God never knew Jesus would be killed?
Christian scholars are not saying that the term "son" does not occur.
What they are saying is that it is set in the Gospel narrative as a prediction of Jesus' rejection by the Jews and subsequent crucifixion, for Matthew 21:45 states:
When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they knew that he was speaking about them.
Neither Thomas or any other evidence on hand claims Jesus declared that this parable was about his Passion. The idea that it, along with the other parables of Matthew 21 as foretelling the crucifixion, and with the Jewish leaders responsible for instigating it no less, is not found in the earliest sources.
I added to my comment therefore the interpreation as "I give you a last chance".
I would understand it so: both things have happened and are true
- Once there was a dispute with the chief priest and Pharasees
- Once Jesus told a parable with a son who was killed in which the sense was the obidience and bearing fruit, what is also in the Gospel of thomas.
Mark, Mattew, Luke later put the parable in a the scene with the highpriest, what was the interpretation of the church. it was also connect with the "Jesus -cornerstone" idea.
I dont know if this parabel and Matt. 21 is part or has to be interpreted as "passion" scene or if it is only a parable about the kingdom....item of further research.
My only takeaway from this parable is, that landowner is out of his fucking mind for not evicting the tenants and turning them in to the police for murdering his servants the first time it happened, and then for sending more servants and his son to certain death.
In one version of the parable Mark12 1-12 God is killing the tenants V9.
"What [then] will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come, put the tenants to death, and give the vineyard to others." (NABRE)
In the forerunner of the Bible, namely the heavenly movements of Sun Moon and stars:-- the son of the Sun God had to die every year at the Spring equinox.
It wasn't a matter of whether the Sun God father knew his son (also a Sun God) was going to die, that sort of humanising of the tale was quite irrelevant. The fact was a celestial certainty that the Son was to die sacrificially and go to heaven at Easter to rule there with his father.
Willy nilly; the son has to die.
A parable does not need to fit, point for point, with what it represents.
No matter how you spin it the Old Testament was never about setting up a messiah to be killed as a human sacrifice. Even the scriptures in Isaiah are suspect.
If parable has a central character, what he says as the main intent of his action should necessarily fit with what really happens later. Here we find a father who grossly miscalculated.
Besides, parable has its origin in God Himself according to Jesus: "I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me." (John 8:28
To get the Jesus cult going with the largest number of (paying) members, it had to be rationalized for acceptability to the Jews and then the Romans, Greeks and others in western Asia and the Levant. That is why Paul and other writers used different premises for belief for each of the believing groups and skillfully harmonised their often incompatible dogma. Christianity was not a new religion so much as a fusion of all contemporary temple and Mithraic beliefs in the second, third and fourth centuries.