Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

Part XI

Verse 38b-39: ‘This vineyard will be his. If we kill him, it will be ours.’ So the tenant-farmers took the son, dragged him out of the vineyard and killed him.”

It was hard back then, when Jesus told this story, and it is just as hard today to find any reason or make any sense out of the horrible conduct of these tenant farmers in their murderous treatment of the owner’s son. We note that they dragged the son out of the vineyard before killing him. This may have been a clear indication that the vineyard, in this case, was Jerusalem, not Israel as a whole. Because when Jesus was crucified, it was outside the walls of Jerusalem, not outside the borders of Israel.

Chrysostom has this to say about the outcome of this story and how it applied to Christ: “And where do they wish to kill Him? ‘Outside the vineyard.’ Do you see how He prophesies even the place where He was to be slain? Well, they did throw Him out, and then killed Him. And Luke indeed says, ‘He declared what they must suffer.’ When they heard this, they said, ‘God forbid!’¹ He then asks them to remember the testimony of Scripture: ‘He looked at them and said, “What then is this that is written: The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head cornerstone.” Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces.^‘2 Matthew’s account does not contradict Luke’s. They passed the sentence against themselves, as Matthew says, and again, when they perceived what they had said, they added, ‘God forbid.’ Using the words of the prophet against them, Jesus sought to persuade them that this certainly would come to pass. He signified only in a hidden way that He would ‘give the vineyard to others,’ not mentioning the Gentiles and not affording His opponents a handle to use to attack Him. It was for this reason that He spoke in parables, that they themselves might pass the sentence.”³

Verse 40: “So what will the owner of the vineyard do to these farmers when he comes?”

One thing I learned in guidance and counseling studies was to guide the individual seeking advice into answering their own questions. This way, by asking open-ended questions they become convinced from within, not from without. Jesus practiced this many times during His ministry, and it certainly worked here. These religious leaders had several options to choose from, just like those any counselor today will give. But they did not have to think long and hard, they came up with an immediate answer. But little did they know that they had just indicted themselves. That realization would come shortly.

It is easy to see the symbolism here of the Master who planted the vineyard being indicative of God leading the Israelites out of Egypt and planting them in the Promised Land as His own vineyard.⁴ But the real tragedy is the refusal of those running the vineyard to give the Master what was rightfully His; not only to those servants He sent earlier but now to His own Son. This pernicious attitude led them to kill the Son. Consequently, forty years later they would lose the whole vineyard to a Roman general named Titus. It is no wonder that Christ would one day weep over this city for killing the prophets, knowing they were about to kill the Son also.

How clearly this points out to anyone that a constant refusal of the emissaries sent by God to man’s heart will one day result in a final refusal, which will then lead to their rejection and a final sentence to everlasting punishment. Jesus could not have told a more insightful story that illustrated the same conditions that the prophet Hosea faced: “People of Israel, listen to the LORD’s message. The LORD has something to say against those who live in this land: ‘The people in this land are not honest or loyal. They don’t really know God. They are always cursing, lying, killing, stealing, and committing adultery. They murder one person after another.’”⁵

According to Jewish history, the commander of Nebuchadnezzar’s main guard was an officer named Nebuzaradan. He was the one who set fire to the city of Jerusalem and leveled its walls.⁶ Some Jewish scholars identify him in history with Arioch.⁷ When he saw the blood of the murdered Zechariah boiling,⁸ he put to death in revenge the scholars, young priests, and 14,000 of the people. Then, according to Jewish tradition, Nebuzaradan took 80,000 young priests and murdered them one by one over Zechariah’s blood until the stream of their blood reached Zechariah’s grave. For evidence, they then point God’s words in Hosea.⁹

Verse 41: The Jewish priests and leaders said, “He will surely kill those evil men. Then he will lease the land to other farmers, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”

Why could their own words not convict them? But no sooner had Christ pointed out the error of their unrepentant ways than these religious leaders did exactly what Jesus said they were already guilty of by implication. If it were not for the omniscient plan of God, they would have done to Jesus what was done to the son of the vineyard owner in the parable the Lord had just cited to them earlier. Think about this: when the prophet Nathan came to King David and told him the parable about the man with the one lone sheep being robbed by a man with herds of sheep, to use that one sheep for a banquet. What if, as soon as David realized that he was that robber who took Bathsheba away from Uriah; instead of repenting and calling on God for forgiveness David ordered Nathan taken away and stoned to death? Such action would have mirrored what the leading priests and elders were attempting to do right here to Jesus.

Why is it that some people cannot see their wrong even when it is shown to them so clearly? We notice that the servants first carried the son out of the vineyard before they killed him. It is quite clear that Christ was the personification of that son in this parable. His reference to being thrown out depends on how large or small we interpret the vineyard to be. If Jesus was alluding to the city of Jerusalem, then it was fulfilled. Likewise, if He meant the vineyard as the Jewish nation, we can say that the religious hierarchy was trying to make this same thing happen as well. Since the son in this parable was identified as the heir to the vineyard, it would appear that Christ was indicating that He came not only to the people of Jerusalem but to all of Israel, God’s chosen children.

Thus, we see the rejection of Jesus portrayed in the parable served not only to mean Jerusalem but the nation of Israel as a whole. As John said it in his gospel, “He came unto His own and His own refused to accept Him.” Without knowing it, the Jews were passing sentence on their own behavior. It would only be about 40 years after this day that the Romans would encircle Jerusalem and then the terrible end would come. Up until 1948, this city and the surrounding land was in fact leased out to the Egyptians and Palestinians.

Verse 42: Jesus said to them, “Surely you have read this in the Scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders refused to accept became the cornerstone. The Lord made this happen, and it is wonderful to us.’”

Then Jesus once again points back to the Scriptures to challenge their thinking. He quotes from Psalms about the cornerstone,¹⁰ but did they catch the inference He was making to Himself? Did they see that this cornerstone was now standing right in front of them? Jesus did not use this Psalm out of context, it was already understood by many Rabbis and Jewish teachers as referring to the Messiah. There is an interesting Targum of this Psalm that renders these verses this way: “The child the builders abandoned was among the sons of Jesse; he was worthy to be appointed king and ruler. This has come from the presence of the Lord, said the builders; “it is wonderful before us, said the sons of Jesse.”¹¹

This is an obvious paraphrase, but it shows that few say this reference is anything other than Messianic. Although in this psalm, the builders are, no doubt, thought to be those working on the Temple. However, the term “builders” was also applied to others. We read further: “Who are ‘builders’? These are scholars who are engaged in the building of the world, which is the Torah, all their lives, for it states, ‘If not for my covenant both day and night would not continue.’ ¹² Who are ‘builders’? These are scholars who are engaged in the building of the world all their lives.”¹³ So in this case, Jesus was pointing to the leading priests and elders as builders of the Temple designed to worship God in spirit and in truth.

One early church writer puts this into his perspective of Christ as the great cornerstone. He writes: “Christ is called a stone for two reasons. First, because His foundation is solid and no one who stands upon Him will fall victim to deceitful charms or be moved by the storms of persecution. Second, Christ is called a stone because in Him is the ultimate destruction of the wicked, for just as everything which collides with a stone is shattered while the stone itself remains intact, so also everyone who opposes the Christian faith will himself be ruined, but Christianity will remain untouched. This is the sense in which Christ is the great stone. ‘Whoever falls on it will be broken to pieces, but it will crush those upon whom it falls.’¹⁴ It is one thing to be broken but something else again to be crushed, for sizable pieces of whatever is broken remain, but whatever gets crushed is reduced to dust and utterly eliminated. The stone does not break those who fall because of it, but they break themselves who fall on the stone. Their destruction, therefore, is not attributable to the stone’s strength but to the violence with which they fall upon it.”¹⁵

When seen in this light, then Jesus was talking more about the Jewish leaders self-destructing rather than God destroying them. Furthermore, if it is by God’s Word that they destroy themselves, then the result will be everlasting. That’s why we say today, that God will send no sinner to hell, they will send themselves. If the Stone charges into you, it will change you, but if you charge into the Stone, it will crush you.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

Part X

Verse 34: “When the time came for the grapes to be harvested, the man sent his servants to the farmers to get his share of the grapes.”

We are not told how long the owner was gone, but taking a cue from Scripture we may get a better idea. It says: “When you enter the land and plant various kinds of fruit trees, you are to regard its fruit as forbidden — for three years it will be forbidden to you and not eaten. In the fourth year, all its fruit will be holy, for praising Adonai. But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit so that it will produce even more for you; I am Adonai your God.”¹

Then we are given the harvesting instructions relating to a vineyard: “Our Sages ordained that grapes from a vineyard in its fourth year from a radius of a one-day journey from Jerusalem should be brought there to embellish the marketplaces of Jerusalem with fruit.”² So we can reckon the owner sent his envoys to collect his portion some four years after leasing the property.

Verses 35-36: “But the tenant-farmers grabbed the servants and beat one. They killed another one and then stoned to death a third servant. So the man sent some other servants to the farmers. He sent more servants than he sent the first time. But the farmers did the same thing to them that they did the first time.”

Such conduct was not totally unheard of in Jewish history. After all, look what happened to Jeremiah,³ and what the prophet Zedekiah did to the prophet Micaiah,⁴ the prophet Zechariah,⁵ and other prophets,⁶ including John the Baptizer. So it shouldn’t have taken long for these religious leaders to figure out that Jesus was talking about Israel being God’s vineyard and these servants as being the prophets sent by God. But I’m sure that Jesus wanted them to also notice the grace and patience of the vineyard owner.

Chrysostom gives us his spiritual interpretation of what this parable was intended to teach: “God sent His servants, that is, the prophets, ‘to receive the fruit.’ By fruit, Jesus referred to their obedience, demonstrated through their works. But even here they exhibited their wickedness. They not only failed to give the fruit, after having enjoyed so much care, thus displaying their laziness, but also were angry with the servants who came. For those who did not repay what they owed should hardly have been indignant or angry. Rather, they should have asked for the vineyard owner’s forgiveness. But they not only were indignant; they even bloodied their hands. While deserving punishment, they themselves inflicted punishment. Therefore He sent a second and a third company of servants both to show their wickedness and the love toward humanity of the One who sent them. Why didn’t He immediately send His Son? In order that they might repent and condemn themselves for the things they had done to the others. He hoped they would set aside their anger and reverence Him when He came.”⁷ So in other words, after all these years of God being patient with their hardheartedness, instead producing gratefulness and a willingness to give Him what He deserved, they refused to surrender their obedience to Him. I’m sorry to say, but this indictment applies to many living today.

Verse 37: “So the man finally decided to send his son to the farmers. He said, ‘The farmers will respect my son.’”

I can imagine that those listening to Jesus tell this parable were by now shaking their heads in disbelief at the conduct of these tenants of the owner’s vineyard. How irresponsible and ill-mannered they were in showing total disrespect for the generosity of the owner that allowed them to make a living off of his land. So it seemed logical then that if they would not honor his emissaries because they saw them as hired-hands, then certainly they would be respectful to his son who came with the full authority of his father.

Chrysostom continues sharing his thoughts: “What does it mean that ‘it may be that they will have reverence for my son?’ This is not the language of an ignorant man. Away with the thought! Rather, it is the language of one desiring to show the sin to be great and inexcusable. For though God Himself knew that they would slay His Son, yet He sent Him. When He says ‘they will respect,’ He states what ought to have been done, that it was their duty to have reverenced Him. Elsewhere He says similarly: ‘whether they hear or refuse to hear.’⁸ He is not ignorant of their motives. But lest any of the obstinate should say that His prediction was the thing that necessitated their disobedience, therefore He frames His expressions in a particular way, using indeterminate terms like ‘whether they will’ and ‘it may be.’ For though they had been obstinate towards His servants, yet they ought to have reverenced the dignity of the Son.”⁹ Yes, while they may be excused for not honoring the prophets as they should, there was no excuse for not honoring God’s only Son.

Verse 38a: “But when the farmers saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the owner’s son.’”

In Jewish literature, there is an interesting mention of Jesus that seems very close to what happened here in this parable. It reads: “On the eve of the Passover, Yeshua¹⁰ was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went out and proclaimed: ‘He is going to be stoned because He has practiced sorcery¹¹ and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in His favor, let him come forward and plead on His behalf.’ But nothing was brought forward in His favor, so He was hanged¹² on the eve of the Passover! — ‘Rabbi Ulla retorted: Do you suppose that He was a person for whom a defense could be made? Was He not an enticer, concerning whom Scripture says, Neither will you spare, neither will you conceal Him?¹³ With Yeshua, however, it was different, for He was connected with royalty.”¹⁴ In other words, Yeshua of Nazareth was touted and claimed to be the Son of God, the King of the Jews. The Jewish leaders felt they had full control over the Jewish people and the Promised Land, and they resented this outsider coming in, claiming to be the Son of the Owner, and came to collect His Father’s share of the harvest.

Chrysostom gives us his interpretation of what Jesus was trying to say to the Jews in His day and their possible reaction to Him as God’s Son. He writes: “What then do they do? While they had time to ask for pardon for their offenses and whereas they ought to have run to Him to do so, they persist even more strongly in their former sins. They proceed to add even more to their previous impurity. They always surpass their former offenses by their later ones. This is what He Himself declared when He said, ‘Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.’¹⁵ For from the first the prophets used to charge them with these things, saying, ‘Your hands are full of blood,’¹⁶ and ‘They mingle blood with blood,’¹⁷ and ‘They build up Zion with blood.’¹⁸”¹⁹ But now, God would have the right to charge them with having the blood of His only Son on their hands. Yet, it did not seem to frighten them.

The question we might ask at this point is this: Could not those listening to Jesus have begun to get the picture He was painting for them? Was it not possible for them to grasp that He was talking about the vineyard owner as God, and He Himself as the Son, and they as the irresponsible and ungrateful tenants of the promise of Abraham, the covenant given to them through Moses, and the attempts by all the past prophets to get them to surrender to God the gratitude and faithfulness they owed Him?

Chrysostom continues: “But they failed to learn self-control. They had already received the commandment: ‘You shall not murder.’ They had already had been commanded to abstain from countless other offenses. They had already been urged by many and various means to keep these commandments. Yet, for all that, they did not put aside their evil ways. What did they say when they saw Him? ‘Come, let us kill Him.’ With what motive and for what reason? What possible charge could they lay against Him, either small or great? Is it that He honored you, and being God became a human being for your sake and worked His countless miracles? Or that He pardoned your sins? Or that He called you into a kingdom? But observe that their disregard for bad was accompanied by great folly, and the cause of His murder was filled with madness. ‘For let us kill Him,’ it says, ‘and His inheritance will be ours.’”²⁰

The question now for us today is: Are we doing the same? It has not yet dawned on so many millions of people that everything we have here on earth belongs to God. He created the heavens and the earth; He created mankind, and provided them with everything they would need to survive, including the only life-sustaining atmosphere on any planet in the universe, all the fauna and flora needed to feed and clothe themselves, and all the minerals to use in developing and inventing tools and instruments to render and supply themselves with healthy and comfortable living. And all that He has asked is that His creation honor Him by showing Him reverence and respect in return. But what do they do daily, they crucify Him with their profanity, their immorality, and their stubborn disregard for His existence.

And look at what they have done to those servants He sent into His vineyard to inform them of His wishes. They too have been ridiculed, beaten and in many cases, martyred for being His ambassadors. Yet His love and grace continue to abound so that they may somehow, someway, someday see the light of His mercy. But woe to all those who insist on treating the Father and His Son this way, because He is coming back to reap the harvest that belongs to Him, and they will be the ones thrown out of the vineyard like discarded vines and branches that bore no fruit, to be burned in the fire. God help all of us who read these words not to be that number.

Having taught and ministered in Asia for nine years, I became interested in Chinese sayings and proverbs. One that I found goes like this: “A thorn defends the rose, harming only those who would steal the blossom.” I read where one person explained what they thought after being asked what does this proverb mean? They said: “The rose, someone or something who is happy, satisfied and/or beautiful, is protected by something, and only those who seek to steal the happiness, knowledge or radiance from that person/thing will be in trouble.”

So it doesn’t take a genius to see the moral teaching of this proverb. But it does allow for various ways to apply this virtuous saying. For instance, there is such a thing as responding to disrespect with dignity. That means, even though someone is treating you disrespectfully, don’t respond in the same manner. Too often, the urge to be right can generate a degrading response.

It is natural to fight back when we encounter verbal abuse coming our way. But we must train ourselves to set limits so that we don’t go overboard in our response, thereby become as undignified as the person verbally attacking us. We all know, that sometimes in the heat of the debate there is a compelling desire to win. As adults, we want to be treated like adults.

Yet, we all must acknowledge there is often room for improvement in our attitude and action. We cannot automatically assume that we are always right. Many times, people see things in us that we are not willing to admit are there. It may come from the fact that we are not prepared, to be honest with ourselves. So before you strike back, ask yourself, “What is their goal? Are they trying to tell me something I need to know about myself?” Remember, no matter what response immediately pops into your mind, look for a more gentle way of saying the same thing.

There were many times when Jesus sharply criticized His disciples for having too little faith and lack of trust. But He did so because He wanted their faith to increase and their trust to grow. And He was very successful because He Himself served as the best example of doing things right. Keep in mind, unless they are given a reason to respect you, as soon as you point to their wrongs they will point to yours. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF GOD’S WORD

On Sunday morning, February 9, 1986, I drove over to the Rizal Theater located in the center of the business district of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, having been invited to preach to a congregation of about 900 members. The Lord laid it on my heart to preach on the text from 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, and call it the “Power of Reconciliation.” I had two reactions when the Holy Spirit urged me to preach on that subject. One: that it may appear that I was getting involved in the contested Presidential election that was going on, which I didn’t want to do. Or two: that since I didn’t understand how deep the feelings ran either for or against the incumbent President, it might make them feel that as an uninformed outsider I was trying to tell the people what to do.

But I took a deep breath and preached the message that God gave me. The service was great, the people responded with great enthusiasm, and a good number of people came forward to be born again. I left the Rizal Theater thanking God that He had used me to deliver His word and prayed that it would have a positive effect. But I wasn’t expecting what I was about to hear. As I crossed the parking lot to my car, I heard a voice calling, “Brother Bob! Brother Bob!” I turned around to see a young man and his wife hurrying toward me. I stopped to greet them, and then my heart began to beat fast as I heard the young man’s story.

He was a member of the Philippine Army and had just come down from the mountains in the south where they were fighting the Communist Party’s New People’s Army (NPA). With tears welling up in his eyes, he told me that just a few weeks ago his brother, also a soldier with the Philippine Rangers, had been killed by the NPA. But that wasn’t all; they shot him three times point blank, and then used their rifle butts to smash in his face until he was almost unrecognizable. As soon as he was told of his brother’s death and torture, he vowed in his heart to go back and revenge his brother’s killing no matter how long it took. He wanted to do the same thing to them they did to his brother.

That’s when he paused for a moment, then looking into my eyes he said with great emotion, “But since I heard what you had to say this morning and went forward to be born again and receive Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, I’ve made a new pledge. I want to go back to the mountains and find the NPA soldiers who killed my brother and tell them about Jesus and His love. Thank you, Brother Bob, for bringing your message of reconciliation.” After we hugged and shook hands they left. As I turned around to continue on to my car with my family, my heart burned inside me and I looked up and thanked the Lord for His guidance. I also made a vow on that day that I would never again doubt or hesitate to follow the Spirit’s leading, or ever underestimate the power of God’s Word.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

Part IX

Verse 33a: “Listen to this story: There was a man who planted a vineyard.”

We are not told how large this vineyard was, but according to Jewish tradition: “When a man has planted a row of [at least] five vines, the School of Shammai say, This constitutes a vineyard.”¹ I believe we can assume that the vineyard in Jesus’ parable was at least that large, if not larger. But it should not have come as a surprise that Jesus uses a vineyard in His story right after their discussion about John the Baptizer and the Jewish religious leaders’ failure to recognize him as being sent by Heaven. After all, do not the Scriptures say: “The vineyard that belongs to the LORD All-Powerful is the house of Israel?”² These religious philosophers were accustomed to allegories and metaphors being used in debates about morality and righteousness.

In Chrysostom’s sermon on this parable, he speaks about the reason for this story about a vineyard and Jesus’ patience in taking care of it. He says: “This parable suggests many things: God’s providence had been at work toward the Jews from the outset; their disposition was murderous from the beginning; nothing had been neglected of whatever pertained to an attentive care for them. even when prophets had been slain, God had not turned away from this people but had sent them His very Son; it is now clear that the God of both the New and the Old Testaments is one and the same; we know that the Son’s death will effect great blessings; we learn here that they were to endure extreme punishment for the crucifixion; here we learn of the calling of the Gentiles and the turning aside of the unbelieving Jews. Jesus presents this parable after the previous one that He may show the charge to be even greater in this case and highly unpardonable. In what way? Although the Jews had received so much care from God, they were now found to be worse than harlots and publicans, and that by a wide margin.”³

Verse 33b: “He put a wall around the field.”

The area separating the vineyard proper from the land around it was called in Hebrew the “mehol.” It was along this space that the fence was erected. According to their verbal tradition, it had to meet specific dimensions: “[The space] between the vineyard [proper] and the fence. If it does not measure twelve cubits (6 yards) [the minimum according to the School of Hillel]; i.e., after allowing for four cubits (2 yards) of service-border and after deducting the four cubits close to the fence which are not sown (so that people walking there will force down the earth and harden the earth, supporting the fence).”⁴ As far as the wall was concerned, we are told: “The wall surrounding the vineyard was ten handbreadths (2½ feet) high.)”⁵ In His parable, most scholars believe that this hedge was a metaphor for either the written law or the verbal law, and perhaps including the traditions of the elders.

But in reading other Jewish writings we also find out that the wall was built for other purposes. First, it marked the territory of the owner. Second, it kept people from using it as a walkway or shortcut. And third, it kept out animals that might ruin the young vines.⁶ Also, an Eastern vineyard was usually surrounded by a ditch, and the earth from the digging of it is thrown along the inner side of the ditch, and upon this, a fence of posts, branches, and twigs is built with thorn-branches on top. Oftentimes a wall of either stones or sun-dried mud takes the place of the fence. This serves as protection from foxes, jackals, or other animals, as well as from thieves.⁷

Chrysostom gives us his impression of this wall or hedge built to preserve and protect the vineyard. He writes: “Observe the great care that the owner took with this place and the extraordinary unmanageableness of the people. He himself did the work the tenants should have done. It was he who planted a vineyard, and set a hedge around it, and dug a winepress in it and built a tower. He left little for them to do. All they had to do was take care of what was there and to preserve what was given to them. Nothing was left undone but all accomplished. But they made little effort to be productive, even after they had enjoyed such great blessings from him. For when they had come out of Egypt, he gave a law, and set up a city, and built a temple and prepared an altar. Then he ‘went into a far country.’ He was patient with them. He did not always keep a close account of their sins. The meaning of ‘going into a far country’ is God’s great patience.”⁸ Many Bible scholars believe that the “going into a far country” was Jesus’ way of indicating what He would do once His work here on earth to establish a new vineyard was finished.

Verse 33c: “…and dug a trench for a winepress,⁹ then he built a watch-tower.”

By now, I wonder if the listeners did not start thinking about what was written in the prophet Isaiah: “I want to sing a song for someone I love, a song about my loved one and his vineyard. My loved one had a vineyard on a very fertile hill. He dug up its stones and cleared them away, planted it with the choicest vines, built a watchtower in the middle of it, and carved out in its rock a winepress.”¹⁰ According to some Rabbis, this tower referred to the Temple.¹¹

We see this also mentioned in the Targum on this scripture: “Now I will sing unto Israel, who is like unto a vineyard, the seed of Abraham, my beloved, a song of my beloved, concerning his vineyard. My people, my beloved Israel, I gave to them an inheritance in a high mountain, in a fat land. I sanctified them, and I made them glorious, I propped them up as a precious vine; I built my sanctuary in the midst of them, and I gave also my altar to make an atonement for their sins.”¹² But our Lord now adds His part in this story:

Verse 33d: “He leased the land to some tenant-farmers and then left on a trip.”

According to Jewish writings, these renters would have been one of the following three: “Farmhands, tenant-farmers, or labor contractors.”¹³ They say that farmhands were: “Gardeners or land cultivators who receive from the owner of the field or orchard a certain proportion of the produce for their labor.”¹⁴ Tenant farmers were those: “Who pay a fixed annual rent in money or in kind.” ¹⁵ And contractors of labor were those hired to fill in because the owner was busy with other business.¹⁶

Furthermore, based on the context and possible timeline involved, related to God planting Israel as His vineyard and when He ended up sending His Son, we might be able to see this as the 400 years between Malachi and the birth of the Messiah. It was during this time there were few if any prophets that spoke on God’s behalf to the exiled children of Judah and Israel. Therefore, the husbandmen being referred to here are seen as the priests, Levites, Rabbis and religious leaders that led the Jews during this period.

The most well-known group were the Maccabees. There are two books that were part of the OT Canon in the Christian Bible: I & II Maccabees, let it tell you their story. The important thing about these growers and gardeners is that they were under contract to the owner. Without him, they’d have no vineyard to tend and no income from their labors. All they had to do was share and give him his part of the harvest. Here we find a similar story line as that of Solomon: “Solomon had a vineyard at Baal Hamon. He put men in charge of the vineyard. Each man brought in grapes worth 1000 shekels of silver. Solomon, you can keep your 1000 shekels. Give 200 shekels to each man for the grapes he brought. But I will keep my own vineyard.”¹⁷

We find in Jewish writings that it was common for owners to rent out their fields in return for their portion of the crop. For vineyards, sometimes the owner would receive payment in the form of wine,¹⁸ or in grapes,¹⁹ and sometimes as a tithe, should the owner be a priest.²⁰ There’s an interesting story in Jewish tradition about Rabbi Simeon bar Kahana who was assisting Rabbi Eleazar as they took a walk along a road that ran by a vineyard. According to the story, Rabbi Eleazar said to Rabbi Kahana, “Bring me a wood chip from the fence so I can pick my teeth. But he changed his mind and said to him, Don’t bring me anything, for if you bring it to me, people will regard it as permission to do the same and the man’s fence will be destroyed.”²¹ Jesus then continues with His parable.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

Part VIII

Verses 25b-26: The priests and the Jewish leaders discussed Jesus’ question. They said to each other, “If we answer, ‘John’s baptism was from Heaven,’ then He will say, ‘Then why didn’t you believe John?’ But we can’t say, ‘John’s baptism was from some human source.’ We are afraid of the people because they all believe John was a prophet.” So they told Jesus, “We don’t know the answer.” Jesus said, “Then I will not tell you who gave me the authority to do these things.”

The Aramaic Version says here: “…they were reasoning among themselves.” Reasoning actually means: “trying to rationalize, to come up with an acceptable answer.” The question that Jesus asked was whether or not what John the Baptizer did authorized by God or man? In the Greek, it says, “from heaven or from men,” as does the Aramaic Version. This was not unusual in the vernacular of Jesus’ day. For instance, one Rabbi once asked: “If the moon did not appear at its proper time, they need not declare its existence, since Heaven already has declared it.”¹

In the Jewish mind, God did not make decisions on His own. After all, He did say: “Let us make humankind in our image, in the likeness of ourselves.”² A respected Rabbi said: “Under no circumstances does the Holy One do a thing in His world without consulting with the heavenly court.”³ Others believe God would consult with His ministering angels.⁴ However, another well respected Rabbi has a different take. He says, that the words “let us” should be understood this way: “It has been shown to you that God created something from nothing only on the first day, and afterward He formed and made things from those created elements, i.e., fire, wind, water, and earth. Therefore, when God said ‘us,’ He was talking to those created elements.”⁵ There is real cause to believe that the purpose for this last Rabbi’s explanation was to counter any belief in the Christian Trinity.

But the real pressure comes from what the Jews themselves taught: “He who defiles the sacred food, despises the festivals, abolishes the covenant of our father Abraham, gives an interpretation of the Torah not in line with Jewish laws, and publicly shames his neighbor, even if he has learning and good deeds to his credit, he has no portion in the future world, because he has despised the word of the Lord — this refers to him who maintains that the Torah is not from Heaven.”⁶ This reference to Heaven was a synonym for God, and considered so sacred, that they wrote: “Do not utter the name of heaven in vain.”⁷

We also see this use of “heaven” in the place of “God” in the writings of one Rabbi who says that Abraham was so generous that, “He arose and built stately mansions on the highways and left there food and drink, and every passerby at and drank and gave thanks to Heaven.”⁸ He goes on to say that if a person is lazy and does no work all week so that on the Sabbath he has nothing to eat, but took some of his consecrated funds to buy food, he would be guilty in the sight of Heaven.⁹ He also speaks of “mean heartedness toward Heaven.”¹⁰ Also, to be honored by one’s master should be as dear to a person as “the honor of Heaven.”¹¹

So whenever Heaven is spelled in Jewish writings with a capital “H” as a proper noun, it is always a reference to God’s realm of dominion and power. A respected Rabbi points out, that the Scriptures make this clear: “’Heaven is my throne,’ says Adonai, ‘and the earth is my footstool’,”¹² and then points to where the Psalmist says: “’Praise Adonai from the heavens! Praise Him in the heights! Praise Him, all His angels! Praise Him, all His armies’!”¹³

So Jesus took all this into account when He asked the community leaders about John the Baptizer’s ministry being ordained by Heaven or by man on earth. We do not know how long they conferred with each other, but it was not easy because of the way Christ formed the question. To this Jerome says: “By this, He shows both that they knew the answer but were unwilling to say it and that He also knows the answer but will not speak it because they remained silent. Immediately, then, He tells a parable designed to convince them of their own sinfulness and of the necessity that the kingdom of God be transferred to the Gentiles.”¹⁴

Verses 28-31a: “Tell me what you think about this: There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first son and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ The son answered, ‘I will not go.’ But later he decided he should go, and he went. Then the father went to the other son and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ He answered, ‘Yes, sir, I will go and work.’ But then he did not go. Which of the two sons obeyed his father? The Jewish leaders quickly answered, ‘The first son.’”

Jesus was not going to allow these uncommitted community leaders to get off that easy by not indicating whether they accepted John the Baptizer’s authority as coming from Heaven or from man. So He offers an indirect question in the form of a story. We find this same parable repeated in the Apocryphal Gospels.¹⁵ This was not a difficult riddle, and the Jewish leaders answered without hesitation. What they didn’t know was that they were identifying themselves. But Jesus had to point it out to them.

The story Jesus is telling encapsulates what His Heavenly Father also dealt with during the days of Ezekiel, “You people might say, ‘The Lord isn’t fair!’ But listen, family of Israel. I am fair. You are the ones who are not fair! If good people change and become evil, they must die for the bad things they do. And if evil people change and become good and fair, they will save their lives. They will live! They saw how wicked they were and came back to me. They stopped doing the evil things they did in the past. So they will live! They will not die!”¹⁶ In the same way, Jesus wanted to put the focus on these obstinate religious leaders and force them to realize that by being against John the Baptizer they were being against God.

Verses 31b: Jesus said to them, “The truth is, you are worse than the tax collectors and the prostitutes. In fact, they will enter God’s kingdom before you can get in.”

Early church Bishop Hilary saw a spiritual interpretation in this parable. He writes: “The first son represents the people sent by the Pharisees. Urgently admonished by God through the prophecy of John to conform themselves to His commandments, yet they remained insolent, disobedient and contemptuous to God’s warnings. They put their faith in the law and despised repentance from sin, glorying instead in the noble prerogative that they had from Abraham. Later they came to believe through the miracles worked by the apostles after the resurrection of the Lord, and, having returned by a faithful act of the will to evangelical works, they repented and confessed the guilt of their former insolence.”¹⁷ Scholars believe that since it would not be easy to interpret the parable of the two sons in relation to the call of the Jews and the Gentiles, that Bishop Hilary chose the first son to represent the sect within Judaism that represented those most committed to living by the commandments – the Pharisees.¹⁸

Then Bishop Hilary continues: “The second son represents the group of publicans and sinners who later returned to the sinful state in which they lived at the time. They were instructed by John to expect salvation from Christ and to be baptized and to believe in Him. When the Lord says in the parable that the second son did not go as he promised to do, he shows that these people believed John. But because they were not able to receive the teaching of the gospel through the apostles until after the Lord’s Passion (for it was then that the mysteries of human salvation were to be accomplished), they did not go. He didn’t say that they refused to go but simply that they did not go. Their failure to go does not make them guilty of disbelief because to do so would have been very difficult. Therefore, it is not that the second son did not want to do immediately what he was ordered to do but rather that he was unable to do it. His will is shown free from guilt by the obstacles of the circumstance.”¹⁹ Jesus does not leave this interpretation up to them. He then explains it.

Verse 32: “John came showing you the right way to live, and you did not believe him. But the tax collectors and prostitutes believed John. You saw that happening, but you would not change. You still refused to believe him.”

Jewish sources present an interesting description of these tax collectors, which are better known in the KJV as “publicans” (a Latin term that is shorthand for “public contractor”). The offices of these local tax agents existed among the Jews under Roman occupation. The Romans were accustomed to projecting fees ahead for five years, especially the customs due on exports. These were mainly added value taxes and therefore, as the value placed upon goods varied, it lent themselves to extortion; hence the unpopularity of the publicans, especially when, as under the Romans, they were seen as Jews exploiting their fellow Jews. Even Jewish scholars notice how such people of ill repute in the New Testament, were coupled with sinners¹ and the most degraded persons.²

The use of tax collectors and prostitutes in the New Testament as examples of the worst of sinners is found on many occasions. The common theme of the two was first and foremost, money. They did not do what they did out of the kindness of their hearts or for righteousness sake, but for the money they received. According to Jewish traditional teaching, what both of them did for a livelihood made them unclean and not permitted to participate in any religious function, nor to enter the Temple grounds. As such, they were considered to be the last to convert.³ But for each one that did, if it were available for them in that day they certainly would have sung those famous lyrics: “Amazing grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me.”

The Jews report that taxes were levied on pearls,⁴ – slaves,⁵ and boats.⁶ And you talk about guilt by association, Rabbi Simeon said: “But this shows you that there is not a family containing a tax-collector, in which they are not all tax-collectors; or containing a robber, in which they are not all robbers; because they protect him!”⁷ Jewish commentators state that tax-collectors were considered unscrupulous, often taking more than their due.⁸ Therefore, any other member of the family was consider a black sheep, just as they were.⁹ As a consequence, in the case of any transgression, the whole family was punished.¹⁰ Even so, an honest tax collector could serve as a witness in court, while herdsmen could not,¹¹

Jesus was not attempting to denigrate the leading priests and elders by making a literal comparison between them and the second son who lied, and pointing to the tax collectors and prostitutes as being represented by the first son. His main point here was to show the power of a repentant heart, something these religious leaders were sorely lacking. After all, they had the opportunity to believe John the Baptizer’s message, but didn’t, and now they had another opportunity to accept the truth with Jesus’ declaration but didn’t believe Him either. So in fact, they were worse than either one of these sons.

A careful perusal of this verse will also indicate that Jesus did not eliminate the possibility that some of these leading priests and elders would come to their senses and accept His role in the kingdom of God. He merely points out to them that they lagged far behind such disrespected people as the tax collectors and prostitutes in seeing that He was the door to that kingdom. Their hypocritical attitude and placing more emphasis on tradition than on the Word of God blinded these religious leaders. While none of them are excluded from salvation, their attitudes prevented them from seeing the only true door where they could enter in. But our Lord was not finished.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

Part VII

Verses 21: Jesus answered, “The truth is, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will be able to do the same as I did to this tree. In fact, you will be able to do more. You will be able to say to a mountain, ‘Go, mountain, fall into the sea.’ And if you have faith, it will happen.”

So here our Lord gives a clear reason for doing what He did to this fig tree. It was all about faith! But what brought on this need to explain the power of faith to His followers? He had just been greeted in Jerusalem as the Son of David, the Anointed One, with shouts of Hosanna and the waving of palm fronds. And although priests and scribes objected, they were drowned out by the cheers of the crowd and by the rejoicing of those who then came to the Temple to be healed by His power.

Chrysostom puts it this way: “That you might learn that it was for the disciples’ sake that this was done, that He might train them in confidence, listen to what He said afterward: ‘You also shall do greater things, if you are willing to believe and to be confident in prayer.’¹ All this was done for their sake, that they might not be afraid and tremble at plots against them. He repeated this to enable them to cling to prayer and faith. For you will not only do this, but you will also remove mountains; and many more things you will do, being confident in faith and prayer.”²

Let’s look at His statement concerning the moving of mountains by faith. We have no record that any of the apostles ever attempted or achieved this phenomenon. That’s why many Bible scholars take this as Jesus’ use of hyperbole to speak figuratively in explaining a potential result rather than a probable one. But it also had its ties to Jewish traditional teachings. In fact, one Jewish leader, named Rabba bar Nachmani, was referred to as the “rooter up of mountains,” because of his faith.³ So it was not a shocking statement to those who heard it.

Verse 22: “And if you believe when you pray, you will get whatever you ask for.”

This one verse is loaded with so much potential when we look at it grammatically. The first thing we notice is the qualifier: “If you believe.” And secondly, is the contingency: “when you pray.” Then thirdly, the potential: “you will get.” The apostle John no doubt was standing very close to our Lord when He spoke these words because we find a similar statement in his own letter where he writes: “When we can come to God with no doubts… we know that He gives us whatever we ask of Him.”⁴

But there is another factor to consider, and that is the purpose for which we ask God to give us the things are praying for. Jesus was not teaching and training His disciples to go live successful, productive lives for themselves once He was gone. He came to do His father’s will, and He was motivating and equipping them to continue doing God’s will once He went away. Jesus was not handing them a magic wand so they could have whatever they wanted for their own comfort and pleasure. It is all tied to doing God’s will for His honor, glory, and the promotion on God’s kingdom.

Verse 23: Jesus then continued on to the Temple area. While He was teaching there, the leading priests and the older leaders of the people came to Him. They demanded, “Tell us! By what authority are you doing these things you are doing? Who gave you this authority?”

When our Lord walked out of Bethany on His way back over to Jerusalem,⁵ after showing His disappointment with the fruitless fig tree, and then headed straight for the Temple again, little did His disciples know that Jesus knew He had another appointment with the chief priests and elders who were going to challenge His authority for coming into Jerusalem, wrecking havoc in the Temple courts, and then commencing with His teaching and healing ministry. His opponents may have thought it was going to be a surprise, but what they failed to reckon was that the man they intended to confront was no ordinary man.

Jesus knew He was dealing with the same dilemma that Solomon once described: “There is no good way to answer fools when they say something stupid. If you try to answer them, then you, too, will look like a fool. But if you don’t answer them, then they will think they are smart.”⁶ So Jesus decided to do what God told Isaiah to do, “Confuse them. Make them unable to figure out what they hear and see.”⁷ In fact, the situation got so bad that God expressed His frustration to Jeremiah: “Even the birds in the sky know the right time to do things. The storks, doves, swifts, and thrushes know when it is time to fly to a new home. But my people don’t know what the Lord wants them to do.”⁸ Jesus certainly would have found the same to be true in this situation as well,

Yet, our Master was not discourteous, He felt a burden in helping them see the truth in spite of their closed-mindedness. But on this occasion, by the elders accompanying the leading priests to confront Jesus, it sets a different tone. According to the rules and regulations of Mosaic law, Elders were the “leaders and judges” of the community.⁹ So they differed from the Pharisees and Sadducees. Their purpose was to maintain the correct interpretation of the written law, not the philosophy of the verbal law. So Jesus was on the mark by putting the pressure on them to answer why they had taken their position on what God was trying to tell them.

We find out who these leaders were when Joshua copied the law of Moses and put it inside the Ark of the Covenant. We read: “The elders, officers, judges, and all the Israelites were standing around the Box of the LORD’S Agreement. They were standing in front of the priests, the Levites who carried the Holy Box.”¹⁰ One revered Rabbi stated: “’Your elders’ – this refers to the high court. ‘And your judges’ – this refers to the king and high priest.”¹¹ In fact, another respected Rabbi said that this did not include all elders. Rather: “the distinguished ones of your elders, [namely] the Great Sanhedrin.”¹² This helps us understand the purpose of their question, and also the reply by our Lord. We must realize, they thought they were only carrying out their duty by ensuring that what this rogue prophet from Nazareth was teaching did not conflict with what they had approved for other teachers. Yet, there is little question that their motivation was also self-centered and not people-centered.

Early church Bishop Hilary gives his view of this confrontation. To him, these priests and elders foresaw that if they did not stop this Jesus of Nazareth before He persuaded all Israelites that He was the Messiah, then their positions of leadership and authority would be destroyed, and with it would go their livelihood and position in society. The control of all Israelites was under their thumb and they did not want to lose that power. But in so doing, they actually revealed another fear, that they too might be convinced of the truth that Jesus was preaching concerning the kingdom of heaven.¹³

Verses 24-25a: Jesus answered, “First let me ask you a question. If you answer me, then I will tell you what authority I have to do these things. Tell me: When John baptized people, did his authority come from God, or was it only from someone else?”

No doubt these religious leaders were not expecting such a response from this young Rabbi. After all, He was in His early 30’s. He should have been somewhat intimidated by these well-dressed clerics and community leaders. But they had no idea they were dealing with the Son of God who was able to read their thoughts and to know their intentions. It also indicates that they were part of the same group that confronted John the Baptizer and wanted to know by what authority he was preaching the message of repentance.¹⁴

At the same time, we must understand how the religious accreditation process worked among the educated Jews. In many synagogues, Rabbis had become well-known because of their interpretations of the Torah,¹⁵ as well as the Mishnah¹⁶ and Talmuds.¹⁷ So those who attended those synagogues became known as being part of that particular school of thought. During Jesus’ time, there was the eminent School of Hillel and the School of Shammai. They differed on their understanding of divorce as well as other teachings. So these priests and Jewish leaders were more or less interested in knowing what seminary Jesus attended and in whose name was He propagating His message because they could find no school with a record of His attendance.

One early church scholar who commented on Matthew had this to say: “Knowing their irreformable intentions, the Lord asked them an entirely rhetorical question, not that they might understand it and respond but that they should be hindered from interrogating Him further, for He had commanded, ‘Do not give what is holy to the dogs,’¹⁸ and it was not fitting that what the Lord commanded should be violated. But it would have profited them nothing, even if He had answered directly since a darkened will cannot discern what is of the light.”¹⁹ In other words, this anonymous writer feels that Jesus’ hesitation in just coming out and saying directly that His authority came from God the Father was two-fold. First, seeing that they really had no interest in knowing the truth, it would be wasted on them like throwing good food to dogs rather than feeding it to a hungry child. And second, the only way to get them to see their own hypocrisy and spiritual blindness was to have it pointed out to them by exposing their actions concerning a man of God that many had come to respect as being sent from God.

The writer goes on to say: “What good is it to show something beautiful to a blind man? Spiritual blindness consists of an evil heart, and evil people are not able to understand the mystery of devotion any more than the blind can gaze upon the splendor of the light. When a stealthy hunter sees a place to dig a trap, he also raises a net adjacent to it so that wherever the prey he is seeking to capture attempts to flee, it will either be caught in the net or fall into the pit. Likewise, the Lord set a trap for the chief priests and elders by means of His simple question, in such a way that if they professed John to have come from heaven, He would be able to ask them, ‘Why, then, did you not believe him?’ But if they replied that John was of the world, they would thereby have run into the danger of being stoned to death by the people, as though fleeing into a hunter’s trap.”²⁰ And it is clear from what followed that these religious leaders saw that trap and then tried to devise a plan on how to avoid it.

So the writer finishes: “It was proper that the Lord teach His interrogator and weaken His tempter in whatever way He could and confound the cleverness of His reproach with rational arguments, while not making known the truth of His own mystery. The Lord did virtually the same thing elsewhere to the devil, who had cited against Him a scriptural text without understanding it: ‘For it is written, “He will command His angels concerning you, and they will hold you in their hands, lest your foot stumbles on a rock.”’²¹ The Lord did not respond, “That is not what this Scripture means.” Rather, He left the devil ignorant of the true meaning of the text and instead refuted him with another clearer passage from Scripture in order to confound the devil’s arrogance without revealing the prophetic mystery.”²²

Here, Jesus gives us an example on how to deal when confronted by skeptics about our faith, our Christian living, and our message. If we are convinced beyond doubt that we are doing what Jesus said to do, then we need not defend ourselves based on our own logic, but point to the Word of God and say: “This is why I believe what I believe, live the way I live, and preach what I preach.” Let them then argue with the Word. By so doing, we recuse ourselves in favor of the great Judge above who will deal with those who have issues with His teachings.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

Part VI

Verses 18-19a: So, at daybreak, Jesus was on His way back to Jerusalem. He was very hungry, and when He saw a fig tree beside the road He went to get a fig from it. But there were no figs on the tree. There were only leaves.

The Latin word used here for “daybreak” is “prima luce”, which means “first light.” Getting up early in the morning was not odd or unusual in those days. When the sun rose, so did most people so they could go out in the fields, the vineyards, or on the waters to begin their work. Even Julius Caesar was an early riser. It is said of him: “After he had weighed anchor at the beginning of the second watch, he reached land at daybreak and brought in all the ships in safety.”¹ And since we have noted that area around Bethany was famous for its figs, this fits well into what Jesus did next.

The Greek text says that Jesus saw “one” fig tree. This could either mean it stood alone, or that He focused on one of the fig trees in the grove near the road. Mark tells us in his Gospel that it was still a long way off from where they stood when Jesus spotted it.² In speaking of the figs around Bethany, the Rabbis said: “One may eat dried figs until the unripe figs of Beth Hini are finished. Said Rabbi Judah: The unripe figs of Beth Hini were not mentioned except in connection with tithing, for we learned, The unripe figs of Beth Hini and the dates of Tobanya are subject to tithe.”³

Agriculturists tell us, that the common fig tree has all female flowers and needs no cross-pollination by another tree or by insects. This tree is quite unusual, however, because it generally bears two crops, the first appearing in spring on new shoots that grew since winter, and the second crop develops in late summer or early fall, from flowers that bloomed in spring on old branches from the previous season. The first crop usually is smaller, acid-flavored and inedible. The second crop is the tree’s main, edible crop, which should be allowed to ripen on the tree before picking.

But we are also told that the fig tree should bear fruit before the leaves grow. If the tree has leaves but no fruit, the tree is barren. That’s why many scholars say that it is most likely that this barren fig tree was a symbol of Israel, representing the empty and fruitless spiritual state of the people. Although this fig tree was resplendent in its abundance of rich, green foliage, yet in spite of its lofty pretensions, this tree could bear no fruit. It was barren, even though it had the look of respectability.

In fact, we find an interesting description of a particular species of figs in their writings. We read where it explains: “White figs which take three years to fully ripen have the seven year law applied to them in the second year of the seven-year cycle, since they ripen once in three years thus, if the fruit emerged during seven year cycle it takes the rest of that year and the next for it to ripen and then it is picked the following year. Rabbi Yehudah says: White figs [which take two years to fully ripen] have the law of seven year cycle applied to them in the year following the seventh year since they ripen once in two years. They said to him: This [that we identify the fig with the year that it emerged rather than the year that it was picked] was only said in regard to the species of white figs, however, are treated as vegetables and are identified as being of the year they are picked.”⁴

While we have no firm evidence, could it be possible that this was a white fig tree representing Israel which takes three years to fully ripen, and with Jesus coming to the end of His three year ministry sees that all of His miracles and teachings have borne no fruit, so He declares that Israel will never blossom and bear the fruit expected for His kingdom. But we do know that within some 35 years from that day, Israel ceased to be a viable nation, it’s Temple was destroyed, and the Jews were scattered to the far extremities of the earth. At the same time, we are informed that there was also a wild fig tree that bore its fruit twice a year.⁵ While it was not yet the season for cultivated fig trees to produce fruit, it may have been that the second crop from this wild fig tree was due, but it failed to produce any. In either case, our Lord had an answer for it when His disciples inquired as to why He caused the tree to die so suddenly.

However, not all Jewish scholars see it this way. Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham takes issue with what Jesus did here. He says: “Jesus acted here neither as a Divine person nor as a man in whom the Divine Spirit dwelt. For He surely might have known that the fig-tree bears its fruit only at the appointed season; nor would any discreet person cast a curse on a tree merely for being thus disappointed. Moreover, if Jesus, by His mere word, was able to render a tree barren, might He not as well, by the power of His word, have made the tree bring forth its fruit at the bidding of the moment, in order to appease His hunger? I, having once made use of this argument with a Christian, he explained it away by asserting that the passage has only a spiritual signification, and that the fig-tree named was but a symbol used by Jesus to represent the Jewish nation, in like manner as the prophets designate them the ‘vine-tree,’ and that Jesus had cursed Israel for having rejected Him as their spiritual teacher, I rejoined that, in our prophecies regarding the time of the expected and true Messiah, we are promised that in the days of the Messiah, knowledge, and prophecy shall increase and prevail throughout the world; as it is said: ‘You shall know that I am in the midst of Israel and that I am the Lord your God, and none else, and my people shall then never again be put to shame. And then I shall pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.’⁶ From this prophecy, it is clear that many of the indispensable conditions, requisite for the advent of the Messiah, had not yet been fulfilled, but were still to come.”⁷

Again, we see where a critic of Jesus fails to understand the spiritual implications because of his focus on natural connotations. Had Jesus turned this barren tree into a fruitful one at His bidding, then it would have signified that the Jewish nation would suddenly believe in Him and follow Him. What our Lord was showing is that not even His word was enough for some Jews, they were barren and had no possibility of bearing fruit for the Kingdom of God.

We see this same exposition in the writings of one early church scholar. He writes: “It was not because Christ cursed it that the tree produced no fruit; instead, because the tree first produced no fruit, Christ cursed it to ensure that it would produce no leaves. Likewise, it wasn’t because God abandoned them that the Jews squandered His righteousness; rather, because they failed to produce the fruits of righteousness, God abandoned them to ensure that they would not have the appearance or reputation of righteousness. Just as it would have been better had there never been a tree at all than for there to have been a tree which produced no fruit according to its kind, so also would it have been better had there never been a man of God than for there to have been a man of God who did not live in accordance with God. If those who are not yours in the first place fail to obey you, you suffer nothing. You will suffer severely, however, if the one who belongs to you despises you and serves another instead. In this way, God’s wrath was not kindled nearly as much by the fact that people who were strangers to him openly served the devil as it was by the sight of his own possession doing the devil’s will.”⁸

Verse 19b-20: So Jesus said to the tree, “You will never again produce fruit!” The tree immediately dried up and died. When the followers saw this, they were very surprised. They asked, “How did the fig tree dry up and die so quickly?”

It looked good but it was all show. As a sign of His disgust, Jesus simply spoke to the tree saying that it would never bear fruit. The quickness with which this tree withered and died astounded Jesus’ followers. When they asked Jesus for an explanation, He more or less told them: “No faith, no fruit.” Then He goes on to tell them about the power of faith, no matter how small the amount. So often we read this scripture but fail to notice the crucial point. Most everyone knows about when Jesus said that even with little faith we can “move mountains,” but He qualifies that by specifying, if you have faith and “do not doubt,” and couples that with, “if you believe.”

This is the main point of His discourse in response to the disciples who were marveling over His making the fig tree wither. But the human ego always looks for the spectacular. The Empire State Building, in New York City, in all its grandeur would not exist were it not for the unseen foundation that lies blocks below the street. It is obvious that Jesus was not advocating that His disciples go around killing fig trees or getting rid of mountains, they all served a needed purpose; His emphasis was on the power of faith in which there is no doubt, and how it should be put it into action by believing that what you have faith for will happen.

Augustine has a lengthy exposition on this act by Jesus of putting a curse on this fig tree. He writes: “Now in order to convey this truth⁹ the Lord acted prophetically. By this, I mean that in reference to the fig tree, it was not His will merely to exhibit a miracle but rather through this sign to convey an intimation of that which was to come. He often taught and persuaded us by such means. So even when our will’s resist, He persuades us and brings us to faith.”¹⁰ By this we understand, that Augustine believes, as we do, that Jesus never did anything without it having a purpose and meaning related to His reason for coming to this world and its ramifications on the rest of the world’s existence.

Augustine continues: “We first ask how was it the tree’s fault that it had no fruit? Even if it had no fruit in its proper season, its season of mature fruit, still the tree would bear no fault. For the tree is without sense and reason, so it could not be blamed. But to this perplexity is added another, which we read in the narrative of the other Evangelist who expressly mentions this: ‘It was not the time for that fruit.’ For this was the time when the fig tree was just shooting forth its tender leaves, which come, as we know, long before the fruit. This sequence has a spiritual meaning. The time for fruit was soon coming with the day of the Lord’s Passion, which was at hand. And so to make this clear, the Evangelist, to his credit, notes that ‘the time of figs was not yet.’ So then, if it was only a miracle that was being demonstrated and not something to be prophetically prefigured, it would have been much more worthy of the clemency and mercy of the Lord if he had found a withered tree and restored it to life. This would seem more in accord with his healing of the sick, cleansing lepers and raising the dead.” In other words, Jesus was not fooled by the season. Rather, He wanted to teach a lesson so He chose the right object to fit that purpose.

Augustine goes on: “But to the contrary, as though against the ordinary rule of His goodness, He found a green tree, not yet bearing fruit, even before its fruit-bearing season but still awaiting the hope of fruit, and what does he do? He withers it straight away! This is a prophetic anticipation of things soon to come, by which he in effect says to us: ‘I have no delight in the withering away of this tree. By doing so I want to convey to you that I am not acting absurdly but for a lesson you might take more seriously. It is not this literal tree that I have cursed. It is not on an insensible tree that I have inflicted punishment. Rather, I have made you fear, whoever you are who considers this matter, that you should not fail Christ when he is hungry and that you might hope to be in the coming season of fruit than to be in the preparatory season of leaves.’ …”

Then Augustine finishes: “Therefore, beloved, I must tell you and teach you according to my poor abilities that which the Lord has given me for your benefit. I must convey to you what you may hold as a rule in the interpretation of all Scripture. Everything that is said or done is to be understood either in its literal signification, or else it signifies something figuratively; or it may contain both of these at once, both its own literal interpretation and a figurative signification also.…Thus Christ, wishing to convey this lesson to us, wanted us to produce fruit and in this way set forth for us a figurative fiction which is not a deceiving fiction but a fiction worthy of praise.”¹¹

So the lesson here was not what Jesus did to the empty tree, but why He did it. Obviously, had He not intended to teach about the power of faith, He would never have given it as His answer for why it was done. That’s why in reading about Jesus’ miracles we must always look for “why He did it” instead of concentrating on “what He did.”

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

Part V

Verse 14: Then, some blind people and some who were crippled came to Jesus in the Temple area and Jesus healed them.

Something must have triggered this sudden rush of people surging into the Temple area to seek healing from this unknown prophet from Nazareth. It may no doubt have been from the testimonies of those who were following Jesus, some of which were healed prior to His coming there, and they had been following Him after they were healed. Could it be that among those giving witness to Jesus’ healing power were the two blind men healed as Jesus left Jericho a few days earlier?

What better way to attract people to Jesus than for those who’ve been healed and changed by His touch to testify to the miraculous change that came into their lives. There have been times when I’ve witnessed where such testimonies have prompted more people to turn to Jesus than a sermon. That’s why we must always keep in mind that we are not healed to be spectators, but ambassadors of the Kingdom of God.

Verse 15a: The leading priests and the teachers of the law saw the marvelous things He was doing. And they also saw the children praising Him in the Temple area shouting, “Praise to the Son of David.”

Once again, as in the case of blind Bartimaeus in Mark’s Gospel,¹ the leaders of the Jews were incensed at the people’s acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, David’s son. After all, it was they themselves who were supposed to recognize and give credence to the Christ when He came, not the lowly masses. He was to be a friend of the High Priests, Scribes, and Levites, not the tax collectors, prostitutes, and the poor. He would praise the Sadducees and Pharisees, not condemned them. He would exterminate their enemies, not ask that they are prayed for.

However, if this Jesus loved by the multitudes is really the awaited Messiah, they will now have to acknowledge that fact and be reconciled with Him. This, they were not about to do. Their pride and positions in the community were at stake. Even as Christ Himself said, “We must become as little children and be converted to enter the kingdom of heaven.” To them, that did not fit the image of those would follow the Messiah. He was to be a champion riding in on His stallion, ready to rule the world. Problem was, they had the right person in Jesus of Nazareth, but were not placing Him in the right context; He had come to be the Savior of the world before He would return as the King of the world. So they were caught between the adoring crowds and their own skeptical religious leaders.

Surely they knew that Isaiah said this is exactly how the Messiah would minister, “Then the eyes of the blind will be opened so that they can see, and the ears of the deaf will be opened so that they can hear. Crippled people will dance like deer, and those who cannot speak now will use their voices to sing happy songs.”² Not only that, but their spiritual fathers had said this would come after they returned to Jerusalem from exile in Babylon and Persia, and that certainly was the case.³ But on top of that, they were further caught off guard because of all the other wonderful things Jesus was doing without their sponsorship or approval.

Verse 15b-16a: All this made the priests and the teachers of the law very upset, so they confronted Jesus, “Do You hear what these children are saying?”

As we can see, while the crowd is praising Jesus for His works with hosannas, and the children are praising Him for being the Messiah, calling Him the royal descendant of king David, the priests and scribes had a different reaction. What caused these leading priests and scribes so much concern about the children, is that their own teaching stated that if a child knows how to shake the lulab,⁴ they become responsible for what the lulab represents; and if they know how to drape the prayer shawl on their heads, their father must purchase one for them; and if they are old enough to speak, they must be taught the Torah and learn how to recite the Shema: “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” Not only that, but if they know how to purify themselves, they must be allowed to eat kosher foods; and if they know how to spread out their hands to say a benediction, then they must be allowed to partake of the terumah, which is a special food offering prepared so that a portion can be tithed for the support of priests.⁵

In other words, these were not just innocent, uninformed children crying Hosanna while mimicking the adults, but children who knew what they were doing. So as one respected Rabbi said: “If a child knows how to shake the lulab according to the instructions of the Sages,” then they are eligible to fulfill the commandments related to the Feasts.⁶ Instead, it made these religious leaders angry. The Persian Version renders it: “it displeased the priests;” the Aramaic Version says: “they were displeased;” the Arabic Version says: “they murmured;” the Ethiopic translation has: “it was not pleasant to them,” and an old Hebrew version of Matthew renders it: “The sages mocked.”⁷ It is ironic, that here the adults were wrong by being upset over what children were doing right.

Verse 16b: So Jesus answered them, “Yes I do. But have you never read where the Scriptures say, ‘You have prepared children and infants to give praise.’”⁸

I’m not sure if these aggravated Jewish religious leaders were prepared for the answer they received from Jesus on this matter. Instead of being defensive, He offered them an answer from a source they could not argue with. The Jewish Version or Psalm 8:2 reads: “From the mouths of babies and infants at the breast you established strength because of your foes, in order that you might silence the enemy and the avenger.” Even though Jesus did not say nor did Matthew include it here, the words of David in another psalm were certainly apropos on this occasion: “Give ADONAI His due, you who are godly; give ADONAI His due of glory and strength; give ADONAI the glory due His name; worship ADONAI in holy splendor.”⁹

Verse 17: Then Jesus turned and walked out of Jerusalem over to Bethany where He spent the night.

It appears that our Lord left the leading priests and teachers of the law standing with their mouths open, thinking about the Scripture He had just quoted them before He walked away. Matthew tells us that He went over to Bethany where Mary, Martha, and Lazarus lived. We are not told how many of the disciples went with Him, but we do know they were there the next morning to witness His encounter with a fig tree.¹⁰

Bethany is not mentioned in the Old Testament, but in the Babylonian Talmud it is referred to as Beth Hini.¹¹ Bethany was a village to the east of the mount of Olives, on the road to Jericho; about two miles from Jerusalem. When St. Jerome visited this area between 385-388 AD, he noted that the village was small and poor, and the cultivation of the soil around it is much neglected; but it is a pleasant, romantic spot, shaded by Mount Olive, and abounding in vines and long grass. He said, “Bethany is a village at the second milestone from Aelia [Jerusalem], on the slope of Mount of Olive, where the Savior raised Lazarus to life, to which event the church now built there bears witness” It consists of from thirty to forty dwellings inhabited by about 600 Mohammedans, for whose use there is a neat little mosque standing on a mound. Here they show the ruins of a sort of castle as the house of Lazarus, and a grotto as his tomb; and the house of Simon the leper, of Mary Magdalene, and of Martha, and the identical tree which our Lord cursed, are among the monk’s souvenirs of the place. According to Jewish sources, today this is the site of the village el-æAzariye on the southeastern slopes of Mount Olive. The identification is established by the name el-æAzariye which is the Arabic form for “Lazarium,” as Bethany was sometimes called by the Christians. The village, with its olive, fig, almond, and carob-trees, is a little oasis in that barren region. In Hebrew, figs are called te’enah, which are also mentioned in the Talmud, which probably contributed to giving the place its name of beth (home) of te’enah (figs).

Regardless of how blessed Bethany was because of Lazarus’ resurrection and Jesus’ many visits, we are told by the Jews that the day came when all the bazaars in Bethany were destroyed.¹² Bible scholars tell us: “These were stores set up on Mount Olive for the supply of pigeons and other commodities required for sacrifices, and owned by the powerful priestly families, to whom they proved a source of wealth, were destroyed three years before the fall of Jerusalem [in 70 AD].”¹³ In any case, this is where Jesus went to spend the night, either at the house of Lazarus, and his sisters Martha and Mary, or over at the house of Simon the Leper. To put it bluntly, He went there for a good night’s sleep because He knew what awaited Him the next morning back at the Temple in Jerusalem, and He wanted to be mentally and physically prepared.

A well-known British Christian writer made this statement in one of his novels some 100 years ago: “When it rains on your parade, look up rather than down. Without the rain, there would be no rainbow.”¹

Sometimes this is hard to do, especially after the rain has caused flooding that results in homes being swept away by strong torrents, mud slides that wipe out highways, bridges, and cause millions of dollars in damage. G. K. Chesterton was often referred to as the “prince of paradox.” And that is what we find in this saying. How can anything so negative, as rain on a parade, end up being so positive?

In fact, it’s not the rain. This has been part of nature since creation. Without rain providing lakes, rivers, and drinking water, mankind would find it hard to exist. The damage caused by torrential rains and floods is most often to those things man has built in places where more caution should have been taken before construction began.

It all goes back to Noah’s flood. There was so much wickedness in the world that God chose rain to wash all that evil away and begin again with Noah and his family. So it was after the rain stopped that God gave the rainbow as a sign that He was in control. Therefore, the rainbow can become a symbol of starting over with a clean slate.

So, as Chesterton suggested, the next time it rains on your parade and things flood into your life that can cause a major change in the way you act, think and live, don’t look down, look up, and see the rainbow that offers the promise of a new opportunity to build again. But this time, build on a rock above the flood plain, not down on the sand where it can happen again. – Dr. Robert R Seyda