His Word Today

⁴³ “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. ⁴⁴ And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”  ⁴⁵ When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. ⁴⁶ And although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet.” (Matthew 21:43–46 (ESV)

Following His initial question to the religious leaders (Matt. 21:40-42), Jesus brings the full weight of the parables’ application to bear. It was a statement of judgment, blessing and promised truth. 

The judgment was the chief priests and the elders would lost the kingdom of God (Matt. 21:23). They would experience the reality of the Lord’s judgment. Their self-righteousness would be seen for what it was; filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6).

The blessing was the Lord would give the kingdom to a people producing fruits of true conversion (Gal. 5:16-26). These kingdom citizens would not only be Jews but also Gentiles. In other words, the Lord would create the church (Eph. 2:11-22).

The promise was the kingdom would not be moved or overthrown by the self-righteousness of a man-made works-based salvation. The kingdom would be a like a gigantic stone.

“Christ is “a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over” to unbelievers (Isa. 8:14; 1 Pet. 2:9). And the prophet Daniel pictured him as a great stone “cut from a mountain by no human hand,” which falls on the kingdoms of the world and crushes them (Dan. 2:44–45). Whether a ceramic vessel “falls on” a rock, or the rock “falls” on the vessel, the result is the same. The saying suggests that both enmity and apathy are wrong responses to Christ, and those guilty of either are in danger of judgment,” explains Dr. John MacArthur.

Matthew recorded the enmity of the religious leaders towards Jesus. They understood He was speaking about them. Their wanted to arrest Jesus. Being cowards, they refrained because they were afraid of the people who regarded Jesus a prophet of God.

“In fulfillment of Psalm 118:22, the rejected Son is the “cornerstone” — the stone at the corner that joins two walls together. By combining the prophecies of Isaiah 8:14 and Daniel 2:34, 44, Jesus claims to be, as the founder of God’s kingdom on earth, the Lord over all earthly kingdoms. As the “stone,” He will crush all opposition to the kingdom of God. (Matt. 21:42–44),” states Dr. R. C. Sproul.

Psalm 2 (ESV) – “Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? ² The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying, ³ “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.” ⁴ He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. ⁵ Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, ⁶ “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.” ⁷I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. ⁸ Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. ⁹ You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” ¹⁰ Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. ¹¹ Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. ¹² Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.”

Soli deo Gloria! 

⁴³ “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. ⁴⁴ And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”  ⁴⁵ When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. ⁴⁶ And although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet.” (Matthew 21:43–46 (ESV)

Following His initial question to the religious leaders (Matt. 21:40-42), Jesus brings the full weight of the parables’ application to bear. It was a statement of judgment, blessing and promised truth. 

The judgment was the chief priests and the elders would lost the kingdom of God (Matt. 21:23). They would experience the reality of the Lord’s judgment. Their self-righteousness would be seen for what it was; filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6).

The blessing was the Lord would give the kingdom to a people producing fruits of true conversion (Gal. 5:16-26). These kingdom citizens would not only be Jews but also Gentiles. In other words, the Lord would create the church (Eph. 2:11-22).

The promise was the kingdom would not be moved or overthrown by the self-righteousness of a man-made works-based salvation. The kingdom would be a like a gigantic stone.

“Christ is “a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over” to unbelievers (Isa. 8:14; 1 Pet. 2:9). And the prophet Daniel pictured him as a great stone “cut from a mountain by no human hand,” which falls on the kingdoms of the world and crushes them (Dan. 2:44–45). Whether a ceramic vessel “falls on” a rock, or the rock “falls” on the vessel, the result is the same. The saying suggests that both enmity and apathy are wrong responses to Christ, and those guilty of either are in danger of judgment,” explains Dr. John MacArthur.

Matthew recorded the enmity of the religious leaders towards Jesus. They understood He was speaking about them. Their wanted to arrest Jesus. Being cowards, they refrained because they were afraid of the people who regarded Jesus a prophet of God.

“In fulfillment of Psalm 118:22, the rejected Son is the “cornerstone” — the stone at the corner that joins two walls together. By combining the prophecies of Isaiah 8:14 and Daniel 2:34, 44, Jesus claims to be, as the founder of God’s kingdom on earth, the Lord over all earthly kingdoms. As the “stone,” He will crush all opposition to the kingdom of God. (Matt. 21:42–44),” states Dr. R. C. Sproul.

Psalm 2 (ESV) – “Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? ² The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying, ³ “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.” ⁴ He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. ⁵ Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, ⁶ “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.” ⁷I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. ⁸ Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. ⁹ You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” ¹⁰ Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. ¹¹ Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. ¹² Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.”

Soli deo Gloria! 

⁴⁰ “When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” ⁴¹ They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.” ⁴² Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “ ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” (Matthew 21:40-42 ESV)

Following His parabolic teaching, Jesus then asked the Jewish religious leaders a question: “When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” The answer seemed to be obvious but the Lord wanted the chief priests and the elders of the people to verbalize their response.

They said to Jesus, ““He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.” The religious leaders’ response two-fold.

First, they wanted the master of the house who owned the vineyard to punish the tenants with a miserable and severe death. No punishment would be unjust. Second, they reasoned the master should then lease the vineyard to other tenants who would provide him with the justifiable first fruits of the harvest.

“In typical rabbinical fashion, Jesus led His hearers to finish the story themselves. They no doubt were highly pleased with this unusual opportunity to parade their self-righteousness before Jesus. They rightly assessed the proper ending of the parable, that the irate owner would first severely punish the wicked growers and then replace them with others who were reliable. They were completely unaware that, as they fed their pride on Jesus’ baited question, they sprang the trap of their own condemnation,” explains Dr. John MacArthur.

Jesus, referencing Psalm 118:22-23, said, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?”

“Clearly, the parable is based on Isaiah 5:1–7; thus, the vineyard of Matthew 21:33 is the old covenant community. Jesus does not say that the vineyard is uprooted; rather, the vineyard’s tenants, those responsible for its upkeep and care, are judged (v. 43). These wicked tenants are ethnic Israelites, but not every ethnic Israelite. Furthermore, the new tenants are not of Gentile stock alone. Jews like the twelve disciples are also included,” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.

“God displaces the first tenants because of their abject failure. By grace alone the Almighty redeemed His people from Egypt (Ex. 20:1–2) and gave them all they needed to bear fruit for His kingdom (Matt. 21:33) — to be a light unto the world (Isa. 42:6). Under the old covenant many failed at this task, especially the religious leaders; even worse, they persecuted those servants (the prophets) who exhorted Israel to fulfill her call (Matt. 21:34–36). But God will be patient until they go past the point of no return and murder His Son (vv. 37–39). By this dreadful deed the evil tenants will earn their own destruction (vv. 40–41).”

This passage is a somber warning for confessing, and professing, believers in Christ. Salvation is by God’s sovereign grace alone, through faith alone in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone. The biblical evidence of true conversion is spiritual fruit (Gal. 5:16-26). The absence of such fruit, no matter one’s position and place in the world, reveals spiritual deadness (Eph. 2:1-3). Be diligent to make your calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:3-11).

Soli deo Gloria!

³³ “Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country. ³⁴ When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit. ³⁵ And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. ³⁶ Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. ³⁷ Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ ³⁸ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ ³⁹ And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.” (Matthew 21:33–39 (ESV)

“As we have seen thus far, Jesus has harsh words for the Jewish leaders, based largely upon their failure to see their need of repentance (Matt. 9:9–13; 21:28–32). The parable of the tenants recorded in Matthew 21:33–46 reveals a further reason for our Lord’s condemnation of the scribes and elders in their unwillingness to bear fruit for the Creator and thus draw the nations unto Him,” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.

Today’s text begins with the phrase “Hear another parable.” This was a command from the Lord. Such an order would not have been well received by the Jewish religious leaders. They were used to giving commands, not receiving them.

Jesus told a story about a master of a house (οἰκοδεσπότης; oikodespotes). The English word despot, meaning an autocrat and authoritarian, comes from this Greek word. The master was a man of means and merchandise. This is supported by the Lord’s ongoing depiction of him. Several items should be noted.

First, the master planted a vineyard. Second, he put a fence around his vineyard. This would have provided protection from predators and a boundary discouraging thieves. Third, the master dug a winepress in the vineyard (ληνός’ lenos) Fourth, the man built a tower (πύργος; prygos). Towers were used for observation and defense against enemies. Fifth, the master leased the vineyard to tenant farmers. He hired them to work the land while he traveled to another country. The master retained ownership of the land even though tenant farmers worked the land and harvested the crop. This practice remains common among landowners today.

The stage was set. Jesus completed Act 1 of the story. Act 2 begins with the harvest.

“When the season for fruit drew near.”  Jesus did not provide any other time frame, but His listeners would have known several years would have passed. Many wineries indicate it takes up to three years for newly planted vineyards to yield usable grapes.

“Making wine is a long, slow process. It can take a full three years to get from the initial planting of a brand-new grapevine through the first harvest, and the first vintage might not be bottled for another two years after that. But when terroir and winemaking skill combine, the finished product is worth the wait,” explains the Winecooler Direct Website.

Following this extended period from planting to harvest, the master of the house “sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit.” However, the tenant farmers the master hired to work the vineyard did not respond well to the master’s servants. “The tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another.”

Following a further indefinite period of time, the master sent more servants to collect the harvest. In doing so, the master displayed unusual patience. “Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them.”

“The tenants proved to be wicked men, scoundrels, dishonest and cruel. When the servants asked for the portion of the grape-harvest to which the owner had a legal claim, they were refused,” explains Dr. William Hendriksen.

Finally, instead of retaliation the master sent his son. He reasoned “They will respect my son.” However, the tenants did nothing of the kind. “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.”

“It might be argued that at this point the story goes way beyond the boundaries of reason, that in the ordinary course of life no proprietor whose rights had been so rudely trampled upon would have been generous enough to give the criminals still another chance, and certainly that he would not have delivered over his own dear son to the whims and wiles of those who had bludgeoned his servants. This must be granted. But then, it should be borne in mind that this is a parable. Moreover, as will be shown later (see verse 42), it is a parable depicting sin most unreasonable and love incomprehensible! Considered in this light, the story is one of the most beautiful and touching ever told,” states Dr. Hendriksen.

We will examine the conclusion of the parable, and its application, when next we meet. Until then, give thanks to the Lord today for His incomprehensible love in contrast to our most unreasonable sin.

Soli deo Gloria!

³³ “Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country (Matthew 21:33 (ESV)

Today’s text continues within the context of Jesus teaching the Jewish religious leaders (Matt. 21:23-27). Jesus is speaking to the chief priests and the scribes. This same setting will continue through Matthew 23:39. The Parable of Two Sons is the first of three Jesus gave to His opponents at this time. It is followed by The Parable of the Tenants (Matt. 21:33-46) and The Parable of the Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:1-14). For the next several days, we will examine the Parable of the Tenants.

Today’s text begins with the phase “Hear another parable.” This is a command from the Lord. Such an order would not have been well received by the Jewish religious leaders. They were used to giving commands, not receiving them.

Jesus told a story about a master of a house (οἰκοδεσπότης; oikodespotes). The English word despot, meaning an autocrat and authoritarian, comes from this Greek word.

The master was a man of means and merchandise. This is supported by the Lord’s ongoing depiction of him. Several items should be noted.

First, the master planted a vineyard. The grammar indicates he did so alone. He took the initiative and actively planted a vineyard on a parcel of his own land. It must be emphasized from the outset the vineyard belonged to the master.

Second, he put a fence around his vineyard. A fence (φραγμός; phragmos) is a hedge or a partition. It may have been an erected stone wall. There are, to this day, many large stones in the Galilean area of Israel ideal for such a wall. This would have provided protection from predators and a boundary discouraging thieves.

Third, the master dug a winepress in the vineyard (ληνός’ lenos) “It consisted of two vats or receptacles, (1) a trough (Heb. gath, Gr. lenos) into which the grapes were thrown and where they were trodden upon and bruised (Isa. 16:10; Lam. 1:15; Joel 3:13); and (2) a trough or vat (Heb. yekebh, Gr. hypolenion) into which the juice ran from the trough above the gath (Neh. 13:15; Job 24:11; Isa. 63:2, 3; Hag. 2:16; Joel 2:24),” explains a commentator in the Easton’s Bible Dictionary.

Fourth, the man built a tower (πύργος; prygos). There were several towers in Judea at this time (Luke 13:4). They were used for observation and defense against enemies.

Fifth, the master leased the vineyard to tenant farmers. He hired them to work the land while he traveled to another country. The master retained ownership of the land even though tenant farmers worked the land and harvested the crop. This practice remains common among landowners today.

“During the first century AD, the agricultural system of Galilee featured landowners who did not supervise the care of their vineyards directly. Instead, these landowners hired tenant farmers to tend their vines on their behalf,” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.

“Jesus’ parable also borrows imagery from the prophets that is key to understanding His teaching. Isaiah 5:1–7 describes Israel as the special vineyard God planted, so we see a correspondence in Matthew 21:33-39; Mark 12:1–9 between the vineyard and the old covenant community and between the owner of the vineyard and the Lord.”  

The stage is set. Act 1 is complete. What will happened in Act 2? We’ll discover the answer to this question when next we meet. Have a blessed day in the Lord.

Soli deo Gloria! 

²⁸ “What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ ²⁹ And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. ³⁰ And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. ³¹ Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. ³² For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.” (Matthew 21:28–32 (ESV)

Today’s text continues within the context of Jesus teaching the Jewish religious leaders (Matt. 21:23-27). The phrase “What do you think?” validates this interpretation. Jesus is speaking to the chief priests and the scribes. This same setting will continue through Matthew 23:39. The Parable of Two Sons is the first of three Jesus gave to His opponents at this time. It is followed by The Parable of the Tenants (Matt. 21:33-46) and The Parable of the Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:1-14).

The parable concerns a man with two sons. It is similar to the well-known Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). The father, presumably Jewish, went to his first son, presumably the eldest and most significant. He said to him, “Son, go and work in the vineyard today.” Jesus gives no particular age for the son. The parable’s presumption is the son was of a suitable age to do the hard labor required to work in the family’s vineyard.

This was not a father’s request for his son to work, but rather a command. This is what the father directed his son to do, and what the son was expected to do. However, in defiance to his father, the eldest son initially refused to obey his father’s command. He said, “I will not.” The son gave no reason for his refusal. However, he later changed his mind and went to work the vineyard.

“The lad’s answer, “I will not,” or “I won’t,” “I don’t want to,” also has a modern ring. Children have not changed much over the centuries. Happily, however, that even applies to the boy’s further reaction: subsequently “he repented and went.” For one reason or another he regretted his earlier flat refusal. He rues his blunt, negative reply and goes to work,” explains Dr. William Hendriksen.

Jesus then said, “And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go.” The second son, probably the younger of the two, initially agreed but ultimately disobeyed his father by both lying to him and not working for him in the vineyard. It is also interesting to note this son addressed his father as sir, or lord. While this is a title of respect, it is lacking in familial love and affection.

Having set the stage, Jesus then asked the religious leaders a question. “Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” This was the correct and obvious answer. Ultimately obedience, even when initially rejected, determines whether an individual does the will of a father.  Jesus then brought forth the parable’s application.

“Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. ³² For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.”

Even though the tax collectors and prostitutes initially rejected John the Baptist’s message and God’s law, they ultimately repented of their sin. They returned to the Lord as a direct result of John’s preaching and teaching. The religious leaders, in contrast, did the exact opposite. Professing devotion to God’s law, they ultimately rejected it by rejecting both John and Jesus. The former group would enter the kingdom of God, while the latter group would not.

“Though this parable of the Two Sons, found only in Matthew, is perhaps not as well-known as many of the others, it is by no means less important. In fact, a more important lesson than the one taught here is scarcely imaginable. That lesson is, of course, this: the doing of the will of God is the one thing needful. Is not that the teaching of both the Old and the New (Testaments)? See 1 Sam. 15:22; Ps. 25:4; 27:11; 86:11; 119; 143:10; Isa. 2:3; Matt. 7:21–27; 28:20; John 15:14; Acts 5:29. And the will of God is that men should everywhere be converted and acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, to the glory of God Triune (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 11:28–30; John 3:16, 36; 1 Cor. 10:31; 2 Cor. 10:5). As for the Mediator’s own relation to the will of his Sender, did he not say, “My food is to do the will of the One who sent me, and to accomplish his work” (John 4:34),” concludes Dr. Hendriksen.

Remember, obedience is the very best way to show that you believe. Have a blessed day in the Lord.

Soli deo Gloria!

²³ And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” ²⁴ Jesus answered them, “I also will ask you one question, and if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. ²⁵ The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?” And they discussed it among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ ²⁶ But if we say, ‘From man,’ we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet.” ²⁷ So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” And he said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.” (Matthew 21:23–27 (ESV)

Following Jesus’ cursing of the fruitless fig tree, and His subsequent explanation this represented His judgment upon the fruitless Jewish religious leaders, these same fruitless religious leaders engaged in an acrimonious discussion with the Lord.

Jesus entered the temple and began teaching. Luke recorded Jesus was proclaiming the Gospel (Luke 20:1). The chief priests, the elders and the scribes (Mark 11:27; Luke 20:1) of the Jews approached Jesus and accusingly said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” The religious leaders were not only referring to Jesus teaching, but also His cleansing of the temple (Matt. 21:12-13) and perhaps His triumphant entry into Jerusalem (21:1-11). They did not approve of Jesus doing “these things” and demanded the Lord justify His actions and show His credentials. In their minds, He was guilty of blasphemous sin.

The religious leader’s opposition to the Gospel was conspicuous. Instead of being God’s heralds, and spiritual shepherds of the Lord’s flock, they were His enemies. They followed in the footsteps of their ancestors (Ezekiel 34). They opposed Jesus, but could not deny His miraculous work and authoritative teaching.

In responding to the religious leaders, Jesus asked them a question. He said “I also will ask you one question, and if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. ²⁵ The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?”

Matthew recorded the religious leaders’ discussion among themselves to Jesus’ statement. “And they discussed it among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ ²⁶ But if we say, ‘From man,’ we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet.”

“By means of Christ’s question his enemies had been driven into a corner. Obviously they did not want to answer, “The baptism of John had a heavenly source,” for they knew very well that the reply would be, “Why, then, did you not believe him?” On the other hand, were they to come out with what was probably that which most of them believed, or at least wanted to believe, namely, that the baptism of John was from men, the general public—perhaps especially the crowds of pilgrims that had come from Galilee—would become definitely hostile toward them, and might even stone them (Luke 20:6),” states Dr. William Hendriksen.

Therefore, the Jewish leaders said, ““We do not know.” Jesus answered, ““Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”

“Jesus answers with a question of His own, a common practice in rabbinic debate. Using a synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a part (in this case, baptism) is used to represent the whole (John’s ministry), Christ asks His opponents about the authority behind John the Baptist (vv. 24–25). If they call John a prophet, they condemn themselves for not heeding him or Jesus, whom John heralded. But to say John’s authority is from men is to face the crowd’s anger. These cowards do not commit themselves either way (vv. 25–27),” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.

Dr. John MacArthur writes, “Jesus exposes their own lack of any authority to examine Him. And since they have no standing, Christ has no need to answer them (Matt. 21:27).”

“When we, like the scribes and priests in today’s passage, refuse to submit to the evidence in front of us, we are left with no right to expect further revelation of the truth. Obedience today is the prerequisite for fuller knowledge of the things of God tomorrow,” concludes Dr. Sproul.

Soli deo Gloria!

²³ And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” ²⁴ Jesus answered them, “I also will ask you one question, and if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. ²⁵ The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?” And they discussed it among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ ²⁶ But if we say, ‘From man,’ we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet.” ²⁷ So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” And he said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.” (Matthew 21:23–27 (ESV)

Following Jesus’ cursing of the fruitless fig tree, and His subsequent explanation this represented His judgment upon the fruitless Jewish religious leaders, these same fruitless religious leaders engaged in an acrimonious discussion with the Lord.

Jesus entered the temple and began teaching. Luke recorded Jesus was proclaiming the Gospel (Luke 20:1). The chief priests, the elders and the scribes (Mark 11:27; Luke 20:1) of the Jews approached Jesus and accusingly said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” The religious leaders were not only referring to Jesus teaching, but also His cleansing of the temple (Matt. 21:12-13) and perhaps His triumphant entry into Jerusalem (21:1-11). They did not approve of Jesus doing “these things” and demanded the Lord justify His actions and show His credentials. In their minds, He was guilty of blasphemous sin.

“Their question is clear. They want to know by what authority Jesus was doing these things, that is, who had given him this right. They were saying, “Show us your credentials!” It was an attempt to embarrass Jesus. If he admitted that he had no credentials the people could be expected to lose respect for him. On the other hand, if he considered himself authorized to do the things he had been doing, was he not arrogating to himself rights that belonged only to God? Could he not then be accused of being guilty of blasphemous behavior? By not assaulting him directly, for example by having him arrested, they reveal that they are afraid of him because of his following,” explains Dr. William Hendriksen.

The religious leader’s opposition to the Gospel was conspicuous. Instead of being God’s heralds, and spiritual shepherds of the Lord’s flock, they were His enemies. They followed in the footsteps of their ancestors (Ezekiel 34). They opposed Jesus, but could not deny His miraculous work and authoritative teaching.

“They were forced to acknowledge that he had some source of indisputable authority. His miracles were too obvious and too numerous to be fraudulent. Even his teaching was with such force and clarity that it was obvious to all that there was authority in his words (see Matt. 7:29),” states Dr. John MacArthur.

Fruitless spiritual leaders existed then and they exist today. The true test of any pastor, teacher, theologian or evangelist is whether they hold to the truth of God’s Word. Scripture remains the indisputable standard by which to evaluate and discern truth from error.

Soli deo Gloria!

²⁰ When the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, “How did the fig tree wither at once?” ²¹ And Jesus answered them, “Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen. ²² And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith.” (Matthew 21:20–22 (ESV)

2 Corinthians 4:17–18 (ESV) says, “¹⁷ For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, ¹⁸ as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal”  

“Endurance is based on a person’s ability to look beyond the physical to the spiritual, beyond the present to the future, and beyond the visible to the invisible. Believers must look past what is temporary—what is perishing (i.e., the things of the world). Pursuing God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the souls of men should consume the believer,” explains Dr. John MacArthur.

What has 2 Corinthians 4:17-18 to do with Matthew’s account of Jesus’ cursing of the barren fig tree?  In a word, much!

The disciples did not ask Jesus why He cursed the fig tree. Rather, they asked how the tree immediately withered. Jesus was more concerned with the why, rather than the how.

The fig tree represented the false but seen religion of the Jewish leaders. They appeared righteous, and most everyone saw them as such. However, Jesus looked beyond the seen to the unseen. He knew they bore no righteous fruit (Matt. 7:15-20; John 15:1-11; Gal. 5:16-24). True righteousness is not about the seen, but rather the godly qualities of the unseen Lord of the universe. This is the mark of true and saving faith.

This was why the mountain to which Jesus referred, the temple mount, would figuratively be thrown into the sea. The righteousness the temple represented, the person and work of Jesus Christ, was obscured by the visible trappings of crass merchandise, materialism and greed. It had become like a barren fig tree. This was why Jesus cleansed the temple (Matt. 21:12-13).

“As Jesus returned to Jerusalem, He saw the temple mount. That mountain must be moved, not physically, but spiritually. Faith alone can move the mountain where dead religion flourishes. Jesus cursed a fig tree that represented Israel’s show-without substance temple. They could hurl that into the sea, if they would pray in faith,” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.

The disciples’’ prayer of trust in, dependence upon, commitment to and a worship of Jesus Christ would be answered on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-41). Such a prayer continues to be answered today by the Lord when given by His disciples on behalf of the lost. Even when believers in Christ suffer persecution for heralding the good news of the Gospel, we look past the seen to the unseen.

“Let’s not misconstrue the phrase “whatever you ask in prayer” (21:21–22). The Lord hears lawful prayers. The best prayer is for living faith, and dead religion is a great obstacle to it. So disciples should pray in faith that God would remove that obstacle. Indeed God did remove that mountain, so the church could grow,” concludes Dr. Sproul.

Who do you know who is trapped in the throngs of dead religion? Pray the Lord would move this mountain, for His glory and according to His will.

Soli deo Gloria!