Daily Writing

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

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“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.

Thursday, 30 July 2026

Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ Matthew 21:37

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“Afterward, also, he sent to them the ‘son, his’, saying, ‘They will be in-turned of the ‘son, mine’.’” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus continued the parable, noting that the housemaster sent other servants, greater than the first, and they treated those servants the same. With that noted, He next says, “Afterward, also, he sent to them the ‘son, his’.”

The meaning of the words, at least to us, should be plain and obvious, even if the leaders don’t immediately get what Jesus is saying. A succession of servants has been sent to receive the fruit of the vineyard, and they have been treated shamefully.

These represented the messengers of God, the prophets and wise men, looking for fruit in the nation of Israel. Without success, God sent His Son into the nation, “saying, ‘They will be in-turned of the ‘son, mine’.’”

A new word is seen, entrepó. It is derived from en, a fixed position usually translated as “in”, and tropé, a noun signifying “a turning” which is only found in James 1:17. Together, they give the idea of “in a state of turning,” as in turning “one’s attention to in a riveted (‘locked in’) way” (HELPS Word Studies).

The word is used positively when turning in respect, but it is also used when feeling a state of shame. It is seen when there is no respect (as in Luke 18:2 and 18:4). In Hebrews 12:9, almost all translations say something like, “Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect [entrepó]” (NKJV). However, the verb is passive, and the word “them” is not in the text.

Having said that, because of the difficulty, most take this as a passive with a middle force. This is done to justify the reading as “respect.” However, Thayer’s Greek Lexicon notes the word in classical Greek signifies “properly, to turn about, so in passive even in Homer; τινα, properly, to turn one upon himself, i. e. to shame one.” Thus, if the passive is retained, the word would indicate a sense of personal shame, not respect.

The entire paragraph in which Hebrews 12:9 exists is based on chastisement, either by God or by our fathers. As such, there is a sense of shame for wrongdoing, which is exactly what sin is and what it causes. We are chastised, and we are ashamed because of our actions.

Without that shame because of a lack of correction, we would be unashamed and unrestrained. Something common in the world when there is no correction. Hebrews 12:9 continues, We had fathers who were instructors “… and we were in-turned, not much, also, more we will be subject to the ‘Father, the spirits’, and we will live?”

One can see the progression: 1) Earthly fathers discipline, 2) children respond, being in-turned (ashamed), 3) therefore, how much more should we be subject to God in humility? The same passive mood is found in the three synoptic gospels in regard to this parable.

Because translations reject the passive voice in Matthew 21:37, stating it is to be rendered in the middle voice, it then causes scholars a true dilemma. The Pulpit Commentary, reflective of others, says –

“God condescends to speak in human language, as hoping for a good result from this last effort for man’s salvation. He, as it were, puts aside his foreknowledge, and gives scope to man’s free will. Though the sad issue is known to him, he often acts towards men as if he had hope that they would still use the occasion profitably.”

This makes no sense. Why would the housemaster assume or even hope for those in the vineyard to act appropriately? Why would he assume they could be trusted when they have already killed his servants? Such a thought is not in line with what we would consider concerning Jesus’ portrayal of the omnipotent God in a parable.

An in-turning concerning the son is much more fitting to the surrounding context. And it is exactly what happened to Jesus. Thus, Jesus is clearly saying that they will not accept the son. Rather, they will be ashamed of him. And this is what God the Father knew, in advance, concerning His Son. This is perfectly in line with what Jesus told the disciples just a few days before –

“Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death, ¹⁹ and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify. And the third day He will rise again.” Matthew 20:18, 19

It is a sentiment He had already stated to them twice before as well. The fact is that, despite knowing in advance, that Jesus would not be accepted, God sent His Son to Israel to offer them salvation. This demonstrates the immense love of God for those He created. It also shows the lengths God was willing to go to for those same creatures.

Life application: If the word discussed above is intended to be translated as “respect,” it would demonstrate a naivete in God that does not exist. The only way to get around that is to deal with the words in the way the Pulpit Commentary did. But parables are not merely an inexact representation of what is going on. Nor are they an accommodation for our sensibilities. Rather, they are a type of speaking intended to convey actual meaning, even if veiled.

Jesus was standing before the leaders, having just been hailed as the Messiah. If He is, then He is God’s selected choice for that position. To say, “Maybe the leaders will respect Me” or “My Father thinks the leaders might respect Me” is completely out of the context of the situation in which He is speaking. The leaders were ashamed of Jesus, and He was rejected and crucified, just as God foreknew that He would be.

This analysis fits the surrounding narrative. As such, leaving the translation as literal as possible allows for a resolution to the otherwise nonsensical idea that God would not know that His Son would not be respected.

Lord God, what a wonderful delight it is to come to Your word and consider its contents. Help us to be diligent each day to pick it up and dive into it with enthusiasm and zeal. Thank You for this beautiful treasure that tells us of JESUS! Amen.

Wednesday, 29 July 2026

Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them. Matthew 21:36

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on Rumble. (Click Here to listen), or at YouTube (Click Here to listen).

“Again, he sent other servants, ‘greater, the first’, and they did to them as thus.” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus referred to the treatment of the servants sent to the vinedressers. They were scourged, killed, and stoned. Jesus continues the thought, “Again, he sent other servants, ‘greater, the first’.”

Two words should be considered. The first is allos, other. It refers to another of the same kind. These servants are in the same category as those who were previously sent. If they were in a different category, the Greek word heteros would have been used.

The second word is pleión. It signifies a comparative, such as greater in number, greater in quality, more abundant, etc. It is used in the greater-than-quality sense in Matthew, such as righteousness greater than the scribes and Pharisees is needed to enter the kingdom of the heavens (Matthew 5:20). It is used this way when making a comparison to Jonah (Matthew 12:41) and Solomon (Matthew 12:42). Jesus is greater than them.

What seems likely is that if Jesus is making a comparison, it would be to the pre-exilic and post-exilic prophets. The post-exilic prophets would be “greater” than the pre-exilic prophets because they had greater revelation, for example, in having the word of the previous prophets fulfilled.

As such, they stood in a greater position of knowing the reliability of the word of God, both in judgment and in mercy. There is no reason to assume there were only “more” servants sent either to the vinedressers in the parable or to the prophets after the exile. A good example of this is found in Numbers 22:15 –

“And he added yet, Balak, sending commanders greater and being enweighed from these.” (CG).

This “greater than” is certainly seen in the final prophet of the Old Testament –

“Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” Matthew 11:11

In that verse, a different word, megas, signifying greater, is used, providing extra weight to this idea. Israel had been exiled. They should have known better, and yet, even after the exile, the maltreatment continued, as Jesus indicates, “and they did to them as thus.” This is explicitly recorded in Matthew 17:11-13 –

“Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. ¹² But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands.’ ¹³ Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.”

This, therefore, is the likely meaning of Jesus’ words here. The Bible does not explicitly focus on the maltreatment of the post-exilic prophets outside of John, but Jesus’ words are certainly inclusive of him.

Life application: The Old Testament records maltreatment of the prophets at various times. In Jeremiah 26, the prophet Urijah escaped from King Jehoiakim but was captured, brought back, and put to the sword. The priests of the Lord, including Ahimelech, who inquired of the Lord for David, were put to the sword by Saul through the hand of Doeg.

The Spirit of God came upon Zechariah in 2 Chronicles 24, prophesying to the people who rejected His word. King Joash had Zechariah stoned to death. In 1 Kings 19, Elijah exclaimed to the Lord that the children of Israel had “killed Your prophets with the sword.”

These and other such examples show that the words of Jesus are fulfilled just as the parable proclaims. Despite this overwhelming evidence recorded in Scripture, the Expositor’s Greek Testament unfathomably says –

“The husbandmen treat the messengers in the most barbarous and truculent manner: beating, killing, stoning to death; highly improbable in the natural sphere, but another instance in which parables have to violate natural probability in order to describe truly men’s conduct in the spiritual sphere.”

How can it be “highly improbable in the natural sphere” if the Bible explicitly records it is so, including in Jesus’ words of the previous verse? These, along with verse 37, are explicit references to the ill treatment of the Lord’s people.

Understanding this, be careful not to just accept “scholarly” comments as if they are correct and reliable. Jesus’ parables do not “violate natural probability.” Rather, they are given to reveal exactly what has been going on, or what will occur. They are a unique and marvelous way of conveying information that is reliable and targeted.

Lord God, may we never dismiss what is recorded in Your word as unreliable, questionable, or fanciful. Rather, Your word stands as a witness to what You are doing in the world. Thank You for the sure and reliable word You have given us. Amen.

Tuesday, 28 July 2026

And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another.  Matthew 21:35

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“And having taken, the agronomists, the ‘servants, his’, one, indeed, they scourged. One, also, they killed. One, also, they stoned.” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus said in the ongoing parable that at the time of the ripe fruit, the housemaster sent servants to the agronomists that they might receive its fruit. He continues next, saying, “And having taken, the agronomists, the ‘servants, his’, one, indeed, they scourged.”

The word is deró. It literally signifies to flay. By implication, it means to scourge, which causes the skin to be flayed. This is a painful, and at times lethal, form of punishment. Next, He says, “One, also, they killed.”

This is a general word that signifies to kill outright. No particular type of killing is implied, just that the person is killed. Once again, Jesus says, “One, also, they stoned.”

This is another new word, lithoboleó. It is from lithos, a stone, and balló, to throw, cast, etc. Thus, it signifies lapidation. It is a form of punishment recognized in the Law of Moses, and it is noted as being used against offenders in Israel’s history, such as –

“And Joshua said, ‘Why have you troubled us? The Lord will trouble you this day.’ So all Israel stoned him with stones; and they burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones.” Joshua 7:25

Having gone this far into the parable, we can now start to look at the metaphors that Jesus is using. Thus far, we’ve seen the vineyard that God prepared to bear fruit. It is Israel, the nation. The barrier wall is the Law of Moses. That is seen in the word used, phragmos. Paul uses it in Ephesians 2:14 when referring to the law –

“For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation.”

The purgos, or tower, is defined by Strong as specifically being a burgh, an old word signifying an incorporated town. The main building of the town, often a tower-type building, would be representative of it. This would be the tabernacle/temple with the Levitical system of rites and sacrifices. The agronomists are the leaders of the nation, given charge of the nation’s cultural, political, and religious care.

The fruit season is the time expected for there to be religious fruit borne among the people. There was expected to be a fruitful harvest of the people. However, when God sent the prophets in anticipation of such a harvest, they treated them as is seen in this verse now.

Life application: Jesus is using examples of one thing to convey a message about other things. His words, when He is complete, will be so obvious to those who hear that it will say in verse 45, “Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them.”

Everything about His words relies on other things in Scripture to make these points. By understanding the cultural, political, and religious aspects of Israel that are presented in the Bible, the words come into focus, and the meaning of the overall parable can then be rightly understood.

There is usually no reason to go beyond the word itself to find the meaning of the metaphor, although that may be needed at times. For example, the barrier wall explains itself when studying the other uses of the word. Paul explicitly states that the law is that barrier. The full context in Ephesians 2 says –

“For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, ¹⁵ having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, ¹⁶ and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.” Ephesians 2:14-16

As the Bible has stated this, there is no need to go further to find other symbolism. Pay attention to what is going on as you read. What a treasure we have in God’s wonderful word.

Lord God, open our eyes as we read and study Your word. Illuminate our understanding so that we can know just what You intend for us to see. And, Lord, help us to live according to this word all the days of our lives. Amen.

Monday, 27 July 2026

Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit. Matthew 21:34

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“When also it neared, the ‘juncture, the fruits’, he sent the ‘servants, his’ to the agronomists to receive the ‘fruits, his’.” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus began another parable about a landowner planting a vineyard, getting it ready, leasing it out, and going to a far country. He continues that, saying, “When also it neared, the ‘juncture, the fruits’.”

This is the particular time when the fruits are ready to be harvested. It is at this time that the housemaster would expect a suitable recompense for the land and expenses he had put into the land to make a vineyard productive.

As a harvest season comes once a year, there is no reason to assume that this is a single point Jesus is referring to. The kairos, the opportune season for fruit, is a recurring event throughout the span of time concerning what Jesus is referring to. The rest of the parable will bear this out. As for the parable, Jesus continues, saying, “he sent the ‘servants, his’ to the agronomists.”

Here is a new word, geórgos. It is derived from gé, soil (and by implication, a region, land, etc.), and ergon, work, deed, labor, etc. A word that exactingly matches this would be agronomist.

These are the people working the land as agreed to by the housemaster. The appropriate juncture in time for the fruits to be harvested has come. This means that he should receive a share of the earnings from the vineyard, as Jesus next says, “to receive the ‘fruits, his’.”

As the housemaster is in a far land, the reception of the fruits will have to come by a proxy. This would be the servants appointed for the task noted earlier. They are being sent to the vineyard on his behalf.

Life application: As we continue through the parable, think about what you already know concerning what is being stated in the metaphor. A vineyard represents the economy (a cultural expression) where God is dealing with man in order to bring about a result.

Jesus is speaking to the leaders of Israel. So, consider what He says to them as the parable continues. The parable is not a complicated one. What it conveys should be readily understood, but you may come up with some interesting questions or insights.

This is what we are to do when we read the Bible. File away known metaphors, look for other metaphors of which you are unaware of their meaning, and try to deduce what is being conveyed. And then form pictures of what may be going on in relation to the rest of Scripture.

It is true that anyone can come to erroneous conclusions about what is going on in a story. So be careful not to be dogmatic about things unless you are certain that your conclusions are defensible.

But for thousands of years, people have been reading the word and forming conclusions about what it is conveying. Many have proven correct over time, and yet there is still much more that can be elicited from its pages. So be diligent in thinking through what you are reading.

God is giving us information. The more we study the word, the more precise our understanding of that information will be.

Lord God, Your word is a treasure. It is filled with wonderful stories that can instruct us on many levels and in differing ways as we progress through our lives. So, Lord, help us to stick with reading it and considering it all the days we walk in Your presence. Amen.