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”

Matthew 21:12-22

Matthew 21:12-22

This passage must be understood in the context of the Triumphal Entry. The Messiah has now entered and will put His house in order. But what kinds of changes will that mean? These changes are expressed in two, lived-out parables.

First, Jesus purifies the temple. To understand this we must begin with the understanding that this was no fit of rage that exploded out of anger over the corrupt practices of the temple marketplace. This was not a tantrum but the Messiah declaring and demonstrating that a new order was to begin. Certainly any exploitation of worshipers was grossly immoral. But notice in verse 12 that Jesus acts against “all” who bought and sold. Those selling sacrifices and those who bought them are in the same boat. Jesus set Himself above the temple practice even with its Scriptural underpinning. The old sacrificial system was no longer needed. Within the week a sacrifice would be offered which would make the blood of bulls and goat superfluous. The confidence that comes from the temple worship practices, often hypocritical, will be proven to be misplaced.

And this is not enough. Jesus extends worship to all people and not just the house of Israel. Beyond that Jesus begins to heal the lame and the blind right in the temple courts. David had banned the lame and the blind from the temple, but the Son of David asserts his authority by including them and healing them. Could it be that Jesus had arranged for the outcasts to be present to demonstrate the new order?

There is no indication that Jesus’s actions resulted in any lasting social reform. By the morning or even that evening the tables would be back in place and the animals would be in their stalls. Jesus did not want to reform temple practices; He was demonstrating His authority as the Messiah. The children picked up on the theme much to the consternation of the priestly delegation. They saw the temple as their turf and the worship as the means for their own power and the existing order as a way to control the people and keep social stability with the Romans. This Messiah move on Jesus’s part has to be silenced. From this point on they will join the alliance against Jesus.

Jesus, in the lesson of the fig tree, acts out a second, living parable. Israel is often portrayed as a fruit tree. But Israel’s worship and temple practice is like a fig tree that promises much but delivers no fruit. Despite all the activity and falderal the worship of the Temple is fruitless and faithless. A barren tree is an appropriate symbol of a faith that is godless, powerless, and man-focused. Sadly, the disciples miss the point of this miraculous parable. Less interested in the application, even they are enamored by the power.

“God, save me from a faith, a church, a fellowship, or a community that keeps me from being completely open and available to you. AMEN”

Matthew 21:1-11

Matthew 21:1-11

At the triumphal entry there's a clear statement of who Jesus is. There is also a clear statement of who He is not. We sometimes think of Jerusalem as a city that was neutral and that place where everyone simply got along it copacetic existence. That is completely opposite of the reality. Jerusalem was a deeply divided city with many groups vying for power and willing to use anyone they could to advance their cause. Jesus was a game changer. His presence could upset the balance of power. When He comes into town He must come in as the king. But He must come in as the king who comes in peace not taking one side or the other. He will not be used by the Romans, He will not be used by the Priestly family, nor will He be used by the zealots. He will only allow Himself to be used by His Father.

So, He comes to Jerusalem riding on an ass. In time of war a king would ride in the chariot or on a warhorse, but in time of peace a king would ride on the more comfortable mule or ass. In riding on an ass Jesus was telling all the political parties, "I will not join myself to your cause." Jesus’s agenda to fulfill the Father's purpose and to bring about the kingdom of God was too important be derailed, distracted or hijacked by a political agenda of some Earth-bound and short-focused organization. He comes to bring peace, but He will not do that by getting entangled in political intrigues. Verse 10 says that as Jesus came into Jerusalem the whole city was stirred. That word “stirred” can be translated “quake” or “shaken”. Jerusalem as a powder keg ready to explode but Jesus refused to be the match to set it off.

How often do we want Jesus to join us in our agenda? We try to dress Jesus up in the garb of our political positions. We want to make Jesus look like someone from our culture or race, our legal or national heritage. We want Jesus to join the fight on our side. Sometimes we want to hijack the Kingdom of God to accomplish those things that are most precious to us, but may not be precious to the Father. The Father's agenda is not to make Jesus look like us, but that we will look like Him.

"Lord, forgive me when I try to use You or Your Kingdom for my purposes. AMEN"