Bible Commentaries

Matthew 21:1-11), followed with dramatic acts like driving the

moneychangers from the temple (Matthew 21:12-17) and cursing the barren fig tree

(Matthew 21:18-22). His authority was soon challenged (Matthew 21:23-27), and in response

Jesus told the parables of the two sons (Matthew 21:28-32) and the wicked

vinedressers (Matthew 21:33-46), understood by the religious leaders to be directed

toward them.

POINTS TO PONDER

* The significance of the triumphal entry, cleansing the temple,

cursing the fig tree

* The conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1) What are the main points of this chapter?

- The triumphal entry - Matthew 21:1-11

- Jesus cleanses the temple - Matthew 21:12-17

- Jesus curses the fig tree - Matthew 21:18-22

- Jesus' authority questioned - Matthew 21:23-27

- The parable of the two sons - Matthew 21:28-32

- The parable of the wicked vinedressers - Matthew 21:33-46

2) What prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus' triumphant entry into

Jerusalem? (Matthew 21:4-5)

- The prophecy by Zechariah, Zechariah 9:9

3) Why was Jesus angry at the merchandising going on in the temple? (Matthew 21:13)

- God's house of prayer had been turned into a den of thieves

4) Why were the religious leaders angry with Jesus? (Matthew 21:15)

- For what they saw Jesus doing, and what they heard people saying

5) What might the cursing of the barren fig tree signify? (Matthew 21:19)

- The Lord's displeasure and coming judgment upon Israel's leaders

6) Where does authority in religion come from? (Matthew 21:25)

- Either from heaven (the Word of God) or from men (teachings of men)

7) Who did the two sons in the parable represent? (Matthew 21:28-32)

- The first son: tax collectors and harlots who repented at the

preaching of John

- The second son: religious leaders who did not believe John

8) What prophecy foretold that religious leaders would reject Jesus?

(Matthew 21:42)

- The one found in Psalm 118:22-23

Matthew 21:1-46

DIVISION VI

THE GLORIFICATION OF THE MESSIAH THROUGH SUFFERINGS DEATH AND RESURRECTION, "GO MAKE DISCIPLES, etc." ( Matthew 21-28)

Matthew 21:1-46

THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE THE WITHERED FIG TREE THE PARABLE OF THE TWO SONS THE PARABLE OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMAN

THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY (Matthew 21:1-11)

And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and came unto Bethphage, unto the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples. (Matthew 21:1)

The tremendous events of the final days of our Lord's earthly ministry were then to begin. In Matthew 20:18 are recorded Jesus" words, "Behold we go up to Jerusalem." Evidently speaking with deep emotion, Christ coupled those words with the third announcement of the Passion; and, at this point in time, Jesus would begin to do those wonderful and awesome things of which he had so often spoken to the Twelve. Their period of schooling was over. The dramatic accomplishment of man's salvation would begin at once.

Verse2
Saying unto them, Go into the village that is over against you, and straightway, ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

Many of the prophecies concerning Christ were fulfilled by his enemies; some were fulfilled by his friends; and still others, like the one here, were fulfilled by the direct intervention of Christ himself to bring it to pass. But even in such cases where the Lord himself was the instrument of fulfilling the prophecies, he always accomplished the fulfillment in such a manner that no mere man could have done it. Jesus" pre-knowledge of exactly what the disciples would find in the village is an example.

Verse3
And if any one say aught unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.

If the owner of those animals was a disciple of Jesus, the Lord's request would be a command; if the owner was not a disciple, he was providentially prompted to grant the request.

Verse4
Now this is come to pass that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee Meek, and riding upon an ass, And upon a colt the foal of an ass.

This prophecy from Zechariah 9:9 was generally understood as a reference to the Messiah; and Jesus deliberately and conspicuously fulfilled it by the events recorded here. By identifying himself in such a manner, Christ definitely laid claim to the office of Messiah, setting the stage for his public proclamation as the true King.

Verse6
And the disciples went, and did even as Jesus appointed them, and brought the ass and the colt and put on them their garments; and he sat thereon.

The reason for the use of two animals is not clear, unless it was Jesus" strict attention to the prophecy which mentioned both the ass and the foal. He gave the proud Pharisees no excuse for not recognizing the fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy. Often in Matthew is added the second element in the Master's deeds. Thus, he mentions two blind men instead of only one (Matthew 20:30), and two demoniacs (Matthew 8:28 ff). The use of the disciples" garments was practical as well as symbolical.

Verse8
And the most part of the multitude spread their garments in the way; and others cut branches from the trees, and spread them in the way.

Professor Isaac Hull, as quoted by Hallock, says:

David was welcomed by singing and dancing women, out of all the cities of Israel, as he came back from the slaughter of the Philistines. Herodotus records that when Xerxes passed over the bridge of the Hellespont, the way before him was strewed with branches of myrtle, while burning perfumes filled the air. Quintius Curtius tells of the scattering of flowers in the way before Alexander the Great when he entered Babylon. Monier saw the way of a Persian ruler strewn with roses for three miles, while glass vessels filled with sugar were broken under his horses" feet. Matthew 21:12-17)

The high priest Annas, as a young man, had put a person to death contrary to Roman law, and had been removed from office; but he was still recognized by the orthodox as the true high priest. Four or five of Annas" sons and sons-in-law successively held the title and performed the functions of the office during Annas" long lifetime, growing immensely rich in the gross commercialism with which they burdened the temple services. Only certain "authorized" sacrifices could be offered; and those had to be bought from the temple keepers and paid for with temple money, giving the concessionaires a double profit on all transactions. They charged usurious rates on exchange for the proper money and exorbitant prices for the authorized sacrifices. The action of Christ in upsetting this evil business could not have failed to meet with strong popular approval and at the same time to stir up the most vicious and vehement opposition on the part of those whose shameful traffic was thus jeopardized.

Verse13
And he saith unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer: but ye make it a den of robbers.

Christ here quoted Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11. This was the second time that he cleansed the temple, John's record of the other occasion (John 2:13) standing as supplementary to this one mentioned by the synoptics. This type of activity by Christ was fully in harmony with what was expected of the Messiah from Malachi 3:1-3. Comparison of the two cleansings shows an interval of two years between them; thus, ample time had elapsed for the reappearance of the abuses. By their continuation, the Pharisees demonstrated their unwillingness to honor the moral obligations of true religion.

Verse14
And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them. But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children that were crying in the temple and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were moved with indignation.

The miracles wrought by Jesus on that occasion were powerful witnesses of his authority and power, and were more than sufficient to convince all right-minded persons of the truth and divinity of his holy mission. That many were convinced is attested by the Hosannas sung by the children. The divine Messenger had indeed suddenly come to his temple, as Malachi had prophesied (Malachi 3:1-3). However, this strong assertion of Christ's power and authority and its obvious acceptance by many only infuriated the Pharisees, who lost no time but objected at once.

Verse16
And said unto him, Hearest thou what these are saying? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea, did ye never read; Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? And he left them, and went forth out of the city to Bethany, and lodged there.

Again Jesus appealed to the Scriptures (see Psalm 8:2). The praise of the children Jesus did not reject. It was indeed fulfillment of prophecy and should have been recognized by the Pharisees as additional proof of the identity of the Holy One among them. The fulfillment of God's purpose is seen in the action of the children. Since those who should have praised him refused to do so, the very children took up the cry; and the temple rang with the praises of its true Head and authority. God's will be done!

These events took place on Monday, although Matthew's account leaves an impression that it occurred on Sunday. Matthew did not pay much attention to strict chronological sequence but arranged much of his material topically.

Bethany, the home of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary, became Christ's base of operations for the crucial events of Passion week. Bethany was located on the farther side of the Mount of Olives and was about two miles distant from Jerusalem on the road to Jericho.

Verse18
Now in the morning as he returned to the city, he hungered.

THE WITHERING OF THE FIG TREE

This verse casts doubt on the supposition that Jesus was staying in the home of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary; for, if that had been the case, it is hard to resist the supposition that he would have had breakfast there before departing for the city. He might have remained all night in prayer at some remote recess in the vicinity of Bethany, which was in fact nestled into a tiny depression on the slopes of the Mount of Olives. Certainly, Christ continued all night in prayer before naming the Twelve, and the awful events at hand were every whit as important and urgent as the former.

Verse19
And seeing a fig tree by the wayside, he came to it, and found nothing: thereon, but leaves only; and he saith unto it, Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever. And immediately the fig tree withered away.

Of all Jesus" miracles, only this one was a curse. It was absolutely necessary that Christ's miracles should attest the ultimate judgment of God upon evil works. Otherwise, it could have left an impression that divine power would be used only to heal, help, and bless man. The lesson of the fig tree, however, proves that God will eventually judge mankind and punish wickedness. Since the time had not yet come for the pouring out of the wrath of God upon the ungodly, since the time of human probation had not yet expired, Jesus made the curse to rest upon a tree, a thing, and not a person. This contrasts strongly with the judgments of God through such prophets as Elijah who slaughtered the prophets of Baal. In such a context, Jesus" curse of that fig tree was an act of mercy, not of wrath, for the warning absolutely necessary to be given fell upon an inanimate object rather than upon a person. Who could be critical if Christ had struck the entire Sanhedrin blind or dead? That he did not do so cannot mean they did not deserve such a fate, because they did. And yet, as a warning to them of the wrath that would surely come, he chose instead to wither the fig tree. Therefore, critics who would make something vengeful or evil out of Christ's curse of the fig tree are engaging in cavil and exhibiting a gross lack of understanding.

Yet men have done just that, caviling at this instance of judgment upon a tree, imputing caprice, peevishness, spite, and unreasonableness to Christ. We agree with Trench who said, "Of such men, they are the true Pharisees of history. Mark 11:13). This objection disappears in the light of the fact that, of the variety of tree indicated here, the fruit always appeared before the leaves; and that, in view of the leaves, Christ had every reason to expect fruit also. Mark 11:12-14; Mark 11:20-21.

Mark 11:13). Subsequent history of Judaism constitutes a signal fulfillment of this prophecy of withering away. Before Christ, the Jews made numerous proselytes all over the world; but today they are practically powerless, in any effective way, to make proselytes. No fruit on thee henceforward for ever! (Matthew 21:19).

Verse21
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do what is done to the fig tree, but even if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou taken up and cast into the sea, it shall be done. And all things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

This is a repetition of the remarkable promise Christ made the disciples in Matthew 17:20 (which see). Such a promise staggers the imagination; and the very least that it can mean is that all moral and spiritual difficulties will disappear for those who pray in faith for their removal. However, we do not dare limit this promise. Note also the two great hindrances to effective prayer. Men do not have their prayers answered because they do not ask, or asking, do not believe. What a challenge to prayer is this!

Verse23
And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority does thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?

Although propounded by Jesus" enemies, this question must rank as one of the most important ever asked. This question should be addressed to all preachers and teachers of every religion; and every church should also answer it. If the authority is from man, the actions and teachings are worthless; if from God, they are valid and should be accepted. Christ answered their question by asking another which revealed that they already knew the correct answer and were, therefore, asking in the hope of finding some grounds of complaint.

Verse24
And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one question, which if ye tell me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or from men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven, he will say unto us, Why then did ye not believe him?

The proposition Christ made was fair and sincere. If those complainers would answer a simple question he had for them, Christ agreed to answer theirs. Furthermore, Jesus well knew that they were able to answer the simple question he asked.

Then came the question regarding the baptism of John. It was devastating for those hypocrites, because they, contrary to popular belief, had rejected John as a true prophet and had refused to acknowledge his witness of Christ as being the true "Lamb of God." They were quick to see that not Christ but they themselves were trapped by the question; and, after a conference, they elected to lie about it pretending not to know the answer.

Of course, Christ rejected their question, not only because they knew the answer already, but because they were completely prejudiced against the truth. It would have been casting pearls before swine if he had answered them. Yet even when confronted by their hatred and falsehood, the Lord uttered a beautiful parable setting their conduct in such a frame of reference as to show, even at that late hour, his hope of recovering some of them from their blindness and sins.

Verse28
But what think ye? A man had two sons; and he came to the first and said, Son, go work today in the vineyard. And he answered and said, I will not; but afterward he repented himself and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Which of the two did the will of his father?

THE PABABLE OF THE TWO SONS

ANALOGIES IN THE PARABLE

The man who had two sons is God.

The first son represents the publicans and harlots.

The second son represents the self-righteous Pharisees.

The vineyard stands for God's true religion.

The man's equal treatment of both sons suggests God's impartial dealings with all people.

The two sons are also typical of two types of persons in all ages.

It is noteworthy that God recognizes only two classes of persons, both shamefully delinquent in one way or another, thus attesting the universal sin and wickedness of man. There is a sense in which this parable stands for the Jews and the Gentiles as represented by the two sons; but the immediate and primary application of it was made by Christ himself who referred it to the publicans and harlots on one hand and the Pharisees on the other. There are two destinies revealed for the two classes of men, heaven and hell (Matthew 25:34; Matthew 25:41); and the two classes are set forth under a number of figures in the New Testament, such as: the wheat and the chaff (Matthew 3:12), the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:25), the rejects and keepers (Matthew 13:48-49), the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:32), builders on rock, or on sand (Matthew 7:24-26), etc. The two sons of this parable represent the grand moral cleavage in humanity, which in God's sight forms two and only two classes, the good and the bad.

THE FATHER's INVITATION: "Son, Go work today in the vineyard," is a marvel of tenderness and reasonableness. It is IMPARTIAL, being addressed to both alike; it is loving and tender, being prefaced by a term of endearment, "Son." It is REASONABLE, since nothing could be more proper than for a son to work in the vineyard he himself may inherit; it is SPECIFIC, not any vineyard, but THE vineyard being indicated; it is URGENT, work being required not tomorrow, but today; it is NECESSARY, because without work which was commanded, the vineyard would perish. All of these characteristics of the father's command have an application today in God's command, or invitation, for men to work in his vineyard, the church.

THE FIRST SON's RESPONSE: "I will not." This is typical of the response of publicans and harlots whom Jesus made the heroes of this parable. Theirs was an open, frank, rude rejection of the Father's command. This should not be glamorized. Some are tempted to do so, boasting that they do not attend church, having no time for such things, are not the religious type, etc.; and, although frankness has merit under some conditions, there can be no merit on the part of that son who wounded a loving father, rejected an altogether reasonable commandment to work in the vineyard, and who flouted the father's authority. He refused to accept any responsibility to honor and obey the one who had given him life, nourished him in infancy, supported him in weakness, and who was entitled to his respect and obedience. All who refuse to serve God in his church are guilty of the same thing.

Let it be further observed that the first son's response did not cancel or remove any of his duties or obligations. His duty did not derive from his commitment (if he had made any), but it sprang from the father's inherent right and authority to lay upon him such a requirement as working in the vineyard. Some in the church do not see this. They "won"t promise anything," "will not make a pledge," etc., as if such refusal would cancel or diminish any duty. However, all of man's duties in the church derive their authority, not from man's voluntarily accepting them, but from God who has the right to command his creation. The fact that the first son later repented and went to work did not make his first refusal any less wrong. This suggests that Christians, even after they have begun to accept the Lord, are still unprofitable servants.

THE SECOND SON's RESPONSE: The second son said, "I go, sir," but went not! Such a response was proper and correct as far as it went. The fact that he was a smooth hypocrite who did not follow his profession with valid obedience cannot negate the correct nature of his verbal response. He said exactly what he should have said. His later failure cannot change the righteous character of his words. Those who profess to serve God are right in such a profession, and it ought to serve as a stimulus to perform deeds consistent with it. In the parable, the second son's response represents that of the Pharisees and their crowd who professed a hos they would not exhibit.

Verse31
Which of the two did the will of the father? They say, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

Christ's application of the parable to the Pharisees and to the class of sinners they most despised is in some ways rather shocking. It must have appeared positively outrageous to the hardened hypocrites who first heard it. It does not appear, of course, that Christ condoned or endorsed gross sin in any manner. He was only stating an incomprehensible fact, witnessed in all generations, that many who have the finest inheritance, the best upbringing, the most sacred privileges, and the maximum exposure to truth and righteousness, far from taking the lead in true religion, actually despise it, and who definitely must be classed as secondary to far grosser persons who, though scarred and burned by sin, nevertheless reject evil ways and turn humbly to the Lord for forgiveness! Every congregation has its examples of both classes.

Why did the publicans and the harlots enter into the kingdom of God before the Pharisees, or, as was generally the case, WITHOUT them? The reasons are plainly given in the word of God: (1) The class composed of publicans and harlots were conscious of sins, whereas the Pharisees were not, as shown by Luke's account of the Pharisee and the publican (Luke 18:9 ff), indicating that no sin is greater than being conscious of none. (2) The publicans and sinners heard him (Luke 15:1), but the Pharisaical class refused to hear. (3) They believed him (Matthew 21:32). (4) They repented. (5) They were baptized (Luke 3:12; Luke 7:29-30). If the Pharisees had been willing to do this, they too might have entered into the kingdom. In the very next words, Christ shows how they failed.

Verse32
For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye saw it, did not even repent yourselves afterward, that ye might believe him.

Thus, the prior entry of publicans and harlots was not due to any divine preference for their kind of sins, but was the result of their response, their hearing, believing, repenting, and being baptized. All the vaunted righteousness of the Pharisees could not save them while they were in rebellion against God's commands, nor can all the moral excellence of upright men today avail anything for them apart from faith and obedience of the Lord's commandments. By the same premise, all the sins of the publicans and harlots could not take away their hope as long as they heard and obeyed the Lord. Christ himself put it like this, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark 16:15-16).

Verse33
Hear another parable: There was a man that was an householder, who planted a vineyard, and set a hedges about it, and digged a wine press in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country, ...

THE PARABLE OF THE WICKED FARMERS

The following analogies are discernible in this parable:

The householder is God.

The vineyard represents the privilege of the Jewish nation.

The planting of the vineyard refers to God's establishment of Israel as a favored nation.

The hedge, winepress, tower, etc. represent the Law of Moses.

The husbandmen represent the religious leaders.

The servants who came to receive the fruits are the prophets whom God sent to Israel.

The maltreatment of the servants shows Israel's maltreatment of the prophets of God.

The husbandman's desiring the fruits shows God's earnest desire for true religion in Israel, especially God's desire for a consciousness in Israel of their NEED of redemption.

The son in the parable stands for God's Son, Jesus Christ.

The killing of the son is the crucifixion of Christ.

The son's being sent last of all shows that Christ is God's last word to man.

Their casting the son out of the vineyard prefigures the suffering of Christ without the camp.

The taking of the vineyard away from the wicked husbandmen and giving it to others represents the displacement of Israel by the Gentiles in the church of Christ.

The householder's going into another country represents God's leaving Israel to their own devices for a long period prior to the coming of Christ.

Verse34
And when the season of the fruits drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, to receive his fruits.

There were numerous prophets who came again and again, to arouse in Israel the truly spiritual response which the Father desired and which it was impossible for the Law to produce. No age is devoid of such a requirement; but there were some occasions when, it seems God especially desired a quickened conscience in Israel. To be sure, the Law brought forth fruit of a kind, such as outward observance of ceremonial duties and avoidance of some of the grosser sins; but the inner desire and soul-longing for redemptive forgiveness was a fruit God sought in vain in Israel.

As the season ... drew near likely refers, at least in part, to the approach of the times of the Messiah, in which case John the Baptist would surely be among the more honorable servants who came to receive God's fruits from Israel, but who, like the others, was rejected.

Verse35
And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

Such maltreatment of God's messengers, the prophets, is detailed in Hebrews 11:37-38; Jeremiah 37:15; and other passages which stress the abuse which was heaped upon God's servants, the prophets. Matthew 23:31-35 and Acts 7:52 reveal that both Christ and Stephen the martyr made very pointed references to the same maltreatment of the prophets.

Verse36
Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them in like manner.

This verse only emphasizes the long-continued and aggravated misconduct of Israel with reference to God's prophets. Their long-standing procedure was to kill them in one generation and memorialize them in the next.

Verse37
But afterward he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But the husbandmen, when they saw the son, said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and take his inheritance.

Mark's account of this has these words, "He had yet one, a beloved son: he sent him last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son." In the light of Mark's words, it appears that the King James Version has the true thought in the words, "Last of all, he sent his son." Certainly, there is a sense of finality that is definitely intended in the sending of the son. There is to be no other after Christ. The rejection of Christ by the human race is not to be followed by other offers of reconciliation. This is surely one of the big revelations from this parable. "Last of all, the Son!"

If Matthew 21:37-38 above are understood to give a true and accurate picture of the inner thoughts and intentions of the Jewish religious hierarchy in Jerusalem (and so they are understood by this writer), it is crystal clear that they recognized him as the Messiah, decided to destroy him, and intended to replace him with their own system and with their own personnel in charge. How could they possibly have done such a thing? First, having no consciousness of sin, and supposing that they were the custodians of salvation from God through the Law, they PREFERRED that type of religion (thinking of course that it would give eternal life) to the humility, self-denial, sobriety, purity, and meekness of the religion Christ taught. Knowing from the very first who he was, they carefully observed his teaching, but they had decided to reject it in favor of what they already had, or supposed they had. There was one fatal flaw in their thinking. They did not recognize Christ as GOD IN HUMAN FORM, to whom the Father hath committed judgment, whose words must be obeyed upon pain of eternal remorse for those who reject them, and who is the only sacrifice for sins ever conceived in the entire universe that was of sufficient merit actually to accomplish forgiveness. Christ warned them, but they did not seem to get the point. He said, "He that rejecteth my word hath one that judgeth him, the word that I speak shall judge men in the last day" (John 12:48).

Therefore, their awful crimes against Jesus were not merely sins against God in the sense that all sins are sins against God; but their sins against Christ were actually sins against the very person of God in Christ, multiplying the condemnation which they merited by their shameful actions.

In the parable, it is seen that Christ appears as the heir of all things. However, Christ, as God, was not the heir of all things, for, as God, he is the Creator of all things. It is as man that Christ is heir of all things. Thus, the Arian heresy finds no support in this parable.

Returning to the incomprehensible truth that the Pharisees deliberately decided to kill Christ in spite of the fact that they knew he was the Messiah, this may seem to be at variance with 1 Corinthians 2:8, "Which none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." However, careful reading of Paul's words shows that what the rulers did not know was the "mystery" of God in Christ! The Pharisees thought he was only the Messiah but did not know that the Messiah was God robing himself in human flesh. That was the mortal error on their part. Even though they did not comprehend his eternal power and Godhead, however, they did recognize him as the true heir of the temple, "a teacher come from God," as Nicodemus confessed (John 3:2), and as a holy and righteous person without any sin whatever. Yet they would kill even one like that rather than give up their lucrative exploitation of the temple which had become, in their eyes, their private domain to be maintained at the cost of any crime, however great, even at the cost of murdering the Messiah whose actions in twice cleansing the temple had demonstrated that his teaching would not allow the continuation of those gross perversions on which their profits depended. Here then, without any doubt, is the commercially motivated reason why they took such diabolical action against the Christ. It is impossible to gloss over their conduct or to find any extenuation of their frightful guilt. They knew he was Christ, but alas, they did not know that he was God in Christ! Thus, their crucifixion of Christ was a crime against God himself.

Verse39
And they took him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him.

This adds another graphic detail to the prophetic delineation of the crucifixion of Christ. The casting out of the vineyard corresponds to the suffering of Christ, of which it is written, "Let us therefore go forth unto him WITHOUT THE CAMP, bearing his reproach" (Hebrews 13:13). Jesus, of course, suffered without the camp, that is, outside the gates of the city. "Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered without the gate" (Hebrews 13:12).

Verse40
When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do to those husbandmen?

Jesus was about to extract from their own lips the sentence of doom which their conduct deserved. Just as Nathan the prophet extracted a self-pronounced sentence of death upon King David, and just as a disguised prophet drew a sentence of condemnation from the lips of another wicked king who uttered his own condemnation (1 Kings 20:41), in the same manner Christ drew from the lips of those proud adversaries their self-pronounced doom.

Verse41
They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyards to other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

That was precisely what God would do, and did do, to them. Israel was removed from being the special custodian of God's spiritual planting, and the Gentiles were brought in. Christ next moved to clear up one part of the parable that might not have been clear otherwise. True, the son in the parable represented himself; but their killing him would in no sense mean that they were rid of him permanently. God had committed judgment to the Son. Christ would rise the third day, ascend to heaven, and sit down upon the right hand of the Majesty on high. The rejected stone would yet be made the head of the corner. See next verse.

Verse42
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; This was from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes?

Christ quoted Psalm 118:22 ff. The example of a rejected stone becoming the chief stone was founded on historical fact. Dean Plumptre said:

The illustration seems to have been drawn from one of the stones, quarried, hewn, and marked, away from the site of the temple, which the builders, ignorant of the head architect's plans, had put to one side, as having no place in the building, but which was found afterwards to be that on which the completeness of the structure depended, that on which, as the chief cornerstone, the two walls met, and were bonded together. Zechariah 4:7-10).

ENDNOTE:

Isaiah 28:16 and added, "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; for they stumble at the word, being disobedient" (1 Peter 2:7-8). Thus, our Lord's reference to the Pharisees" falling on that stone (himself) is a reference to their stumbling at his word. The passage also suggests Daniel 2:45 and the "stone cut out of the mountain without hands" which smote the kingdoms and broke them in pieces. Christ's virgin birth was "without hands," in the sense that it was not dependent upon human agency or upon the natural processes of procreation. That little stone, Christ, from such humble beginnings (in the earthly view) grew and filled the whole earth (Daniel 4:34-35). This intriguing statement of our Lord (Matthew 21:44) suggests another remark he made, "The scriptures cannot be broken" (John 10:35). Men who think they break the Scriptures only break themselves; those who stumble or fall upon Christ and his word do not break him but are themselves broken. Furthermore, there are two theaters of confrontation with that "stone" which is Christ. In time, men may receive or reject him; but in eternity (the judgment), the stone will fall upon the disobedient with devastating and total punishment for their sinful and obdurate hearts.

CHRIST COMPARED TO A STONE: (1) He is a cornerstone (Matthew 21:43); (2) he is a rejected stone (Matthew 21:43); (3) a stone of stumbling and rock of offense (1 Peter 2:7-8); (4) a living stone (1 Peter 2:4); (5) a precious stone (1 Peter 2:6); (6) a tried stone (Isaiah 28:16); (7) a growing or increasing stone (Daniel 4:34-35); (8) the Rock that followed Israel (1 Corinthians 10:4); (9) like a meteorite, he is from another world; and (10) he is the Rock of Ages, from everlasting to everlasting (Hebrews 13:8).

Verse45
And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

With the two parables recorded in this chapter, Christ finally got through to the Pharisaical intelligence! Before that time, it appears that they regarded his parables as too homely and simple to be worthy of their lordly attention. Apparently they discounted them as having no pertinent application to things they were interested in. But at last, under the hammer blows of logical truth, their crust of indifference was shattered. With a genius surpassing that of any mortal, Christ wove eternal truth into the fabric of the parables. He held the completed picture up before his enemies, as one might hold up a mirror; and at last, confronted with a likeness of themselves as plain as any photograph, they got the point! Their fury was unbounded. No longer would they seek any accommodation with him. They probably would have rushed upon him to kill him then and there, but the Master had too carefully laid the plan for that to happen. The popular support of Christ was so great that they simply dared not to touch him in front of the people. Two courses were open to them: (1) They could secretly assassinate him, or (2) they could contrive his legal condemnation and death. The Providence from on high had closed the first alternative, although they did not know it; and without doubt that would have been their favorite method of disposing of him. God's plan called for the tribunals; and the manner in which they found themselves maneuvered into doing it God's way is recorded in Matthew 26:4; Matthew 26:14. See further notes on this phenomenon on those references.

Verse46
And when they sought to lay hold on him, they feared the multitudes, because they took him for a prophet.

The die was then cast. Before that week ended, those evil men would by falsehood, suborned and lying witness, political pressure, intimidation, and mob violence, accomplish his crucifixion, under Christ's permissive will, and with themselves and others as the instruments of Satan. They would seek and find a traitor among the Twelve. They would disperse the vast concourse of people who loved Jesus and hailed him as the son of David. They would use their wealth, official prerogatives, social position, and political power to intimidate and frighten into silence all who disagreed with them. They would recruit and surround themselves with whatever scum and riffraff were available from the dark alleys of the vast city, and they would form those into a rabble to stand in for "the people" and cry, "Crucify him!" at the propitious moment. They would even stoop to take the part of loathed and hated Caesar in order to strengthen their presentation before the governor. They would perform like skilled actors upon a stage of far greater dimensions than any of them could have imagined. Their every word and action would appear in full view and understanding of millions of millions for all ages, who, in a sense, would have box seats to see the most classical case of legal lynching ever seen on earth! The dark drama would soon move to its shocking culmination.

Jesus usually traveled on foot, but he was now to make a change in his mode of going and sent two of his disciples to secure the means of doing so.

21:2. Jesus knew all things that pertained to his activities and hence could tell the disciples what they would find in the nearby village.

"The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof" (1 Corinthians 10:26), therefore it was right for Jesus to "commandeer" these beasts. It was not an act of taking them just because he had the authority to do so, but it was because they were needed. Take note that he needed them and not the mother or colt only.

Verse4. Matthew explains that what is about to take place had been prophesied in the Old Testament and it is recorded in Zechariah 9:9.

Any statement of an event may include more than is specifically mentioned but it will never take in less than is named. Verses3,4clearly stated that the mother and the colt were to be loosed and brought to Jesus. Also in verse7 both colt and mother were brought and the people put their clothes on them. And now our present verse cites a prophecy which definitely predicts that Jesus was to ride on an ass and its colt. Most commentators believe that Jesus rode the colt only, and that the mother was taken along because of a humane feeling for the mother and her young offspring. It is true that neither of the other three accounts says a thing about the mother, but that could be accounted for by the fact that the use of an unbroken colt was the unusual feature of this event and hence it only is given notice by them. If it should be questioned how one man could ride two beasts, the explanation is that he would sit on the back of the mother and place his feet on the colt in the place of stirrups. This would identify the rider as the one foretold by the prophet, while the fact of riding only one would not be so rare as to attract attention. Even the riding of an unbroken colt would not be so unusual because somebody had to ride it for the first time, and besides this, the public crowd would not know it was an unbroken animal since it would be under control of this supernatural rider.

:6-7

This paragraph merely records the doing of the things commanded.

It was an ancient custom to honor an approaching dignitary by making a carpet of garments and the foliage of trees on which he might proceed. It says a very great multitude made this display of honor. It was at the season when the Passover was soon to be observed by the Jews, and great numbers were at Jerusalem from all over the world to- attend that feast in obedience to the law of Moses.

Hosanna is a Greek word and Robinson defines it, "Save now, succor now, be now propitious." He says further that it is from a Hebrew word that means a joyful acclamation." Thayer's definition agrees with this but is more condensed. The passage means an expression of good will to him who is able to save others because he is a descendant of David. Blessed is he, etc., is an acknowledgment that Jesus was coming to their city in the name of the Lord.

Verse10. The foregoing conversation was taking place as Jesus was entering the city. When he reached the inside the people were moved. That word is from SEIO which Thayer defines, "to shake, agitate, cause to tremble; to quake with fear." This means the citizens of the city in general who were not informed upon the state of affairs nor upon the prophecies that were being fulfilled; they were the ones moved. In their agitation and fright they asked who is this?

The multitude means the group that had been witnessing the entrance of Jesus into the city. They were aware of what was going on and what connection it had with the iden tity of Jesus, and they gave the information to the citizens.

The reader should see my comments on Deuteronomy 14:24-26 in Volume1of the Old Testament Commentary. It was right to sell doves and other creatures to be used in the services at the altar, and it was necessary to have an exchange table to trade local money for the foreign, because the money brought in by foreigners was not good in the markets of Judea. But it was wrong to transact that business in the temple because it was intended for the religious services only. They having committed an outrage against the sacred temple, it was proper for Jesus to treat them as outlaws and force them out of the place they were desecrating.

It is written is cited from Isaiah 56:7 where the prophet was writing about the restoration of the Jews after the captivity, but where he also included some words that referred to the age of the church. Jesus called the temple as it was used then a den of thieves because they were taking advantage of the situation to charge undue fees for their transactions; they were profiteering.

This work that Jesus did was far different from that of the "thieves." They were in it for unright-ous gain while Jesus was doing good to the unfortunate people by healing their infirmities.

The original word for crying is defined in the lexicon, "to speak with a loud voice," and means the children let themselves be heard in shouting their good wishes for Jesus. The chief priests and scribes were sore displeased evidently because they were envious of the attention that he was receiving.

1:16 These envious men called the attention of Jesus to the cries of the children as if to suggest that he stop the disturbance, but in reality as an expression of their displeasure caused by their envy. The quotation Jesus made is in Psalm 8:2 , and in both places the words babes and suck-lings have about the same meaning. Both mean small children but the first denotes those who are somewhat the older of the two. The simple, childlike trust that a little one shows in the existence and goodness of God is one of the sweetest things that can be seen in this world. Even those still young enough to be feeding at the breast will manifest characteristics that can be explained only by the fact that they are the handiwork of a gracious Creator.

Bethany was a small village about two miles from Jerusalem. Although it was an unimportant town from the standpoint of size, it was very noted by the things that took place there. It was the home of Lazarus and his two sisters where Jesus was always a welcome guest. On the present occasion we are merely told that Jesus left the presence of this envious crowd and spent a night in the quiet little village.

The body of Jesus was both human and divine and subject to the needs of bodily maintainance the same as other men. At this time he sought to satisfy his hunger by the use of the fig which is indeed a wholesome food.

In the account given at Mark 11:13 the statement is added: "For the time of figs was not yet." Our verse says that Jesus found only leaves on the tree when he expected to find fruit also. If it was not the time for figs why would Jesus curse the tree for not having the fruit as well as the leaves? This matter is explained by the editor's note on Jo-sephus, Wars, Book3 , Chapter10 , Section8 , as follows: "It may be worth our while to observe here, that near this lake of Gennesareth grapes and figs hang on the trees ten months of the year. We may observe also, that in Cyril of Jerusalem, Cateches, 18 , section3 , which was delivered not long before Easter, there were no fresh leaves of fig trees, nor bunches of fresh grapes in Judea, so that when Mark says (11:13), that our Saviour, soon after the same time of the year, came and "found leaves" on a fig tree near Jerusalem, but "no figs," because the time of "new figs" ripening "was not yet," he says very true; nor were they therefore other than old leaves which our Saviour saw, and old figs which he expected, and which tven with us commonly hang on the trees all winter long."

Jesus cursed the fig tree for having leaves but no fruit, since its opportunity for bearing the one was as good as the other, regardless of whether it was the old or new crop that was expected. Many people have moralized on this circumstance and compared the leaves to the empty Profession of righteousness that men make and the absence of fruit to the failure of doing one's duty to the Lord. We may make our own comparison to it for the purpose of an illustration, but nothing in the text indicates that to have been in the mind of Christ. Rather, it was just another opportunity to perform a miracle for the instruction of the disciples, for that was the only subject they discussed about it afterward. Presently is from PARACHREMA which Thayer defines, "Immediately, forthwith, instantly," and Robinson says, "On the spot, forthwith, straightway."

This verse indicates that the disciples made their remark at the time when Jesus pronounced the curse upon the tree, but according to Mark 11:20-21 it was the next day. However, our verse does not disagree with that for it only says "when the disciples saw it," meaning the complete withering away of the tree, and that could have been the next day. Hence we should understand the word presently in the preceding verse to have been used in a figurative or comparative sense.

For comments on the extent of faith here see chapter17:20..

In prayer, believing corresponds in thought with chapter17:21. In that passage the faith was to be connected with a season of "prayer and fasting." The part that was performed by the disciples in each instance was an evidence of their faith.

When he was come into the temple was the day after Jesus had driven the moneychangers out. It was that act the chief priests and elders meant when they called upon him for his authority to perform it.

Jesus never evaded any proper question that was asked of him. However, rather than directly accuse them of insincerity he chose to expose them by a counter inquiry. He promised to answer their question if they would do likewise to his.

The fact of John's baptism was not denied by anyone, the only question being his authority for teaching and practicing it. John either was doing so by the authority of the Lord of heaven or merely as a work of man, and they were asked to say which they thought it was. But the question, although a perfectly fair one, put them in an embarrassing position because of the inconsistency of their general conduct. If they were to admit that John's baptism was from heaven they could not explain why they did not endorse it.

They were afraid to accuse John of acting on man's authority because of the pressure of public opinion that was favorable to his work. These hypocritical leaders of the Jews did not have much love for the common people, yet they wanted to hold on to their esteem for the sake of popularity.

They refused to answer and falsely stated that they could not tell, for they had an abundance of evidence that John was a man of God. Jesus also refused to answer their question but did not misrepresent his position as did the Pharisees; he simply said neither tell I you.

This is a parable of two brothers and hence refers to people of the same family group. The contrast, then, is not between Jews and Gentiles as some of the parables apply. The first son was the publicans and harlots of the31st verse, and the second was the chief priests and elders of verse23. Both sons were asked to work for their father, likewise all ranks of Jews were invited to accept the work of preparation for the kingdom of heaven soon to be set up.

The publicans and harlots did not actually refuse the favors offered them, but that action of the son was supposed in order to show the better disposition in that they thought better of the offered favors than did the others.

1:30 This verse was virtually carried out as stated, for the chief priests and elders made great pretensions of being interested in the work of John and Jesus, but in the final test they refused to work at it.

1:31. The kingdom of heaven was not set up in fact in the earth lifetime of John, but his work was that kingdom in preparation, and whatever attitude anyone showed to-ward his work was counted for or against the kingdom.

In the way of righteousness means the way of life that John taught was righteous. But the self-righteous Jews only pretended to accept his teaching and did not actually do so (Matthew 3:7-8; Matthew 21:25). But the publicans accepted the teaching of John and came to his baptism and so fulfilled the parable.

Unlike the preceding parable, this one has to do with the Jews and the Gentiles. The Jews were God's exclusive people for15 centuries but did not appreciate their good fortune and even mistreated the righteous prophets and other teachers who were sent among them. Finally the Gentiles were admitted into the family of God on an equal basis with the Jews. The story of the householder was told in detail to bring out these truths, some of which were still future when Jesus spoke. God was the householder and the services and benefits of the Mosaic system were "hedged" about with the Lord's oversight (Isaiah 5:1-7).

It takes time to produce fruit, hence the householder did not expect any products until the proper time and then he sent special servants to get them.

This refers to the mistreatment that the Jews showed to the prophets and other righteous teachers who were sent among them by the Lord.

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.

Being the heir, if he could be removed there would seem to be no one to claim the property, hence the workers planned to make away with him.

The wicked workers carried out their plot and slew the son of the householder. It refers to the treatment that Jesus was soon to receive at the hands of the wicked Jews in thrusting him into the hands of the Gentiles to be killed.

Jesus asked the hearers for their opinion of the case. Still thinking of some literal case of earthly relationship, they answered correctly as to what would happen to such husband men.

1:42. Jesus began opening their understanding of the parable by referring to a prediction in the Old Testament. They doubtless were aware of this statement and must have begun to see the light that was exposing them.

The Lord made a literal application of the parable to the Jewish nation of which his hearers were members. The nation that was to be given the kingdom was the Gentiles. This does not mean that the Jews would be barred from the kingdom of heaven, but they no longer would be the sole workers in the Master's vineyard.

This stone means Christ who is the stone of verse42that had been rejected by the builders, meaning the leaders in the Jewish nation. There are two applications of the illustrations about the falling upon the stone and its falling upon the victim. It would be bad enough to fall down on a stone for one would be hurt thereby, but it would be far worse for that stone to be elevated and then fall upon that same one. So the Jewish nation had stumbled over this stone and it was complaining about it. The leaders had even tossed it aside as unfit even to be used at all in the building. But it was to be elevated to be the head stone in the building and from that position was to fall (figuratively speaking) upon the nation and demolish it. That event took place in A. D70 when the Romans overthrew Jerusalem and disorganized the Jewish commonwealth. The illustration applies also to individuals in general. Those who "stumble at the word" (1 Peter 2:8) will be offended in this world, and at the judgment they will be crushed by the weight of Christ's authority and sent into eternal ruin in the lake of fire prepared for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:46).

The Jewish nation as a whole was to suffer in the fate predicted by the parable, but the chief priests and Pharisees were especially responsible which truth they realized when they heard the parable.

Sought to lay hands means they tried to think of some way they could use to overpower Jesus. Feared the multitude is to be understood in the same light as was their fear over John the Baptist in the26th verse.