Matthew 21:38
Friday, 31 July 2026
But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ Matthew 21:38
“The ‘also, agronomists’, having seen the son, they said in themselves, ‘This, he is, the heir. You come, we should kill him, and we should retain the ‘inheritance, his’.’” (CG)
In the previous verse, Jesus said to the leaders, while still telling them the details of the parable, “Afterward, also, he sent to them the ‘son, his’, saying, ‘They will be in-turned of the ‘son, mine’.”
As noted, the normally recognized translation of the word entrepó in that verse is a positive state, like respect or reverence. This is something that should cause an immediate difficulty for those who know the outcome of the parable and what it is pointing to.
The word signifies an in-turning. This can be positive or negative. The housemaster would be quite naïve to assume that those who had already killed his other servants would act favorably toward his son.
Rather than respecting him, he would fully expect them to be ashamed of him and respond accordingly. Despite that, he sent him anyway. Having done so, it next says, “The ‘also, agronomists’, having seen the son, they said in themselves, ‘This, he is, the heir.’”
Almost all translations here say “But.” As if the response of the laborers is somehow a surprising new detail in the ongoing narrative. The word de is similar to the Hebrew prefix v’, and. Translations will often translate v’ as but, then, moreover, etc., based on a presupposition about what the text is saying.
Those translations may carry the correct intent, or they may not. As such, it is best to leave it as “and.” Likewise, the Greek de means also (as in continuance). Saying “but” is a presupposition that may or may not rightly translate de. In this case, depending on how the previous verse is rendered, it may be incorrect. Saying “also” or “and” gives the right sense. In this case, the housemaster knew they would not respect his son, and that is just what happened.
His appearance is recognized. He is obviously the son of the housemaster. When Jesus came, it was obvious that He was who He claimed to be. They were told explicitly who He was, and He did everything according to Scripture to prove that it was so. The evidence was overwhelming.
To this day, because of the recorded words of Scripture, that remains true. All a person needs to do is to read the Old Testament, compare what it says in the New Testament, and they will agree that the intent of the writers is that Jesus is the promised Messiah. This may not be believed, but it is undeniable that this is the intent. Understanding the parallel, it next says, “You come, we should kill him.”
Understanding the favorable position of the son in relation to the inheritance, they determine to kill him as well. The parable is given by Jesus. Jesus is God incarnate. Because this is true, it would be ridiculous for Jesus to say that the servants would receive Him favorably and then continue the parable with these words.
It would demonstrate a complete inconsistency in the words of the parable, and in the Person who is speaking the words, to make a comparison to God while knowing that the comparison is faulty.
Despite knowing that the son would be rejected, the house master sent his son. With the agronomists deciding to kill him, they next give the reason for doing so, saying, “and we should retain the ‘inheritance, his’.”
Because of the obvious difficulty presented in the previous verse, the Pulpit commentary says of these words –
“It would have been a wild and ignorant scheme of the husbandmen to consider that by murdering the heir they could obtain and hold possession of the vineyard. Here the parable bursts from the allegorical form, and becomes history and prophecy.”
Rather, the whole parable parallels the historical nature of Jesus’ words. God foreknew that when He sent His Son into the nation of Israel while under the Law of Moses, the leaders would kill Him. Despite knowing in advance that it was so, He sent Him anyway.
Life application: This parable, like the other parables given by Jesus, is given to show exacting truths about what God is doing in redemptive history. It would make no sense for Jesus to present a parable that didn’t match what would be borne out in literal history.
If Jesus’ intent in the previous verse was for the laborers to show respect, esteem, or honor to the son, there are other words in the New Testament that would reflect that sentiment.
Instead, He purposefully chose a word that carries a dual sense to reveal the fact that, despite His foreknowledge of what would occur, He still sent Jesus to accomplish the work intended for Him, including being rejected by Israel’s leaders and being crucified.
This reveals the very heart of God for the people of the world. It also reveals the determination of Jesus, who had already said several times that He would be treated shamefully and killed by those in Jerusalem. Despite all that was to come upon Him, He faithfully and resolutely went forward to do what needed to be done to restore us to God.
Lord God, thank You for what You have done for us in the sending of Jesus. The cross of Christ is truly the most precious symbol of love and reconciliation that could ever be. May we only boast in what He has done, never attempting to set aside the grace poured out on us there. Yes, may our hope rest in Jesus alone. Amen.
