The cursing of the fig tree happened as Jesus and the disciples walked from Bethany to Jerusalem on Tuesday. The disciples' exclamation about the withered tree and Jesus' lesson followed on Wednesday. Jesus and His disciples proceeded into Jerusalem where confrontations with three groups erupted in the temple courtyard that day.
Israel's religious leaders approached Jesus asking that He show them His credentials authorizing Him to disrupt the buying and selling in the courtyard and to heal people.
"Two incidents about authority (21:23-27 and 22:41-46) serve as bookends' to three parables (21:28-22:14) and three controversial dialogues with the Pharisees and Herodians, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees (22:15-40)."788
21:23 Jesus taught in the temple courtyard or perhaps under one of the colonnades that surrounded it. The chief priests were high officials in the temple. At this time in Israel's history the Roman authorities appointed these leaders (cf. 2:4). They constituted part of the Sanhedrin, the ruling council in Judaism. The elders were evidently non-priests who represented leading families in Israel. They also had representation on the Sanhedrin.789Matthew described these men in terms of their clerical status, not their party affiliation. His point was that these were high-ranking leaders of Israel.
They inquired about Jesus' authority to drive out the money changers and merchants, heal the sick, and teach the people. They were the people with authority to control what happened in the temple area. Authority (Gr. exousia) is the right, and the power that goes with the right, to do something.790They wanted to know what authority Jesus had and who had given Him the authority to do what He did since they had not. The quality of Jesus' authority depended on its source.791Their question indicated their opposition to what He did.
"The real issue in the passage concerns not information about the authority of Jesus but the unbelief and unreceptivity of the Jewish leadership. The latter knew well enough that Jesus would have claimed divine authority for his doings in the temple area. Their question thus reflects not an inquisitive openness but an already established rejection of Jesus and the attempt to gain evidence that could later be used against him."792
21:24-26 Jesus responded to their question with one of His own. This was common rabbinic debate technique.793By referring to John's baptism Jesus meant everything associated with his baptism, his whole message and ministry. Since John was Jesus' forerunner the leaders' response to John's ministry would answer their own question about Jesus' authority. If they said John's ministry was from heaven they would have had to acknowledge that Jesus' received His authority from God, since that is what John announced.794If they said John's ministry was from men, lacking divine authentication, they knew the people would rise up against them because the people regarded John as a prophet from God. The leaders' refused to commit themselves knowing that whatever they said would have bad consequences for them.
Any honest seeker among the leaders would have understood and accepted Jesus' answer to the leaders' question. However most of the leaders simply wanted to get rid of Jesus having previously rejected Him. Jesus pointed out with His question that their rejection of Him grew out of an earlier rejection of John.
21:27 The leaders' equivocation gave Jesus a reason to refuse them a direct answer. Why did He not give them one? They had refused earlier revelation through John. Having refused that revelation they had no ground to ask for more. They were incompetent to judge Jesus' authority since they misunderstood the Old Testament and rejected the ministry of John. That was tragic since these were the men charged with evaluating the claims of those who said they spoke for God. They were ineffective spiritual leaders because they refused to judge fairly.795
Matthew used this confrontation over Jesus' authority to introduce three parables. He typically used events to introduce teaching in this Gospel. All three parables deal with these religious leaders.
This first parable condemned the conduct of these leaders. It showed that they condemned themselves by judging Jesus as they did.
21:28 Jesus evidently launched into this parable immediately. His introductory question, unique in Matthew, continued the rabbinic dialogue. The first son was the older of the two (v. 30). The vineyard again referred to Israel in view of Old Testament usage (cf. 20:1-15).
21:29-31 The ancient Greek texts of these verses contain variations that have resulted in different translations. The NASB has the older son saying yes but doing nothing. The younger son says no but repents and goes. The younger son does the father's will. The NIV has the older son saying no but then repenting and going. The younger son says yes but does not go. The older son does the father's will. Probably the interpretation of the parable influenced early copyists. The better reading appears to be the one represented in the NASB.796
This is the first time Jesus applied one of His parables directly to Israel's leaders (v. 31). He introduced this application with His usual solemn introduction (cf. 5:16; et al.). Both the NASB and the NIV have translated the last verb in this sentence poorly. The Greek verb proago("get into . . . before"or "entering . . . ahead of") here means "enter instead of."797
The tax gatherers and harlots were the dregs of Jewish society. Jesus undoubtedly shocked His listeners when He made this statement. The scum of society, though it originally said no to God, repented at the preaching of John and Jesus and thereby did God's will. Consequently these people would enter the kingdom (by resurrection). However the religious leaders affirmed their willingness to do God's will but refused to do so by rejecting Jesus. They would not enter the kingdom.
Note that Jesus described both groups as sons of the father in the parable. All the Jews, those with a privileged position and those with none, enjoyed being sons of God in the sense that God has chosen Israel as His son (cf. Hos. 11:1). The leaders could still believe in Jesus and enter the kingdom. Individual salvation was still possible even though national rejection was strong.
21:32 This verse links the parable with Jesus' earlier words about the leaders' response to John and His authority (vv. 23-27). John had come preaching what was right, the way of righteousness. Israel's leaders had not responded positively to his message. Even the repentance of Israel's most despised citizens did not change their minds. It should have.
Jesus proceeded immediately to tell another parable. Luke wrote that Jesus addressed it to the crowds in the temple courtyard (Luke 20:9). The chief priests and elders continued to listen (vv. 45-46).
21:33-34 Jesus alluded to Isaiah 5:1-7 and Psalm 80:8-16 where the vineyard is Israel and the landowner God. The care the landowner took with his vineyard shows God's concern for Israel. He had a right to expect that it would be a fruitful vineyard and yield much fruit. The tenants to whom the landowner entrusted his vineyard represent Israel's leaders. The harvest time (lit. the season of the fruits) stands for the time when God could expect to obtain some reward for His investment in Israel. The slaves (Gr. douloi) are God's faithful servants the prophets.
21:35-37 Israel's leaders had beaten and killed various prophets (cf. 1 Kings 18:4, 13; 22:24; 2 Chron. 24:21-22; Jer. 20:1-2; 26:20-23; 37:15). Sending his son might seem foolhardy in view of the tenants' former behavior.798However this act showed the landowner's patience and his hope that the tenants would respond properly to the representative with the greatest authority.
"The contrast is between what men would do and what God had done."799
21:38-40 Israel's leaders did not reject Jesus because they did not know who He was but because they refused to submit to His authority (23:37). Jesus had announced to His disciples that the Jewish leaders would kill Him (16:21; 17:23; 20:18). Now He announced this to the leaders themselves and the people.
21:41 The hearers who responded may have been the leaders, but since Jesus identified the guilty in the parable clearly, they were probably the people standing about listening. They easily anticipated God's action. He would depose the leaders and bring them to a miserable end. Then God would deliver the care of His vineyard to other slaves who would present the desired fruit at the appointed time. These refer to the prophets, apostles, and servants of God who would represent Him after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension.
21:42 Every time Jesus said, "Did you never read?"He was stressing that the Scriptures pointed to Him (cf. 12:3; 19:4; 21:16; Mark 12:10). Jesus changed the figure from a vineyard to a building. This quotation is from Psalm 118:22-23. It probably originally described David, Jesus' ancestor and type. All Israel's leaders including Samuel and Saul had originally rejected David, but God chose him and made him the capstone of the nation. Likewise God had chosen Israel, a nation that the other world leaders despised. However, God would make Israel the capstone of the nations when He established the kingdom.
Similarly in Jesus' day Israel's leaders had rejected after trial (Gr. apodokimazo) the Son of David, but God would make Him the capstone of His building. Jesus' history recapitulated the history of both Israel and David. Earthly leaders were rejecting Him, but God would exalt Him over all eventually. This reversal of fortunes is a phenomenon that onlookers marvel at as they observe it. Jesus made another strong messianic claim when He applied this passage to Himself.
21:43 This verse continues to explain the parable of the wicked tenant farmers. Because Israel's leaders had failed to produce the fruit God desired and had slain His Son, He would remove responsibility and privilege from them and give that to another "nation"or "people"(Gr. ethnei). What God did was transfer responsibility for preparing for the kingdom from Israel and give it to a different group, namely the church (cf. Acts 13:46; 18:5-6; Rom. 10:19; 1 Pet. 2:9).
"Matthew 21:43 could be the key verse in the entire argument of Matthew."800
The unusual term "kingdom of God"rather than Matthew's customary "kingdom of heaven"probably stresses the fact that the kingdom belongs to God, not the leaders of Israel.
Jesus did not mean that God would remove the kingdom from Israel forever (cf. Rom. 11:26-27). When Jesus returns to the earth and establishes His kingdom, Israel will have the most prominent position in it (Gen. 12; 15; 2 Sam. 7; Jer. 31).
"For the first time the King speaks openly and clearly to someone outside of the circle of the disciples about a new age. This is full proof that the kingdom was no longer near at hand."801
21:44 The capstone, the top stone on a wall or parapet around a flat-roofed building, could and did become a stumbling block to some. Many Jews similarly tripped over Jesus' identity and plunged to their destruction. Likewise a capstone could fall on someone below and crush him or her. These are allusions to Isaiah 8:14-15 and Daniel 2:35, 44-45. Jesus was a dangerous person as well as God's chosen representative and the occupier of God's choice position in His building, Israel. Jesus was claiming to be the Judge; He would crush those on whom He fell.
21:45-46 The meaning of Jesus' words was clear to Israel's leaders who heard Him. Matthew probably described them as chief priests, mostly Sadducees, and Pharisees because these were the two leading parties within Judaism. Together these two groups stood for all the Jewish authorities who opposed Jesus.
Rather than fearing Jesus, whom they understood claimed to be the instrument of their final judgment, these leaders feared the multitudes whose power over them was much less. Rather than submitting to Him in belief, they tried to seize Him. Thus they precipitated the very situation that Jesus had warned them about, namely His death at their hands. Their actions confirm their rejection of Jesus and their consequent blindness.
The three parables in this series are similar to three concentric circles in their scope. The scope of the parable of the two sons encompassed Israel's leaders (21:28-32). The parable of the wicked tenant farmers exposed the leaders' lack of responsibility and their guilt to the people listening in as well as to the leaders themselves (21:33-46). This last parable is the broadest of the three. It condemned the contempt with which Israel as a whole had treated God's grace to her.
22:1 The NASB says, "Jesus answered."This was Matthew's way of introducing what Jesus said (cf. 11:25). It does not mean that what Jesus said was a response to a particular question someone had asked Him. Jesus responded to the leaders' desires (cf. 21:45-46). The antecedent of "them"was the Jewish leaders, but there were many other Jews in the temple courtyard listening to the dialogue.
22:2-3 Jesus said the kingdom was similar to what the following story illustrated (cf. 13:24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47; 20:1). The king represents God the Father. His son, the bridegroom (cf. 9:15; 25:1), is Messiah. The wedding feast is the messianic banquet that will take place on earth at the beginning of the kingdom (8:11-12; 25:1; cf. Ps. 132:15; Isa. 25:6-8; 65:13-14; Rev. 21:2). As in the previous parable, the slaves (Gr. douloi) of the king are His prophets (21:34-36).802They announced the coming of the banquet and urged those whom God invited to it, the Jews, to prepare for it. However most of those who heard about it did not respond to the call to prepare for it.803
22:4-5 Perhaps the later slaves included John the Baptist. The fact that the king repeated his invitation and urged those who had previously shown no interest in attending demonstrates his grace and compassion. This was customary in the ancient Near East.804The Greek word translated "dinner"(ariston) usually refers to the first of two meals that the Jews ate each day, most commonly near mid-morning. This was the first of many meals that the guests at this banquet would enjoy since wedding feasts usually lasted a week or so in the ancient Near East (cf. v. 13).805The king emphasized the imminency of the feast as he sent out his servants again. This is, of course, what John and Jesus had been preaching as they urged the Jews to get ready for the kingdom.806
"A very important fact revealed in the parable is the fact that the offer of the kingdom was a genuine one. The kingdom in all of its reality was as prepared and near as was the feast of the parable."807
The wedding feast is not the kingdom, however. It is the celebration at the beginning of the kingdom, the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:9).
The people the slaves of the king invited showed more interest in their own possessions and activities than they did in the banquet (John 1:12). They refused the invitation of their king that was both an honor and a command.
22:6-7 Some of those invited not only refused the gracious invitation but abused and even murdered the king's servants. Enraged at their conduct the king sent his army, destroyed the murderers, and burned down their city (cf. 21:38-41). Burning down an enemy's city was a common fate of rebels in the ancient East (cf. 2 Chron. 36:21; Nah. 3:14-15). Here Jesus implied it would happen to Jerusalem again. It did happen in 70 A.D. when the Roman emperor Titus finally overcame the Jewish rebels and scattered them from Palestine. This was Jesus' first prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem.
22:8-10 The king did not begin the wedding feast then. He sent out more slaves to invite anyone to attend. The original guests were not worthy because they disregarded the king's invitations. They failed to respond to his invitation to come freely. The king sent His slaves out into the "main highways"(NASB, Gr. tas diexodous ton hodon, lit. "street corners,"NIV, places where people congregated) to invite everyone to the feast (cf. 8:11; 21:43). His slaves went out into the streets and gathered everyone who would come, the evil and the good in the sight of men. Finally the wedding hall was full of guests.
"The calling of other guests now (still going on) takes the place of the first invitation--a new exigency and preparation being evolved--and the supper, until these guests are obtained . . . is postponedto the Second Advent."808
The majority of the Jews were not worthy to attend the messianic banquet at the beginning of the kingdom because they rejected God's gracious offer of entrance by faith in His Son. Therefore God's slaves would go out into the whole world to invite as many as would to come, Jews and Gentiles alike (28:19). Jesus predicted that many, not just Jews but also Gentiles, would respond so when the kingdom began the great banquet hall would be as full as God intended.
22:11-13 The man who did not wear the proper wedding garment was unprepared for the banquet. He was there, whether evil or good (v. 10), because he had accepted the king's gracious invitation. However he was subject to the king's scrutiny. The king addressed his guest as a friend. He asked how he had obtained admission without the proper garment. The man was speechless due to embarrassment. Then the king gave orders to his servants (Gr. diakonois) to bind the man hand and foot like a prisoner and to cast him out of the banquet hall. They would throw him into the "outer darkness"(NASB) or "outside, into the darkness"(NIV). The place where he would go would be a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth.
It is probably significant that Jesus referred to the king's slaves (Gr. douloi, vv. 3, 4, 6, 8, 10) as heralding the kingdom, but He said the king's servants (Gr. diakonoi, v. 13) evicted the unworthy guest. Evidently the slaves refer to the prophets and the servants to the angels.
These verses have spawned several different interpretations. One view is that the man who tries to participate in the banquet but gets evicted represents those whom God will exclude in the judgment that will take place before the kingdom begins.809This view takes the man evicted as representing a Jew who hopes to gain entrance to the kingdom because he is a Jew. Since he does not have the proper clothing, the robe of righteousness, he cannot enter the kingdom. The lesson Jesus wanted to teach was that individual faith in Jesus, not nationality, was necessary for entrance. This view seems best to me.
"Christ revealed that unless they prepared themselves to be judged acceptable by the host, they would be excluded from the kingdom when it was instituted."810
A second view is that the man was at the banquet because he was a believer in Jesus. There the king upon careful examination discovered that he did not have the prerequisite righteousness. Therefore the king excluded him from the kingdom. In other words, he withdrew the man's salvation. The problem with this view is that it involves the withdrawing of salvation. This view is untenable in view of Scripture promises that once God gives the gift of eternal life He never withdraws it (John 10:28-29; Rom. 8:31-39).
A third view is that the loss of salvation is not in view, but the loss of eternal reward is. The man has eternal life. The wedding garment does not represent salvation but good works with which the believer should clothe himself in response to the demands God has on his or her life.
"There is no suggestion here of punishment or torment. The presence of remorse, in the form of weeping and gnashing of teeth, does not in any way require this inference. Indeed, what we actually see in the image itself is a man soundly trussed up' out on the darkened grounds of the king's private estate, while the banquet hall glows with light and reverberates with the joys of those inside. That is what we actually see. And that is all!"811
However the term "weeping and gnashing of teeth"as Jesus used it elsewhere seems to describe hell, the place where unbelievers go (cf. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 24:51; 25:30; Luke 13:28). This term was a common description of gehenna, hell (4 Ezra 7:93; 1 Enoch 63:10; Psalms of Solomon 14:9; Wisdom of Solomon 17:21).812
22:14 Jesus concluded the parable with a pithy statement that explained it (cf. 18:7). Not all whom God has invited to the kingdom will participate in it. Only those who respond to God's call and prepare themselves by trusting in Jesus will.
"Finally, the parable teaches that a general call does not constitute or guarantee election (verse fourteen). The Israelites took great pride in the fact that they as a nation possessed the kingdom promises. But this of itself did not mean each Jew was elected to it. Entrance was an individual responsibility, and that is what Christ is emphasizing in the last portion of the parable."813
"Ironically, the chosen people' show in their refusal of the invitation that they are notall among the elect' but only among the called.'"814
"While the invitation is broad, those actually chosen for blessing are few."815
The point of these three parables is quite clear. God would judge Israel's leaders because they had rejected Jesus, their Messiah. He would postpone the kingdom and allow anyone to enter it, not just the Jews. The prophets had predicted that Gentiles would participate in the kingdom; this was not new revelation. However the Jews, because of national pride, had come to believe that being a Jew was all the qualification one needed to enter the kingdom. Jesus taught them that receiving God's gracious invitation and preparing oneself by trusting in Him was the essential requirement for participation.
