Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 21:37
But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
Verse 37. Last of all he sent – his son] This requires no comment. Our Lord plainly means himself.
They will reverence] , they will reflect upon their conduct and blush for shame because of it, when they see my son. So the Syric and Persic.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark saith he had but one son, his well beloved, Mar 12:6. Luke saith, Luk 20:13, Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him. God is here brought in acting after the manner of men, using all probable means to get their rent: we must not fancy that God did not know what men would do. God, after all his prophets, sent his only Son to the Jews and to their priests, his well beloved Son; he said, Perhaps they will reverence my Son. These words must be understood, not as expressing what they would do, or what appeared to God probable that they would do, but as expressive of what they ought to do, and what God might reasonably expect from them.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
37. But last of all he sent untothem his son, saying, They will reverence my sonIn Mark (Mr12:6) this is most touchingly expressed: “Having yettherefore one son, His well-beloved, He sent Him also last unto them,saying, They will reverence My Son.” Luke’s version of it too(Lu 20:13) is striking: “Thensaid the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send Mybeloved Son: it may be they will reverence Him when they see Him.”Who does not see that our Lord here severs Himself, by the sharpestline of demarcation, from all merely human messengers, andclaims for Himself Sonship in its loftiest sense? (Compare Heb3:3-6). The expression, “It may be they willreverence My Son,” is designed to teach the almost unimaginableguilt of not reverentially welcoming God’s Son.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But last of all,…. In the last times, in the last days, in the end of the world, the Jewish world, at the close of their ecclesiastic and civil state; after all the prophets had been sent, and finished their course, came the greatest prophet of all, to seal up the vision and prophecy:
he sent unto them son; not a servant as before, but a son; his own son, his only begotten son, the son of his love, his dearly beloved one; him he sent to these husbandmen the Jews. The Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, was sent only to the house of Israel: he was the minister of the circumcision; he was the great prophet raised up among them, and was sent to bless them, by turning them from their iniquities; he came to them, to his own, to them of his own nation, but they received him not:
saying, they will reverence my son. The Son of God is to be reverenced equally as his Father, since he is in nature and glory equal to him; and it is the will of his Father he should be so reverenced, as he is by the angels in heaven, and by the saints, both in heaven and in earth; but did these husbandmen reverence him? no; they despised and rejected him; they reproached and traduced him, as the vilest of men, and used him in the most cruel and barbarous manner. And did not his Father know this? yes; this is certain from his omniscience, which reaches to all future events, the most minute and contingent; and from the predictions of the usage of these persons of him, delivered long before it came to pass. Luke says, “it may be they will reverence him”: so that it was not a positive affirmation, that they would do it, and which also is to be understood after the manner of men: that humanly speaking, it might be expected that they would give him reverence, in consideration of the dignity of his person, his character, and relation to God, which was his due and their duty; but he had a very different treatment from them.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
They will reverence [] . The verb literally means to turn toward; hence to give heed to, pay respect to.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
37. They will reverence my son. Strictly speaking, indeed, this thought does not apply to God; for He knew what would happen, and was not deceived by the expectation of a more agreeable result; but it is customary, (47) especially in parables, to ascribe to Him human feelings. And yet this was not added without reason; for Christ intended to represent, as in a mirror, how deplorable their impiety was, of which it was too certain a proof, that they rose in diabolical rage against the Son of God, who had come to bring them back to a sound mind. (48) As they had formerly, as far as lay in their power, driven God from his inheritance by the cruel murder of the prophets, so it was the crowning point of all their crimes to slay the Son, that they might reign, as in a house which wanted an heir. Certainly the chief reason why the priests raged against Christ was, that, they might not lose their tyranny, which might be said to be their prey; (49) for he it is by whom God chooses to govern, and to whom He has given all authority.
The Evangelists differ also a little in the conclusion. For Matthew relates that he drew from them the confession, by which they condemned themselves; while Mark says simply that Christ declared what punishment must await servants so unprincipled and wicked. Luke differs, at first sight, more openly, by saying that they turned away with horror from the punishment which Christ had threatened. But if we examine the meaning more closely, there is no contradiction; for, in regard to the punishment which such servants deserved, there can be no doubt that they agreed with Christ, but when they perceived that both the crime and the punishment were made to apply to themselves, they deprecated that application.
(47) “ C’est la coustume de l’Escriture;” — “it is the custom of Scripture.”
(48) “ Qui estoit venu pour les retirer de leurs meschantes façons de faire;” — “who had come to withdraw them from their wicked courses of life.”
(49) “ Pource qu’ils avoyent peur de perdre la proye; c’est a dire, de dimineur quelque chose de leur tyrannie;” — “because they were afraid of losing the prey; that is to say, of diminishing something of their tyranny.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(37) Last of all.The variations in the other Gospels are noticeable as more vivid and dramatic. He had yet one son, his beloved (Mar. 12:6). He said, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son, it may be they will reverence him (Luk. 20:13). The language of deliberation and doubt is evidently inapplicable, except by a bold anthropomorphism, to divine acts, but it sets forth (1) the gradually ascending scale of those who were sent, culminating in a difference not of degree only, but of kind, like the contrast between the prophets and the Son in Heb. 1:1-2; and (2) the employment by God, in His long-suffering pity, of all possible means to lead His people to repentance.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
37. Last of all his son Let it be remembered that this parable is uttered on occasion of their demanding by what authority he did these things, (Mat 21:23.) Jesus first confounds them by asking a question they could not answer, (24-27.) He then propounds a parable, (28-32,) portraying their spirit in asking the question. In the present parable he is obliging them to perceive the answer he could give to their demand for his authority. The same authority that sent God’s messengers of old to your fathers, has in these last days sent to you his Son. They will reverence my son These words represent God’s rightful expectation; that is, the expectation he has a right to have. If a human householder would have such an expectation, much more God has a reason and a right to expect reverence for his Son.
“But afterward he sent to them his son, saying, ‘They will reverence my son’.”
Finally the owner of the vineyard decided that He would give them one last chance. He would send to them his own son. This was with the twofold hope, firstly that they would acknowledge the potential owner as having the right to collect payment. It was one thing to ill treat, mock and kill slaves. It would be quite another to ill treat the son of the house. And secondly in the hope that their consciences might be moved at the thought that it was His own Son Who came to them, with the result that that they would repent and respond to Him. They would recognise that while they might get away with illtreating servants, it would be a very different matter with His only son. The implication was clear for all who had eyes to see. It was as clear a declaration of Jesus’ uniqueness, and of His Sonship as it is possible to have.
Some have suggested that the son was simply indicating a higher grade of response than the servants. But note the order of those who came, servants, more servants, only Son, Owner Himself. In the light of the inclusion of the last only the spiritually and obstinately blind could have failed to see the special nature of the Son, especially in view of the expectation of the Messiah.
Matthew alone drops the phrase ‘the beloved son’. But this is in line with his abbreviating tendencies. (Just as he dropped the ‘good’ in ‘Good Teacher’ – Mat 19:16). He does not need to mention it. The parable that follows leaves us in no doubt as to Whose Son He is. He is the King’s Son.
And yet, as was necessary at this time of such bitterness, Jesus’ claim to be the Owner’s Son was couched in such a way that it could not be used as an instrument against Him. His claim was clear, but all knew that if they questioned Him about it and tried to accuse Him of blasphemy He would come back with one of His devastating questions, such as, ‘Why do you think that this applies to Me?’ and wait for their answer. All would, of course, know that it was meant to apply to Him, but they would simply be left looking foolish, not daring to answer.
Note that the sending of the Son is here seen as God’s final act towards men before judgment (see Joh 3:16-21). If they will not respond to Him, and to those who go out in His Name, they will not respond to anyone. Heb 1:1-3 may well have partly resulted as a consequence of this parable.
Some may argue that no father in his right senses would do such a thing, and they would, of course, be right, especially in the sending of His Son on His own. But this is not speaking of any father. It is speaking of God the Father. And this is precisely what God amazingly did do. It is meant to sound remarkable, for it was remarkable. In the words of Tertullian when speaking of the crucifixion of God’s Son, it was impossible and therefore it must be true ( Joh 3:16 ; 1Jn 4:9-10; Rom 5:8; Gal 4:4-5; Heb 1:1-3).
The Question Of Jesus’ Authority (21:37-22:46).
While, as we have seen above, the section from Mat 19:3 to Mat 22:46 forms a complete section in itself, enclosed within a dissertation on true leadership (Mat 21:18) and a dissertation on false leadership (Mat 21:23), this sub-section on authority also forms a unit. It commences with a challenge by the leadership concerning His authority (Mat 21:23-27) and finishes with a challenge by Jesus concerning His authority (Mat 22:41-45). Within these two inclusios are three parables concerning the authority of the Kingly Rule of Heaven which John and He have introduced, followed by three attempts to expose His inability to deal with the questions of the day, in all of which He puts his opponents to rout and reveals His own religious authority. Thus His and John’s authority are revealed in seven ways. They proceed as follows;
Jesus is questioned as to His authority (Mat 21:23-27).
The parable of the two sons in which He establishes John’s authority (Mat 21:28-32).
The parable of the unfaithful tenants in which He establishes His own Sonship and authority (Mat 21:33-46).
The parable of the marriage feast of the King’s Son in which He confirms His Sonship and authority (Mat 22:1-14).
The test concerning tribute money on which He stamps His authority (Mat 22:15-22).
The test concerning the resurrection on which He again stamps His authority (Mat 22:23-33).
The test concerning what is the greatest commandment in the Law which is further evidence of His authority (Mat 22:34-40).
Jesus then confirms His supreme authority from Scripture (Mat 22:41-46).
v. 37. But last of all he sent unto them. his son, saying, They will relevance my son.
v. 38. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
v. 39. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
v. 40. When the lord, therefore, of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
v. 41. They say unto Him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
The patience of the master was still not exhausted. He determined upon one last measure to bring those husbandmen to their senses and, incidentally, to obtain the fruits of his garden. He thought they would surely relevance, show the proper respect to, his son, with deep shame for their former conduct and an earnest desire to regain the trust of the master. But the wickedness of these husbandmen, exceeded the ordinary measure. With truly devilish malice they resolved to kill the heir. By removing the heir, they hoped to take the heritage without opposition, to seize it as their own. Having reached the climax of His story, Jesus paused to ask the opinion of His hearers as to the fate of those husbandmen when the lord would return. Without hesitation came the answer that he would most miserably put to death those miserable and wicked servants, and entrust his vineyard to honest husbandmen that would give the stipulated rental at the proper time. In giving this answer, in which Jesus heartily concurred, the members of the Jewish council either put up a bold front in apparent indignation over such outrageous wickedness, though they felt that the parable was meant for them, or they were really too blind to see the connection of the Lord’s words. But in either event their judgment was a sentence of destruction upon themselves and all those of their people that willingly followed them in their wickedness, in their rejection of the Savior.
For the explanation of the parable is evident at a glance. God Himself is the Ruler of the household. The vineyard, as in the Old Testament passages is His. Church, which He had planted in the midst of the people of Israel, His chosen people. He had given to this nation the full measure of His goodness and mercy. He had drawn a hedge about them against the heathen, the ceremonial law, the theocratic form of government. He had given them the strong watch-tower of the kingdom of David and his descendants. He had given them all the external advantages which would enable them to prove themselves a holy nation. But the fruit He expected was not forthcoming. He sent Samuel and other prophets at the time of the judges. He sent more and greater prophets than before with powerful preaching and great signs and wonders. But their abuse of His messengers increased with the passing of time, as in the case of Elijah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, 2Ch 24:20; Mat 23:37; Jer 3:20; Heb 11:36-38; Luk 11:47-51. Last of all He sent His only, His well-beloved Son, hoping that they would recognize Him as His personal representative and give Him the respect and relevance due Him. But they hardened their hearts against His teaching and against His miracles, held councils of hatred against Him, and finally put Him to death, after a formal excommunication. Thus the husbandmen, the prominent members of the Jewish people, and especially their chief priests and elders, the scribes and Pharisees, rejected the counsel of God toward themselves and brought down damnation upon their own heads. And the vineyard with its fruit, the kingdom of God with the riches of His mercy and love, was given to the Gentiles, who accepted it and have since enjoyed its blessings and, in a measure at least, paid the fruits that God demanded, in good works.
Mat 21:37. Last of all, he sent unto them his son That no means might be left untried, God sent unto them his own Son; whose authority, clearly established by undeniable miracles, ought to have been acknowledged with cheerfulness and joy by those wicked men. The question is not here, how prudent it would have been in a human father to venture his son in such a case as this; for the power which God had of raising Christ from the dead, and making all his sufferingsredound to his glory and happiness, quite alters the case. The design is, to shew the patience of God, and the wickedness of the Jews by this emblem; than which nothing can be more expressive. See the note on Luk 20:13.
37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
Ver. 37. They will reverence my son ] They will look another way for shame (so the word imports): they will never be able to look him in the face, they will be so abashed of their former villanies. But it happened far otherwise, for these frontless fellows, past grace, as we say, had faces hatched all over with impudence, and that could blush no more than a sackbut. Sin had woaded shamelessness in their foreheads, and they were as good at resisting the Holy Ghost as ever their fathers were.
37. ] See Luk 20:13 : Mar 12:6 . Our Lord sets forth His heavenly Father in human wise deliberating, ; (Luke) and ., to signify His gracious adoption, for man’s sake, of every means which may turn sinners to repentance. The difference here is fully made between the Son and all the other messengers; see Mark; : and, as Stier remarks, this is the real and direct answer to the question in Mat 21:23 . The Son appears here, not in his character of Redeemer, but in that of a preacher a messenger demanding the fruits of the vineyard. (See ch. Mat 4:17 .)
Mat 21:37 . , not afterwards merely, but finally, the last step was now to be taken, the mission of the son and heir; excuses conceivable hitherto: doubt as to credentials, a provoking manner in those sent, etc.; not yet conclusively proved that deliberate defiance is intended. The patient master will make that clear before taking further steps. (pass. for mid.), they will show respect to. It is assumed that they will have no difficulty in knowing him.
last of all = at last.
his son = his own son. Here is the real answer to Mat 21:23.
reverence = stand in awe of.
37.] See Luk 20:13 : Mar 12:6. Our Lord sets forth His heavenly Father in human wise deliberating, ; (Luke) and ., to signify His gracious adoption, for mans sake, of every means which may turn sinners to repentance. The difference here is fully made between the Son and all the other messengers; see Mark; : and, as Stier remarks, this is the real and direct answer to the question in Mat 21:23. The Son appears here, not in his character of Redeemer, but in that of a preacher-a messenger demanding the fruits of the vineyard. (See ch. Mat 4:17.)
Mat 21:37. , last of all) Cf. Heb 1:1.-, they will reverence) i.e. they were in duty bound to do so.
last: Mat 3:17, Mar 12:6, Luk 20:13, Joh 1:18, Joh 1:34, Joh 3:16, Joh 3:35, Joh 3:36, Heb 1:1, Heb 1:2
They: Isa 5:4, Jer 36:3, Zep 3:7
Reciprocal: 1Ki 1:31 – did reverence Isa 49:5 – Israel Luk 19:27 – General Luk 20:15 – What
1:37
Jesus was a Jew and was sent to that nation as the rightful heir of all that his Father possessed, and he should have been reecived with great respect.
Mat 21:37. His Son. Comp. Mar 12:6 : a beloved son, Luk 20:13 : my beloved son. The sending of His son, whose superiority to the prophets is so distinctly marked, is the last and crowning act of Gods mercy; to reject Him was therefore to fill up the measure of human sin and guilt. The Son appears here, not in His character of Redeemer, but in that of a preacher,a messenger demanding the fruits of the vineyard. (Alford.) Hence this is the real answer to their challenge of His authority (Mat 21:23).
They will reverence my son. This implies that God is not willing that any should perish (2Pe 1:9).
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament