Matthew 24, Facts and Fiction

By Ovid Need, Jr.

Ovid Need Study Archive | Debate on Israel's Identity | Inside the Mind of Christian Identity | Identifying Identity | Israel Restored | A Review of "The Parousia" and "Beast of Revelation" | Tongues: A Biblical View | Matthew 24 | A Review of "The Rapture Plot" | A Postscript to "The Death of Victory" | A Lawless Religion: CI Scofield |  Mistaken Identity

Chapter I, Prophecy
A quick Overview
Chapter II, Day one
Christ's triumphal entry on colt, weeping over city, healing in the temple:
Chapter III, Day two
Christ curses the tree, cleanses the temple, teaches the great multitude, and the Greeks ask to see Christ.
Cleansing the Temple
The Gospel Door
Election
Chapter IV, Day three
The Parables
St. Peter and the Keys
Matthew 21:41
Chapter V, The Builders
God's Kingdom Prevails
God's New Nation
Matthew 21:45
Chapter VI, Matthew 22
The Invitation Rejected
The Remnant
Chapter VII
The Invitation Accepted
The Wheat and Tares
Chapter VIII
Render unto Caesar
Chapter IX
Matthew 22:23-33.
Chapter X
Christ's Last Message
Chapter XI
Christ goes on the Offensive
Chapter XII
Woes to the False Teachers
Chapter XIII
Matthew 24
Herod's Temple
Chapter XIV
Revelation 18
Matthew 24:5-8
Matthew 24:14 was literally fulfilled
Chapter XV
The Great Tribulation
Daniel's Stone
The Time of the Gentiles
Chapter XVI, Conclusion
The End of the World

Introduction

[The following is offered "warts and all," for I have not had time to proof it good. It still has the Desk Top Publishing codes in if for the footnotes, which I trust you will overlook. Maybe one day I will have the time to remove the codes and replace them with simple brackets. Also, the founts are missing that change the garbled letters to their proper Hebrew and Greek order, but I left the letters in the text. It is available in hard copy with TOC, Footnotes and Index from Ovid Need, PO Box 6, Linden IN 47955 (765 339 4609).]

There seems to be a vast amount of confusion on our Lord's words of Matthew 24. His words there have given rise to many unique and strange, such as Scofieldism (I know the roots of Scofieldism; much of his teaching can easily be traced back to a document offered to the Protestants in 1791 by a Roman Jesuit. The doctrine became a major foundation of the Plymouth Brethren movement. The Scofield Reference Bible clearly sets forth Plymouth Brethren Doctrine, a point clearly made by the Plymouth Brethren minister, H.A. Ironside. See The Death of Victory, by this pastor.) This pastor was trained up in Baptist churches that believed and taught with the attitude that C.I. Scofield's notes were part of the original autographs. I heard more than one speaker mock from the pulpit those of his hearers who did not have Scofield Bibles with them.

Though my mother had given me, as a young person, a Scofield Bible as a gift, it was not my first serious study Bible. After discharge from the Navy SeaBees in 1965, I worked as a layman in a bus ministry. Bus ministries basically exist upon exciting emotions and promotions. I won a workers' promotion, and the prize was a good, new Bible. I asked my dad what kind of a Bible I should get, and he suggested a Thompson Chain-Reference. So the Bible I started with for serious reading and study was not a Scofield; therefore, I did not have the influence of Scofield's notes. However, his notes were regularly taught by every Baptist pastor and Bible teacher I came into contact with.

Divine Providence placed my wife and I in the "full time" ministry. Impressed to read the Scriptures, I set the early mornings aside to spend several hours just reading the Scripture in the Thompson Bible. After a few years, I felt I should start writing down what I believed was being said by what I was reading. Doing that and not having "notes" to influence my perception of God's word , I noticed that what I was seeing from Scripture was many times not in accord with what was being preached and taught from the same thing I was reading, particularly in the area of "last things." (It was implied from the teachers that the Old and New Testament were two separate books from God, and the Old Testament was not for us today, but I was insulated from the influence of the radical Scofield stand in that area by not having his book.)

The pastors under whom I served were and Bible teachers under whom I sat were, more or less, teaching Scofield's notes, though they would deny doing any such thing. They taught what they had been taught by those they considered good men. However, those good men taught, knowingly or unknowingly, Scofield's version of the word of God. Those men under whom I sat were convince they were being true to Scripture, when in reality they were being more true to the men whom they respected highly, e.g., Several years ago, I raised a question regarding a favorite "end time" passage to a very close pastor friend. I asked him what he was going to do with the clear teaching of the passage. I was surprised when he said, "This is the way I was taught by men I respect. This is the way I have taught it, and I am not going to change now." He admitted that the passage did not say what he had been taught, yet he was willing to reject the clear teaching of the passage in favor of what he was taught by men he respected.

I soon learned that if I expressed anything contrary to what was "Politically Correct" according to Scofield (though the pastors would never admit that is what they were teaching, for they felt they were teaching Scripture), I would be mocked for not believing the word of God. However, being under the authority of the pastors of the churches we worked in, I kept the concerns to myself. But I did write down the questions and obvious contradictions between what was being taught and what I was convinced Scripture was saying. I then did serious research from Scripture concerning what appeared to me to be those contradictions.

Because what I heard and what I was reading differed so radically (e.g., Dispensationalism, among other things), I remained very quiet about the matter. I had collected books "along the way," but the books were, with few exceptions (e.g., MH) dogmatically and radically dispensational, e.g., Oliver B. Green.

I knew of no other system of exegesis. Any departure from Scofield's Arminianism was mocked and ridiculed from every acquaintance I had. Because what I was seeing from the Scripture and what all my friends and teachers were saying differed so radically, I kept quiet. I was sure I was a heretic, for I knew of no one who followed anything except Scofield's Dispensationalism.

Divine Providence moved us into the pastorate in 1983. Out from under the strong Dispensational influence of pastors and teachers, I still could not bring myself to teach anything contrary to what was "PC" to the Dispensational crowd. I could find nothing to confirm what I was confident Scripture was teaching. Though I could not present Dispensationalism with a clear conscience, I had to do it. I was not going to present anything that could be considered new with me.

A very close pastor friend got "crossways" with the Lord, and in about 1984, I bought much of his library. In his library, I found books that confirmed what I had been seeing from Scripture for the past several years, but had been afraid to teach. Thus started my progressive departure from Scofield's Dispensationalism. A copy of The London Baptist Confession of 1689 confirmed that I was not a heretic, for what I had been seeing from Scripture fit very well within that Confession. I soon learned that the earlier the books were first published, the more likely they were to be free of Scofield's Dispensationalism. So I started rebuilding my library with authors from before Scofield's time. I am especially partial to reprints, such as the ones by Klock & Klock or Sprinkle. (Preferred book list upon request. Spurgeon's commentary on the book of Matthew helped free this Baptist pastor from the Plymouth Brethrenism in which he had been trained--Matthew, The Gospel Of The Kingdom is thus quoted freely.)

The vast majority of my pastor friends, obviously, remain Darbyites/Scofieldites. The fellowships I attend are dominated by Scofieldites, so I continually hear messages according to Darby/Scofield on Matthew 24. In fact, since my public departure from what is "Politically Correct" among Darbyite/Scofieldite Baptists, and my public non-Darbyite teaching, I have even been accused of attempting to personally destroy other pastors who dogmatically hold to the Darby/Scofield version of Matthew 24.

Being continually confronted with the Scofield version of Matthew 24, and having serious problems with the consistency of what was being presented, I came to the conclusion that I needed to do something to support what I was confident was being taught by the Spirit in that passage. So about 1988, I decided to seriously study out the passage to settle in my mind what the Spirit was indeed saying in that passage: According to Scripture, was the Darby/Scofield Dispensational view right or not? The following lengthy document is a result of that study. It, along with some other things, forced me to finally lay aside Scofield's Dispensationalism, i.e.,Plymouth Brethrenism.

When I realized that an honest examination of Matthew 24 did not confirm Scofield's vision, I had to face facts and change some beliefs. The context of Matthew 24 clearly tells us that Matthew 24 was basically fulfilled in 70 AD. The problem I then had to confront was that if Matthew 24 is basically fulfilled, then many of the theories built on Matthew 24 being future had to be wrong.

The following is based upon these already documented facts:

First, Scofield's notes are the codification of Plymouth Brethren doctrine. Scofield collected and summarized John Nelson Darby's volumous notes, and placed Darby's teachings as notes and cross references in the King James Bible. (I will have to complement CIS for that task alone, for Darby's writings are as redundant and confusing as any this pastor has ever read. CIS had to have supernatural aid to make any kind of order from Darby's horrible disorder.) Darby claimed to be the fountain head of what is now known as the Plymouth Brethren. However, not only are Scofield's notes not original with him, they were not original with Darby. Darby picked up his Dispensational teaching from Edward Irving, who acquired a very large portion of it from a 1700s Jesuit priest, Lacunza, who wrote under the Jewish name, Ben-Ezra. In a book by the is pastor, The Death of Victory, the preceding facts are throughly documented.

Second, the Gospel Church is the new Israel of God. The Gospel Church is the new nation of God through which the Lord God now shows himself strong midst the evils of this world. With the death of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem, the old nation of Israel was cut off, and the new nation--the church made up of both Jews and Gentiles--was grafted into the root. The root is Christ. This fact that the Gospel Church has replaced the old nation of Israel is throughly documented in another book by this pastor, Israel's Identity/Israel's Conversion. My book on Identifying Identity also contains documentation that the Gospel Church has replaced the old nation of Israel.

The Death of Victory consists of over 400 formatted pages (in standard hard cover book format), and Israel's Identity consists of 90 8 ½ x 11 spiral bound pages. Thus both are far to long to even begin to summarize or develop again. Therefore, because the above facts are already well documented, we will develop neither in the following essay, but we will build on both.

Both The Death of Victory and Israel's Identity, as well as the following study in Matthew 24, were outgrowths of my serious examination of the Scofield faith I had been taught.

There is probably more confusion about the Lord's words in Matthew 24 than there is about any other portion of Scripture. The question arises, "Are teachers using Matthew 24 according to its context?" To answer this question, we must examine Matthew 24 in the light of its context. Matthew 24 was not given "out of the blue;" rather, it was the final statement of a message that started in Matthew 21.

Example: I was told of a man who was teaching a history class in an education seminar. He had spend the entire session developing a point he made in the final few minutes of his class. However, just before he made his concluding statement, other classes had let out, and several people from the other classes entered his class. All that those folks heard was his final few statements that he had worked hard to build to. The conclusion of what he said was fully documented, fitting perfectly into the preceding teaching. Nevertheless, those who stepped in on the conclusion did not hear the previous teaching, so to them, what he said was totally misunderstood. And the pastor has been in "hot water" every since with those who heard only his concluding statement, though the statement was totally correct. The pastor's concluding statement was clearly taken out of its context, and every pastor has had the same thing happen to him.

Clearly, those who use the statements by Christ given in Matthew 24 without the context of the passages leading up to it will misunderstand what he said. Intentional or unintentional ignorance of the context of Christ's final statements in Matthew 24 will lead to a false understanding, as it did for the pastor above.

Though there are several passages within Matthew 24 that are commonly used as prophetic passages, a close examination of the context shows that they have already been fulfilled. Prophecy is not foretelling events from the time of the reader; rather, prophecy is foretelling events from the time of the writer and/or speaker. It seems that many of the understandings of Matthew 24 making their rounds today are based on the misconception that prophecy is from the time of the modern reader.

A quick Overview

Matthew 21 takes place 5 days before his death as the Passover lamb. In Matthew 21, he offers himself to the "Jewish church" (MH), which rejects him according to prophecy. Christ then foretells "the doom of Jewish church," with his final words of doom given in Matthew 24. So we must pick up the message at the beginning and listen to it all if we will understand his concluding statements in Matthew 24.

The Lord offered himself as the King, and the common people heard him gladly. (Mt. 21:1-11.) He then exercised his authority as King when he cleansed the temple. (vv. 12-14.) It is important to note that his Kingship must start in the "temple," both in the individual temple of God's Spirit and in the public assembly. The chief priests and scribes saw what he did and how the people loved him, and they were displeased. They question him, but he does not satisfactorily answer them, starting the final conflict that will end in his prophesied death. (vv. 15, 16, Ac. 2:23.) He departs to Bethany for the night. On his returns to Jeru the next morning, he "cursed" the fig tree. While teaching in the temple, the chief priests and the elders confront him again; this time, they phalange his authority to teach. Rather than justify his authority, he questions them, and gives some parables. (Mt. 21:23-41.)

Then in v. 42, the Lord quotes to these men challenging his authority an Old Testament prophetic passage from Psalms 118:22 (The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.). The quote created quite a stir, and the chief priests and Pharisees (the Jewish religious leaders were the builders of Ps. 118:22) clearly that he was talking about them. Peter also created a stir when he said the same thing to the same men, the Jewish religious leaders. (Ac. 4:11. Peter used again, 1 Pet 2:4ff. Paul also made reference to it, Eph 2:20; therefore, it is not a statement to be taken lightly.)

Closer Look

Let us now examine the events leading up to our Lord's usage of Psalms 118:22. As we look at these things, we will also have a better understanding of Matthew 24. The events leading up to Matt. 24:21 actually start with Matthew 16:21, From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples... However, we will pick the events up starting in Matthew 21:1 (Mk. 11:1; Lk. 19:29; Jn. 12:12).

Matthew 21:1-11

Matthew's account of the order of events appears a little confusing: vv. 12 & 13 apparently are misplaced. We will, therefore, try to place it in the best order possible. The order is important, but not important enough to override what the Lord is teaching in each instance. We will follow A.T. Roberson's A Harmony of the Gospels.I will number the days, but will not call them by their places in the week:

Christ's triumphal entry on colt, weeping over city, healing in the temple:

Our Lord had a habit of spending the night in Bethany. On the morning recorded in Mark 11:1 (Matt. 21:1), as they were going to Jerusalem from Bethany, our Lord sent two disciples to get a colt. They brought the colt to him, and he sat upon it, and rode into Jerusalem. As He entered the city riding on the colt, many of those around spread in the way their garments and branches they had cut.

The account of Jesus entering Jerusalem is recorded in John 12. John 12 opens by mentioning about Lazarus; thus the multitude was here because they heard about Lazarus, whom he raised from the dead, v. 9.

As he rode into Jerusalem, the very great multitude began to rejoice and praise God, and said, Blessed is the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest, v. 9 (Lk. 19:37,38). What took place here fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies. (Isa. 62:11; Zech. 9:9.) John 12:16-18 points out that the disciples did not understand at this time what was taking place.

Luke 19:39, some of the Pharisees among the crowd saw what was going on, and asked Christ to rebuke those who were praising Him. Of course, the Pharisees saw this praise as blasphemy. V. 40, Jesus tells them that if the people do not praise Him, the stones will cry out in praise.

The religious leaders become fearful of Christ's power over the people. (Jn. 12:19.) Evil men fear anyone, truth or not, that might undermine their own evil power over people; this is one reason wicked civil authorities stand against Christianity, for genuine Christianity recognizes another King, Jesus. (Ac. 17:7.)

Drawing near to Jerusalem, Christ he wept over it. (Lk. 19:41ff.) He wept because the offer of peace brought by its King (himself) was rejected; he wept because he saw the terrible destruction that was to come upon the city because it rejected its King, v. 44. The twelve were with him as he rode into the city; they heard what he said. So Matthew 24 opens with Christ reminding the disciples of his words of Luke 19:41--the city was very soon going to be destroyed, so the disciples question him as to "when?".

We should notice what Christ did not weep over: He did not weep over what they were going to do to him; rather, he wept over the judgment of God against them for what they were going to do to him.

Note: We probably get far to concerned about what might happen to us at the hands of the ungodly, antichrist crowd; on the other hand, we have very little concern over what is going to happen to us and to those around us at the hands of God. If we had more concern toward the Lord, no doubt we would try harder to reach others with the gospel of peace, as well as teaching them God's law.

Matthew 21:10, 11, as Jesus rode into town, the question was asked, Who is this? The answer was, This is the prophet, Jesus... The point is that they did not say, "This is the Promised Messiah" despite the mighty miracles he did that day after arriving in Jerusalem, v. 14ff. He is doing the mighty works and the people are praising Him as the son of David in the temple before the eyes of the builders, the religious leaders, vv. 14-16. The religious leaders were moved with indignation, and Christ quotes the Old Testament to them, Ps 8:2. The crowd this day at the temple contained many who had witnessed the raising of Lazarus from the dead.

Matthew 21:17, Christ returns back to Bethany, Lazarus' home, and lodged there that evening.

Christ curses the tree, cleanses the temple, teaches the great multitude, and the Greeks ask to see Christ.

On the first day, Christ, riding on a colt of an ass, offered himself as the rightful king. The people rejoiced, and some of the religious leaders asked him to rebuke the disciples who were exalting him. Christ proceeds to a spot overlooking Jerusalem, and seeing its coming horrible destruction, weeps. Jesus then entered into Jerusalem, into the temple. He heals the blind and the lame who came to him in the temple. The religious leaders were moved with indignation, and again rebuked Christ. Christ then quoted Psalms 8:2 to them. Noting what is going on in the temple in the name of the "Lord," he departs for the night

The next morning, Christ returns to Jerusalem from Bethany. (Mk. 11:12ff. This is where Mt. 21:18, 19 fits.) Walking toward Jerusalem with the twelve, he hungered. And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves and thus promising figs, he went to it, expecting to find figs on it to satisfy his hunger. Upon arrival at the tree, he found nothing but leaves; for it was not the season of figs. Finding no fruit on the tree that appeared from a distance to have fruit, he says unto the tree in the presence of the twelve, No man eat fruit from thee henceforward for ever.(Mk 11:14. Matthew says, Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever, 21:19.)

Mark makes an interesting comment about this tree (11:13): it had many leaves but no fruit, for it was not the season of figs. Then in Matthew 21:20, we read, when the disciples saw it. According to Mark's account (11:20ff.), they passed that way again the next morning. In other words, they did not see the withered tree until the next morning (the third morning in our counting).

The account of the fig tree is one of the more significant events of Christ's ministry, for it opens the way for some very hostile confrontations with the religious leaders. Our Lord was in a habit of presenting a teaching, and then illustrating his teaching in a manner easily understood by the average person. The instance with the tree is one of those times.

The Fig Tree

The picture of the fig tree is used at times to illustrate the nation of Israel. (Mk. 13:28, Mk. 24:32, Lk. 21:29.) So let us observe a few basic points concerning this account of the fig tree:

First, the Lord was hungry, and desired fruit from it.

Second, he walked to it, expecting to find fruit for his enjoyment though he knew it was not the season for figs. Why did Christ expect to find figs when he knew it was not time for figs? An answer is given by John Gill:
 

And when he saw a fig tree, &c.] In the Greek text it is "one fig tree", one remarkable fig tree: he must see a great many, as he went along; for a large tract of the Mount Of Olives was full of fig trees, and therefore called "Bethphage": and notice has been taken already of the figs of Bethany: but he saw none that had such large and spreading leaves as this; for it was the time when the fig tree was just budding, and putting forth its leaves: wherefore he took notice of it; and though it was "afar off", as Mark says, yet being hungry, he made up to it, expecting, from its promising appearance, to find fruit on it. This fig tree was "in the way"; by the road side, and probably had no owner; was common to any body, and so no injury was done to any person by losing it: he came to it,
and found nothing thereon but leaves only: Mark says, "he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon"; which must be understood of him as man; for as he hungered as man, so he judged and expected as man, from the appearance of this fig tree, that he might find fruit upon it; and which is no contradiction to his deity, and his having the spirit of God, as the Jew {t} objects; and especially since, as Bishop Kidder {u} observes, such an expectation is attributed to God himself, in Isa 5:2,4 and it may be added, and with regard to that people, of which this fig tree was an emblem, and designed by Christ to be considered as such in what he did to it. The same evangelist further observes, "and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet". The word "yet" is not in the original text; which last clause is a reason, either why he found no fruit, or nothing but leaves upon it, because it was not a time, or season of figs: it was not a good fig year, so Dr. Hammond interprets it; and yet though it was not, since this tree was so very flourishing, fruit might have been expected on it: and also, it furnishes out a reason why Christ took so much pains to go to it, seeing there were very few figs to be had elsewhere, and this bid very fair to supply him with some in this time of scarcity: or else, as a reason why, besides its promising appearance, he expected fruit upon it, because the time of figs, that is, of the gathering of the figs, was not come: in which sense the phrase is used in Mt 21:34; [And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.] and is Bishop Kidder's interpretation of the passage: and since therefore the time was not come for the ingathering of the figs, none had been taken off of it, the more might be expected on it. This sense would be very probable, did it appear that figs were usually ripe about this time; but the contrary seems manifest, both from Scripture, which represents the fig tree putting forth its leaves, as a sign the summer is nigh, Mt 24:32 and from the Talmudists, who say {w}, that the beginning of leaves, or putting forth of the leaves of trees, is in the month Nisan, the month in which the Passover was kept, and so the then present time of the year; and who, from this time, reckon three times fifty days, or five full months before the figs are ripe {x}: so that these words are rather a reason why Christ did not expect to find figs on other trees, which he saw in great abundance as he passed along, because the time of common, ordinary figs being ripe, was not come; and why he particularly expected to find some on this tree, because it being full of leaves, appeared to be of a different kind from other fig trees: and was either of that sort which they call ..., "Benoth Shuach", as Dr. Lightfoot conjectures which were a kind of white figs that were not ripe till the third year {y}. This tree put forth its fruit the first year, which hung on it the second, and were brought to perfection on the third: so that when it was three years old, it had fruit of the first, second, and third year on it: this being such a tree, by its being full of leaves, when others had none, or were just putting out, fruit, of one year, or more might have been expected on it, when it had none at all, and therefore was cursed: or it might be one of that sort which brought forth fruit twice a year; for of such sort of fig trees we read in the Jewish writings {z}: and therefore though it was not the time of the common figs being ripe, yet this being one of the seasons, in which this tree bore ripe fruit, and being so very flourishing, might reasonably be expected from it: but there being none,
he said unto it, let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever; or, as it is expressed in Mark, "no man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever": for if none grew on it henceforward, no man could hereafter eat of it. Both expressions design the same thing, the perpetual barrenness of the fig tree:
and presently the fig tree withered away: immediately, upon Christ's saying these words, its sap was dried up, it lost its verdure; its leaves were shrivelled and shrunk up, and dropped off, and the whole was blasted. This tree was an emblem of the Jews: Christ being hungry, and very desirous of the salvation of men, came first to them, from whom, on account of their large profession of religion, and great pretensions to holiness, and the many advantages they enjoyed, humanly speaking, much fruit of righteousness might have been expected; but, alas! he found nothing but mere words, empty boasts, an outward show of religion, an external profession, and a bare performance of trifling ceremonies, and oral traditions; wherefore Christ rejected them, and in a little time after, the kingdom of God, the Gospel, was taken away from them, and their temple, city, and nation, entirely destroyed.
{t} R. Isaac, Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 30. p. 421. {u} Demonstration of the Messiah, par. 2. p. 38. {w} Jarchi & Bartenora in Misn. Sheviith, c. 4. sect. 10. {x} T. Hieros. Sheviith, fol. 35. 4. {y} Misn. Sheviith, c. 5. sect. 1. & Demai, c. 1. sect. 1. & Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. {z} Misn. Demai, c. 1. sect. 1. & Maimon. in ib. T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 18. 1. (John Gill, Online Bible. I strongly urge the reader to check "Irenaeus Against Heresies," The Anti-Nicene Fathers, 1.514-518. Irenaeus deals with not only the fig tree, but the parables from Mt. 21-Mt. 24.)

"This tree was an emblem of the Jews..." The man Christ Jesus came to his own people, the Jewish nation. Having no fruit of righteousness and having only "mere words, empty boasts, an outward show of religion, an external profession, and a bare performance of trifling ceremonies, and oral traditions," Christ rejected them. "The Kingdom of God, the Gospel, was taken from them," and they were entirely destroyed. There will be several illustrations between this point of the fig tree and Matthew 24 that will illustrate the coming total destruction of the nation represented by the fig tree.

Third, all he found on this tree were leaves. The tree looked good from a distance; it looked like there was fruit on it; it would have fooled the casual observer; it looked like a healthy, fruit-bearing fruit tree except when our Lord went to it, there was none.

Fourth, because there was no fruit on it for our Lord, he cursed it.

Fifth, the tree withered up and died.

Sixth, the Lord was the one who was hungry, not his disciples. He went to the tree for is own benefit, expecting fruit for his own self.

We need to keep the points about the tree in mind because it illustrates what was going to take place--the activities, sermons and confrontations with the leaders of Israel--over the next days.

Cleansing the Temple

Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15 and Luke 19:45 all say that Christ continued to Jerusalem, and, upon entering the temple, He cleansed it again as He did at the start of His ministry. (Jn. 2:13-22.) Christ casts out the ones buying and selling, changing money and those casually walking through the temple as a short cut. (Mk. 11:15-18.) After cleansing the temple, he taught the people. Christ also healed all who came to him; the healing of the blind and the lame irrefutably established his authority from the Father, the God of the temple, to both cleanse it and teach God's word in it. (Jn. 14:11.) Those who claimed the authority that they now saw Christ removing from them could not do what he was doing. All they could do was get angry with him. (Mt. 21:14,15.) Luke 19:47, says that he was teaching daily in the temple, implying more than one day. (Luke tells us that Christ returned each evening to the mount of Olives, apparently the same place as Bethany, 21:37.)<$FSee "Throw the Bums Out," App A.>

Greek Worshipers

Having cleansed the temple without their authority, the religious leaders were mad. Though they desired to destroy him, the crowd gathered around listening to Christ prevented them from moving at this time. Now John 12:20-50 fits in. Before returning to Bethany (or the mount of Olives) the night of the second day after he had cleansed the temple, certain Greeks, i.e., Gentiles, who had come to the temple for the feast asked to see Jesus.We know their desire was sincere, for they were in Jerusalem at the time of the feast to worship God. Up to this point, the Lord had continually refused to permit non-Jews to approach him, but now he apparently welcomes the Greeks. The Lord, vv. 32ff., tells the disciples that from the point that will shortly arrive, all men everywhere will be drawn to himself by the Spirit. The Lord's message in this passage (vv. 22-50), speaks of the very soon opening of the way of life to all nation because of the rejection by the Jews (v. 48).

In response, Jesus preaches another message, saying that the time of his glorification is at hand. His soul istroubled over the hardness of the Jews and their reaction of him, and over the coming destruction of the Jews, their religion and their city for their hardness of heart--he had wept over the city. His soul is troubled over the suffering and death he is about to endure, but for this cause he came to this point in his life. His voiced his desire was to glorify the heavenly Father, and the Father voiced his approval in the hearing of all present. The heavenly voice, which some attributed to an angel or to thunder, was for the benefit of the people: it left all the people, leaders included, without excuse.

He spoke of the manner of his death, lifted up from the earth. He spoke of the judgment of the world and the condemnation of the prince of this world:

 

Ver. 31. Now is the judgment of this world, &c.] That is, in a very short time will be the judgment either of the Jewish world, when that shall be reproved, convinced, and condemned for their sin of rejecting Christ, and crucifying him, by the spirit, in the ministration of the Gospel; and they still continuing in their impenitence and unbelief, in process of time wrath will come upon them, upon their nation, city, and temple, to the uttermost; or of the Gentile world, when there shall be a discrimination, and separation made in it, of the chosen of God, who shall be called by special grace, and with the converted and believing Jews, shall form a Gospel church state, separate from the world of the ungodly; or of the world of God's elect among Jews and Gentiles, whose cause, being undertook by Christ, he will now vindicate it, and redeem them from sin and Satan, who have usurped a power and dominion over them: hence it follows,

now shall the prince of this world be cast out. The phrase, ..., "the prince of the world", is much used by Jewish writers {d}, by whom an angel is meant; and they seem to design the angel of death, which is the devil: and it is certain, that he is here intended, and is so called, not because he has any legal power and authority over the world; but because he has usurped a dominion over it, and has great power and efficacy in the hearts of the children of disobedience, who yield a voluntary subjection to him, as if he was their proper lord and sovereign: now the time was at hand, when he should be cast out of the empire of the world he had assumed, and out of the temples of the Gentiles, and out of the hearts of God's elect among them. (John Gill.)

Gill verifies our conclusions:

First, the world judged was the Jewish world that rejected Christ (pictured by the cursed fig tree).

Second, when the Lord spoke at this point, Satan's usurped power and dominion over the world and its inhabitants was about to be broken by the Lord by his death and restriction.

Note 2 Corinthians 4:4:

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

But the Lord in John 12:31 identifies Satan as the prince of this world. Therefore, the god of v. 4 is the Lord God, creator of heaven and earth.

The Gospel Door

Christ is saying that the door of the gospel is about to be opened to all the peoples of the world, whosoever will. Clearly implied is that these Greeks, i.e., Gentiles, who are seeking to worship the true God at the temple and who are wanting to see Jesus are a forerunner of what will come--the door to the kingdom of God is about to be opened to all the peoples of the world, and the Gentiles will "flood" into the kingdom. He gives the terms of admittance to the kingdom of God, and the terms have nothing to do with any physical relationship to the saints of old, nor with any kind of temple ritual. Christ is the new temple, a fact he has made abundantly clear, and will make several more times.

The request of the Greeks to see Christ brought about his message. Christ clearly spoke all these things, yet his antagonists could not understand what he was saying--they could not understand that he was the promised Messiah of the Old Testament. Christ's words, his actions (miracles) and even the heavenly voice could not get through to them that he was the Promised One of the Old Testament. Christ warned many times that their rejection of himself would lead to the annihilation of their nation. Though they well understood that he spoke against them, they could not understand the truth about Christ. So for his one safety, he had to hide himself from the religious leaders. He probably retired to Bethany.

The author gives the reason that the leaders of the people could not see who Jesus was, and, accordingly, were unable to believe on him. John inserts this statement, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled (v. 38, Isa. 53:1). Christ so clearly fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies concerning himself that the blindness of the leaders had to be supernatural, For this cause (v. 39. Isa. 6:10, etc.). However, John also points out that many of the Jewish rulers did believe upon Christ, yet they loved the praise of men more than the glory, praise of God. (Jn. 12:40-43.) Christ continues to plead with the hardened people to believe on him. (Jn. 12:44-50.)

A short time later, after the restriction, Peter points out (Ac. 2:23) that it was the council and foreknowledge of God that prevented their belief. God prevented their believing upon Christ so his eternal purpose would be accomplished. Yet some did believe, but not enough though to change God's eternal purpose. If enough leaders to sway the vote for Christ had believed, Christ would not have been put to death.

Election

God's eternal purpose prevented those from believing, which would change his plan for the ages. So what about the obvious hardness of hearts to the word of God and the gospel today? Scripture is clear--God is working his eternal purpose and plan. Therefore, the salvation of souls will be done within the sovereign Tri-Une God's purpose and plan.

"Okay! So what's the use of working so hard to reach everyone?"

Answers:

1) We are commanded to.
2) Christ did. He preached consistently to those who he knew were blinded to who and what he was.
3) Among the hardened ones (hardened by God) were ones who would believe. Therefore, we have no way of knowing who will believe and who will not.
4) We also have Peter's example, as well as Stephen's and Paul's. These men continued preaching to those hardened in their rebellion against Christ. God kept pulling a few at a time out of the antichrist crowd.

Though the antichrist crowd may be as hard as it was in Christ's day, we must continue on doing all we can to reach and teach them for God's glory. We can be assured that after we have done our very best for him, standing firm upon his word, that his eternal purpose is being accomplished, even in and through the antichrist crowd.

Jesus cleansed the temple of the irreligious, and preached a powerful and pleading sermon (Jn. 20:44-50.) He then returned to Bethany for the evening.

Christ returns to Jerusalem, his disciples see the tree withered, Christ teaches on faith, and he very pointedly confronts the Jewish religious leaders, the chief priests and the elders of the people (i.e., Sanhedrin), the builders.

Mark 11:19ff., Matthew 21:19-22, Christ departs on the evening of the day he cleansed the temple, the day he preached the message when the Greeks came to him. He returns the next morning (the third day), and the disciples see the tree that the Lord spoke to the previous morning--it is totally withered away. When Peter comments on it, the Lord uses it as a teaching example on prayer: all things whatsoever ye pray and ask for, believing that ye have received them, and ye shall have them, Mark 11:24 (Mt. 21:19-22. We also should look for and even make opportunities to teach about prayer.)

Matthew 21:23ff. (Mk. 11:27ff., Lk. 20:1ff.)

They enter into the temple again, and Christ continues teaching. Remember, the previous day Christ had cleansed out the temple of its robbers and thieves. In doing so, Christ claimed authority from the God of the temple to do such a thing, he claimed authority over the temple, which was at that time identified as the house of God. When Christ cleansed the temple, he also claimed the authority to judge--that is, to pass judgment on what was taking place in the "house of God" and in the hearts of the people. He called them thieves and robbers. The people knew what was going on with these merchants, for they were be ones being robbed. They loved what he did, and their support prevented the leaders from forcing Christ to quit his healing and teaching.

Christ's authority to do these things in the temple is challenged by the rulers of the Israelite nation, the chief priests and the elders of the people: They demand of him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?

Observe:

First, those in power have always done everything within their power at every opportunity to disgrace Christ before the people, to undermine his message and win them away from Christ the Saviour.

Second, the question, "Who gave you the authority to do what you have done and are doing here in the temple?" is the same question asked of Peter, "Who gave you authority to teach here in the temple?" (Ac. 4.) They might as well have added to their question, "We didn't give the authority; therefore, you had and have no authority."

Third, the answer: "Where did John get his authority to baptize? You didn't give it to him, so who did? God or man (the religious leaders or Rome)?" These men were not about to answer him because they knew if they said, "From men," the people would stone them. They knew if they said, "From God," then Jesus would say, "Why did you not believe him?" They took the safe way out, and said, "We don't know" (Mt. 21:23-27, Lk. 20:1-8). Christ said, "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things."

Actually, he had many times already made it clear by what authority he taught and acted, e.g., John 12:20-50. (Cf., Jn. 9:27.) So, obviously, they intended to use the answer they were sure he would give, "My Father in Heaven," to accuse him of blasphemy before the people, but our Lord turned it on them.

The Parables

The Two Sons, Matthew 21:28ff.

Christ continues to confront the wicked religious leaders, this time with a parable of a man with two sons. He concludes parable by telling the religious leaders that the worse of sinners would enter the kingdom before they would, for they refused to realize their sinful condition and repent despite Christ's mighty works.

Following Matthew's account, we are told that a man had two sons, both of whom he told to go work in the vineyard. One had the outward formality of obedience (the leaves on the tree), saying, "Okay Dad, I'll do it." However, inwardly he was disobedient--he did not do the will of his father. (See The Biblical Examiner, "The New Pharisees.") Contrariwise, the other son first said, "No, Dad I won't do it." However, inwardly he repented of his disobedient spirit--he did the will of his father.

Note the contrast, which had already been made for the disciples. Referring back to the fig tree, the Lord of the vineyard sought fruit from a tree that looked good, yet he found none. There was no fruit on the tree that looked like it should have had fruit.

Jesus then pins them down: "The publicans (sinners) and harlots are better than you, for they had no appearance of fruit (obedience). Yet they repented, and became fruit-bearers at John's preaching of repentance. Whereas you have all of the outward signs of a fruitful tree, yet you refused to believe John's preaching. Therefore, the ones who said 'no' yet repented and obeyed, are better than you who said 'yes' yet disobey. You reject the one John preached to you about."

The Vineyard, Matthew 21:33ff.

Our Lord does not stop. Remember the fig tree! All of his messages this third day in the temple fit within the illustration of the fig tree from the day before. The illustration for his parables is the fig tree, which was cursed for having no fruit on it even though it looked fruitful--it withered away to nothing.

He continues to speak specifically to the chief priests, scribes, elders (rulers and leaders of the Hebrew nation), moving right on to another parable, "Listen to me" (v. 33). Continuing, he says, A certain householder... ( Doing all he could for his vineyard to keep it alive, he planted it, and hedged it about for protection from its enemies. He also prepared a place to receive the fruit from it.

Isaiah 5:1ff., clearly tells us that this vineyard was the congregation of the Lord or the Old Testament Jewish Church:

 

In this parable a certain householder did all that could be done for his vineyard: it was well planted, andhedged round about, provided with a wine-press digged in the rock, and guarded by a tower built for the purpose. Even so the Jewish Church had been created, trained, guarded, and fully furnished by the Lord: "For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant " (Isaiah v. 7). Everything was in good order for the production of fruit, so that the Lord was able to say, "What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it ?" (Isaiah v. 4.)
The owner went into a far country, and committed the estate to husbandmen, who were to take care of it for him, and yield to him a certain share of the produce as the rent. Thus the great Lord of Israel left the nation under the care of priests, and kings, and men of learning, who should have cultivated this heritage of Jehovah for him, and yielded up to him the fruit of this choice vineyard. God for a while seemed gone from his chosen people, for miracles had ceased; but this should have made the scribes and priests the more watchful, even as good servants are the more awake to guard the estate of their master when he is away. [Spurgeon, MATTHEW, 184.]

The Lord created, trained, guarded and fully equipped it to bring praise to Himself, Isa. 5:4-7. The householderlet out the vineyard (turned it over to the care of others), and went into a far country. The men were to take care of the vineyard (his heritage) while he was gone; they were to cultivate and protect it. Then upon his return, they were to give his portion to him.

The Old Testament congregation of the Lord (OT Israel) was left in the care of priests, kings and men of learning. For a time, God seemed to have departed from Israel. Though the owner's absence should have caused these men to be even more watchful and faithful over his estate, it did not. Rather, they became very lax, and failed to give the householder his just due (observe the parables of our Lord in Mt. 25).

V. 34, the householder left his vineyard in the care of the husbandmen until the time when he could expect the vineyard to bear fruit. The leaders of the nation (the husbandmen) were not giving to their owner (the Lord) his just honor, love nor service, his legitimate inheritance. Rather, these husbandmen did all they could to retain it, the inheritance, for themselves. Therefore, the householder sent his servants--the prophets--to the nation with his message to give unto the householder, the Lord of Glory, his due. The prophets of old continually called the nation to repentance.

V. 35, his servants delivered the warnings to give the householder what belonged to him (e.g., Ps. 80, Isa. 5, Jer. 2, 19, Ho. 4). However, the leaders of the people, desiring to keep the vineyard (Lord's heritage) and its fruit to themselves, not only rejected the warnings, but they killed the messengers (see Mt. 23:34-37, Heb. 11:36-38). The religious leaders of the nation resisted every effort by the servants of God to call his people back to the Lord, and render obedient service to the householder according to his law. The husbandmen enjoyed the fruits for themselves by keeping the people in terrible bondage. (Cf. Lk. 11:37ff.)

V. 36, the householder, being an exceptionally patient man, sent more servants to plead with them to return and submit to the householder. No doubt the householder thought, "Surely, if I warn them enough, they will listen, repent and turn back." But no! they continued to reject the messengers.

Note: Those attempting to overthrow God not only will refuse to listen to reason, but will persecute and kill those who try to reason with them. Not only does the ungodly crowd today desire to rebel against God and take what is rightfully his, but they will persecute and even kill his messengers who try to call the "vineyard" back to its owner--unjust stewards will not tolerate any attempt to call into Scriptural account their actions against thehouseholder

There is another interesting point here that continually appears throughout Scripture. It appears several times in this short confrontation with these unjust Jewish leaders--v. 33, And let it out to husbandmen. Romans 13:1--God ordained the powers that be; God is the one who placed the wicked husbandmen in the position of authority over his heritage. The reason he placed them in authority was to protect the vineyard and to render to the him the fruit, the honor and glory. God placed the authorities, religious and civil, here, and the authorities did not do right.

When they did not do right, God sent his prophets to warn both the leaders and the people. Not only did the leaders reject the warning (they loved their place of authority, book of Zeph.), but the people loved to be without the law of God, so they could follow after their own lusts (book of Hos. See Jer. 5:31).

God warned both the husbandman (the religious and civil rulers) and the vineyard (the people) to repent, or he would destroy them. Both refused to heed his warning, so not only did he hold the leaders responsible for refusing to glorify God as God (Rom. 1:21), but He also held the people responsible for refusing to glorify God as God. The people followed the leaders in their rebellion, which also moved God to bring judgment. (Jer. 15:4, Hos. 5:21; 8:4.)

Yes, the householder established the husbandmen in their places of power and authority. In their places, they rebelled against the landowner, bringing his wrath against them. The people followed the husbandmen in their rebellion against the householder, making his wrath even more terrible. (See Rom. 2.)

Illustration

A householder planted grapevines, setting keepers over the vines. The one who planted the vines knew what laws were required to protect the vines and for the vines to grow properly and bear good fruit. He gave these laws to the keepers, telling then what they had to do to keep the vines save, healthy and prosperous. As the keepers departed from the laws established by the householder, the vines grew toward the unjust keepers. When the keepers failed to follow the laws established by the householder for the good of the vines, the vines went wild. Without pruning (with the Sword of the Spirit, the word of God), the vines became useless. Over a period of time, the vines became so wild and useless that all that could be done with them was cut them off and graft in new ones. However, though the unjust husbandmen allowed the vines to go wild, there were a few vines that remained good; there were a few (a remnant if you please) that continued to bare fruit--they welcomed thehouseholder with his fruit, and they were praised by the householder.

Thus we see that just because husbandmen are established by God (for all power is established by him according to his good pleasure and for our good) does not mean that the vines are to follow them. Though the husbandmen depart from the instructions of the householder, the vine still belongs to the householder, and is still responsible to glorify the householder. The vine must fear him who has the power to kill both body and soul, and the husbandmen do not have that power. All who refuses to glorify God as God will receive the just reward.

Matthew 21:33-36 was specifically spoken to the Jewish nation that Christ is confronting through its leaders. The application is as broad as all of time and space--God is God over everyone and everything. Accordingly, all who refuse to glorify God as God over everything will be destroyed, v. 41. Might God in his mercy see fit to give us the grace to remain faithful to himself.

Note also that the failure of the servants (i.e., the prophets sent by God) to bring the fruit back to thehouseholder was not their fault. They were faithful to the owner even to the death of some. The fault was with the husbandmen. The requirement of all time is to be faithful. (1 Cor. 4:2.)

V. 37, the householder could have determined to punish and destroy the wicked husbandmen for treating his servants so mean, but he did not. Rather, he had mercy, and in that mercy, he sent his son to them, hoping the husbandmen would show respect to the son.

This was the last chance for these wicked husbandmen who had been given charge over the vineyard: "Surely,they will reverence my son, and give to him what they refused to give to the servants whom I have already sent. He is the heir to it all, so surely they will realize who he is and honor him. He cannot fail."

V. 38, our Lord brought out into the open what was going on in the secret recesses of the heart without ever calling a name--this is preaching at its best. Notice what he said.

1) The chief priests, Pharisees and the elders of the people knew who Christ was. They knew he was the Messiah. In this exchange with them (21:23-23:39), Christ plainly told them that he knew what they were doing. They knew the way into the kingdom of heaven, yet they not only refused to enter, but they did all they could to prevent others from entering, 23:13.

2) After they saw the son and knowing who he was (this is the heir), they secretly counseled among themselves how to get rid of him. (See Ps. 2.) Matthew 26:3-5 records one account of their secret consulting against the son--daring not to do it openly, they did it among themselves.

3) Envy was the reason for their secret counsel--they wanted what the son had. Even Pilate realized that envy was the motive for their desire to kill the son. (Mt. 27:18.)

4) They saw his murder as their means to take what was rightfully his--they longed (lusted) after what Christ had. They saw him as a threat to their power and authority, so their goal was to get rid of the one whom all the people were following. They were willing to do anything to get the people to again follow themselves. (Jn. 12:19.)

Note: Evil men have not changed, whether inside or outside the religious community. Carnal men have only one goal and motive behind their actions, i.e., "Gold, glory and gals." Carnal men will not only compromise but boldly "sell out" our Lord for any of these things. I could not count the number of "godly" people who have departed from Scripture to follow any of these three things.

Home Topics

From the time of the fall of the evil one, men have been trying every means possible to cast off the bands and cords of his law. (Ps. 2.) And secret counsels are not new today. The exposure of the secret counsels may be new, but the counsels have always existed. The secret counsels will continue as long as there are carnal men who walk after the desires of their own hearts. (Ja. 4:1-5. Note the conspiracy is evil men operating in the "name of the Lord" against the law-word of God, Jer. 11:9, Ez. 22:25.)

The Word of God, Christ, laid the secrets of the heart right out in the light for all to see. Needless to say, he had not read, "How to Win Friends and Influence People," because his words caused serious hostility. (Mt. 21:46.)

A purpose of the word of God is to reveal and expose the secret things of the heart to the light of the Son. (Heb. 4:12. Paul made even professed Christians his enemy with the truth, which is typical of carnal men, Ga. 4:16. Moreover, the amount of offense taken over the truth shows the love for God's word, viz. the more love, the less offense, Ps. 119:165.)

Though they claimed to love God and his law, the wicked sought to put Christ to death as he exposed their evil deeds done in darkness. They sought to do away with the one whom they saw as a threat to their power and position. Men have not changed: 1) The carnal will become offended with the truth; 2) those with the wrong motive will stand against anyone or anything threatening to their positions; and 3) there will be persecution (even to the point of death) of all kinds against those who not only reveal secret wicked devices, but who counter them with the word of God. (Mk. 13:13, Lk. 21:17, Jn. 15:18-27, 17:14.)

John 15 is a very powerful passage along this line, especially vv. 18-20. Our Lord makes it clear that his message delivered for use by his servants will cause hatred from the world toward his servants. Observe: The "gospel" (death, burial, resurrection, justification) does not cause hatred; rather, hatred is stirred when the truth of God's word is used to expose sin. (Jn. 15:24, 25.) The hatred is not because his followers have done wrong or said the wrong thing; the hatred is from his followers doing the right thing and speaking the truth in the face of the departure from God's law-word, apostasy. Hatred is excited when the word of God is used to call sin sin. (1 Jn. 3:4.)

When the word of God exposes the secret, hidden things of the heart, it will get the same response Christ received. Why do the ones involved in sin hate the righteous without a cause? Because their deeds (or hearts) are evil--they hate anyone or anything that might expose their evil.

Attempting to retain their hold on sin and on the people, these evil men made their secret plans to get the Truth away from them.

V. 39, speaking as a prophet, our Lord clearly tells these men what they are going to do, and they did it. They caught him in the garden of Gethsemane; they cast him out in their council in the hall of Caiaphas; they led him out of the city of Jerusalem, and they slew Him at Calvary. They slew the heir, resulting in their swift judgment less than a generation (i.e., 40 years) later.

Notice: Not only does he tell them what they are going to do, but he tells them what they have done in private. Evidently, it has not occurred to them at this point that he is clearly exposing the thoughts and intents of their hearts before the multitudes.

V. 40, he puts the question straight to them. Instead of caring for the vineyard, the husbandmen usurped the vineyard; they then mistreated and abused every messenger the householder sent to them. Finally, they killed the only son of the owner, hoping to seize the inheritance. Christ then asks, When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

Evidently, our Lord seems to have caught them off guard. They may have been so intent on catching a wrong word from him that they were not really paying any attention to what he was saying. Vv. 23-27, they sought to trap our Lord with words, but he reverses the trap--the hunters became the hunted. They saw the first trap (John the Baptist, v. 27), and avoided it. But now the experts at words are caught in the trap of words. Men may make their best attempts to make Christ (Christianity) look foolish, but they will be caught in their own vain attempts. Therefore, they speak right up with the answer in v. 41, 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.Out of their own mouths they condemn themselves.

Three points to notice from v. 41:

First, they called the husbandmen wicked men. They could not avoid this answer, for the parable was clear and plain. The word of God always causes fallen man to condemn himself, convicting of sin. (Jn. 16:8.)

Second, they call for the destruction of the husbandmen by the householder. Any person in his right mind would do as they said this householder would do. The householder had been abundantly patient with thesehusbandmen, sending a many servants to them. In fact, the average man would have moved against these wicked men at the first or second abuse of a servant. The Lord's parable clearly gave the landowner the right to move against the wicked men. As the facts were presented to the hearers, it was so clear that even they had to admit it was justice to destroy the wicked men. (The application seems to be hid from them at this time.)

The justly deserved destruction called for in this parable came with their utter destruction when the God of heaven visited Jerusalem. He sent his army (Rome, the most powerful army of the day) in the terrible avenging of the blood of His righteous servants and of his son. (See 23:34-39.)

Third, the householder will take the vineyard from the wicked men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, which will render him the fruits in their seasons. The facts again are so obvious that even these wicked men had to agree the householder is right.

Note that our Lord boiled down well over four thousand years of history into just seven verses (from Abel to Christ), which, no doubt, kept the application hidden. We are so used to time restrictions that it is very difficult for us to grasp something like the Lord did. Here our Lord used thousands of years as though it were but a few days. We seem to feel that if an event does not happen within a few days, it will not happen at all. Worse yet, if we do not see promised results almost immediately, we have a hard time getting excited over the promises found in God's word.

On the other hand, the devils crowd gets very excited over plans reaching hundreds of years into the future. They will joyfully invest unlimited money, time and energy in something they know will not bring results for hundreds of years. Christians see nothing but failure to invest in the kingdom of God while the pagans see nothing but success to invest in the kingdom of men. Seemingly, the average Christian just can not see past his or her own generation or maybe the children's. God help us to see past our lifetime. (See "The Death of Victory," by Pastor Need.) Christian shortsightedness is costing us the world, and is bringing sure judgment against unfaithful stewardship.

Note again the answer by the wicked in v. 41: Back in v. 25, they were able to reason out their answer concerning John, avoiding the trap; yet here they rushed headlong into the trap. Obviously, their eyes were blinded.

Now the second part of the answer in v. 41: Let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him fruit in their season. The Lord's vineyard passed from these wicked men to men who would be faithful in their trust--it passed from these religious leaders to the Apostles and on to the Gospel Church.

Matthew 13:11 (Mk. 4:11, Isa 29:10) points out that Jesus spoke in parables in order that the wicked husbandmen could not understand, resulting in the kingdom being transferred to the Apostles, and then to the Gospel Church. Matthew 5 describes the laws governing the kingdom of God, and those abiding by those laws are the keepers and heirs of this kingdom. The Jewish religious rulers sure were contrary to the laws of God's kingdom (see also, Jn. 3).

We are told of the transfer of God's kingdom from Old Testament Israel to the New Testament Israel of God (Gal. 6:16. See Israel's Identity/Israel's Conversion by this author) in a great many other passages, e.g.,

 

Matthew 8:12 talks about the children of the kingdom being cast out because they rejected the Son; they were to be replaced by those who receive the Son. The kingdom (vineyard) is given to those who will return the praise, honor and glory back to the householder. The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness..., speaking speaking of the religious (as well as civil) leaders of the people of God (Jewish nation) who absolutely refused Him. (Mt. 21:41.)

St. Peter and the Keys

Matthew 16:19, Christ gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven: The keys being, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God--the salvation profession. (The Gentile version is Rom. 10:9-15.)The keys can be defined thusly:

 

A metaphor taken from stewards who carry the keys: and here is set forth the power of the ministers of the word, as Isa 22:22 says, and that power is common to all ministers, as # Mt 18:18 says, and therefore the ministry of the gospel may rightly be called the key of the kingdom of heaven.
They are bound whose sins are retained; heaven is shut against them, because they do not receive Christ by faith: on the other hand, how happy are they to whom heaven is open, who embrace Christ and are delivered by him, and become fellow heirs with him! (Geneva, Online Bible.)
The Keys of the kingdom (tas kleidas tês basileias). Here again we have the figure of a building with keys to open from the outside. The question is raised at once if Jesus does not here mean the same thing by "kingdom" that he did by "church" in verse 18. In Re 1:18; 3:7 Christ the Risen Lord has "the keys of death and of Hades." He has also "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" which he here hands over to Peter as "gatekeeper" or "steward" (oikonomos) provided we do not understand it as a special and peculiar prerogative belonging to Peter. The same power here given to Peter belongs to every disciple of Jesus in all the ages. Advocates of papal supremacy insist on the primacy of Peter here and the power of Peter to pass on this supposed sovereignty to others. But this is all quite beside the mark. We shall soon see the disciples actually disputing again (Mt 18:1) as to which of them is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven as they will again (20:21) and even on the night before Christ's death. Clearly neither Peter nor the rest understood Jesus to say here that Peter was to have supreme authority. What is added shows that Peter held the keys precisely as every preacher and teacher does. To "bind" (dêsêis) in rabbinical language is to forbid, to "loose" (lusêis) is to permit. Peter would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school of Hillel "loosed" many things that the school of Schammai "bound." The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers of Christ. Note the future perfect indicative (estai dedemenon, estai lelumenon), a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter's use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ. The binding and loosing is repeated by Jesus to all the disciples (18:18). Later after the Resurrection Christ will use this same language to all the disciples (Joh 20:23), showing that it was not a special prerogative of Peter. He is simply first among equals, primus inter pares, because on this occasion he was spokesman for the faith of all. It is a violent leap in logic to claim power to forgive sins, to pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. The proclamation of these terms when accepted by faith in Christ has the sanction and approval of God the Father. The more personal we make these great words the nearer we come to the mind of Christ. The more ecclesiastical we make them the further we drift away from him. (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament.)

The keys of the kingdom are thus held by every Christian--it is the gospel message. The unsaved are "locked out" of the kingdom without the gospel message. (1 Cor. 1:21.)

Peter's profession is the only way into the kingdom of heaven, and the Jewish leaders, as a whole, absolutely refused to enter. However, many did enter on an individual basis. The leaders knew the way; they knew he was the son. (Mt. 21:38, 23:13.) Rather than making the way clear to the people to enable the