Therefore, having yet one son, most dear to him, he also sent him unto them last of all, saying: They will reverence my son.
ετι ουν ενα υιον εχων αγαπητον αυτου απεστειλεν και αυτον προς αυτους εσχατον λεγων οτι εντραπησονται τον υιον μου
6 Church Fathers comment on this verse
In the end, God sent His Son, designated as man for the benefit of humankind, declaring, ‘They shall feel disgrace for My Son.’ However, this was spoken not because He understood their actions towards His Son, but to convey what was destined and what could potentially unfold according to His divine purpose.
In the Gospel of Luke, the father expresses, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; perhaps when they see him they will be ashamed’ (Luke 20:13). Contrasting this, both Matthew and Mark record the father sending his only son with the assertion, ‘They shall be ashamed of my son’ (Matt. 21:37; Mark 12:6). In Luke’s account, the father’s words, ‘They may be ashamed,’ suggest a hint of uncertainty, reflecting the language of one who doubts. In contrast, the other two Gospels proclaim decisively that ‘They shall be ashamed of my son,’ indicating that honor will be bestowed upon Him. However, God is neither uncertain nor misled. The one who doubts lacks knowledge of what will transpire, while the one who mispredicts is misled about future events.
It is clear from Scripture that the Father seems to state one aspect regarding the Son, while reality reveals a different truth, reinforced by the same text. He declared they would be ashamed of the Son, yet the Son was scourged, mocked, crucified, and died, suffering in the flesh more than the earlier servants who were sent. Does this imply that the Father was misled, unaware, or unable to provide aid? Absolutely not; neither the Father nor the Son is deceived. Indeed, Scripture seems to convey that God’s knowledge is veiled in communication, as illustrated by this instance and many others. Central to this is the unity of Divinity and the shared attributes of the Father and the Son: just as God the Father withholds certain knowledge from revelation, so too does the Son, who reflects the image of the Father (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15).
In the same manner of discourse, the Lord continued to unveil that due to their persistent obstinacy and wicked defiance, not just they but the entire nation was being deprived of the privilege of entering the Messiah's kingdom. The new parable, directed at both the Pharisees and the people (Luke 20:9-19), was drawn from the imagery of a vineyard. The Lord entrusted it not to work but to certain laborers, who were specifically sent to gather the harvest. This was not a single instance but occurred multiple times; yet, the treacherous laborers abused some of the messengers, killed others, and stoned still others. Ultimately, He sent His Son: however, they resolved to murder Him as well, aiming to seize His master's inheritance by force.
Consequently, they seized Him, led Him outside the vineyard, and executed Him. There was no need for further explanation of this parable. Those it concerned recognized for themselves who the wicked tenants were. It was impossible for them to overlook that the Lord, when questioned about His authority as the Messiah, claimed the title of the Son of that Master, thus setting Himself apart from all the servants sent before Him.
The moment appeared to have arrived to reclaim the vineyard from the unworthy caretakers, yet the owner, out of great compassion, resolved to make one final attempt: "I have," he declared, "a cherished son; I will send him; surely they will not reject him; they will be filled with remorse and honor him accordingly." Thus, the owner’s son went to the caretakers, but as they spotted him from afar, they recognized him as their heir. They feared his arrival would mean the loss of their claim to the vineyard and plotted to take his life. "Let us put him to death," they said, "and the vineyard will then belong to us forever." Having made this determination, they seized him, killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.
This parable strongly resonated with the crowd, and when Jesus spoke of how the caretakers had slain the son and cast him out, the people cried out in outrage, "May it never be!" (Luke 20:16). However, the chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, and elders regarded the onlookers with anger, as though they were guilty parties. Jesus' concluding remarks regarding the first parable left little doubt that the second parable would also highlight their transgressions; its message was so clear that the leaders and corruptors within the Jewish community should have seen themselves as the wicked vine-growers. They should have recognized that Jesus was aware of their intent to murder him. Indeed, they comprehended this, as they had already resolved to eliminate Jesus, who referred to Himself as the Son of God, though they had not yet carried out their plan.
He then encouraged them to ‘listen to another parable,’ the tale of the unfaithful vineyard workers who refused to yield the fruit of the vineyard. This vineyard, belonging to the Lord of Hosts, represented the house of Israel, the Jewish nation being His cherished planting. The leaders and teachers entrusted with the people were expected to present to the Lord the fruits of the vineyard. Yet, despite all His efforts for His vineyard, there was no harvest, or at best, only wild grapes. Because the vinedressers were unable to produce fruit and feared to admit their barrenness for which they were accountable, they insulted, struck, wounded, and killed one messenger after another sent by the lord of the vineyard.
Ultimately, he sent his son, whom they recognized unmistakably; yet, they beat him, drove him away, and ultimately killed him. ‘Now therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to these vinedressers?’ The listeners, in their earnest belief, or the Pharisees present, wishing to display their disdain for the significance of this parable, responded that ‘these wicked men he will put to a miserable death, and he will give the vineyard to other vinedressers, who will render him the fruits in due season.’ For the second time, they were thus led to give a response that condemned themselves inescapably: they acknowledged with their own words that the justice of God demanded that their exclusive privileges be removed and given to the Gentiles.
"A son kindly to him": a characteristic exclusively noted by Eu. This feature is uniquely highlighted by Mark, signifying the distinct nature of this son as the only begotten of the Father.
Passages read together with this verse.
Greek text, 16 words with lemma, transliteration and Strong’s number. Tap to expand.
THEOSIS