deceptively simple and easy: Remain attached long enough to our roots, the scriptural heritage revealed by the God of Israel, that the healing influence of divine direction, of a "knowledge of the true Messiah," our Lord and Redeemer (1 Nephi 10:14), can change us from a twig bearing bitter fruit to a natural twig bearing good fruit. It does not matter whether our scriptural heritage is planted in a good spot on the earth or a bad one, we can bear fruit under the loving and wise care of the Lord of the vineyard." (Hoskisson, p. 96).
For the question Hoskisson answers, I cannot improve on his words. However, he answers a different question than the one posed by Jacob. Hoskisson discusses a personal reconciliation: "How can we be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ?" Though a important question and answer, and traceable through the themes of the allegory, it does not discuss Jacob's issue. Jacob is using the allegory to show how a rejected Christ can become the "head of their corner." Jacob had been discussing the Jews as a stiffnecked people who have (and will) reject the words of the prophets - and their Messiah (see Jacob 4:14).
The legitimate question arises as to how the rejected Messiah will become the triumphant Messiah, for there are now two roles discussed. The triumphant Messiah is the one described in Isaiah. It is the Messiah who comes in power and dominion. Jacob has preached of Jesus as the Messiah, but of a mortal ministry of human contexts, and a rejection by his people. This tremendous contrast between the Jerusalem Messiah and the eschatological Messiah must have been tremendous to an audience that would have understood, and expected, the triumphant Messiah.
Jacob does not explain this problem to a modern audience because he is speaking to an ancient one and is answering to that ancient audience the question that he perceives to be obvious. How is one to reconcile a Jerusalem Messiah who appears to be a failure (in that he is rejected and crucified by his own), and the expected triumphant King at the end of time?
Jacob's answer is to return to scripture, and show through the allegory the future history. The question of the Messiah is not answered directly, for the allegory discusses Israel, not the Messiah. Nevertheless, it is the theme of the temporal failure and ultimate triumph of the Lord that is the theme. Jacob's answer is to show that the Lord has plans and powers that extend across time, and that although Israel may stray, the Lord will care for Israel until the final success of the Lord's covenant.
The focus of Jacob's answer is not on how the Messiah could change, but rather how the people could be changed so that they who once rejected their Messiah might be ready for his triumphal entry at the end of time. In this way, Jacob's message is ultimately comforting, for it shows the great grace of God in allowing repentance, and the great patience of God toward a mankind in need, and search, of repentance.