Matthew 28:11-20

Matthew 28:11-20

The five verses for 11-15 are a fascinating side bar to the appearance of the resurrected Lord. Perhaps the greatest irony in history, that the high priest have guards placed to prevent the disciples from stealing the body, ends up proving that the disciples did not steal the body. A second irony is that the accusation of the priests that Jesus was a deceiver (27:63) is turned on them and we see that they persisted in their deception or at least attempted to. If the guards slept how could they know who stole the body? How could a whole unit of guards sleep through such an operation?

A major theme of Matthew has been the superseding of the old with the new: the denouncing of the temple system and the priest being replaced with something higher. Matthew, in the same spirit, focuses all of the post-Easter ministry of Jesus away from Jerusalem.

We can take comfort that even in the presence of the resurrected Lord “some were doubtful”. This is not the same as unbelief-the resolve to not believe and the submission associated with and would come with believing. To doubt is literally "to have two minds". They were perhaps fearful and hopeful, glad to be with Jesus and afraid to be with Him after their denial and rejection of Him. While unbelief is rejection such as Judas and the priest, doubt is confusion. The determination to follow Jesus even if we are fully committed means we may struggle with “what” or “how”; it is often to struggle with doubt.

Jesus clarifies their doubt. It is in the context of the disciples’ doubt that Jesus gives the great commission. When in doubt (which is not a rarity in our lives) fulfill the great commission. On the mount of temptation Satan offers to Jesus, “All the kingdoms of the world and their glory.” Jesus having followed the path of obedience now has all the authority in Heaven and on Earth. Typically, what Satan offers is a small parody of what God will give us if we are faithful to Him. Based on His authority the Lord commands and commissions His disciples to go and make disciples. Again we see a cycle complete. Jesus began in 4:18-22 calling and making disciples and that is now to be repeated. This discipleship is the commitment of absolute loyalty and fidelity to the person of Jesus and His name. Notice that in reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit the name is grammatically singular. Discipleship is never completed and certainly not with the act of baptism. There follows after baptism teaching of the command of Jesus and the required obedience. There is the high ethical life that the Lord expects.

Matthew begins with the pronouncement of “Emmanuel”, God with us. The circle is now complete, “I am with you.” This is not meant so much as an emotional support but as a confirmation of equipping for the task of making disciples of all the world.

"Lord, be with me as I go and make disciples. AMEN"

Matthew 28:1-10

Matthew 28:1-10

It is interesting that the account of the resurrection is so brief. In fact, the moment of the resurrection is not mentioned at all. By the time chapter 28 begins the resurrection has already occurred. It might seem a bit odd that the post-resurrection history is so short. Matthew spends 140 verses on the Lord’s Supper, passion and execution. Before that he took 228 verses on the last week of public ministry and in teaching the disciples. But he only spent 20 verses on the post resurrection- 40 days and only 20 verses. That is hardly the way we would report an event today. Our human curiosity would be asking, “What was it like to be dead?” “Who did you see?” “What was it like to come to life again?”

But the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to pursue a different track. He pursues two very simple themes. First is that the tomb is empty. The stone was removed from the tomb entrance not to let Jesus out, but to let us in. He who has just defeated death didn’t need help getting out of the tomb. Interestingly, for at least the last part of their watch the guards were guarding a vacant tomb. The romanticized pictures we have of Jesus walking out of the tomb on Easter morning is not supported by the statement of Scripture. The stone rolled away to show what had already happened. The massive stone was tossed to one side, the glorious angel, and the fainting guards were all about an empty tomb-no one was there. We are not told where Jesus was at that moment. For the unbeliever, skeptic, or the agnostic there is the empty tomb that must be dealt with. Either it was empty for supernatural reasons or for natural ones. The natural reasons are simply too unbelievable.

The second theme is the resurrected Lord. The post resurrection accounts of Jesus vary widely, but that should not surprise us. This is the first time anything like this has ever happened and it might take a little getting used to. After the women left the tomb Jesus met them and greeted them. That greeting was a typical greeting. It was so casual, so ordinary. We might expect “zing”, more “wow”, more “sha-bam”. But Jesus simply walks up and says, “Hello.” There is something special about that casualness. For the believer this resurrected Christ greets people with a casual hello. He is acting as if the resurrected life is the new normal and it is. While there is a “not yet” aspect of the resurrection life there is an aspect in which the new normal for us is the resurrection. There are many implications for that which we haven’t grasped yet, but all the same, “Welcome to the new normal.”

"Lord, thank You for and help me to live this new normal this resurrection life. AMEN"

Matthew 27:57-66

Matthew 27:57-66

The burial of Jesus is portrayed with two key elements in mind. First, that Jesus was in fact dead. Second, the tomb is certainly secured. Burial was not a customary Roman treatment for the crucified. Typically, the bodies were removed and thrown down. This was an affront to Jewish sensitivities and so they would provide burial in a pauper’s grave. The burial by Joseph was unusual and extravagant. This was a fulfillment of Isaiah 53:9. New tomb is a reference to a tomb that as yet was unused. Joseph’s going to Pilate and burying Jesus was a clear break from his peers in the Sanhedrin and a clear indication of his love and loyalty to the Lord. He would have become ritually unclean for the Passover. Joseph has rejected the position of power out of loyalty to Jesus. He has taken Jesus in as a family member and is careless about the social and career consequences.

In verse 62, Matthew describes the Sabbath morning without mentioning the Sabbath. Why this avoidance of saying “Sabbath”? Perhaps it is emphasis that the old way has now been updated and the new has been enacted on the cross. Whatever the reason, Matthew points out that the delegation that came to Pilate was made up of both the Chief Priests and the Pharisees. They remain united in opposing Jesus even after His death. How did they know that Jesus would have claimed to rise again? Matthew 12:40 is Jesus’s only public reference to the resurrection. Perhaps Judas or another informant told them. While they did not believe Him they admitted that He had made the claim. They thought He was a deceiver and this could be a postmortem deception. Providentially in their efforts to prevent false claims of a resurrection they, by securing the tomb, provide greater evidence for the resurrection when it did occur.

We see Pilate wanting to be done with the whole situation. His compliance seems to be that of someone who, rather than excited to join in, is willing to do whatever it takes to get this issue to go away.

The secret plans and schemes of man, all the plots and sub-plots, the wheels inside of wheels are nothing before the hand of God. Their careful schemes laid out to secure their agenda were actually going to work out the will of God-the absolute opposite of what they wanted and planned.

"Give me faith Lord, to trust in what You are doing even if all I see are the actions of the wicked. AMEN"

Matthew 27:52

Matthew 27:52

An extra devotional

Imagine if you will, that the ten, greatest philosophers of all time suddenly came back to life and descended on Ivy League schools. Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Socrates and others came back to life and went to major universities. Or perhaps the ten greatest musicians in all of history resurrected and went to Julliard. In walks Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven, among others, to instruct on how music should be written, conducted, or played. Again, what would happen if the ten most brilliant military commanders of all history appear at West Point to teach? Julius Caesar, Hannibal, Stonewall Jackson, Chief Joseph, Alexander of Macedonia are ready to inspire the next generation of officers. Finally, consider the result if the 10 most beautiful women or handsome men appear in Hollywood to begin shooting movies.

You get the picture. If such a thing were to happen, it would be the sole topic of conversation around the world. Every network would end regular programming so that they could dedicate 24/7 camera time to these living icons of past ages. The Internet would explode with coverage. Entire segments of our world would be dedicated to nothing other than following every move these people make. Books, magazines, e-books, photo journals would be printing to cover every nuance of the second lives of these people.

At least today that is what would happen.

But when it happened before it was almost unnoticed. In Matthew 27:52-53, we read: The tombs were also opened and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And they came out of the tombs after His resurrection, entered the holy city, and appeared to many. (NASB) This is the only reference to this resurrection of a group of people. This event is treated as if it were really not a very big deal. Matthew gives it less than 35 words. It doesn’t even appear in Mark, Luke, or John. It is kind of incredulous that a mass resurrection would occur, but be treated as of little importance.

Until we see it is put in juxtaposition to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. In light of that grand event, nothing else in all of the universe is very significant. An eight-foot rowboat is inconsequential when set beside an aircraft carrier. When compared to a state funeral for a great President, wiping a crushed cockroach off the sole of your shoe is no big deal. There is no way to contrast the wedding of the Crown Prince of a great Empire with a 4th grade school dance. A flashlight is nothing compared to a star. And the resurrection of the saints of old is just barely a footnote when set beside the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah.

We, who have placed our hope in the One who was on the cross and who left the tomb empty, have a treasure beyond words. But, I fear our familiarity with the telling and retelling, hearing and rehearing, recalling and re-recalling of this event, may cause us to fail to notice its grandeur. Take a moment to consider how utterly huge, unparalleled, and beyond comparison is the reality of the cross and the empty tomb. Everything else in history is less than a period at the end of Gone With the Wind when compared with the greatest of all events.

"Awaken in me, Oh Lord, a renewed love for the grandeur of the Gospel. AMEN"

Matthew 27:45-56

Matthew 27:45-56

The death of Jesus has inspired more words than any other event in history. Literally, tens of millions of words have been used to describe and discuss this moment. For Matthew it is twelve, short verses. But even in these short verses Matthew fills them with Old Testament allusions.

The darkness was no natural event, but a sign of God’s emotional reaction to the events and perhaps a reference to the plague of darkness on Egypt. The Lord’s crying out is taken from Psalm 22 and this is the only occasion in the Gospels where Jesus does not call God His Father. As the sins of the world are placed on Jesus the Father turns away. What a profound description of the isolation Jesus experienced. His rejection is complete. Jesus was rejected by the disciples, Jewish leaders, His people, the Gentiles and now even His Father turns from Him.

The drink offered was likely wine vinegar mixed with water. Most likely, but not certainly, it would have been brought by the soldiers. Even in this moment we see Matthew’s recurring theme that Jesus is the source of division. There were those who offered an act of kindness and those who would in this moment mock Him.

In the moment of death in verse 50 we see Jesus cry out. This marks a strong voice of declaration not a fading whisper. Matthew doesn’t record what Jesus cries out. It may have been, “It is finished,” or it may have been the victory cry of a great warrior at the moment of death that knows He has defeated death. Jesus yields up His spirit. This was a deliberate act of His will. Death did not happen to Him. Death did not take him. Death did not win round one on Friday with Jesus winning a rematch on Sunday. Jesus, as an act of His will, gave up His life or spirit.

In addition to the darkness, three events in the natural world marked the death of Jesus. The temple curtain is torn from top to bottom indicating this was the hand of God. Access to the presence of God was now open as it had not been since the Garden of Eden. There is a rabbinic tradition that in the last 40 years before the destruction of the temple the doors of the temple would open by themselves. The second manifestation was an earthquake of such a violent nature the rocks split. This was no minor tremor. The third manifestation was the resurrection of the saints of old. The soldiers would have only seen the darkness and felt the earthquake but this was enough to produce faith. Interestingly, the dividing line Jesus spoke about is seen here again in those who will believe and those who persist in non-belief.

Matthew begins to sight the eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and death of Jesus. There can be no doubt that His death was as unique and significant as His life and teaching. The evidence is there, what we do with it God leaves up to us. Faith or unbelief is in our hands and hearts.

"Lord grant me a heart this will truly believe. AMEN"

Matthew 27:27-45

Matthew 27:27-45

Jesus condemned to die is handed over to the soldiers of the governor. These were not Roman Legionnaires, but rather auxiliary which would have been recruited from surrounding areas. They would have been the hostile neighbors of the Jews with strong animosity. This was the toxic mix of Roman authority and local hostility. The whole cohort, perhaps as many as 600 men, would have had the opportunity to vent their long-standing hatred for the Jews toward the person of their “King”. Their mocking was a paradox of royalty: a robe, a crown, a scepter, their kneeling and the greeting, “Hail, King of the Jews.” This was perhaps a parody of “Hail Caesar”. Typically, prisoners were paraded naked, but the Jewish sensitivities in this matter might have led to a riot, so Jesus was clothed. They did this not as an act of courtesy but for their own convenience.

Matthew introduces Simon of Cyrene here. He was compelled to carry the cross. In parallel passages there is the mention of not only his name but also family relations likely indicated he was or had become a disciple. Rome crucified violent criminals and rebels in a public place. The place of the skull was just such a public place. We are not sure what was the purpose of the gall mixed in the drink. It may have been an anesthetic to numb the pain. It also may have been intentionally an unpleasant drink that was a mockery not a mercy.

There have been a number of detailed studies on the physical and medical experiences of the act of crucifixion. Matthew spends little time writing about the crucifixion, but sums up the whole process with one phrase, “And when they had crucified him”. Matthew is interested in the meaning of the cross more than a description. It is fitting to read Psalm 22 along side this passage. We see the ironic use of the titles for Jesus. Terms or titles that are correct but appear to be completely misapplied; King of the Jews, Son of God, temple builder, king of Israel.

Even at this moment Jesus could have rescued Himself from the agony. Great is the irony that Jesus’s enduring the suffering was not an indication that He wasn’t the Son of God. Rather because he was the Son of God He chose to endure the suffering.

Jesus now abandoned by his disciples, condemned by the religious elite, rejected by the crowds, condemned by the Roman governor, and we know He was also mocked by the soldiers is now insulted by the criminal element. Matthew presents Christ completely rejected by the world He came to save. If there was ever a person who had the right and the authority to say, “To Hell with you," it was Jesus here tormented on the cross. But there He chooses to remain and to endure and accomplish the forgiveness of my sins.

"Lord Jesus, by your cross you have redeemed the world. Have mercy on me. AMEN"

Matthew 27:11-26

Matthew 27:11-26

Pilate would be unknown to history were it not for the trial. The trial seems to be a less formal judicial event and more of a bargaining session in the marketplace. The charge on Pilate’s lips “King of the Jews” was obviously supplied by the accusing delegation. It was worded in such a way as to imply a political agenda. Jesus answered very little. Had he answered in detail about the nature of His kingdom Pilate may have released Him. The objective is not a declaration of guilt or innocence. The objective is to secure the means of death/sacrifice. This was not an accidental event but the plan of God’s redemption being worked out. Pilate is little more than an extra in this drama, a bureaucrat, a rubber stamp for the paperwork. Jesus amused him in silence. Perhaps he was accustomed to extreme pleas and arguments. Roman law did not condemn a man until he had had three opportunities to defend himself. Jesus marches relentlessly toward the cross.

The release of a prisoner is not seen elsewhere in Roman rule and may have been a local attempting to create goodwill. Barabbas may have also had the same name; Jesus. "Who is to be released, Jesus called Barabbas or Jesus called Christ?" The word notorious could be either good or bad. Barabbas could have been a terrorist or he could have been a sort of Robin Hood type. He had not yet been condemned because only the emperor could grant clemency to a condemned man. Barabbas may have been the ringleader of those who would die with Christ.

The place of Pilot's wife in the story is to show that the priestly delegation is without excuse. If a pagan, and a woman no less (remember in this culture it was doubted that women could reason), could see that Jesus was innocent, how could the Jewish leaders be so obtuse? Matthew has been emphasizing the loss of privileged position of the Jewish people. The elite of the Jewish high priests are here cast in a negative comparison to a pagan woman.

The mob asked that Barabbas be released and that Jesus be condemned. The crowd was not left to chance; while it was no doubt mixed, the priest’s agents had packed the mob with their agitators. There was fear of a riot erupting. Was the riot going to be an attack on the Romans or a fight within the crowd? Pilate takes the easy way out; he condemns Christ and washes his hands. This was a pointless ritual that neither exonerated him nor obtained innocence, but rather testified to his awareness of his guilt. The statement of, “His blood be on us and our children,” (by the way there is no verb in the Greek text) was not a curse but rather a boast. They felt that they had defended the people, the temple, and the traditions. The blood on the hands of Judas Maccabeus was not guilty blood but rather heroic. These people thought they were being heroes.

"Lord, keep me from pursuing the easy way out. Grant me the courage to follow Your will no matter the cost. AMEN"

Matthew 27:1-10

Matthew 27:1-10

The chief priests must have had supreme confidence in their ability to destroy people. They decide they would destroy Jesus and they simply had to figure out how. The overnight trial had produced from them the grounds on which they wanted to kill Jesus. However, getting the Romans to cooperate would be another matter. Pilate was no friend of the Jews. So before taking Jesus to the Roman governor they took council to devise their strategy. What happened before Pilate was not an impromptu, grassroots movement, but the working out of a careful plan.

Matthew deals with Judas’s demise here before getting on to the trial by Pilate. Judas delivered Jesus to the Jews and once that is done his role is over and, while not chronological, this is the place to finish his story. Judas felt remorse. The word is not the typical word for repent which carries the implication of forgiveness. Judas admits that he has betrayed innocent blood. What he knew did not control what his bitterness and emotions dictated. Judas regrets the consequences of his actions, but not the motivational sin that drove them. Judas wanted to shift the guilt for what he had done from himself to someone else, but there was apparently no desire for any repentance and returning to Jesus. While Peter was guilty of a lapse in a moment Judas willfully turned away from Jesus. He was still angry and hostile toward Jesus, but he did regret the depth of the Jewish punishment. Had Jesus been broken, defamed, shamed, and ruined by the Jews Judas would likely have been quite content. He wanted to shed the guilt without restoration to Jesus, which never happens. Guilty is linked not just to behavior, but also to the broken relationship behind the behavior. Without the restoration of the relationship guilt can never be removed.

In all of human history we may see the purest form of hypocrisy in this passage. The priests for pious and religious reasons will not accept blood money into the temple treasury, but apparently, have no qualms about paying out blood money, perhaps from that same treasury. Here are two sides of the same coin. One they put into practice and the other they, for religious reasons, condemn. According to Jewish tradition the greatest evil is to do evil in the name of God. Judas takes the unclean money and throws it into the holy place. This raised a number of difficult questions. Since it was unclean, would the money make the holy place in the temple unclean? This money laying about would compel the priest to go and pick up and touch the unclean money. Would he in so doing become unclean? With blood on his hands he had to contemplate the effect of blood money.

In the simple love and devotion to Jesus there is an uncomplicated peace. It is in our sin and manipulation that life becomes difficult, convoluted and contrary.

"God please grant me simple holy love for Your Son Jesus. AMEN"

Matthew 26:57-75

Matthew 26:57-75

The Jewish trial and Jesus’s faithful confession is contrasted with Peter’s denial. This could hardly be called a trial, because "trial" implies a legal proceeding and these proceedings were hardly legal. Having an agenda the chief priests cared little about how they achieved their goals. They would have preferred truthful witnesses, but any would do as long as their goals were achieved. They must get two witnesses to agree in their testimony on a capital crime. They end up with, “This man stated, ‘I am about to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’” This is hardly a crime that meets the criteria of blasphemy or capital punishment. Additionally, Jesus never said that. It is at best a distortion of what He said in the first temple cleansing in John 2:19. But this was the kind of charge the chief priest would be excited about. The temple was their power base and cash cow. It was Jesus’s denunciation of the temple practices that first excited their opposition. Zach 6:12 refers to one called “the branch”, “And He will build the temple of the Lord.” The priest would have seen in the charge of building a temple a Messianic allusion.

Jesus remained silent, doing nothing in His own defense, determined to move forward to fulfill the Father’s will. Jesus breaks His silence but it is almost as if to give them the evidence that they have failed to trump up. At this point, the high priest did not have enough to get an indictment not to mention a conviction. Had Jesus never spoken a word in His defense or even remained silent the chief priest would have had no case. The high priest charges Jesus under oath to testify if He is the Christ.

Jesus’s statement provides their grounds for a charge in a way their false witnesses never could. In verse 64, Jesus declares without any doubt who He is. Yes, He is the Messiah the Christ and they would see Him sitting on the right had of God and coming on the clouds. The two phrases allude to Dan 7:13, not two successive events but parallel descriptions of the vindication of the Son of Man. While not technically blasphemy, taking God’s name in vain, Jesus assumes the prerogatives of God and God alone. And would be a form of blasphemy. Unless of course it is true!

In contrast to Jesus who is willing and almost forcefully moving into the power of the chief priest, Peter hovers on the outer edges and tries to escape and his denial intensifies. First, he denies any knowledge of what is going on. But his accent gives him away; he is no local hanger-on. So, he takes an oath to reinforce his claim to ignorance. Finally, he curses and swears, directing the curse at Jesus. He has proved his point; he doesn’t act like a friend of Jesus. The crowing rooster sends Peter out to bewail his failure. Interestingly, Peter is never named in this Gospel again.

"Dear God in the frustrations and troubles of life, keep me from denying Jesus, with my actions and words. May there never be any doubt about my being friends with Him. AMEN."

Matthew 26:36-56

Matthew 26:36-56

Jesus leads the disciples to the place that was apparently their typical campsite. With Jerusalem being full for Passover such a rendezvous spot would have made sense. It, being known to Judas, would be a place to avoid if Jesus were trying to resist capture. Jesus is no victim, but rather, the Master of the situation.

The English translation of the Greek description of Jesus’s emotions does not do justice to the power of the language. Gethsemane means oil or olive press and is the appropriate symbolic location for this moment. The last time of preparation is over. Jesus now faces the reason for His coming to Earth. The sorrowful anticipation, the dread of the cross, while always there has been kept at bay as Jesus prepared, taught, healed and loved. In this moment it is as if Jesus gives His full attention to what is ahead and it causes Him grief unmatched in all of history. His soul is wretched and miserable to the point of death. This is the only time in the Gospels that we see Jesus face down in prayer.

We sometimes miss the connection between the disciples sleeping and their failure. In a matter of moments they will all desert Christ. Peter will both violently lash out at a guard and later deny Jesus. The weakness of the flesh manifested because he had not prepared in prayer. Do not think that the desertion and denial are unrelated to sleeping through prayers. The failure to prayer is the cause and the effect is his failure.

We get the picture of Judas's motivation for the betrayal in the betrayal itself. A disciple might kiss his rabbi’s hand or foot, but only if invited. To come up and presumptuously kiss a rabbi, on the face no less, was a calculated and studied insult. This was for Judas a repudiation of Jesus and an act of seething emotion. Later, Judas would regret but not repent of the action. But in the moment the emotion of Judas's issue is expressed in contempt and insult for Jesus. We have here a study in contrasts; a more radical difference cannot be imagined. Judas is holding Jesus in contempt and Jesus is calling Judas 'friend'. Jesus was never ironic, cynical or insincere. “Friend” expresses His true heart. Any hostility between God and us is solely and absolutely ours.

Jesus goes not as a victim, but as a commander of the powers of the universe, literally, an angelic army at his disposal, an army that is uncalled. He goes to take the cup from the Father's hand. These sinful men are mere extras in the drama of redemption.

"Lord, protect me from anything that might allow me to fail to love You with my whole being. AMEN"

Matthew 26:17-35

Matthew 26:17-35

Matthew closely links three themes: Judas' commitment to betrayal, the Lord's Supper and Peter's denial. We must never imagine that Jesus was a victim. He was, rather, the master of the circumstances. He informs the group of the betrayal and then in what appears to be a private moment informs Judas that He is aware that he is the traitor. Judas would have never left that room but for the permissive will of Jesus. Peter’s willingness to kill in the garden would very likely have extended to Judas in that room. Jesus’ statement to say that it would be better to have never been born was an extreme statement in Jewish culture.

The Lord's Supper was a day before the sacrifice of the Passover lambs and so this meal would not have included the lamb; rather, it focuses on bread and wine. In the same way, participation in a Passover meal was at the core of being Jewish. Jesus now sets up a new point of participation in Him. The bread is His body; the wine is His blood. In eating and drinking we participate in the new community of the Messiah. It is a great tragedy that much of the church in an effort to attract the crowd has focused the gathering on the wants and wishes of men and not on the Lord's Supper.

For the Lord this meal was a priority even with the cross only hours away. The burdens and the horrors squarely before Him, the Lord stops to share the bread and the cup. As disciples we ought to return to the table often. No doubt it requires a great effort to deeply engage in communion. But the problem is not the frequency of the celebration, but the laziness of the worshipers or participants. Some would say frequency robs the Lord's Supper of meaning. This is a mistake. It is laziness that robs it of meaning, either by those who participate rarely or those who do so mindlessly every week. Jesus promises the victory in and of the Father’s kingdom. No doubt this was a serious occasion, but it was also profoundly hopeful.

On the way to the Mount of Olives Jesus, while facing the horrors of the cross, encourages the disciples with the promise of the resurrection and a warning to Peter about his denial.

"Lord bring Your conviction on me that I will never, because of laziness, treat the Lord's Supper as secondary to my wants and wishes. AMEN"

Matthew 26: 1-16

Matthew 26: 1-16

We now come to the point of the Gospel. Someone once said that the Gospels are the drama of the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ with a very long introduction. That's not far from the mark. Jesus is not a hapless victim; but rather, the willing participant in the Father's plans. The circumstance rather than being the designs of men are the arrangement of God for His purposes. This section, verses 1-16, has three themes. The first and the third reflect the evil of men and in between the love of discipleship.

Theme one: the self-serving bias of the priestly delegation. Jesus’ repudiation of the temple convinces the priestly delegation that He is a threat and must be removed. They fear a rebellion. If He is not taken during the Passover, He might slip away or even start a rebellion. But his popularity makes a public arrest too dangerous.

Theme two: an act of simple, radical love. In contrast to the devious self-serving plots of the priests is a loving, extravagant gift of the woman. A careful study of the exchange might take weeks, but a few points are rather pronounced. Sincere, extravagant love for the Lord is a beautiful and noble thing. Judgment of another's worship is inappropriate. This woman was prompted to anoint the Anointed One in preparation for the burial of the Christ. Giving to the poor, while good, must not become a legalistic, mandated act. Of all the events surrounding the life of Christ, the simple act of extravagant love and great devotion is the one that is going to be told in and with the gospel’s proclamation.

Theme three: the betrayal of Judas. Whatever Judas' motivations were (all we can do is conjecture) it is set in contrast to the loving anointing. Judas provided for the priests the perfect solution: a secret arrest before Jesus could escape in the Passover throng. Once the deed was done it was only a matter of time until the conspirators could fulfill the purposes of the Father. Each step we take moves us in a direction and makes the next step in that direction all that much easier.

"Jesus, help me so that all of my motives and actions will be directed at loving You my Lord. AMEN"

Matthew 25:31-46

Matthew 25:31-46

The last picture of the Judgment that Jesus presents is sadly often misinterpreted. There are two words that are critical for correct understanding of this passage. First is the word “nations” in verse 32. Generally, it is agreed that this is the universal Judgment of all mankind. The second is the word “brothers” in verse 40. Some interpret this word as anyone in need, humanity in general. This interpretation makes the criteria for salvation doing good deeds to and for the poor. If “nations” represents the church of all nations or the world as a whole this interpretation makes works the terms of salvation. This is inconsistent with the rest of Matthew and with the teaching of Scripture as a whole. If, however, “brothers” represents disciples which is consistent with Matthew then the judgment on the nations is based on their reception of disciples and the message they bring. In Matthew 10:40 Jesus said The one who receives you receives Me, and the one who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. The picture of the Judgment is no call to a mere philanthropic, salvation plan. This is a message that the nations’ or individual's response to the disciples indicates his/her standing in the Judgment.

Note also that the punishment for those who have rejected the Gospel and its messengers was not what was planned for them. It was prepared for the rebellious angels. But in the rejection of the gospel and its messengers they have joined the fallen angels’ fate. As for the righteous they enter into the kingdom under the care of the Father. It is also worthy to note the central role of the Son of Man in this picture of the Judgment.

Finally, in our world philanthropic societies and organizations are common. This is part of the historical impact of Christianity and our Christian heritage. But in the ancient world this kind of care for strangers was much less common. It is a Christian revolution that makes strangers and foreigners who were believers closer to us than family members that do not believe. This teaching, which is not really a parable, is how to prepare for the coming judgment, accept the Gospel and its messengers as well.

"Lord, never let me lose sight of the truth that salvation is not about a good deed, but rather accepting the Gospel. AMEN"

Matthew 25:14-30

Matthew 25:14-30

The parable of the talents is one of the most powerful and convicting of Jesus's parables for us disciples. The two themes of eschatology are present. One is about not knowing when the Son will return and second being faithful in the meantime. These form the central themes of this parable. The parable of the bride mainly warns us that the Son's delay is no excuse for not being ready. This explains what to do during the delay.

A talent in the original context was a measure of money and as we consider this parable we need to keep the concept of a talent as an ability or skill at bay until we make a personal application. A talent as a measure of money was immense. It represented about 6,000 days of wages in our terms-almost a lifetime of earning.

Each slave was gifted according to his ability. God recognizes each disciple as an individual with unique abilities, capacities and opportunities. Having more or less opportunity is no excuse for unfaithfulness in fulfillment of our duties.

The reward of faithful servants is no retirement to idleness, but greater responsibility. The failure of the third servant was not that he didn't show a great return; but rather, that he did not try. There were two descriptions of why he failed, “wicked” and “lazy”. Speculation of motivation for his behavior beyond what is stated is only conjecture. Staying as close to the parable as we can, it represents a disciple using God-given resources for purposes other than what God intended. The characterization of the master as being a “hard man” may or may not have been fair. Guilty people often have a negative view of those in authority, but that is still no excuse. The disciple or slave represents that sort whose religion is focused on easy, keeping a clean slate or playing it safe and, therefore, doing nothing for the king. It is sadly the description of much of American Christianity where faithfulness is nothing more than attending church and keeping the doors open.

"Lord, may I serve you with my whole being every moment till you return. AMEN"

Matthew 25: 1-13

Matthew 25: 1-13

The division of chapters and verses are a great help in referencing locations in the Bible, but they sometimes give a sense of separation that is not in the Bible at all. The parable of the ten wedding maidens is not as removed from the temple cleansing and the disciples’ discourse about end times as we often treat it. This is not an evangelistic parable telling sinners to repent. This is a message to disciples telling them no one knows when the Messiah is coming. The dual themes of Jesus' end-times teaching occur again; “when” is unknowable, so be vigilant.

Oftentimes too much is made of the possible symbolism of this parable. Beyond Jesus being the bridegroom, the wedding being the end of times and the maidens as those who profess being the church we must be careful about symbolism statements. Jesus is not telling a detailed story, but by parable reinforcing and illustrating the two things of uncertainty and readiness.

The unwillingness of the five to share is not an act of selfishness; but rather, a statement that no one can prepare for someone else. Each disciple must make himself or herself ready. The moment of the Lord’s return is the moment that it is too late. When the five unprepared maidens come to the door the Lord's words are, “I do not know you.” This is far worse than a statement of ignorance. How would a groom not know the members of the wedding party? This is much worse; this is a statement of repudiation. This is a statement of utter rejection.

In the context of Jesus speaking to his disciples in response to their questions about the end of time, this parable is a warning to all of his followers. Profession of correct doctrines or beliefs may make a mind that knows the truth, but may leave a heart that is far from Him and not ready for the Messiah. Let this be a warning to indolent churches and believers.

"Lord, give me a passionate desire to know You and to be ready for Your return. AMEN"

Matthew 24:36-51

Matthew 24:36-51

Jesus has been separating and answering two questions that the disciples thought were one question. The destruction of the Temple and the coming of the end of time were not coinciding events. Jesus separates them by contrasting them. The destruction of the Temple was preceded by signs or warnings and was predictable. In contrast the coming of the Christ at the end of the age is unpredictable and there will be no signs in the sense of prior warning. Without the context of verses 1-3 this chapter is often misconstrued.

In view of verse 36 our understanding of eschatology needs to find its shape. Even the Son didn’t know “when” (and by the way neither do the would-be, “End Time”, for profit prophets). Here is the mark of a Biblically sound eschatology; it is always ethical in nature, not chronological. The more we can remove “when” from our meditations and replace it with “how to live and behave” the better off we are. The “days of Noah” have been interpreted, generally, 180 degrees wrong. That was an age of great evil, but this passage is talking about daily life and routines. In that day people were planning short-term “eating and drinking” and long-term, “marrying and given in marriage”. We look at our days and imagine that the immorality is worse than ever before and that these days are or are like the days of Noah and this is a sign that means Jesus is about to come back. That completely misses the point Jesus is making. The point of the “days of Noah” and the subsequent parable is the un-predictableness of the coming and the priority of vigilant righteousness.

People at their work, the thief, and the sudden return of the household master all point to the unexpected and un-predictable nature of someone’s return. There is NO sign given that the return is about to occur. The correct response to the unpredictability of the coming of the Lord is daily, faithful service and ethical living. Not trying to figure out “when” it will happen. We ought to note that the warning of verses 48-51 is not directed to the world, but for Christians who have lost their ethical way.

“Lord, protect me from a fascination of what cannot be known and let me focus on You and Your will, which I can know. AMEN"

Matthew 24:15-35

Matthew 24:15-35

Our American obsession with entertainment and our near obsession with insider knowledge about things apocalyptic mingled with our desire to set dates for the second coming have, in many cases, filled our minds with preconceptions about Jesus’ return. So much so, that we have begun to misinterpret Scripture to fit our expectations. The end of the Temple both as a place of sacred purpose and as a physical building would have been most important to the disciples who were still expecting a political Messiah. Jesus’ recurring theme of not being misled is emphasized again.

The chapter, specifically this part of the chapter, is so steeped in Old Testament apocalyptic language as to be uninterpretable without the Old Testament. The destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. was an occasion in which, in desperation, people-even the elect-might be led astray. Events that are cataclysmic to us or to the culture we are a part of, are not the same as a cosmic indication of the end of time. For example, while 9-11 was important to Americans and Muslims it was unknown to tribal people of in the Amazon or New Guinea. We must disengage our cultural and personal egos from apocalyptic language. The coming of Christ will be like lightening, it will be unexpected and unmistakable. Verses 29-31 are a collection of O.T. passages that are highly symbolic. The stars falling to Earth must reflect something rather than be an event. Rather than a description of an event that was two millennia away this is a symbolic description of the end of the Temple and the beginning of the Gospel age. All of which would happen in that generation.

To this point the Lord has addressed only one part of the disciples’ two-part question. Their assumption that the destruction of the Temple would be the end of the world means that they began from the wrong fundamental assumptions. This indicates that they had to unlearn some things and they faced a much steeper learning curve. We must hold our preconceptions, expectations and even the things we learned in our childhood up to the Scriptures to learn what is correct and avoid being misguided.

"Lord, help me to submit my conceptions and preconceptions to the light of Your word.  AMEN"

Matthew 24:1-14

Matthew 24:1-14

Jesus having repudiated the religious leadership leaves the temple. Within the week the sacrificial system of the temple would be superfluous. The temple and Jerusalem itself are marked for destruction which is a doom of all those who reject Christ. At the time there was an end times belief among the Jews that the temple was indestructible. Perhaps that was the genesis of the disciples’ comments in verse 1. Jesus’s comment in verse 2 would have been contrary to everything held dear to the Jewish people. In contrast to believing in an indestructible eternal temple Jesus says that it is unnecessary and doomed. For the disciples such a thought must have meant the end of the world. We need to learn that our preconceptions can sometimes mislead us. Disciples are convinced that the temple’s destruction, Jesus’s coming and the end of the world are all going to be simultaneous. Often before we can learn we must begin by unlearning!

There are important principles about Jesus’s end time teaching that are true of all Biblical eschatology. First, avoid the danger of deception. Closely related is that the “when” or chronological matters are utterly unknown. The last principle is to remain faithful and to endure. These are related and often sequential. Under the teaching of misguided, or worse deceitful, teachers we tend to look for special knowledge concerning “the end”. The Result? Dates are set, predictions are made and when the dates come and go the student becomes susceptible to a faltering faith. In fact, events that Jesus said are NOT signs of the end are often used as harbingers of His return.

A misunderstanding about end times can ruin our faith and witness. In verse 12, Jesus talks about love growing cold. The world has never been a loving place. This passage most likely refers to the disciples that their love for the many, the lost, grows cold. Often the person most useless for making disciples is obsessed with questions about the end times.

"Lord, give me the hope of Your return and the endurance of faith that will last till that great day. AMEN"

Matthew 23:25-39

Matthew 23:25-39

In His grace God has given us a choice. He will neither impose His desires on us nor protect us from the consequences of rebellious choices. In this powerful conclusion to the woes Jesus explains the foundation for the rebellion of the religious elite and the results that that rebellion will bring. This is a message that is timely for the church today and our lives as individual followers.

The root problem for pharisaical religion was that they focused on external appearance rather than inner, moral character. They appear deeply religious as they debated such things as the relative importance of ceremonial cleanliness of the inside or the outside of a cup. Yet, all the while that they held these debates their inner, moral character was rotten. What was worse, they were OK with that rottenness. Jesus compares their duality to a tomb that is filled with the decay and rot, but outside is beautiful, pristine white. This internal rot working with an outward pretense of piety is a damning combination. It leaves a person completely guilty, but self-deluded thinking that their pious acts indicate they are righteous. Such people are “sons of vipers” with no escape from the doom of hell.

As in the past when God sent prophets, so Jesus would send His people. But just like in the Old Testament they would be rejected and persecuted. Pessimism is often the correct view. In verse 37, we see Jesus’s heartbreak expressed by His wanting to protect Jerusalem but Jerusalem not wanting Him. As a result, the house or temple is literally left abandoned. This is more than the destruction of A.D. 70. This was an expression of the reality that God had departed from the temple worship and the people of Israel. Note that Jesus emphasizes that, “your house is being left to you desolate”. Emphasis added.

The decline of the church in the West, and in America specifically, is because we have rejected the Lord. The decline is not the result in a change in culture or generations. The church has collectively and individually been content to have a godless faith to suit our internal, rotten morals. As churches close and buildings are abandoned or sold, we need to realize that long before the apparent end came that church left the Lord and the Lord abandoned them.

"Lord, give us the grace to follow You, not what is comfortable, popular or pleasing. AMEN"

Matthew 23:13-24

Matthew 23:13-24

Woe is an expression of utter grief and ruin beyond return. It is a term that Jesus will use several times in Matthew, chapter 23. Jesus apparently never read, “How to Win friends and influence people”. There is so much of the slick, flattery salesmanship in the church today, just as there was in ancient times. Jesus had none of it. There is also in the church today a raging combination of the world and sin. But Jesus’s sharpest rebuke was for the most religious people. We need to take note that while the specific issues may be different, the bent and the twisted heart issue may be shared.

The rigidness of the Pharisee’s strict, rule keeping did two things. First, it kept them from authentic relationship with God. Second, they kept others from that kind of relationship with God as well. When Christians today are more known for our condemnation of vice and sin than for the Grace we offer the world turns a deaf ear. Such an attitude may also reflect the heart that believes it has been justified by its works and has earned salvation.

Rule keepers beget rule keepers. There is nothing wrong with efforts to make converts, but when rule keepers (ancient or modern) do that, their converts will try to be even more legalistic. The result is that they will be even more estranged from God. Jesus in calling them “sons of hell” was not pejorative; it was a statement of fact.

Next Jesus addresses the rule keeper’s tendency to look for loopholes. Having created an external legalistic system they can never keep, all rule keepers look for an exception that will allow them to skirt around their own rules not to mention God‘s law. This is the beginning of their hypocrisy. Justification of the rule keeper is only possible if they can find a loophole or an exception.

Jesus addresses the root of the hypocrisy by explaining it using the example of tithing. The outward expression of tithing, righteous in and of itself, was a poor substitute for a heart given to God. Very likely Micah 6:8 was in the mind of Jesus. Jesus is warning us about focusing on the measurables so that we miss or perhaps even choose to ignore the more important heart issues.

"Lord, help me to be holy, not just in my actions but also in my heart and motivations. AMEN"

Matthew 23:1-12

Matthew 23:1-12

This and the next several passages from Matthew 23 demonstrate the importance of context. Less than 24 hours prior Jesus purifies the temple and challenges of religious status quo authority. The day has been a battle of words with Jesus besting all comers. With His opposition forced into accepting His authority they opt instead for stubborn silence. Jesus now exposes and denounces their utter failure as moral and religious leaders.

Jesus directs His comment to the people, but well within the hearing of the religious elite. We might find it tempting to watch this volley and cheer. But we would be wise to see if the Lord’s condemnation doesn’t speak about our own hearts and lives. The general theme is that the conduct of the religious didn’t match with their professed loyalty to God. Does that sound like or apply to me?

It would appear that the opening words of Jesus’ comments were dripping with sarcasm. Moses’s seat was a figurative expression for authoritative teaching on the Law. But their expertise was limited to telling people about the rules. They failed to keep them and were not able to offer any help to others on how to live. For the religious elite helping people was and is less important than being seen as religious or righteous. They went to great lengths to climb the ladder of looking pious. For them image was everything and they deeply desired the titles that came with the good image. Every disciple of Christ needs to take seriously the prohibitions of our Lord and these verses. In general, we can use two principles. First, don’t be a pious, reputation seeking, ladder climber and second, don’t pander to those who do. Nothing indicates a person is less pastoral than his insistence on being called Pastor. Nothing shows that a person is less reverent than insisting that he be called the Reverend. That is true for any title. Jesus does assert, in a quiet way, His authority. First by saying that only Christ is THE leader and second by recalling the maxim of greatness, “To serve with humility is the path to exaltation.”

"God convict me as I try to climb any religious ladder or hierarchy, and help me, Lord, to have the strength to refuse to be a lackey for anyone who is trying to climb a pious ladder. AMEN"

Matthew 22:34-46

Matthew 22:34-46

The verbal debates with the religious leaders are moving to a conclusion. Round after round cocky opponents have been completely defeated by the humble Galilean. The final assault was about priority of the commandments. Scribes defined 613 commandments all of which were binding, but there was much debate over priority, over which were weightier. The test was an attempt to get Jesus partitioned off into a sect, which would undermine at least a part of His popular support. Jesus’s answer is sublime and beautiful. To love God and neighbor forms the core of the life of a disciple. This is easy to understand but difficult to live. In many churches this passage is read weekly at the beginning of the worship. We should add that not one of us has done this perfectly and that is why we need mercy. Jesus says the rest of the law and the prophets depend on or hang on these two commandments. As disciples of Jesus our whole lives ought to be derived from or motivated by the love expressed in these two commandments.

Jesus then turns the table and asks them about their Messianic expectations. They said that the Messiah would be the son of David, a title already ascribed to Jesus. This messianic title while true Biblical and appropriate was also incomplete. Somewhat like describing the ocean as being ‘wet’, true, but not enough. Also in that context, David’s heir or son might imply a political Messiah. So, Jesus points to David acting as a prophet and declares that the Messiah is his Lord. The Pharisees are in a bind if they deny Jesus as the son of David they will alienate the people. If they admit he is the son of David then He is the Messiah, but more than a political Messiah, He is David’s Lord. They face a terrible “trilemma”. Was he an imposter, a charlatan, a liar? The healings he performed the day before would say “no”. Was He mad man or even demonic using the power of darkness to do miracles? His teaching of love says, “Absolutely not.” Then He must be the Christ! Unable to admit this fact they chose to be silent. Their opposition, which is now verbal, will move to conspiratorial and after that violence.

"Forgive Lord when I have failed to love You with my how being, and  my neighbor as myself.  Have mercy on me Lord Jesus. AMEN

Matthew 22:15-33

Matthew 22:15-33

The day after the temple’s purification is the day of the most aggressive, intellectual conflict between Jesus and the united front opposing him. Jesus will face two challenges that seemed impossible to overcome. These were long-lasting conflicts in that day, highly divisive and intended to undermine Jesus's popularity and possibly remove Him from the public influence.

In the highly divisive day we live in we will do well to learn from our master. First, there was a poll tax. This was a direct tax paid by God's chosen people directly to a pagan king with a coin that had an engraved image and inscription of "son of god". This is very unpopular and for many it calls for rebellion. This was no abstract, academic issue. It was a practical heart issue for every devout Jew. If Jesus opposed the tax as a popular leader He could end up on trial as a zealot, a terrorist, and an insurrectionist. If He supported it He would be casting His support to the oppressors and advocating idolatry. The two parties that brought the question to Jesus represent the two horns of the dilemma. Jesus calls them hypocrites. There is the hypocrisy of inconsistent living. Then there is the more egregious form of an insincere motive. Without a doubt both of these are often in the same person. But even if our behaviors are consistent, we are still evil if that happens from insincere motives. In answer to the challenge, Jesus gives this dictum, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." The word “give” in verse 17 and “render” in verse 21 is very different. The first is simply “to give”, but render (v. 21) means “to give back to”. Jesus in essence is saying, "The coin was given to you by Caesar give it back to him." There is a question that was not asked and its absence is tragic and its absence shows the hypocrisy of the question that was asked. The question might be asked this way, "In whose image is man made?" Both parties wanted to compartmentalize life into the sacred and the secular. That allows management and manipulation to our ends. When we see God's image on the whole of life every moment must be given back to Him.

The opposition to Jesus now comes from the Sadducees the theological Left of the day. They believe the soul perished with death. This party accepted only the first five books of the Old Testament Scripture. Passages such as Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2 that talk about the resurrection were not considered Scripture to the Sadducees. Levirate marriage was an ongoing issue with the practical and theological implications. The test case presented to Jesus appears to have been at least until His day an unanswerable scenario. Jesus attributes their position and question to ignorance of Scripture and the power of God. That was a stinging rebuke. Clearly, the Sadducees knew the Scripture. But they knew it only in a superficial way. The Scriptures were facts and arguments and trivia. They had not allowed Scripture to penetrate into their hearts so that they would know the God of Scripture and His power. A great danger in every generation of believers is to know Scripture superficially but not know the God it reveals. In this way we may end up with a cultural faith attempting to support our point of view by Scripture. When we do this we come to God as if He is our servant doing our bidding, rather than see Him and adore Him as the only reason for life. From the passages that they accept, Jesus shows them that the life-giving God is not subject to death's power.

"Lord, save us from only knowing about You. Rather help us adore You and find in You our reason for being. Amen"

Matthew 22:1-14

Matthew 22:1-14

There are a great many religions that are more comfortable than Christianity. This parable would not have been very uncomfortable to the original hearers and it ought to strike a discomforting tone for us as well. Parables were not meant to reflect real life, although sometimes they did, they were meant to teach a point and on occasion exaggeration was necessary. To focus on the real life details might cause us to miss the real point of the parable.

In the parable Jesus reemphasizes that the people of Israel, especially their current leadership, were by the rejection of the Messiah going to find themselves “outside” and replaced by other people. This was no fluke accident or oversight. There was a willful rejection of the Messiah. Some were simply indifferent to the Messiah (who by the way had just purified the temple) and some were overtly hostile. In the parable the king responds in two ways to the offense of his invitation being rejected. First was destruction of the cities of those who rejected the Messiah. This was most likely a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Second was the king calling new people.

The invitation is to the good and evil people. Note this is not an invitation to a group of good people with one evil person, but plenty of both. The gathering of non-Jews at the wedding is the Church. But the king does find one person inappropriately dressed. Stressing the wrong point here will keep us from understanding what Jesus was teaching. Verses 11 through 13 are not about election, predestination or free will. This is about righteousness in the life of a disciple. The wedding garment need not be pressed to be repentance or specific good works; but rather, the Holy life that is appropriate for God's people. In the last parable the tenants were to pay appropriate proceeds. Those in the dinner were to be appropriately dressed for the occasion. Jerusalem was destroyed because of rejection of the Messiah.In the same way there will be in the Church, those who are not part of the community of the chosen ones. And that is seen by the evidence of their lives.

"Lord, grant that in your grace, I will live my life in holiness to your honor. AMEN"

Matthew 21:33-46

Matthew 21: 33 - 46

This stinging parable comes the day after the cleansing of the temple. While the religious leadership did not see the fig tree whither the disciples did. They saw the curse of fruitlessness and heard the first parable of the sons sent to work in the vineyard and now another vineyard parable. The common theme is fruitfulness. The establishment of a vineyard is a capital-intensive project with at least several years between first investment and first return. No reason is given why the tenant farmers decided not to fulfill their obligation. There is plenty of speculation all of which is equally pointless. Very simply they were unfruitful and unproductive. The why or the excuse is not important.

The hearers would have recognized the characters and the story. They recognize God as the vineyard owner, themselves as tenant farmers and the dispatched servants as the prophets. The Son we know is Jesus, but this would have been striking for those listening to the story. Here for the first time Jesus, in a veiled reference, publicly identifies Himself as a Son of God. The authority to purify the temple and the questions of "by what authority" He did these things is answered. At His trial Jesus would be asked if He is the Son of God, that question may have originated in this parable.

What is to become of the wicked tenant farmers? The intensity of the answer does not appear in the English text. Speaking of themselves they describe the tenant farmers (themselves) as completely depleted and will come to a completely deplorable end. At this point we must stop and ask again, “What was the fundamental problem?” It was a faith or religion that was devoid of fruit. This judgment is for any that have faith that is unproductive, myself included. This can be a mirror moment where we see ourselves in the characters of Scripture.

“Lord, never allow me to assume that ritual is the same thing as fruitfulness. Amen"

Matthew 21:23-32

Matthew 21:23-32

Jesus has declared by his actions that the temple system was no longer effective. The alliance against Jesus now includes the Priestly contingent. They confront Jesus directly asking by what authority He acted. They may have expected this to be an unanswerable question. If He claimed His own authority they would set Him against the scriptures. If He claimed Divine authority they would charge Him with blasphemy.

Jesus ties Himself to John and John's baptism. Here the hypocrisy of the leaders becomes evident. Their answer was not genuine rather it was diplomatic; nevertheless everyone knew they had rejected John. They wanted a way out. Jesus calls their hypocrisy to light first by saying, “I will not”. They knew the answer to Jesus' question they simply refused to give it. Jesus answers them with their own answer if they had they been honest. Next Jesus exposes their hypocrisy by telling a confrontational parable of two sons. In this parable the roles are clear and the message direct. Even the opposition gets the correct understanding. Jesus points out that the dregs of society will enter the Kingdom of God (which by the way was not a typical phrase for Matthew) before, indeed, instead of the Priestly delegation because the dregs of society were changed in response to John's teaching.

Even seeing the evidence of God being at work the religious elite still did not repent. Like the fig tree they have the form and ritual of religion but no fruit. Throughout history there are occasions when those closest to the function of religion have become blind to the relationship they ought to have with God because they can only see the function, ritual and activity of their religious organization. This problem did not end with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

“Father, never allow me to be so committed to the activity of being religious that I fail to be changed into Your likeness. AMEN”