He hungered (). Ingressive aorist indicative, became hungry, felt hungry (Moffatt). Possibly Jesus spent the night out of doors and so had no breakfast.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

18. And returning in the morning. Between that solemn entrance of Christ, of which we have spoken, and the day of the Passover, he had passed the night in Bethany; and during the day he appeared in the temple for the purpose of teaching. Matthew and Mark relate what happened during that interval, that Christ, when coming into the city, was hungry, approached a fig-tree, and, having found nothing on it but leaves, cursed it; and that the tree, which had been cursed by his voice, immediately withered. I take for granted that Christ did not pretend hunger, but was actually hungry; for we know that he voluntarily became subject to the infirmities of the flesh, though by nature he was free and exempt from them.

But here lies the difficulty. How was he mistaken in seeking fruit on a tree that had none; more especially, when the season of fruit had not yet arrived? And again, Why was he so fiercely enraged against a harmless tree? But there would be no absurdity in saying, that as man, he did not know (21) the kind of tree; though it is possible that he approached it on purpose, with full knowledge of the result. Certainly it was not the fury of passion that led him to curse the tree, (for that would not only have been an unjust, but even a childish and ridiculous revenge;) but as hunger was troublesome to him according to the feeling of the flesh, he determined to overcome it by an opposite affection; that is, by a desire to promote the glory of the Father, as he elsewhere says,

My meat is to do the will of my Father, (Joh 4:34😉

for at that time he was contending both with fatigue and with hunger. I am the more inclined to this conjecture, because hunger gave him an opportunity of performing a miracle and of teaching his disciples. So when he was pressed by hunger, and there was no food at hand, he finds a repast in another way; that is, by promoting the glory of God. He intended, however, to present in this tree an outward sign of the end which awaits hypocrites, and at the same time to expose the emptiness and folly of their ostentation.

(21) “ Il n’a pas cognu de loin;” — “he did not know at a distance.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat. 21:18. He hungered.His hungering is pretty good evidence that He had not been staying in the house of Martha and Mary. Most likely He had been much with Himself and with His Father, wrapped up in meditation, rapt up in supplication (Morison).

Mat. 21:19. A fig tree.Rather, a single fig tree.In the way.By the way-side (R.V.). It was often planted by the way-sides, because the dust of the road was an absorbing counteraction to the strong flow of the sapso hindering a too great development of leaves, and promoting its fruitfulness (Lange). Found nothing thereon, but leaves only.The fig-tree loses its leaves in the winter; indeed it looks particularly bare with its white naked branches. One species, however, puts forth fruit and leaves in the very early spring, the fruit appearing before the leaves. It was doubtless a fig tree of this kind that Jesus observed, and seeing the leaves expected to find fruit thereon. At the time of the Passover the first leaf-buds would scarcely have appeared on the common fig tree, while this years ripe fruit would not be found till four months later. The teaching of the incident depends on this circumstance (cf. Luk. 13:6-9). The early fig tree, conspicuous among its leafless brethren, seemed alone to make a show of fruit and to invite inspection. So Israel, alone among the nations of the world, held forth a promise. From Israel alone could fruit be expected; but none was found, and their harvest-time was past. Therefore Israel perished as a nation, while the Gentile races, barren hitherto, but now on the verge of their spring-time, were ready to burst into blossom and bear fruit (Carr).

Mat. 21:21. Be thou removed, etc.See note on Mat. 17:20.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mat. 21:18-22

Plenary powers.All commentators seem agreed in regarding this fig tree as emblematical of the then condition of the Jewish people and church. We can all of us see, also, how specially its brief story was connected with the disciples of the Saviour. They alone hear the sentence on it. They alone note its result. They alone hear what their Master afterwards says on the subject. It is in its relative bearing, therefore, on both them and the Jews, that we shall endeavour to consider this story. How does it illustrate the Saviours aspect towards Jerusalemhow does it, therefore, illustrate His aspect towards His disciplesat this particular time?

I. Towards Jerusalem and the Jews.Under this head what illustration there is, first, of His power! The fig tree is said to be the most succulent of all trees. Amongst such trees, also, none could be so more visibly, than one so covered with leaves as to be a conspicuous object a long way off (Mar. 11:13). Yet this very tree we see now, at the simple word of Jesus, losing all this in a moment (Mat. 21:19). Conspicuous one moment for the abundance of its moisture, it is as conspicuous the next for its lack of moisture, in the eyes of those who look on (Mat. 21:20). So with that Jewish church which so visibly abounded then with the showy leaves of profession. How they boasted in their temple, and holy city, and law (Joh. 2:20; Mar. 13:1; Rom. 2:17, etc., Mat. 3:1-2; Mat. 5:35; Mat. 27:53). Yet the word of Jesus could strip them of all, and wither the whole of their prideand would do so before long. This was what the effect of that word on the fig tree was meant to make plain. His doing thus was also an illustration of His justice. That abundant foliage on that particular fig tree was a profession of much. None of the fig trees of the neighbourhood had got so far at that season as the production of figs (Mark 11 end of Mat. 21:13). This fig tree had reached a stage which usually followed that stage. It had clothed itself (abnormally) with such a mantle of leaves as was generally an indication that, underneath them, there was a like abundance of fruit. Hence it was that, in His extremity, the Saviour came to it with that hope (Mar. 11:13 again). And hence it was, alsobeing disappointed with itthat He bade it be barren for ever (Mat. 21:19; Mar. 11:14). An apt figure, therefore, of what was then true of the Jewish people and church; and so, also, of that awful sentence, for which, being such, they were then ready and ripe. In their case, also, with much profession, there was nothing but leaves (Mat. 15:3; Mat. 23:3; Rom. 2:23-24; 1 Thessalonians 2 end of Mat. 21:15, etc.). In their case, also, therefore, a similar sentence to that pronounced on the fig tree would be only equal and just. And yet, lastly, in this incident, we see illustrated, as previously, the then forbearance of Christ. What is said of the fig tree, is not here said yet of what is represented thereby. For the present that spiritual tree remains in all its greenness of leaf. All its prodigality of profession, all its lack of obedience, all its contradiction in practice, remain unvisited yet. In this respect the symbol is instructive in the way of contrast alone. Nothing is shown here, in the matter of punishment, but that which is ready to be!

II. The Saviours aspect at this time towards the disciples themselves.We may judge of this, in some measure, from the speciality, now, of His manner. Why did He go up now, in their sight, to this tree? Why with such evident hope, to begin; and such similar disappointment, to follow? Why, also, were both His words and their consequences made so perceptible now to their senses? Evidently, we may infer, to impress them, first, with a sense of His power, to show what He could do if He would. Also to impress them, next, with a sense of His justiceto show that, in what He was now doing before them, He was not acting without cause. And also, finally, and in proportion as the flight of time should explain to them the meaning and application of the parable, to impress them with a sense of His forbearance and mercy. To impress these things, we say, in this special manner, upon their own minds; and so, by this means, to increase within them their faith in Himself. And nothing, surely, could be more conducive to this than the very combination just named. Irresistible power, unimpeachable justice, untiring mercy, form ground for confidence, when taken together, if anything does. Also, and further, we are taught the same by the speciality of the Saviours words at this time. Having faith in God is just the application to which He here points them Himself (Mat. 21:21; Mar. 11:22). This, He gives them to understand, is what He would have that withered fig tree teach them above all. Have faith in God as able to accomplish things greater by far (Mat. 21:21). Have faith in prayer as able to move Him to do things of that kind (Mat. 21:22). Have faith, therefore, in your own position as believers in Me!

The especial suitability of such a lesson, and of such a method of conveying it also, to the disciples at that particular juncture, may be noted, to conclude. This would be true in regard:

1. To the probable perplexities of the moment.To those disciples, with what we know of their then expectations and knowledge (Mat. 20:20-21), that clearly defined line of conduct, now so plainly adopted and afterwards so strictly adhered to by the Saviour, would appear astonishing in the last degree. Why thus openly claim the sceptre, and yet just as openly refrain from using it? Was it secret lack of power to inflict punishment, or secret indifference about the existence of evil? That withered fig tree would silence both surmises at once, and, by so doing, in time would point to the Saviours mercy as the true answer to both. The disciples would bear with this mystery as they thus learned that the Saviours mercy lay at its root!

2. To the certain impediments of the future.After the Saviours departure what formidable obstacles there would be in their way! (see Act. 5:27, etc., etc.). How helpful to them, therefore, to have such recollections as this of the withered fig tree to fall back upon in such circumstances! How helpful to them also (for some time afterwards?) to have the sight of it within reach! And how equally helpful to have the recollection also of those words of the Saviours (end of Mat. 21:21) in their thoughts! Everything might be hoped for in the way of help by those who had such a task as theirs on their hands. The greenest would be witheredthe largest removed (Zec. 4:7) if it stood in their way.

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat. 21:18-22. The fig tree cursed.

1. Our Lord was never so hungry for meat and drink, but He could forbear it till a fit time, and make it His meat and drink to be doing good, and fulfilling the Fathers will; for He loveth to edify and feed His disciples here more than to feed His natural hunger.
2. Albeit our Lord did never harm to any man by any of His miracles, yet had He power to curse, and miraculously to destroy, as well as to save, if He had pleased to put forth His power in justice; for the fig tree was not able to stand when He did curse it.
3. He trained His disciples by His own example unto all duties which he put them unto, and here He traineth them unto the exercise of the gift of miracles.
4. The gift of miracles was never to be exercised in particular, but upon a ground of faith, i.e. upon a warrant given from Christs Spirit, for doing of that work in particular; and it was necessary for him who had the gift and warrant for doing a miracle to strengthen his faith on the warrant, or else to miss of his intent, as in Peters sinking did appear. Therefore, saith He, If ye have faith and doubt not.

5. The Lord requireth faith in prayer for obtaining promised mercies, or else, if we come short, to blame our misbelief. Therefore, saith He, Whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive it.David Dickson.

The withering of the fruitless fig tree.This incident stands entirely alone among the miracles as the only one which is not of a beneficent or merciful character. Long custom has made all readers familiar with the designation of it as a miracle of judgment. The expression is misleading. It was a symbol or prediction of judgment. The burden it bore in act and sign was doom for that which the fruitless fig tree represented. But so far as concerns the literal object upon which the word fell, the expression is too large. It is out of all just proportion of thought and language to place the blasting of a way-side tree over against Christs numberless miracles of mercy, and note it as a judgment miracle. Indeed, the incident barely falls within the class of miracles. The supernatural element in it is predictive rather than directly miraculous. The word spoken against the tree was fulfilled in a way so notable and immediate as to mark a Divine hand. But in its proper object and scope it was really an acted parable, like those symbolic actions or prophecies without words of which the ancient seers, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, furnish plenty of instances.Prof. Laidlaw, D.D.

Mat. 21:19. Hypocrites and their doom.This cursing of the barren fig tree represents the state of hypocrites in general; and so it teacheth us:

I. That the fruit of fig trees may justly be expected from those that have the leaves.Christ looks for the power of religion from those that make profession of it.

II. Christs just expectations from flourishing professors are often frustrated and disappointed.Many have a name to live, and are not alive indeed.

III. The sin of barrenness is justly punished with the curse and plague of barrenness.

IV. A false and hypocritical profession commonly withers in this world.The gifts wither, common graces decay, the credit of the profession declines and sinks, and the falseness and folly of the pretender are manifested to all men.Matt. Henry.

The withering of the fig tree symbolic.To understand Christs act aright, we must not conceive that He at once caused a sound tree to wither. This would not be in harmony with the general aim of His miracles; nor would it correspond to the idea which He designed to set vividly before the disciples. A sound tree, suddenly destroyed, would certainly be no fitting type of the Jewish people. We must rather believe that the same cause which made the tree barren had already prepared the way for its destruction, and that Christ only hastened a crisis which had to come in the course of nature. In this view it would correspond precisely to the great event in the worlds history which it was designed to prefigure; the moral character of the Jewish nation had long been fitting it for destruction; and the Divine government of the world only brought on the crisis.Neander.

The fig tree destroyed.Why might not the Lord, consistently with His help and His healing, do that in one instance which His Father is doing everyday? In the midst of the freshest greenery of summer, you may see the wan branches of the lightning-struck tree. As a poet drawing his pen through syllable or word that mars his clear utterance or musical comment, such is the destruction of the Maker. It is the indrawn sigh of the creating Breath.G. Macdonald, LL.D.

Mat. 21:21-22. Faith and prayer.

I. The description of this wonder working faith. If ye have faith and doubt not.

II. The power and prevalency of it, expressed figuratively. Ye shall say unto this mountain, etc.

III. The way and means of exercising this faith, and of doing that which is to be done by it. All things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, etc. Faith is the soul, prayer is the body; both together make a complete man for any service.M. Henry.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

SECTION 56
JESUS CURSES FIG TREE AND TEACHES DISCIPLES FAITH

(Parallel: Mar. 11:12-14; Mar. 11:20-25)

TEXT: 21:1822

18

Now in the morning as he returned to the city, he hungered.

19

And seeing a fig tree by the way side, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only; and he saith unto it, Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever. And immediately the fig tree withered away.

20

And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, How did the fig tree immediately wither away?

21

And Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do what is done to the fig tree, but even if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou taken up and cast into the sea, it shall be done. 22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

If Matthew knew quite well that the cursing of the fig tree preceded the cleansing of the temple, rather than vice versa, what motives could have seemed valid to him to invert the chronological order of these events?

b.

If Jesus is the Son of God, or God incarnate as the Christians say, why was He hungry? Does God get hungry?!

c.

If Jesus is the Son of God, why did He approach the tree, as Mark admits, to see if he could find anything on it? Could he not have already known everything about it by using His presumed prophetic intuition? Should not the fact that He was disappointed by the tree be considered evidence against His possessing supernatural knowledge? If not, why not?

d.

By what right does Jesus permit Himself to gather fruit from a tree that does not belong to Him? What does the Law of Moses say about this? Is He guilty of theft or presumption, according to Jewish law?

e.

If Mark affirms that it was not the season for figs (Mar. 11:13), why should Jesus have any right to expect fruit on that tree? Is it not unfair on His part to expect a tree to do what it cannot?

f.

On the basis of what facts could we be sure that Jesus COULD have known that the tree had not produced the figs He expected to find there?

g.

On what basis could He have been certain that it would never produce them in the future?

h.

If this tree belonged to someone, by what right does Jesus destroy the property of others? Or, if the tree does not belong to Him and actually is someone elses property, how is He actually helping that owner by His action?

i.

By what right can Jesus curse, and so destroy, this unfortunate fig tree? Is it a morally conscious being, capable of sinning by not bearing fruit? What had it done to deserve the severity of Jesus cursing?

j.

If the fig tree withered at once, as Matthew says, why did not the disciples notice it until the next day, as Mark affirms?

k.

Why did the disciples marvel? Should they not have already become thoroughly accustomed to Jesus miracles by now?

1.

What is the relationship between a fig tree cursed because it did not bear fruit worthy of its own nature, and prayer that is so effective that does impossible things? Jesus statement seems to draw such a connection. What is it?

m.

In your opinion, does Jesus offer Himself as a model for the disciples, in the sense that the disciple should be able to wither fig trees like Jesus did? If not, what is the lesson? If so, how many fig trees have you blasted lately?

n.

Men rightly believe that Jesus never showed a mean, selfish spirit. Yet, how are we to understand this incident? Why did He curse the fig tree, if not because He was in a fit of frustrated anger because this tree did not furnish Him what He wanted?

o.

Was Jesus promise of moving mountains by faith intended for every disciple, or only for the Twelve? On what basis do you decide this?

p.

What limitations does Jesus place upon His seemingly universal promise to move mountains for any disciple who asks it of Him in faithful prayer?

q.

How does the text help us to understand what attitude we should have when we seek a supernatural (miraculous) blessing from God?

r.

In what sense, is it true that Marks additions concerning forgiveness (Mar. 11:25) are implicitly included in Matthews general statement, Whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith?

s.

Affirm or deny and tell why: The narration of the cursing of the fig tree in this context had the precise function of explaining the sterility of Judaism and of foretelling its proper destiny.

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Early on the day following the triumphal entry, as Jesus and His disciples were on their way back to the city from Bethany, He felt hungry. In the distance He noticed one solitary fig tree completely leafed out close to the road. So He went up to it to see if He could find anything on it. But when He arrived at the tree, He found nothing on it except leaves. In fact, it was not yet the season for figs.
Then He said to the tree, May no one ever eat fruit from you again! May you never bear fruit again! His disciples were listening. And the fig tree began at once to wither. Then they arrived in Jerusalem and He entered the temple and began to drive out the merchants. . . .
Early the next morning, as they took the same route as the previous day, they saw the fig tree now completely withered away from the roots up. Then Peter, recalling Jesus words the day before, exclaimed, Rabbi, look! That fig tree you cursed has dried up! When the disciples saw it, they exclaimed in astonishment, How fast it withered!
Have faith in God, Jesus urged them, I can assure you that, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree. In fact, if you order even this mountain, Go throw yourself into the sea, without any mental reservations or inward doubts, but believing that what you say will occur, it will be done for you. This is why I tell you that whatever you pray for, act on the assumption that it is already received, and it will be yours! Further, when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your heavenly Father may forgive you your sins.

And they came again into Jerusalem. . . .

SUMMARY

Before cleansing a pretentious temple that served an equally pretentious nation not producing the fruit of righteousness that God the Creator rightly expected of both, Jesus transformed an otherwise commonplace situation into a grave object lesson full of warning. If a fruitless fig tree deserves to be blasted instantly, what fate must await an unbelieving, prayerless, merciless people that, despite all pretensions to the contrary, has made great promises without performance of that one great duty for which it was created, as surely as a fig tree was created to produce figs?!

NOTES
I. PUNISHMENT FROM GOD FOR HYPOCRISY AND BARRENNESS (21:18f.)
A. The Sterile Fig Tree

Mat. 21:18 Now in the morning as he returned to the city, he hungered. In the morning means early (proi), referring to the time of day, not necessarily, as in English, the next day after today (Greek; eparion; cf. pro skotas ti oses of Joh. 20:1 : early while it was yet dark). Matthew affirms nothing about chronological sequences. This fact resolves any supposed contradiction between Matthew and Mark regarding the sequence of the events of this chapter. In fact, Mark clarifies the chronology by using the more precise time connection on the following day (eparion) tomorrow, the next day (Arndt-Gingrich, 283). Thus, Matthew affirms only what time it was when Jesus cursed the tree, without saying on what day it occurred. Marks chronology clearly notes that the cursing took place on the day after the Messianic Entry into Jerusalem, i.e. very early Monday morning.

As he returned to the city, then, shows that Jesus was coming from Bethany to Jerusalem to cleanse the temple, teach and heal, after spending the night there with the Twelve. (See notes on Mat. 12:17; Mar. 11:11.) Apparently, He did this every day, since people got up early to hear Him (Luk. 21:37 f.).

He hungered. (See notes on Mat. 8:26.) As is evident from the sequence of events recorded by Mark (Mar. 11:12-15), Jesus was leading the Twelve to the temple before breakfast. Apparently, He had not eaten in Bethany before leaving, and so was hungry. Because skeptics find it incredible that hospitable people like Mary and Martha should have permitted Him to miss breakfast, we furnish several possible reasons why He might have done so:

1.

Had He risen before the others, to go out to pray? (Cf. Mar. 1:35.) Had they arisen later, eaten and then joined Him to go to Jerusalem? This would explain why no mention is made of the Apostles hunger. Again, all 13 men might not have slept together in the one house of Lazarus, Mary and Martha, but in several homes in Bethany, or elsewhere.

Farrar (Life, 509, note 1) poses the interesting question whether Jesus really slept in the town of Bethany:

The eulsthe eke of Mat. 21:17 does not necessarily imply that He bivouacked in the open air, It is, however, very probable that He did so; for (1) such is the proper meaning of the word (comp. Jdg. 19:15; Jdg. 19:20). (2) St. Luke says, eulzeto eis t ros t kalomenon (Mat. 21:37). (3) It was His custom to resort for the night to Gethsemane, where, so far as we are aware, there was no house. (4) The retiring to Bethany would hardly answer to the ekrbe ap autn of Joh. 12:36.

He concludes that Jesus probably did not actually stay in the village since His purpose appears to have been concealment, which would hardly have been realized by retiring in the famous house where so many had observed Him at supper earlier. So, if He and the Apostles, slept on the slopes of Olivet near Bethany, the problem of breakfast is to be solved precisely like Jesus started to solve it, by finding it wherever He could.

2.

Concern to go to the temple at an early hour to catch the traders at their game, may have pushed Him to leave Bethany before breakfast. Although Jesus enjoyed a good meal on many occasions (Mat. 11:19; Luk. 7:33 f.) with Pharisees (Luk. 14:1 ff.) and publicans and sinners (Luk. 15:1 ff.), the pressure of His activities sometimes left Him little time to eat. (Cf. Mar. 6:31.)

Let scoffers sneer at this hungry Messiah! For the believer, this characteristic evidences His authentic humanity. He is truly the Son of man and very much like His brethren in this basic physiological need. And yet, side by side with this demonstration of Jesus complete humanness, His hunger, we see His divine power in the instant withering of the fig tree by a simple word of divine might.

Mat. 21:19 And seeing a fig tree by the way side. When Jesus first noticed it, it was at a distance (Mar. 11:13), but, because it was close to the road (Matthew has: ep ts hodo), it practically invited the hungry passerby to sample its fruit. God Himself had already solved the ethical question whether anyone should pick fruit from others trees without first asking permission (Deu. 23:24 f.). In fact, after the first picking of fruit, anything remaining over must be left on the tree or in the field expressly for the alien, the fatherless and the widow (Deu. 24:19 ff.).

He came to it to see if He could find anything on it (Mar. 11:13). Apparently Jesus did not use His supernatural insight to learn at a distance whether there were fruit there or not. That He could choose not to know certain things should cause no surprise for anyone aware of His unique Sonship. Jesus, when He discovered the things He chose not to know in advance, could be surprised. (See notes on Mat. 8:10 and Mat. 24:36.) In fact, He approached the tree expecting to taste of the fruit which must surely be on it, since it was in leaf (Mar. 11:13). It is a false assumption that our Lord knew, as by His divine power He must, that there was no fruit upon that tree. By starting with this false premise, one must defend Jesus apparent insincerity when He approached the tree, playing like He expected fruit, when, in reality, He knew there was none. On the other hand, substitute this premise with the alternative hypothesis that our Lord CHOSE NOT TO KNOW about the tree by supernatural knowledge, and any need to excuse His supposed insincerity is eliminated.

He found nothing thereon, but leaves only. Mar. 11:13 adds the cryptic phrase: for it was not the season for figs. In fact, Passover time is near the beginning of spring, whereas the normal season for figs is much later on in the summer. Note carefully that Mark relates that He went to see if He could find ANYTHING (ti) on it.

1.

Marks statement that it was not the season for figs is obviously not included to suggest that Jesus conduct was either immoral or irrational, as if Jesus blasted a tree incapable of producing what He (wrongly) expected of it. Mark should be treated as an intelligent, believing writer who could have discerned such an incongruity, had it really existed.

Ferrar (Life, 511), citing Josephus (Wars, III, 10, 8), suggested:

On the plains of Gennesaret Jesus must have been accustomed to see figs ripe on the trees every month of the year excepting January and February.

However, Marks comment on the season renders invalid any hope of finding ripe figs on the tree, since Mark is discussing the growing season for the JERUSALEM area, of which he, quite possibly, was a native, (cf. Act. 12:12).

Rather, by using this expression, Mark shows that Jesus was NOT looking for ripe figs, matured that spring, but for something (ti) else. What was He seeking then?

2.

Autumn figs from the previous year? Plinys Natural History, 16, 27, describes these late fruits that not uncommonly continued on the trees throughout the winter, even till the arrival of the green leaves of spring. This possibility, however, is less likely than the following, because the trees proximity to a large population center would have almost guaranteed that all winter figs would have probably been picked by passersby or blown off by the wind (cf. Rev. 6:13).

3.

Jesus sought flower figs, the first figs or green figs. (Study Isa. 28:4; Jer. 24:1-3; Hos. 9:10; Mic. 7:1; Nah. 3:12.) This early fruit is formed in the springtime (S. of Son. 2:10-13). In reality, such young fruit is the blossom and appears before the leaves open.

The fruit is of so anomalous a construction that botanists have had to give it a distinct name and place among fruits. It is a hollow receptacle, with minute flowers on its inner side, which later produce the true fruit (Davis Dictionary of the Bible, 231).

Edersheim (Life, II, 374f.) reminds that the Mishnah (Shebh. Iv, 7) and the Talmud (Jer. Shebh. 35b, last lines) confirm the fact that the unripe fruit was eaten, as soon as it began to assume a red color.

Jesus was hoping to find some flower-figs to eat. But as sure as the law: no flowers, no fruit, He knew, as does any fig grower, that, because there were no flower-figs, there was also not going to be any fig production later on in August.

Nothing but leaves. Leaves were the signal to all that something edible should have been found on that tree. Jesus would not have even bothered, had it not been for that deceptive foliage announcing to any that know fig trees that something to stave off His hunger was to be found thereif not old figs, at least edible, blossom figs. But to affirm, with McGarvey (Fourfold Gospel, 581), that it was too early for leaves, is to ignore the nature of that species of fig fully leafed out in precisely that locality in that year.

And He said to it, May no fruit ever come from you again.

Marks expression He answered and said to it (Mar. 11:14 apokrithes epen aut) may be nothing more than a typically Aramaic redundancy (Blass-Debrunner, 4, note 4) and should . be left untranslated in English (Arndt-Gingrich, 93), being but a standard formula. Jesus is not, therefore, formally answering the supposed claims which the tree made by its leaves.

That Jesus should address a tree is no surprise to anyone who knows our God who can merely speak a word to His creation and things begin to occur (Gen. 1:22; Gen. 3:14). In fact, to see Jesus addressing a sea storm to quiet it, is to witness the same phenomenon. (See notes on Mat. 8:26.) The greater surprise is to hear Jesus attribute moral responsibility to the tree. Some object that to treat an impersonal object as something properly subject to punishment or reward is itself an injustice, an observation that causes many either to reject the account as unhistorical, or else reduce it to an entirely parabolic symbol. Three answers are possible:

1.

The error lies in mans failure to understand Gods creation. Morality, by Gods definition, is to function according to His design for our nature and in harmony with the purpose for which we were all created, be we trees or men. Not to do so is immoral and blameworthy. Gods will and design for trees is that each produce fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds (Gen. 1:11). Further, such fruit was to serve as mans food (Gen. 1:29). Therefore, Jesus could justly impute guilt to a tree, however impersonal it might be, because its barrenness did not fulfil the law of its life by responding positively to Gods will that governs the trees nature.

2.

Under what circumstances would it ever be considered criminal to eliminate a worthless tree?

For example, on what basis could the farmer, in the story of the unfruitful fig tree, be accused of malice or uncultured spite and impatience, when, disappointed by his fig trees uselessness, ordered it to be cut down lest it continue to use up the soil (Luk. 13:7)?

If there is no such case, then should it be thought somehow MORE criminal to remove it by supernatural, rather than by natural, means?

3.

Even those who complain about Jesus attribution of moral responsibility to a tree are often caught doing a similar thing when they talk to inanimate objects, such as those choice remarks aimed at some object of their pleasure or displeasure, their comments addressed to their automobile when it refuses to start on a cold morning and they are late to work, their verbally coaxing a golf ball across the green and into the cup, etc. The difference is that, while they say such things without seriously believing their comments can change anything, Jesus not only said what He thought, but also radically proved His right to say it by changing the state of the object so addressed!

Further, to assume that the fig tree belonged to a local farmer and should not, therefore, have been presumptuously destroyed by Jesus, assumes more than the text affirms.

1.

The observation that the tree was located by the road (Mat. 21:19) argues that it was not located in a field, hence really belonged to nobody, was part of no ones patrimony. Jesus neither impoverished nor robbed any man, therefore.

2.

Further, by reducing the barren fig tree to instant firewood, Jesus has done any presumed owner a favor, since the tree was good for nothing else.

3.

BUT WHO IS THE REAL OWNER OF THAT TREEand of every other tree on earth, if not Jesus the Lord? Can HE not do with HIS OWN what He wills?!

Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever. Since He had found no flower-figs, He knew that there could be no future fruit-figs. He merely acknowledged that fig trees condition as barren and, by His utterance, sealed that condition forever. Its time for fruit-bearing had passed. It had been found useless to God and man. Now its judgment and sentencing had come. Two reasons have been noticed that justify Jesus judgment: the trees fruitfulness and its falsity.

1.

For fruitlessness, because it was contrary to its God-given nature.

2.

For pretending, by means of its deceptive leaves, that it had already fulfilled its God-given mission in the world, i.e. to bear fruit. Its external expression was untrue to its inner life.

Jesus reaction was no precipitous, pettish outburst, but a solemn judgment carefully announced and instantly carried out. If it be true that usefulness to God and men is the only justification for existence on earth, and if the function of justice is to eliminate anything or any person not fulfilling the end for which it was designed, then the justice of Jesus, in preparing this fig tree for removal, is fully justified.

Further, on the basis of Jesus later explanations (Mat. 21:20-22), are we to infer that His curse involved His own full confidence that God would execute what Jesus here simply addressed to the fig tree? Yes, because that demonstration of absolute trust which He requires of His followers is exemplified in His own total dependence upon and confidence in the Father at every point. He verbally withered the fig tree in the undivided certainty that it was Gods will and that Gods power could effect it.

And immediately the fig tree withered away. Matthews abbreviated account conveys the impression that, even as they watched, the fig tree wilted. Marks more definite account notes that the fig tree withered away from its roots (Mar. 11:20). So Matthew is correct to affirm that the tree withered away immediately, since the withering began immediately at the roots, but the effect on the branches and leaves would not necessarily have been instantly evident as, in fact, it was the next day. Immediately (parachrma), then, does not necessarily mean in their presence while they were looking, but relatively soon, since the antithesis of immediately would be the slow-motion decay of a degenerate tree.

WHY DID JESUS WITHER JUST THIS ONE TREE?

Were there no other fruitless trees, plants, animals and even people all over Palestine, not to say, the entire world? If so, then why single out this one single fig for exemplary punishment for its fruitlessness?

On the principle of the parsimony of miracles, He probably would not have blasted more than this one encountered in the direct course of His earthly ministry. This differs not at all from His refusal to cure-all the sick, raise all the dead or feed all the hungry in Palestine. He dealt with those He encountered and chose to bless; the rest He left. In His ministry it is not recorded that He ever encountered another similar fig tree out of which He chose to make a lesson on faith versus fruitlessness.
But, could He not simply have gone on to search for fruit on other trees? Or perhaps more wonderfully, He could have caused mature figs to appear on this tree already so rich in leaves. He could have then eaten those. But He did not. Why?

1.

He refused to use His divine power for selfish purposes, as during the temptations in the wilderness (Mat. 4:1-11).

2.

Every object in Gods universe occupies its place (1) by His grace and (2) for His glory (Col. 1:16 f.). Nothing has an inalienable right to exist. Everything receives this privilege from the place it occupies in the order of nature. The day had come when this single fig tree must give final reckoning for its fulfilling the purpose for which God created it, fruitfulness. Consequently, Jesus did not violate the trees nature by creating figs on it contrary to the will of the Father to whom He always gave Son-like obedience. Since the tree did not glorify God by properly fulfilling His purpose, its time of grace had elapsed.

MYTH OR MIRACLE?

It is highly ironic that theologians and Bible commentators who work at explaining this perplexing incident in Christs life, should prove the very truth of the Lords teaching given in it! In fact, a neat cleavage separates them into two groups: those who believe that Jesus really withered a fig tree and those who, after all attempts at explaining the story in naturalistic terms, just do not really think it could have taken place. Barclay (Matthew, II, 278) simply states:

We may well believe that Jesus used the lesson of a diseased and degenerate fig tree to say to the Jewsand to usthat uselessness invites disaster, and profession without practice is doomed. That is surely what this story means, for we cannot think of Jesus as literally and physically blasting a fig tree for failing to bear fruit at a season when fruit was impossible.

Others tend to consider Luk. 13:6 ff., the parable of the unfruitful fig, as so parallel in thought to the withering of the fig tree, that the miracle must be considered to be an enacted parable. Radaelli (Lettura di un miracolo come introduzione allintendimento del miracolo, 47, 52f.) pontificates:

The account of a parable does not alter the content of the kerygma, i.e. it does not hinder the communication of a precise message even if it is presented as a historical event because of certain editorial concerns. It is especially this nucleus of editorial aims that must be preserved, it is this teaching of faith that must be considered as primary and essential, not its channel by which it comes to us. We must learn what the Evangelist means by the narration of the miracle of the fig. It does not interest us for now whether this narration is history of not. (Emphasis added.)

For Radaelli it did not bother the conscience of Matthew or Mark to transform into a miracle what must originally have been but a parable, as in Luke. It makes little difference whether Jesus ever concretely withered the fig tree or not. The important thing is to learn the truth He intended to teach. Rather than reject the Evangelists account as unhistorical or as intentional fabrication of facts simply because of some problems involved in a literal interpretation of the text, would it not be far more reasonable to argue that these scandalous problems, rather than furnish reasons for its rejection, are proof of its historicity? Matthew and Mark could have foreseen the difficulties, yet they included them. In fact, these problems evidence the scandal of Christ who smashes many human notions of what the Messiah must be, not merely for ancient Israel but for modern scholars too.

IS THIS A MIRACLE OR A PARABLE?

Is there any basis in the text for thinking Jesus cursing of the fig tree is an acted parable, intended by Jesus as an ominous warning to the fruitless Jewish nation soon to be destroyed for its barrenness? On whose authority may we confidently affirm that the fig tree is a common metaphor for Israel? None of the proof texts usually cited so affirm, since they often include other trees and vines as well. (Cf. Jer. 8:13; Eze. 17:24; Mic. 7:1; Hos. 9:10; Hos. 9:16; Hos. 10:1, etc.) But granted that fig tree were a metaphor for Israel in every other context, what would make it so in THIS one? The following supposed parabolic parallels?

PARABOLIC PARALLELS

1.

The fig tree event is the literary framework within which the temple cleansing occurs. Can there have been no deliberate intention of the Lord to follow precisely this sequence? However, the Lord did not state His reasons for choosing this particular sequence of events.

2.

Both the fig tree and the temple of Israel appear lacking in some way: figs on the tree, dignity and righteousness in the temple.

3.

Both provoke in Jesus an energetic reaction that borders on violence.

4.

Both were physically stricken and, after some time had passed, destroyed.

However convincing these parallels seem, it must be stated that Jesus did not turn His miracle into a parable. In fact, He said nothing in our text about the Jewish nation, city or temple. It is highly significant that, when questioned about the fig trees sudden demise, He turned directly to the instruction of the Twelve about their own faith, prayer and forgiveness. Not one word came from Jesus lips concerning a presumed parabolic significance of His miracle. The REAL LESSON Jesus considered far more urgent than talk about fruitless Israel was the lesson of the FAITH and PRAYER of His own disciples. THIS lies at the heart of all fruitlessness.

A sensitive Jewish reader would perhaps have intuited the following lessons:

1.

The danger of spiritual sterility

2.

The authority and power of the Lord who can wither a sterile tree by merely a word.

3.

The operational value of faith to accomplish the impossible.

4.

Would he have also specifically grasped the sterility of Judaism from this event alone? Perhaps from the context of the temple cleansing and the following debates and Jesus condemnation of the leaders of Israel. In fact, in Jesus larger context (Mat. 21:33 f.), He did discuss a people that did not produce the fruits of the Kingdom.

Our ability to see a parable here arises, therefore, not from something in the text at hand, but from our intuitive appreciation of His many lessons on fruitfulness and barrenness already given. (Cf. Mat. 3:10; Luk. 13:6-9; see notes on The Importance of Fruit-bearing at the end of this volume.)

So it is MEN who turn this miracle into a parable by reflecting on its meaning. Their psychological process proceeds somewhat as follows: if Jesus can so rigorously curse a fruitless fig tree, what must be the destiny of a fruitless people who do not produce what their Creator expects. To every believer this must be a warning that guarantees the damnation of uselessness and the punishment of proud promises without performance. If God eliminates useless, unfruitful creatures with a suddenness and severity that surprises the observer, and if He does it with indisputable justice because of the rich opportunities to produce what, by their nature, they could be expected to produce, WHAT WILL HE DO WITH ME, if I too do not produce what, according to MY nature, I am rightly expected to produce to His satisfaction?! (Cf. Joh. 15:1-11.) But this conclusion is not really based on the parallel, but upon other revelations of Jesus given elsewhere. (Cf. Mat. 25:14-46, etc.) He said nothing directly about OUR fruitlessness in our text.

It is only on this basis that the incidents lessons find application in the life of Israel. Whereinsofar the Jewish nation of Jesus day showed a rich profession of zeal toward God, even to the point of enthusiastically welcoming His Messiah, but did not produce the fruit God desired, just so far it would be condemned as worthless. While the cursing of the fig tree anticipates the clear teaching of three parables that describe the destiny of those among Gods people who will not have done His will (Mat. 21:38 to Mat. 22:14), and while this episode serves also to introduce Jesus severe denunciation of the Pharisees (chap. 23), it is really out of mens analysis of Jesus judgment and His rationale for it, that they derive this parabolic sense, not from something stated in the text.

B. The Polluted Temple (21:1217)

It is to be remembered that, at precisely this point (according to Marks chronology), the Lord entered into His temple and cleaned out its ungodly traffic. In the estimation of many, this fact bears on the interpretation of the withering of the fig tree, as its perfect, necessary corollary, being also a scathing judgment upon a pretentious, but barren, religion. However, it is better to consider the cleansing of the temple as simply one more illustration of the principle implicit in the withering of the fig tree, rather than a parabolic prophecy of it.

II. POWER FROM GOD THROUGH FAITH, PRAYER AND MERCY (21:2022)

A. The Disciples Surprise (21:20; Mar. 11:20 f.)

Mat. 21:20 And when the disciples saw it, a fully day had passed (Mar. 11:19 f.). Once again they are returning to Jerusalem from Bethany where they had lodged the previous night (Mat. 21:17). Why did they not immediately notice the trees withering?

1.

If on the evening of the day the tree was cursed, they returned to Bethany by the same route as that taken in the morning, they may have passed the tree in the dark without noticing the change that had taken place in the tree either then withered or in its final stages of withering. Next day, they took the same trail and saw it by daylight.

2.

McGarvey (Evidences of Christianity, 90) taught that

In Marks account . . . the disciples are represented as not seeing the tree until the next morning after the curse was pronounced on it, although they went out to Bethany the next afternoon, and we should suppose that they passed by it (Mat. 11:14; Mat. 11:19 f.). This appears quite strange, if not unaccountable, until we inspect the route of travel between Jerusalem and Bethany, and find that there are two different paths, by either of which a person may pass up the western side of the Mount of Olives from one place to the other. One of the paths is very steep, while the other has a gradual slope. The steep path is the shorter of the two, and the one which a person would take naturally when coming down the mountainside toward the city, while the other would be naturally preferred by one going the other way. Now Jesus was coming into the city when He cursed the tree, and this accounts for the failure of the disciples to see it as they went out, and also for their seeing it when they came in the next morning. A coincidence so minute as this, and so artless, can be the work of none but an accurate writer.

But the disciples saw it! Brown, dry leaves stirring in the springtime breeze around the base of the now-bare, fruitless fig tree would catch their attention as it stood out in marked contrast to all that was green around it, as well as in contrast to its previously luxuriant foliage the previous day. They saw it and so become proof against modern skeptics who deny what they themselves did not see!

They marvelled, saying, How did the fig tree immediately wither away? A most remarkable reaction for Twelve men gifted with so many experiences of Jesus divine power! How is such a response possible?

1.

They marvelled, not because they had seen no miracles before, but because this was an unexpected evidence of His supernatural power in a different sector of nature. Although they had witnessed countless wonders performed in the area of human sickness and death, demon-possession, in the forces of nature and some of its animal life, this was their first experiences with a miracle involving a tree.

2.

Until now, Jesus mighty works had been characterized by mercy and kindness. This one surprises the Twelve by the immediateness and completeness of the Lords punitive judgment. Their reaction is entirely free from any criticism of His right to destroy the tree. Rather, they are astonished by the marvelous rapidity with which His curse is carried out.

How did the fig tree immediately wither away? (ps parachrma exernthe he suk) Most translators agree in rendering this Greek phrase as a question, implying the Twelves desire to know the process. But did not they, of all people, already know that God could destroy the tree at the word of Jesus? Again, we must discern in what sense Jesus response (Mat. 21:21) really deals with their reaction. These can be understood in two ways:

1.

AS A QUESTION: Disciples: How did the tree wither? Jesus: By faith in God! But must we suppose that the Twelve, who had apparently never before expressed any desire to know the inner workings of their Masters divine power, only now blurt out this impulsive question that delves into the mechanics of supernatural intervention? This is possible, even though His answer would be more indirect. Have faith and doubt not transfers their attention from idle curiosity about the physical mechanics of the supernatural to a proper emphasis on the spiritual connection with the power of GOD who makes such wonderful deeds possible. This shift of emphasis is evident when it is remembered that faith in itself does not directly produce a miracle. It is God Himself who does it. Faith is only the moral condition of His human agent or of the miracles recipient. It may well be that Jesus intended NOT to answer the disciples question as they intended it, in order to remind them of their position as disciples and servants of God. Thus they had to leave the physical mechanics of supernatural intervention in His hands, while depending on His power to perform such wonders.

2.

AS AN EXCLAMATION: Disciples: How rapidly the tree withered! Jesus: By faith in God you too can do even more marvelous things than this! Anyone who has faith can do that and more!

a.

An exclamation is grammatically possible:

(1) The question mark is not inspired, but a translators choice interpretation.
(2) The Greek word order permits the phrase to be rendered as an exclamation.

(a)

Compare the use of the interrogative adverb ps rendered as a correlative adverb, making exclamations in passages like Mar. 10:23 f. = Luk. 18:24; Luk. 12:50; Joh. 11:36. (Cf. Blass-Debrunner, 436, however, cf. 396 mentioned below; Arndt-Gingrich, 740, 3 article ps; Rocci, 1634)

(b)

Because ps had begun to assume the function of hoti to introduce indirect discourse (Blass-Debrunner, 396, and Mat. 19:23 in contrast with Mar. 10:23 f.), our sentence could also be translated, And seeing (it), the disciples marveled, saying, The fig tree withered suddenly! Ps (= hti) functions practically as quotation marks. But even so, the disciples comments prove to be a series of exclamations, so the practical result is the same. (Cf. also Mar. 11:21.)

b.

An exclamation is at least as much in harmony with the disciples astonishment as a question, if not more so.

c.

Marks parallel citation of Peters words (Mar. 11:21) contains exclamations: Master, look! The fig-tree you cursed has withered!

d.

Several translators recognize the disciples reaction as an exclamation, among whom the Berkeley Version by G. Verkuyl, the Twentieth Century New Testament and J. B. Phillips in English, and the Bibbia Concordia in Italian.

So rendered, the exclamation, which by its character still demands an explanation from Jesus, leads quite naturally into Jesus explanation (Mat. 21:21 f.), since the disciples are no longer thought to be seeking that information which could have been drawn from their own rich experiences with the Lord. Rather, their astonishment (ethamasan) is based, not on inexplicable ignorance of Jesus supernatural power, but on the mind-boggling rapidity (ps parachrema! = How swiftly!) with which His curse was carried out.

B. The Lords Lesson (21:21f.; Mar. 11:22-25)

1.

Unwavering confidence in God does achieve truly amazing results.

Mat. 21:21 If you have faith and doubt not. The Lord now brings His men into fellowship with Him in His power by sharing with them the secret behind such marvelously instantaneous results. Rather than explain how He worked the miracle, drawing attention to the mechanics, rather than justify His severe judgment on the tree, drawing attention to Himself, Jesus turned the spotlight on the fundamental principle of confidence in God and dependence on Him as the source of all true power. Have faith in God (Mar. 11:22) beautifully summarizes Jesus message and the basic goal of His ministry. He aimed to build faith in God among all who follow Him. He is not so much interested that we believe in the power of prayer as He is that we have faith in God who answers them, a confidence that trusts the power, wisdom and goodness of Him who can enable us to do the impossible instantly. He is so dedicated to producing real faith, that He expresses Himself here in the most vivid and encouraging language possible.

Further, because it was contextually JESUS miracle that is the basis of His encouragement to believe God unwaveringly, may we not also infer that it was His own confident trust in the Father that stands at the base of His power? And did not the Father hear Him on many occasions precisely because of His reverent submission and His learned obedience? (Cf. Heb. 5:7 ff.; Joh. 4:34; Joh. 11:38 ff.)

You will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, Be taken up and cast into the sea, it will be done. Jesus argues from the lesser to the greater, inasmuch as cursing fig trees could be considered less impressive than ordering huge mountains around. In fact, physical removal of mountains is literally possible for a God who can do anything at the request of His believing children. And yet, how much actual rearranging of earths geography is really intended by the Lord or understood by the Twelve? To understand Jesus language as figurative is not to discount His words as unimportant. Even if He did not intend His men to understand Him literally, He did intend to be taken seriously! Rather, His words are proverbial for achieving what is humanly impossible. By saying this mountain, referring to the Mount of Olives on which they were then standing, He rendered this common proverb even more vivid.

If it be asked how the removal of figurative mountains could be psychologically superior to the stupendous miracle Jesus had just performed by blasting the fig tree, the answer is to be found in a later promise somewhat parallel in thought (Joh. 14:12). His miracles were merely the scaffolding which supported His claims. But what is all-important for Jesus is the proclamation of His message throughout the world, because what actually saves men is this message, not His miracles. So, when His people would in faith move mountains of unbelief and hindrances by gospel proclamation all over the earth, thus making other believers in Him and saving them for eternity, this is far greater in His eyes.

Study Jesus syntax: You will not only do . . . to the fig tree, but even . . . to this mountain. Both a cursing and a removing of impossible barriers would be within the province of believing disciples, a fact that has several ramifications:

1.

There would be some negative, difficult work ahead for them. They would not find their discipleship unencumbered, but plagued by what cried out for cursing, and their progress hampered by difficulties to be removed.

2.

Such a difficulty ministry could not be marked by presumptuous self-confidence nor by self-doubt and fear. Rather, all decisions they must make must occur within the larger context of faithful dependence upon God.

If you have faith and doubt not: how badly these men needed this admonition is illustrated by the failure of some of them to cast out a demon precisely because of their lack of faith and prayer. (See notes on Mat. 17:19 f.; Mar. 9:28 f.) This unwavering faith in God was the absolutely essential condition which would connect them with the power of the living God.

Even if moving mountains is figurative rather than literal, this does not detract from the fact that these very disciples had already done tasks in harmony with Gods will that would have proven impossible for doubters to perform, tasks just as impossible as causing a mountain to plunge suddenly into the sea. Peter had walked on the water by faith (Mat. 14:29). In Jesus name the Twelve had conquered demons (Luk. 10:17). Later these same men would plunge into a busy, miracle-filled ministry. (Act. 2:1-12; Act. 2:43; Act. 3:6-9; Act. 5:12-16; Act. 9:32-43; Act. 19:11-12, etc.) In fact, to believe that a handful of believers belonging to an obscure people dominated by the super-power of Rome, yet without substantial economic resources, the assistance of diplomatic influence or military forces, could somehow change the direction of world history by the unique might of a preached message, is tantamount to believing that, with a single, simple gesture, a man could order a mountain to throw itself into the ocean!

2. Trusting Prayer, Confident of Gods Concern and Power, Is Sure To Be Answered (21:22)

Mat. 21:22 And all things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. Three major questions are involved in the correct understanding of this text:

1.

To what extent should all things whatever ye shall ask be considered universal and to what extent limited?

2.

If believing, and its parallel, doubt not (Mat. 21:21), are the absolute minimum requirements limiting the apparently universal promise of Jesus, what, specifically, must be believed and not doubted?

3.

When is it that ye shall receive? Must every believing prayer have an instantaneous, positive response from God?

Failure correctly to understand Jesus will lead to false expectations and consequent disappointments. Lest the unprepared disciple should be misled to think that you can get anythinganything you ask for in prayerif you believe, it is appropriate to study everything Jesus affirmed about proper praying, since His various statements furnish a context within which to comprehend these astonishingly unqualified promises in our text. (Cf. Mat. 6:5-15; Mat. 7:7-11; Mat. 6:19-34; Mat. 9:38; Mat. 17:20; Mat. 18:19 f.)

1.

Jesus will personally answer prayers addressed in His name (Joh. 14:13 f.). Since His name is the symbol for all that this name stands for, all that He had revealed about Himself, then only those prayers formulated in harmony with His self-revelation have any hope of an answer. His name is no magic formula tacked onto prayer to guarantee its being heard. In His name means on the basis of HIS worthiness and in harmony with His willingness to loan us the use of His good name.

2.

Jesus will answer prayers that the Father may be glorified in the Son (Joh. 14:13). No prayer can be considered that does not seek Gods glory. This desire to glorify the Father automatically screens out our unworthy, selfish requests, Since God decides by what standard His glory is truly enhanced, this implies that our praying must be in harmony with His will.

3.

God will answer those who prove themselves to be friends of Jesus, a fact demonstrated by their obvious obedience to Him in their love for one another, their willingness to work together and in the abiding results of their lives (Mat. 18:19; Joh. 15:12-17; 1Jn. 3:21 f.).

4.

God will answer the prayers that meet the scrutiny of Him whose personal intercession is absolutely essential to their being granted a hearing with God (Joh. 16:23, in my name; 1Jn. 2:1; 1Ti. 2:5). Obviously, such prayers must accord with the nature and will of Christ. Nevertheless, the believer is sure to be heard, if he prays for what Christ wants! To pray well, we must study HIM HIS goals, HIS desires, HIS methods, HIS intentions.

5.

Jesus promises answer for those who are deeply and humbly conscious of their own limitations, their lack of wisdom, their sinfulness, their inability to foresee solutions, their need for knowledge and their need for an intercessor (Mat. 18:3 f., Mat. 18:11; Rom. 8:26 f.).

6.

God will answer prayer according to His will (1Jn. 5:14 f.). When we learn to desire what He desires, nothing good will be withheld from us (Psa. 37:4). However God has limited His own freedom to grant just any and every prayer we pray. These limitations express His own character and program for world redemption. They also automatically restrict what we may reasonably expect from Him, no matter how trusting and free from doubt we think we are. God has deliberately stated His will in Scripture, so that we can learn both to pray and act aright. He will answer in harmony with all of these facets of His will that bear on the many, complex questions involved in any request we make:

a.

Gods will is knowable (Eph. 1:9; Eph. 3:2-6; Eph. 5:10; Eph. 5:17; Eph. 6:6; Col. 1:9; Col. 4:12).

b.

Gods will is revealed only to humble disciples (Mat. 11:25 f.).

c.

Gods will is grasped by mind-transforming self-sacrifice (Rom. 12:1-2).

d.

Scripture came by Gods will (2Pe. 1:21). Paul, for example, was an Apostle by Gods will (Col. 1:1; Col. 1:25-29) and what he writes is the Lords will (1Co. 14:37; 1Th. 2:13; Act. 20:27).

e.

Gods will is possible for man to do it (Act. 13:22; Act. 13:36), although difficult (Heb. 10:36). He even furnishes the gracious power to help us do it (Php. 2:13; Heb. 13:20 f.)! Even after Satans victories (2Ti. 2:26)!

f.

God wants everyone to be saved (2Pe. 3:9; 1Ti. 2:4; Luk. 12:32; Eph. 1:5). God wills that only Jesus deliver men (Gal. 1:3-4; Act. 2:23; Joh. 6:39 f.) and He chose to save by means of the Gospel (1Co. 1:21). He finds no pleasure in cowardly backsliders (Heb. 10:38). Spiritual kinship to Jesus is judged by obedience to Gods will (Mar. 3:35).

g.

God wills that we be thoroughly pure (1Th. 4:3-8; Heb. 10:10; Heb. 12:14; Joh. 17:15-19), sanctified by obedient faith (Jas. 1:21 f.; Heb. 11:6; Heb. 10:7; Heb. 10:10; 1Pe. 1:22-25). God hates sin (1Co. 10:5).

h.

God wills that we live a full Christian life (Rom. 14:17 f.), useful to others (Heb. 13:15 f.).

i.

God wills that we show His same deep concern for the weakest (Mat. 18:14 in context). The body of Christ is also set up like He wants it, even with its weakest members to care for (1Co. 12:18; 1Co. 12:24-28).

j.

Gods judgment is on the side of mercy for those who show mercy to others (Mat. 9:13; Mat. 5:7; Mat. 6:12; Mat. 6:14 f.; Mat. 18:33; Mat. 18:35).

k.

Gods will is the final arbiter for distributing His gifts (Heb. 2:4; Rom. 12:3-8; 1Co. 12:11).

1.

God may will that we suffer for Christs sake (Php. 1:29; 1Pe. 2:20; 1Pe. 3:17; 1Pe. 4:19). This may involve not giving us what would eliminate the suffering.

m.

God wills that we be thankful in all circumstances (1Th. 5:18).

n.

God wills that we silence His opponents by our good life (1Pe. 2:15; Joh. 8:46).

o.

God wills that we love Him above all, and our neighbor as ourselves (Mar. 12:28-33).

p.

God is pleased by Jesus and He becomes our example (Mat. 3:17; Mat. 17:5; 1Pe. 2:21-25). But He prayed, Not my will but yours be done (Mat. 26:39; Mat. 26:42). His goal must be ours (Heb. 10:7; Heb. 10:9; 1Pe. 4:1-2).

q.

God wills to provide our every necessity, our daily bread (Mat. 6:11; Mat. 6:19-34; Mat. 10:29-31; Php. 4:19; 1Pe. 5:7).

r.

Gods will includes all creation (Rev. 4:11). In order to run an orderly universe, He may not choose to answer some of our prayers that require His creating disorder to do it.

s.

God detests this godless world and all it offers, all that is based on the appetites, greedy ambitions and all that men think glamorous (1Jn. 2:15 ff.).

t.

Gods many-sided will may involve other principles as well. Consider these Old Testament expressions: Deu. 10:12 ff.; 1Sa. 15:22; Psa. 40:6-8; Psa. 50:7-23; Psa. 51:16 ff; Psa. 66:18; Psa. 69:30 f.; Pro. 15:29; Isa. 1:15 ff.; Jer. 7:21 ff.; Hos. 4:1; Hos. 6:4-6; Amo. 5:21 ff.; Mic. 6:8.

The above texts lead inescapably to the conclusion that God will not give absolutely EVERYTHING that is asked for in prayer by the sincere believer.

Jesus does not mean that anyone may, without any basis in Gods word, fancifully hope that God unquestioningly hand over anything His misguided disciple requests, merely on the basis of that disciples ability to develop a psychological confidence that God will so act. This would reduce God to be the justifier of the unjustifiable gift, the automatic contributor to mans delinquency by mechanically conceding him everything he could develop enough psychological faith to convince himself God would give (cf. Jas. 4:3). Our Lord offers no magical mechanism that justifies our expecting automatic blessing to be had just by praying.

Rather, Jesus refers to that faith that comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). We must believe the rich promises God has already given and frame our praying accordingly (2Pe. 1:3 f.). This faith must have an objective basis, not only in the truthfulness of God, but also in what He has actually said. We must also be prepared for Gods negative responses. His refusal to take some of our prayers literally is far better than all we could have asked or imagined (Eph. 3:20; 2Co. 12:7-10). What if we mistakenly ask for a serpent instead of a fish, a stone instead of bread or a scorpion in place of an egg (cf. Luk. 11:9-13; Mat. 7:7-11)? When we do not know how we ought to pray, we need the help of Gods Spirit (Rom. 8:26). SHOULD we really receive what we pray for, in our ignorance believing it for our good, when to receive it would really harm us? It is a good thing that God does not answer some of our prayers! We must keep open alternatives to let God answer as HIS wisdom leads. This kind of believing trusts that what God has said, He really will bring to pass (Rom. 4:21). Consequently, we are not at liberty to expect or require of Him anything that He has not already indicated in His Word. In fact, it would be highly instructive to compare the few things He has NOT promised with the foregoing list of things He HAS. But for anything He has committed Himself to, we may and must ask in full certainty (Jas. 1:5-8).

Because of His faithfulness revealed in His Word, our confidence in Him leads us to depend upon His will. This persuasion is not that if we desire a thing ardently enough to pray about it, we shall surely have it. Rather, we believe that Gods unlimited power guarantees His ability to answer our prayer, if our requests coincide with what He wills (1Jn. 5:14 f.). The faith required is our unshakable certainty of His perfect dominion over every element involved in the total answer to our prayer. But, if to us He is truly LORD, then HE decides, not we ourselves (Luk. 17:5-10).

Doubt not (Mat. 21:21) in heart (Mar. 11:23), the reverse side of unconditional faith in Gods promises, is the inability to move with certainty and decision by praying for and expecting what God committed Himself to deliver. Doubt considers as impossible, or at least uncertain, that what we pray for will actually occur (cf. Mar. 9:22 ff.). Despite Gods promise to provide a certain thing to every Christian, the doubter is inwardly divided in that he both trusts and does not trust God to give it (cf. Jas. 1:6-8). Doubt makes the distrustful person his own worst enemy in that it divides his basis of certainty at the very moment he must approach God with his whole heart. Because faith is the basis of mans communion with God, and because doubt divides man and weakens his confidence, doubt is naturally the sin that breaks communion with God. Doubt is hesitating when we ought to be acting confidently on questions God has already decided and announced in His Word.

Doubts are mental reservations. While we must have no mental reservations about anything God has said, they can certainly hinder our believing that what you say will occur. We may be troubled by mental reservations about whether we should even ask Him to provide certain things:

1.

How should we approach prayer for certain things about which we may have some doubts as to the true usefulness or value to us in our ministry to Him? Pray for wisdom, not easy answers (Jas. 1:5 ff.).

2.

How should we ask concerning a choice we suspect to be forbidden in Scripture, but at the moment, remain uncertain whether we read it in the Bible or merely imagined it or were taught it by men? We must refuse to participate in it until our conscience is at rest, assured by Gods truth. (Cf. Rom. 14:23; 1Co. 8:1-7; Joh. 7:16 f; Joh. 8:31 f.)

3.

Even if certain things have not been forbidden in Scripture, they may not have been specifically promised to all Christians. This may undermine our confidence and create mental reservations about asking for them.

If Jesus did not promise miraculous gifts to every Christian as an expression of the Holy Spirits work in each one, can the modern Christian truly pray, without some mental reservation, for such gifts as supernatural inspiration to prophesy, power to heal others instantly or any other special gift? (Cf. Act. 9:40!)

4.

We certainly should have mental reservations about putting God to unnecessary tests by our pleading that certain events under His undisputed control should occur, events which He has not promised to bring about. (Remember how Jesus handled Satans quotation of Scripture promises of help for the godly! Mat. 4:6 f.)

Jesus presuppositions behind His dictum, then, are: after you have examined Gods will to discern what He has actually promised to give you His child, after you have learned in what sense He intended His promises (good hermeneutics), after you are certain you have understood whether the specific promise in question applies to you personally and not to the whole Church in general or to special functionaries therein, THEN you can pray in full confidence that what you ask for is already yours, guaranteed by the faithfulness of a God who cannot lie to you.

1.

This way the mental reservations based on ignorance of Gods will are eliminated by knowledge. (Study Col. 1:9-12; Eph. 1:15-19; Php. 1:9-11; Php. 3:12-16, esp. Php. 3:15.)

2.

This way the mental reservations based on distrust of God are exposed for the unbelief they really are (Heb. 11:6).

3.

This way no prayer will be prayed for things God has not promised in His Word.

4.

But even before this, during it and thereafter, we have the Spirits help with our ignorance and weakness (Rom. 8:26 f.) as well as that of our High Priest, Jesus Christ (Heb. 7:25; Heb. 4:14 ff.).

In short, Jesus is saying, Believe what you pray! Do not ask God for what you do not yourself believe possible! Let your prayers reflect your true view of God!

How peculiarly appropriate was this teaching of Jesus:
1.

With regard to the disciples immediate perplexities! Why Jesus should have claimed Messianic dignity so publicly and yet just as publicly refused to do what they expected an earthly Christ to do, must have seemed highly contradictory to them.

2.

Contemporaneously, the fact that He did not precipitously turn such terrible power against the evil men of that day pointed to His deep mercy that furnished them opportunity to repent. As the disciples reflected later on Jesus self-surrender to His enemies, they could have thought: Why, He could have withered them as easily as He blasted that fig treewith just a word! This has a dual benefit:

a.

It would tend to strengthen their faith in-the face of the apparent triumph of evil. Jesus dramatically assured them of the infinite power which God could mobilize on behalf of His people anytime they asked for it believing.

b.

To the extent they could appreciate the horrible firepower at His disposal but never used in His own self-defense, it would exalt His marvelous meekness and patience and the greatness of His grace. His meekness became their standard of behavior under fire. (Contrast Luk. 9:54 f.)

3.

With regard to the great obstacles yet future! The blasted fig tree stood as a concrete symbol of Gods power to remove the most formidable barriers ever to stand in their way. How exceedingly helpful must have been Jesus promise to them as they remembered His words and lived in the confidence that everything needful to establish Gods Kingdom was theirs by faith in a God who moves mountains that stand in the way! (Cf. Zec. 4:7.)

Had they had but eyes to see it, real faith in God had already marvelously moved mountains of doubt and fear from the disciples minds, letting them see Jesus for what He really is.

FACT QUESTIONS

1.

In what order does Matthew present his account of the cursing of the fig tree and of the cleansing of the temple?

2.

In what sense does it seem that Matthew contradicts the testimony of Mark in regard to the order of events?

3.

Furnish a plausible explanation that resolves the apparent contradiction between the two accounts.

4.

What indications does Matthew furnish in his text that show that he knew he was reorganizing the order of the two events?

5.

Where had Jesus been when He saw the fig tree?

6.

Where was He going?

7.

At what time of day did He see the fig tree?

8.

According to Matthew, where precisely was the fig located?

9.

What characteristics of the tree induced Jesus to approach it?

10.

In what period of the year did this event occur?

11.

Tell what you know about fig trees that assists in understanding this story.

12.

With what words did Jesus curse the fig tree?

13.

According to Matthew, what happened when Jesus pronounced the curse upon the tree?

14.

According to Mark, when did they discover the effect produced in the fig tree by Jesus words?

15.

Explain why the disciples saw the effect of the cursing only at a later time, as Mark describes it. What elements in Marks account suggest a rapid, but gradual, process involved in the withering?

16.

What was the reaction of the disciples when they saw the effect of the cursing of the fig tree? Who voiced their reaction?

17.

According to Jesus, what is the lesson to be learned from this event?

18.

On what mountain were Jesus and His disciples standing when He spoke of moving this mountain?

19.

Is there any basis for the assumption of many that Jesus cursing of the fig tree is an acted parable intended by Jesus to refer to the fruitless Jewish nation soon to be destroyed for its barrenness? If so, what is that basis? If not, why not?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(18) In the morning.The word implies daybreak, probably about 5 A.M. This was the usual Jewish time for the first food of the day. If we may infer from Luk. 21:37, Joh. 18:1, that the greater part of the night had been spent either in solitary prayer or in converse with the disciples, we have an explanation of the exhaustion which sought food wherever there might seem even a chance of finding it.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

Monday of Passion Week.

112, 113. THE FIG TREE WITHERED, vv. AND ITS LESSON OF FAITH, Mat 21:18-22 .

The triumphal entry, the cleansing of the temple, and the withering of the fig tree, are a series of miracles in the order of climax. But it is a climax of judgment. The first indicated a Messiah of peace to the Gentiles; the second a terrible reformation in God’s Church; and the third, the entire blasting of the Jewish pride and power. If the fig tree with its fair promise of leaves and its barrenness of fruit was the Jewish nation, its withering under his malediction was the perdition of the Jewish state and system.

18. In the morning Of Monday the second day of the Passion Week. He hungered He probably left Bethlehem before his breakfast, that he might attend the morning service at the temple.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Now in the morning as he returned to the city, he felt hungry,’

The fact that even while cutting down the story drastically Matthew still mentions Jesus’ hunger demonstrates that he intends it to indicate some kind of lesson. In his Gospel hunger refers to a longing to see the establishment of righteousness (Mat 5:6). This may suggest therefore that here Jesus is depicted as not only feeling peckish for food, but also as being hungry to discover righteousness in Israel. He wants to find figs.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Acted Out Parable Of The End Of The Old Unbelieving Israel (21:18-22).

Having made clear by His actions that the old unbelieving Israel in the person of its leaders will not receive Him, Jesus now makes clear what the result will be by bringing about the withering of a fig tree, and by describing a mountain which will be cast into the sea. These demonstrate the state of the people generally and the future that awaits them. This old unbelieving Israel is the same as that which rejected the prophets, and was continually described as subject to judgment so that after intense purification from it would come a holy seed (e.g. Isa 4:2-4; Isa 6:13; Zec 13:8-9; Mal 4:1-2).

Matthew’s treatment of the story of the fig tree illustrates his abbreviating tendencies. He leaves out everything that is not essential to the message that he wants to get over, including an indication of the length of time between the ‘cursing’ of the fig tree and its withering. In the Old Testament the fruit of a fig tree illustrates the moral and spiritual condition of people in Israel. For example, in Jer 24:2 good and bad figs depicted on the one hand blessing on the captives in Babylon who were rethinking their attitudes, and on the other punishment on those who remained in the land who were carrying on as they were. While the application is not quite the same it illustrates the use of the product of a fig tree to denote judgment or otherwise on ‘Israel’. Compare also Jer 8:13; Mic 7:1, (and see Deu 8:8; Num 13:23). Furthermore Jesus probably intended them by His action to remember His own parable of the fig tree which indicated that His people were on probation (Luk 13:6-9). There a man who had planted a fig tree came looking for fruit on it and found none. At that stage it was to be given another chance to see if it would produce figs. What Jesus therefore appears to be indicating here is that for many of them it was now too late. Both the individuals in Israel and Israel as a whole had been given abundant opportunity. Now, however, their probation was over. They had failed to produce figs (compare Mat 3:8; Mat 3:10; Mat 7:17-20; Mat 12:33) and they must therefore receive the consequences (compare Joh 3:18-21).

Here it is the consequences of their failure that it in mind. Those who have not produced fruit will ‘be withered’, and this is not simply a result of natural processes but will be brought about by the word of Jesus acting in judgment. Some have questioned whether Jesus would have acted in this way, and have treated it as though Jesus had acted out of petulance. But we must not read our reactions into Jesus. There is no petulance here. It is a case of Jesus seizing an opportunity to vividly illustrate a point to His disciples, and a visibly evidenced outworking of the principle, ‘from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away’ (Mat 13:12). His aim therefore is to indicate to His disciples that this is precisely what He will do to any who put on a false show. For the fact is that no lesson is more deeply appreciated than one that is vividly illustrated by some remarkable and intriguing observed event, and at this point in their lives Jesus clearly considered that this lesson did need to be well and truly learned. He would not therefore hesitate in speeding up the demise of a fig tree in accomplishing such a purpose, just as He once smote the fig trees of Egypt (Psa 105:33) and will one day, as the Judge of the world, wither up the whole of unbelieving mankind because they too have put on a false showing. Every time that the disciples in the future passed that particular fig tree it would bring home to them those greater realities, and remind them of the consequences of being a sham.

We are probably also to see in the mountain cast into the sea a similar picture of judgment on Jerusalem and the Temple, for being ‘cast into the sea’ is regularly a symbol of judgment (see Mat 8:32; Mat 18:6; Mar 9:42; Luk 17:2), and ‘the mountain of the Lord’s house’ is a well known description (Isa 2:2 compare Isa 25:6). So the two together may be seen as illustrating the withering of Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. It is probably therefore no coincidence that this incident is placed right in the middle of Jesus’ confrontations with the chief priests (Mat 21:15; Mat 21:23; Mat 21:45), whose leader the High Priest was the leading authority in Israel and Jerusalem.

Analysis.

a Now in the morning as he returned to the city, he felt hungry (Mat 21:18).

b And seeing a fig tree by the way side, he came to it, and found nothing on it, but leaves only (Mat 21:19 a).

c And he says to it, “Let there be no fruit from you from now on for ever” (Mat 21:19 b)

d And immediately the fig tree withered away (Mat 21:19 c).

e And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled (Mat 21:20 a).

d Saying, “How did the fig tree immediately wither away?” (Mat 21:20 b).

c And Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, If you have faith, and do not doubt, you will not only do what is done to the fig tree” (Mat 21:21 a)

b “But even if you shall say to this mountain, ‘Be you taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will be done” (Mat 21:21 b)

a “And all things, whatever you shall ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive” (Mat 21:22).

Note that in ‘a’ Jesus is filled with hunger, and in the parallel describes how ‘hunger’ can be satisfied. In ‘b’ the fig tree has nothing but leaves, and in the parallel the mountain is cast into the sea. In ‘c’ no fruit is to be on the fig tree in the future at His command, and in the parallel the disciples will by faith be able to do the same. In ‘d’ the fig tree withered, and in the parallel the disciples asked how it occurred. Centrally in ‘e’ the disciples marvelled at what had happened.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Servant’s Work in the Kingdom: Prayer and Faith ( Mar 11:12-14 ; Mar 11:20-24 ) In Mat 21:18-22 Jesus curses the fig tree so that it withers and dies. From this event Jesus teaches His disciples about the Kingdom principle of prayer mixed with faith in God. This passage of Scripture serves as a summary of the lessons taught in the preceding section (Mat 20:17 to Mat 21:17). The previous day Jesus drove the merchants out of the Temple, which He described as the “House of Prayer” (Mat 21:12-17). In the earlier passages, the mother of James and John made a request that Jesus denied (Mat 20:20-28), while the two blind men received an answer to their prayer for healing (Mat 20:29-34). In the midst of these three references to prayer, Jesus has revealed His Passion (Mat 20:17-19) and teaches His disciples to also lay down their lives as servants in the Kingdom (Mat 20:25-28). Jesus then demonstrates the authority that a true servant of God has in the Kingdom by cursing the fig tree. While the mother of James and John wanted her sons to walk in the highest authority in the Kingdom by sitting at the right and left hand of the Lord, Jesus demonstrates that true authority comes to those who lay down their lives to serve God. Such servants walk in obedience to God’s Word so that their faith in God rises to a level that their words have creative power as well. Elijah serves as an example of a man who prayed at this level of faith (Jas 5:17-18).

When we learn to maintain this lifestyle of devotion to our Heavenly Father, we will then be able to walk in all of the divine authority that God intended us to walk.

The Confession of Our Faith – The Lord taught Kenneth Hagin a tremendous lesson from this passage of Scripture in Mark’s Gospel. The Lord showed him that Jesus mentioned the words “saying” three times, while mentioning the word “faith” only once. He then told Hagin that God’s people were not missing it in having faith, but rather, in their confession. He then asked Kenneth Hagin to teach three times as much on a believer’s confession as on them having faith. [524]

[524] Kenneth Hagin, Bible Faith Study Course (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Faith Library Publications, c1991, 1999), 71.

Andrew Wommack used this story of Jesus teaching His disciples to speak to the mountain in Mar 11:20-26 to teach believers that God has already healed their bodies according to 1Pe 2:24, “and by his stripes ye were healed.” They just needed to speak this divine Word of God over their bodies and command sickness and disease to leave in Jesus’ name. He then gave the illustration of a television signal. This broadcast signal was in the room, but it could not be seen. An unbeliever would say that it was not there because they could not see it; but, if a person turns on their television set, the signal is manifested in the natural. In the same way, we turn healing on in our bodies when we confess what God’s Word has already been declared about it. We must simply come in agreement with it. [525]

[525] Andrew Wommack, “Sermon” (Kampala, Uganda: Glory of Christ Church), 18 February 2007.

Faith and Patience – In his book I Saw Heaven, Roberts Lairdon quotes a statement that Jesus make to him during his heavenly visitation regarding our faith and confession, “Then He (Jesus) cried harder and said, ‘I do not understand why people say they believe I will do something, but when it does not happen in their time, they begin to doubt my Word. If they will just believe and say with confidence that I will do it, I will do it at the correct time.’” [526]

[526] Roberts Lairdon, I Saw Heaven (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Albury Publishing, 1991), 38.

Illustration Perhaps the greatest examples of this type of pray and confession is seen in the lives of Joshua and Jeremiah. During the conquest of Canaan, Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and it obeyed him (Jos 10:12-13). When the Lord called Jeremiah into the office of a prophet, He told him to speak to the nations, and declare their rise and fall (Jer 1:9-10).

Jos 10:12-13, “Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.”

Jer 1:9-10, “Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth. See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.”

Mat 21:18  Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.

Mat 21:18 Comments The Gospels contain many passages that reveal Jesus was fully man as well as fully God. For example, Mat 21:18 reveals that He experienced hunger as did any human.

Mat 21:19  And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

Mat 21:19 Comments – E. W. G. Masterman says , “When the young leaves are newly appearing, in April, every fig-tree which is going to bear fruit at all will have some taksh (‘immature figs’) upon it, even though ‘the time of figs’ (Mar 11:13 the KJV), i.e. of ordinary edible figs–either early or late crop ‘was not yet.’” [527]

[527] E. W. G. Masterman, “Fig, Fig-tree,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., c1915, 1939), in The Sword Project, v. 1.5.11 [CD-ROM] (Temple, AZ: CrossWire Bible Society, 1990-2008).

Smith says, “The usual summer crop of fruits is not gathered till May or June; but in the sunny ravines of Olivet fig trees could have ripe fruit some weeks earlier (Thomson), and it was not strange so early as Easter Christ might find the young eatable figs, although it was not the usual season for gathering the fruit.” (See “Fig, Fig tree”)

We know that Jesus died on the day of the Passover, which was April seventh. Therefore, the leaves of the fig tree were green, but the early fruit was not ripe until June. The second harvest of figs ripens in August. Craig Keener notes that such figs trees that do not have the early, immature figs in April were not going to bear the ordinary fruit that later ripens in a few months either. [528] Thus, Jesus and the disciples would have been aware of the unfruitful nature of this particular tree.

[528] Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Company, 2009), 504.

Mat 21:20  And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!

Mat 21:21  Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.

Mat 21:21 Comments Mat 21:18 and Mar 11:20 confirm that Jesus and the disciples were descending the Mount of Olives from Bethany as they saw the withered fig tree in order to pass across the valley of Kidron, and up Mount Zion to enter Jerusalem. When Jesus tells them that this mountain can be removed by faith, they were standing upon Mount Olivet facing Mount Zion with the Dead Sea within their vision. Jesus was using these geographical features to help the disciples understand the unmeasurable bounds of their faith in God and the power of prayer and confession. Jesus knew Zechariah’s prophecy that at His Second Coming He would descend upon the Mount of Olivet and this mountain would split in the midst, with half moving north and the other half moving south towards the Dead Sea (Zec 14:4). God would not have told His children to something that He Himself would not also do. In fact, the prophet Zechariah’s prophetic words will in fact cast a mountain into the sea although it will take centuries to come to pass.

Zec 14:4, “And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.”

One obvious example of a man of God speaking in faith was when Joshua spoke to the sun and commanded it to stand still for a day (Jos 10:12-14).

Mat 21:22  And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Mat 21:22 Comments Mat 21:22 serves as a summary statement of the lesson taught in this immediate passage (Mat 21:18-22). However, the motif of offering one’s petition unto God is woven throughout the section of Mat 20:20 to Mat 21:22. For example, the mother of James and John requested Jesus to exalt her sons at His side in the Kingdom. He responded by saying they did not know what they were requesting. In other words, their requests were not faith-based; they were not founded upon God’s Word. Therefore, they had no basis upon which to build their faith. Their request was empty and left unanswered without knowing God’s will, which is His Word, the Scriptures. In contrast, the two blind men based their request upon God’s mercy and the healing that was now available in the atonement of Christ; thus, their prayers were heard and answered. While the Pharisees rejected the authority of Jesus’ words in the Temple, the people who were worshiping and crying Hosanna had perfected their prayers in the form of praise unto the Lord; thus, they became beneficiaries of the atonement as Jesus healed them in the Temple because of their prayers.

Mat 21:22 serves a summary statement of Mat 20:17 to Mat 21:22 in the same way Mat 20:16 summarizes the truth taught in Mat 19:1 to Mat 20:16.

Illustration – It was not until I was in Seminary that I learned that we must verbally speak our prayers. It is not enough just to think our prayers. Yes, God knows our thoughts, but thoughts are not prayers until they are spoken.

Illustration The prayer of faith is not limited by time. For example, I watched my mother pray for twenty-fives years for my brother’s salvation, and she prayed for forty years for my uncle’s salvation. My grandfather desired to go into the ministry, but was denied this request by a Southern Baptist Church because he was in his second marriage. He then prayed for his son to go into the ministry, which never happened. He died without seeing three of his grandsons being called into the full-time ministry.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Mat 21:18-22. Now in the morning, &c. I shall postpone the remarks on this miracle to Mark 11 as it is there related with some circumstances which require particular notice; observing that our Lord cursed the fig-tree in the morning of the day on which he cast the buyers and sellers out of the temple: and though the tree began that instant to wither, the disciples did not take notice of its withering, because they left the spot just as Jesus was pronouncing the curse; neither did they observe it in the evening, as they returned to Bethany, probably because it was dark when they passed by, and the tree was at a little distance from the road. They observed it only as they were going into the town next morning, when it gave occasion to the conversation concerning the efficacy of faith; but thewithering of the fig-tree, and the conversation occasioned thereby, having a connection, might either be related among the transactions of the day wherein the conversation occasioned by its withering happened, or they might be related separately, each in its own day. This suggests an easyreconciliation to the seemingly differenttimes which are assigned to this miracle byMatthew and Mark. Matthew, in the beginning of his account, is still describing the transactions of the day in which Jesus cursed the fig-tree as he went to purge the temple: but in the morning, viz. of the day when the transaction which the Evangelist had been relating happened, not the morning of the day following, as is commonly supposedin the morning, as he returned into the city, he had hungered (, Aorist.) Mat 21:19 and seeing a single fig-tree ( ) in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever; and (Exaruit illico, Beza,) it withered forthwith; that is, began to wither from that time forth, though the disciples did not then observe it, because they passed by while Jesus was pronouncing the curse; neither did they observe it as they came out in the evening, because in all probability it was dark, Mat 21:20. And when the disciples saw it,saw the fig-tree withered from the roots, that is to say, next morning, as they were returning to the city from Bethany;for so we are expressly told in the more particular account which Mark has given of this miracleThey marvelled, saying, how soon is the fig-tree withered away! The solution arising from the translation of the passage here offered seems the most natural which can be given. For, as Matthew chose to relate the cursing of the fig-tree and the effect of the curse together, it was proper to speak of the curse after relating the other transaction of the next day to be mentioned in the history. The sacred volume furnishes several examples of incidental histories introduced in this manner. For instance; the history of John the Baptist’s death, Joh 14:3, &c. See also Mar 16:7 and Luk 9:46 where it is said, Now there had arisen a dispute among them, viz. on the road to Capernaum, for St. Mark says expressly that the dispute happened there.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

DISCOURSE: 1386
THE FIG-TREE CURSED

Mat 21:18-22. Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. And when he saw a fig-tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig-tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig-tree withered away! Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig-tree, but also, if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea, it shall be done. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

THE miracles wrought by our Lord were, for the most part, very different from those which had been performed by the great legislator of the Jews. Those by which Moses confirmed his divine mission were mostly awful and calamitous; but those wrought in vindication of our Lords authority, were all mild and benevolent, suited to the dispensation which he was sent to introduce. This, which we have now before us, may seem an exception [Note: That of sending the devils into the herd of swine was rather a permission to them to fulfil their own desire, than an actual miracle wrought by our Lord himself.]. Yet the injury done (if we may so speak) was small, since the tree was already barren; and the miracle, if it had been duly attended to, might have saved thousands from both temporal and everlasting destruction. We shall,

I.

Explain the miracle

There is some difficulty with respect to the literal meaning of a part of this narration

[The miracle, as related by St. Matthew, is easy to be understood; but St. Mark mentions, that the time of figs was not yet [Note: Mar 11:13.]. This has given occasion to infidels to represent our Lord as looking for figs at a season when, according to the Evangelists own confession, there was no probability of finding any. But the time of figs refers to the time of gathering them; and as that time was not yet fully come, there was every reason to expect that the whole crop was yet upon the tree. The fruit of a fig-tree grows at least as early as the leaves; and therefore, as the foliage was luxuriant, there was ground to hope that the fruit also was abundant. This accounts in an easy manner for the disappointment experienced by our Lord; and shews how weak and frivolous are the objections urged by infidels against the truth of our holy religion [Note: If the words, And when he came to it he found nothing but leaves, Mar 11:13. be included in a parenthesis, the sense of the whole will appear at once. The very same writer has expressed himself on another occasion precisely in a similar manner, chap. 16:3, 4. Inclose the former part of ver. 4. in a parenthesis, and the true meaning of the passage becomes obvious.].]

Respecting the prophetical meaning of the miracle all are agreed

[The Jews had enjoyed every advantage of care and culture; yet they constantly disappointed the expectations of their God. They professed themselves indeed to be his peculiar people; but they brought forth no fruit that was suited to that relation. Now therefore God had determined to abandon them to judicial impenitence, and utter desolation. The speedy effect, which followed from our Lords denunciation against the fig-tree, intimated the near approach both of the spiritual and temporal judgments which were coming on the Jews. And the event answered the prediction. It was but four days before they filled up the measure of their iniquities by crucifying the Lord of glory; and but forty years before the temple and city were finally destroyed. Thus was the fig-tree made a warning to the Jewish nation; and a salutary emblem would it have been, if they had regarded it as they ought.]

Having explained all which is necessary to a just understanding of the miracle, we shall,

II.

Consider the declarations founded upon it

The former of these relates to his own more immediate disciples

[Being now soon to leave the world, our Lord was studious to support and comfort his disciples. And the surprise which they expressed at the speedy destruction of the fig-tree, too clearly manifested their low thoughts of his power, and consequently their need of having their faith in him increased. On this account, as it should seem, he made a less obvious improvement of the miracle than he might otherwise have done; and turned that into a ground of comfort, which would more naturally have afforded an occasion of solemn admonition. The disciples, like himself, were to work miracles in confirmation of their word; and greater works than this were to be performed by them. He tells them therefore to exercise faith in God, and to proceed to the performing of the greatest miracles with the most assured confidence, that the effects predicted by them should instantly and infallibly be produced. Thus he prepared them for their future ministrations, and encouraged them to rely on the invisible agency of an Almighty God.]

The latter may be understood in reference to the Church at large

[This indeed, like the former, may be taken in a limited sense: but it may also be applied to the great body of believers. It accords with many other passages that confessedly relate to all [Note: Joh 14:13-14.]. And what encouragement does it, in this view, afford us! We need never despond on account of any difficulties. Not even mountains of guilt and corruption should cause us to say, There is no hope. The prayer of faith shall bring Omnipotence to our aid. Nor is there any thing promised in the sacred oracles which shall not be given to the believing suppliant. The same almighty power that blasted the fig-tree, shall blast our enemies, and cause, if need be, the very mountains to start from their bases, and be buried in the sea.]

From hence we may learn,
1.

The danger of a fruitless profession

[God expects his people to be fruitful in good works. Nor will he acknowledge us as his if we disappoint his expectations. Let us not then be satisfied with the fairest leaves of profession, without bringing forth the fruits of righteousness to his praise and glory. Jesus is assuredly coming soon to inspect us all. He hungers, as it were, after our good fruits. Let us then study to bring forth such, that our Beloved may come into his garden and eat with pleasure [Note: Son 4:16.]. And let us dread lest we provoke him to make our sin our punishment, and lest, being filled with our own ways [Note: Pro 14:14.], our nakedness appear unto all.]

2.

The true source of all our fruitfulness

[Jesus, in cursing the fig-tree, had nothing to do but to withhold his blessing from it; and instantly it was withered both in root and branch. Its power even to bring forth leaves had been derived from him. Thus, if his Spirit be taken from us, we shall become twice dead, plucked up by the roots [Note: Jude, ver. 12.]. To him then we must give the glory of all the good that we have been enabled to do; for, of him has our fruit been found [Note: Hos 14:8.], and by his grace alone we are what we are. We have nothing which we have not received. And to him must we look for strength to fulfil his will in future; for, All our fresh springs are in him [Note: Psa 36:9; Psa 87:7.].]

3.

What exalted thoughts we should entertain of Christs power

[This was the peculiar improvement which our Lord himself made of his miracle. And alas! what need have we to be continually reminded on this subject! At every fresh difficulty we are ready to be discouraged, as though He were not able to deliver. And doubtless our unbelief often prevents him from exhibiting his wonders to our view [Note: Mat 13:58.]. Has he not said that, If we believe, we shall see the glory of God [Note: Joh 11:40.]? Let us then be strong in faith, giving glory to God. Let us never limit the power and grace of Christ, but with unskaken affiance follow the direction he has given us, Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am God, and beside me there is none else.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

18 Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.

Ver. 18. As he returned into the city ] There his work lay chiefly; thither therefore he goes early, and had forgotten, for haste, to take his breakfast, as it may seem, for ere he came to the city he was hungry, though it were but a step thither. A good man’s heart is in the place where his calling is: such a one, when he is visiting friends or so, is like a fish in the air; whereunto if it leap for recreation or necessity, yet it soon returns to its own element.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

18 22. ] THE CURSE OF THE BARREN FIG-TREE. Mar 11:12-14 ; Mar 11:20-26 , where see notes. St. Luke omits the incident.

The cursing of the fig-tree had in fact taken place on the day before , and the withering of it was now noticed . St. Mark separates the two accounts, which are here given together. We must remember that this miracle was wholly typical and parabolical . The fig-tree was THE JEWISH PEOPLE full of the leaves of an useless profession, but without fruit: and further, all hypocrites of every kind, in every age. It is true, as De Wette observes, that no trace of a parabolic meaning appears in the narrative (and yet, strangely enough, he himself a few lines after, denying the truth of the miracle, accounts for the narrative by supposing it to have arisen out of a parable spoken by our Lord); but neither does there in that of the driving out the buyers and sellers from the temple, and in those of many other actions which we know to have been symbolic.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 21:18-22 . The barren fig tree (Mar 11:12-14 ; Mar 11:19-26 ). The story of two morning journeys from Bethany to Jerusalem ( vide Mk.) is here compressed into one.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Mat 21:18 . , He felt hungry. The fact seems to favour the hypothesis of a bivouac under the sky overnight. Why should one be hungry leaving the hospitable house of friends? ( vide Mk.). This was no difficulty for the Fathers who regarded the hunger as assumed ( , Euthy.).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 21:18-19

18Now in the morning, when He was returning to the city, He became hungry. 19Seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He said to it, “No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you.” And at once the fig tree withered.

Mat 21:18 “Now in the morning, when He was returning to the city” The time sequence in Mark is slightly different (cf. Mar 11:12-14; Mar 11:20-21). Apparently Jesus was returning from Bethany, which was two miles from Jerusalem (cf. Mar 11:12).

Mat 21:19 “Seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it” It was legal for a traveler to stop and take food from a fruit tree or a field (cf. Deu 23:24-25).

“and found nothing on it except leaves only” Mar 11:13 adds “it was not the time for figs.” This makes this a prophetic act of rejection of the Jewish leaders or of the nation. Outwardly they looked prosperous, spiritual, and religious but there was no supernatural fruit (cf. Col 2:21-23; 2Ti 3:5; Isa 29:13).

“No longer shall there ever” Jesus spoke Aramaic but thought in Hebrew terms. See Special Topic following for the words “ever” or ” forever” taken from my OT commentaries.

SPECIAL TOPIC: FOREVER (‘OLAM)

“and at once the fig tree withered” Mar 11:20 records that the withering happened the next morning. There is a related parable found in Luk 13:6-9. This was an object lesson against the ostentatious religious exhibitionism of the Jewish leaders and the abominable absence of love and commitment to God.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

in the morning = early in the morning. See App-97.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

18-22.] THE CURSE OF THE BARREN FIG-TREE. Mar 11:12-14; Mar 11:20-26, where see notes. St. Luke omits the incident.

The cursing of the fig-tree had in fact taken place on the day before, and the withering of it was now noticed. St. Mark separates the two accounts, which are here given together. We must remember that this miracle was wholly typical and parabolical. The fig-tree was THE JEWISH PEOPLE-full of the leaves of an useless profession, but without fruit:-and further, all hypocrites of every kind, in every age. It is true, as De Wette observes, that no trace of a parabolic meaning appears in the narrative (and yet, strangely enough, he himself a few lines after, denying the truth of the miracle, accounts for the narrative by supposing it to have arisen out of a parable spoken by our Lord); but neither does there in that of the driving out the buyers and sellers from the temple, and in those of many other actions which we know to have been symbolic.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 21:18. , He hungered) though He was the King of Glory, see Mat 21:5. Wondrous humiliation!

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Mat 21:18-32

2. BARREN FIG TREE CURSED;

HIS AUTHORITY QUESTIONED,

PARABLE OF THE TWO SONS

Mat 21:18-32

18-22 Now in the morning as he returned to the city.-This was Monday morning, or the second day of the week; he probably left Bethany before breakfast that he might attend the morning service at the temple; at any rate, “he hungered.” Our Lord was the bread of life, yet he hungered; he was the water of life, but thirsted. As they went along the way from Bethany to Jerusalem, they saw “a fig tree by the wayside,” and when they came to it they “found nothing thereon, but leaves only.” He saw this fig tree afar off; it probably stood alone by the roadside, and was in a sense public property. (Deu 23:24-25.) It was in full leaf, but when he came near to it no fruit was found on it. Jesus, of course, knew that there was no fruit there; he came to it to make it a parable of the great truth which was to be impressed on his disciples at that time. In Palestine the fig tree puts out its fruit first, afterward the leaves; by the time that the tree is in full foliage the fruit ought to be ripe. This tree was an exception; a perversion of the laws of its nature; it deceived the eye, was to all appearance fruitful, but only cumbered the ground. Jesus said, “Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever.” This is the only miracle that apparently cursed anything. The Jewish nation was like this fig tree; it had apparently luxurious foliage in all the outward forms of holiness, but there was no “fruit to the glory of God as was seen in their rejection of Jesus. The tree of the Jewish nation had been selected of God, pruned, and kept intact for the coming of the Messiah, the fruit of the nation; they were now rejecting him for whom the nation had existed from the days of Abraham. Jesus pronounced a malediction on the tree, not from any ill will to it for not bearing fruit, since it had no choice in the case, but as a parable acted before the disciples, to impress on their memories, in the most striking manner, the destiny of the city of Jerusalem and the Jewish race. The tree withered, not immediately, but by the next day; it may have begun to wither at once. Some have criticized this act of Jesus in destroying this tree , those who do overlook entirely the lesson that he taught. He caused a tree to die to teach the lesson of the disastrous fall of a nation. It is a rule of human reason that examples may be made for instruction upon worthless objects.

And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled.-It seems that the disciples saw the tree the next morning as they spent the night at Bethany, and were again returning when they discovered that the tree had withered and remarked about its “immediately” withering away. Mark leaves the impression that it was the next day that they saw it, and that Peter called the attention of Jesus to it and expressed wonder. (Mark 11 19, 20.) This furnished Jesus the occasion to say, “If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do what is done to the fig tree, but even if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou taken up and cast into the sea, it shall be done.” The disciples needed to be strengthened in their faith at this time because great events were to occur within that week. Jesus was preparing them for those momentous events. This verse has puzzled commentators as to whether to take it figuratively or literally. If a literal interpretation is given to it, it would still have its value in teaching them the importance of faith , if a spiritual interpretation is given to it, it would still have its value in impressing the importance of faith. Jesus did not explain the symbolical meaning of either the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the cleansing of the temple, or the withering of the fig tree. This lesson of faith is here impressed from the miracle because Jesus is soon to leave his apostles to their own moral strength, amid the state of surrounding ruin in the destruction of Jerusalem as prefigured by the withered tree. Probably Jesus had reference to the Mount of Olives when he said “this mountain” as they were passing over that mountain to Jerusalem that morning. Jesus then drew the lesson of faith when he said, “All things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.” This promise belonged to his disciples in their ministry; they should have all things which they needed to confirm the Father’s will which he had taught them; it also means that God will furnish everything to his people today that they may need to live faithful Christian lives. It is not a promise that God will satisfy all of the wants of people, nor answer every prayer that is made to him. There are conditions of acceptable prayer and these conditions must be met before one has any right to expect an answer. Prayers are offered in the name of Jesus, in faith, and according to the will of God. (1Jn 3:22; 1Jn 5:14.) God will not grant blessings to those who are in persistent rebellion to his will, neither to those who do not believe in him, nor to those who will not honor his Son by praying in his name.

23-27 And when he was come into the temple.-On this day as he went into the temple his authority was challenged. “The chief priests and the elders” came to him “as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things?” The “chief priests” were the heads of the twenty-four courses or classes of priests. David had divided the priests into twenty-four classes, and had selected one from each class as the head; this one was called a “chief priest.” “Elders” were the rulers of the cities. Mark and Luke add “the scribes,” who were the authorized teachers and helped to constitute the Sanhedrin. These chief priests, elders, and scribes may have represented the Sanhedrin; they asked for his authority for doing “these things.” They wanted to know his authority for entering Jerusalem as he did, his expulsion of the traders and brokers, and his teaching in the temple. They knew by what authority he did “these things,” but they were unwilling to acknowledge that authority. To acknowledge God as his authority would have been to acknowledge him as the Son of God and the Messiah; this they were determined not to do. Jesus replied to them by asking them a question, with the proposition that if they would answer him he would answer their question. He then asked them concerning John’s baptism whether it was “from heaven or from men.” They withdrew aside and began to reason “with themselves” and said, “If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why then did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, From men; we fear the multitude.” They were in a dilemma; they saw that Jesus had put them in this plight, so they finally decided that they would say, “We know not.” This they thought was the easiest way out; they did not want the truth, and would not accept it if presented; so Jesus said, “Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.” These teachers who were the professed guides of the people, and prepared to decide upon all questions, are now put in the ridiculous attitude of saying that they are unable to answer a simple question put to them by this despised man of Galilee. How humiliating it must have been to them! Yet they chose to suffer this humiliation rather than confess the truth which was clear to them. They attempted to evade the dilemma by falsehood. Jesus did not say that he could not answer their question, but that he would not.

28-32 But what think ye?-Jesus now exposes the hearts of his enemies by a series of parables; in them he lays bare the evil thoughts which they had against him at this time. They had fully determined to destroy him, and had set themselves in opposition to the common people. (Joh 7:49.) These common people, publicans and sinners as they were, would be saved before the scribes and Pharisees. He gives to them the parable of the two sons; these two sons represent two great classes of people today as well as then. The father commanded his first son to go and work in the vineyard and the son rebelled and flatly told his father that he would not go, “but afterward he repented himself, and went.” He regretted his lack of respect to his father and returned to his duty. “The second” son was instructed to go and work in the vineyard, and he very politely said that he would go, but “went not.” Jesus now put the question directly to them and asked, “Which of the two did the will of his father?” They could not profess inability to answer his question (verse 27); they were obliged to answer, though their answer condemned themselves. Hence they replied, “The first.” The first did the will of his father not in his first refusal, but in his subsequent repentance and obedience.

Jesus then replied to them, “Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.” These chief priests, elders, and scribes among the Jews looked upon “publicans and the harlots” as the vilest of earth and beneath their attention; they would not do anything to help them. What a stinging rebuke Jesus gave them when he said “the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.” It is often true that many notorious sinners repent and turn to Christ before a good moral man does. A course of sin in early life is to be regretted and the sinner must suffer the consequences, but when that one realizes his lost condition, he will come to Christ, while the moral character may rely upon early piety and remain away from Christ and be lost. Jesus makes application when he tells them that John came to them “in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not.” Some of them may have accepted John’s teachings, but refused to accept the Christ when he came; they were apostate disciples of John. While they did not accept John, yet “the publicans and the harlots believed him.” These adversaries of Jesus saw what those who were vile in their own sight were doing, but “did not even repent yourselves afterward, that ye might believe him.” They had not only, some of them, rejected John but afterwards, when his preaching bore manifest proof, they would not repent or turn from their evil course, and believe in John nor the Christ whom John represented. John came as a Jew and a prophet of the strictest and purest type; he did the very righteousness which the law demanded, and that for which the Pharisees boasted in their own self-righteous claims; yet they had rejected him. They could not detect in John the slightest departure from the law, still they rejected his message. They could not fail to see Jesus’ application.

[This principle is frequently manifested in Bible history. Those favorably situated for knowing and doing the will of God give but little attention to God and his will; those less favorably situated more readily seek for and practice the truth. There are many examples of this given in the scriptures and many illustrations of it in God’s dealings with the people in the patriarchal and Jewish dispensation. No clearer example of it is found in the New Testament than in the case of the publicans and sinners and the scribes and Pharisees. There is no sin of which man is more frequently guilty than that of self-righteousness; none is more clearly and frequently condemned of God. Self-righteousness, self-sufficiency, a satisfaction with oneself has never commended men to God. He has placed before us a divine model in Christ Jesus; with much help and many blessings to encourage us in the work, we can never feel we have come up to the model.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Fruitlessness Judged and Faith Rewarded

Mat 21:18-22

Men have found fault with our Lord for smiting this tree with barrenness. Yet what teacher would not root up a plant, if he desired to teach his pupils some lesson, which could be taught only in that manner! Surely Jesus was perfectly justified in making that fig tree the symbol of the judgment that must overtake all who profess but do not possess. Beware lest He seek fruit of thee in vain!

But how wonderful those words on faith! He could speak thus, because He was the author and perfecter of faith. Paul lived by the faith of the Son of God. See Gal 2:20. All things are possible to him that believeth. Faith annihilates time and distance. To her the unseen is more real than the seen; and the distant as near as the things which the hand can touch. She is the open hand of the soul, which appropriates and takes from the hand of God. But faith is impossible apart from prayer.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

in: Mar 11:12, Mar 11:13

he hungered: Mat 4:2, Mat 12:1, Luk 4:2, Heb 4:15

Reciprocal: Isa 29:17 – the fruitful Act 10:10 – he became

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

1:18

The body of Jesus was both human and divine and subject to the needs of bodily maintainance the same as other men. At this time he sought to satisfy his hunger by the use of the fig which is indeed a wholesome food.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Mat 21:18. Now in the morning. On Monday morning. To give point to the incident, Matthew, unites the two morning walks from Bethany (on Monday and Tuesday).

He hungered. An actual physical want; it may have been occasioned by His leaving Bethany very early in His zeal to purify the temple where He had seen the abuses as He looked about on the previous evening. Human want and Divine power are exhibited simultaneously. On Sunday He entered Jerusalem amid hosannas, on Monday in hunger. This hunger may symbolize His longings for some better fruit from His chosen people.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Mat 21:18-22. In the morning, as he returned, he hungered For, being a man, he was subject to all the innocent infirmities of our nature, and he had come out from Bethany early without eating any thing: And when he saw a fig-tree (Gr. , a single fig-tree) in the way Having a fine spread of leaves upon it, and therefore appearing to be one of the earlier kind; he came to it In expectation of finding figs thereon, for the season of gathering them was not yet come, Mar 11:12; and found nothing but leaves only By which it plainly appeared that, though it looked so beautiful, it was a barren tree. Thus Christs just expectations from flourishing professors are often disappointed; he comes to many seeking fruit, and finds leaves only: they have a name to live, but are dead. And he said, Let no fruit grow on thee for ever As thou art now fruitless, continue always so. Thus the sin of hypocrites and unfruitful professors is made their punishment; they would not bring forth the fruits of righteousness, and therefore they shall not bring them forth. And presently the fig-tree withered away That is, began to wither away. This, like many other of our Lords actions, was emblematical. It signified that the curse of God would thus wither and destroy the Jewish nation, which he had before compared to a barren fig-tree; Luk 13:6-9. And when the disciples saw it As they went by the next day, Mar 11:20, they marvelled, saying, How soon, &c. They were astonished to see it withered down to the roots in the space of one day. Jesus answered, If ye have faith, and doubt not So the same word is rendered Jas 1:6, and so it doubtless frequently signifies; but Dr. Whitby proposes rendering it here, do not discriminate, or put a difference: as if our Lord had said, If you have such a faith as puts no difference between things you can, and things you cannot do, but makes you fully persuaded you can do any thing which tends to the glory of God, and is requisite for the promotion of the Christian faith, you shall be able to perform the most difficult things; which is the meaning of the phrase, to remove mountains. Thus we learn that one great end of our Lord in this miracle was, to confirm and increase the faith of his disciples: another was, to warn them against unfruitfulness. And all things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer All things that God in his word authorizes you to ask, as being for your real profit, or that of others, and for Gods glory, and therefore according to his will, 1Jn 5:14; ye shall receive Nothing shall be too hard which God hath promised, and ye by faith and prayer are fit to receive. So Baxter. Faith is the soul, prayer is the body; both together make a complete man for any service. Faith, if it be right, will excite prayer, and prayer is not right if it do not spring from faith. This is the condition of our receiving; we must ask in prayer, believing: the requests of prayer shall not be denied: the expectations of faith shall not be frustrated. We have many promises to this purpose from the mouth of our Lord Jesus, and all to encourage faith, the principal grace, and prayer, the principal duty of a Christian. It is but, ask and have; believe and receive; and what would we more? So Henry.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

THE BARREN FIG-TREE

Mat 21:18-19; Mar 11:12-14. And on the following day, they having come out from Bethany, He was hungry. Doubtless He had enjoyed the kind hospitality of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, the hunger here mentioned being simply an appetite for some good figs, as they were very scarce in that time of the year, April 11th, as they ripen in the summer and fall. And seeing a fig-tree afar off having leaves, He came, if perchance He shall find something on it; and having come to it, He found nothing but leaves; for it was not the time of figs. Responding, He said to it, Let no one ever eat fruit from thee. And His disciples were hearing. Matthew says the fig-tree immediately withered away. Why did He go to it if it was not the fruit season?

a. As this was early in April, and the figs do not ripen till summer and fall, it was not the time of fruit.

b. The fact of its grand foliage was calculated to impress the traveler that it belonged to the species known as winter figs, which hold their fruit tough the winter, which is there very mild, and ripen it in the spring. Hence the nice, full foliage, indicating a healthful condition, led Him to expect ripe figs on it, having survived the winter, and now ready and delicious for eating. We must not conclude that the man Jesus always utilized the God Jesus, especially in the small affairs of life; as in that case He would have known that there was no fruit before He went.

c. There are some trees belonging to all the fruitful genera which do not produce fruit. This was one of the non-fruit-bearing species, and consequently not only worthless, but deceptive.

d. The foliage of a tree is the advertisement of its vitality and consequent fruitfulness, corresponding to the profession of a Christian.

e. Here is a tree with full foliage and no fruit, never had borne any, and never would; but by its copious leaves attracting people to it only to be disappointed. Hence it is not pertinent that it cumber the ground, and absorb the fertility away from fruit-bearing trees. So Jesus pronounces on it a woe, and it withers away instantaneously.

f. This is an awful warning to hypocrites, who make a loud profession, but have no spiritual fruit, which is experimental and practical holiness. The meaning of this transaction is, that though you may occupy a prominent place in the Church, and make ever so loud profession, without holiness, you are destined to wither away and abide the fate of all dead trees, which is to be burned with fire. The Lord help us all to profit by the fate of the barren fig-tree, which so suddenly withered away! The time is at hand when all who do not bear the fruit of holiness shall wither away so suddenly that all will be astonished, as the disciples were in case of the fig- tree.

g. The Jewish Church and people are often compared to a fig-tree. Hence the withering of this fig-tree, because it bore no fruit, symbolized the terrible fate destined so quickly and decisively to overtake and even annihilate the Jewish polity.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Mat 21:18-22. The Cursing of the Fig Tree and the Power of Faith (Mar 11:12 ff., Mar 11:20-26*).What Mk. has severed, Mt. joins together. The miracle is enhanced by happening at once. The special mention of Peter is strangely omitted. In both Gospels the tree is condemned for falsity, not fruitlessness, and symbolises Jerusalem rather than the nation. Besides Luk 13:6-9* cf. Hos 9:10. The lesson Jesus points is the efficacy of believing prayer. This mountain would be Olivet; apart from the familiar metaphor Jesus may have had Zec 14:4 in mind. The saying is found in another form in Mat 17:20. Lk. (Luk 17:5 f.) substitutes this sycamine tree. Mk.s addendum (Mat 11:25) reminds us of 1Co 13:2. The cursing of the fig tree gives no sanction for cursing our neighbour.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

21:18 {4} Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.

(4) Hypocrites will at length have their masks discovered, and any false faces taken away.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

C. Israel’s rejection of her King 21:18-22:46

This section of Matthew’s Gospel presents Israel’s formal rejection of her Messiah. Jesus had made a formal presentation of Himself to the nation’s populace and leadership in the messianic capital with His triumphal entry (Mat 21:1-17). Jesus’ earlier rejection had taken place in rural Galilee (ch. 12). Now Matthew recorded Israel’s response. [Note: For more light on the connections that unite this pericope with the previous one, see Mark Moulton, "Jesus’ Goal for Temple and Tree: A Thematic Revisit of Mat 21:12-22," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:4 (December 1998):561-72.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

1. The sign of Jesus’ rejection of Israel 21:18-22 (cf. Mar 11:12-14; Mar 11:19-25; Luk 21:37-38)

The Triumphal Entry happened on Monday. The cursing of the fig tree took place on Tuesday, and the disciples’ mention of its withering followed on Wednesday (cf. Mar 11:1-14). [Note: Hoehner, Chronological Aspects . . ., p. 91.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Jesus passed the lone fig tree somewhere between Bethany and Jerusalem.

"Fig leaves appear about the same time as the fruit or a little after [normally in April]. The green figs are edible, though sufficiently disagreeable as not usually to be eaten till June. Thus the leaves normally point to every prospect of fruit, even if not fully ripe. Sometimes, however, the green figs fall off and leave nothing but leaves." [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 444.]

The leaves on this tree suggested that it had borne fruit, since fig trees bore fruit before the leaves came out, but it had not. Jesus saw an opportunity to teach His disciples an important truth using this tree as an object lesson. He cursed the tree to teach them the lesson, not because it failed to produce fruit.

Most interpreters of this pericope have seen Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree as closely related to the context, namely, the cleansing of the temple and Jesus’ denunciation of Israel’s leaders. Many see the fig tree as a symbol of the whole nation of Israel not bearing the fruit of repentance (cf. Jer 8:13; Hos 9:10; Hos 9:16; Luk 13:6-9). [Note: E.g., Bruce, 1:264; Tasker, p. 201; and Lenski, p. 825.] The problem with this view is that Jesus did not abandon Israel forever for rejecting Him (Romans 11). A similar view takes the fig tree as representing the generation of Jews who rejected Jesus. [Note: E.g., Toussaint, Behold the . . ., p. 245; and Barbieri, p. 69.] God would judge them by withholding the kingdom from them. This is the best view from my viewpoint. A third view is that the fig tree illustrates a segment within Jesus’ generation of Jews, namely, the hypocrites within the nation who made a show of bearing fruit but did not (cf. Mat 6:2; Mat 6:5; Mat 6:16; Mat 7:5; Mat 15:7; Mat 22:18; Mat 23:1-39). [Note: E.g., Carson, "Matthew," p. 445.] They were barren spiritually. These were the temple merchants and the chief priests and scribes but not the children or the blind and the lame. However, Jesus cursed the whole tree and nation, not just the parts in it that proved unfruitful.

The idea that Jesus cursed a helpless fig tree for no fault of its own has bothered some people. However, Jesus also cast demons out of people and into pigs that drowned in the sea (Mat 8:28-34). This really demonstrates Jesus’ compassion for people as distinct from the animal and vegetable forms of life. Humankind was God’s special creation, and Jesus’ recognition of this superior form of life shows that He did not regard all life as equally valuable. In the destruction of the swine Jesus warned people of Satan’s destructive power. In the cursing of the fig tree He warned them of God’s judgment for lack of fruit (cf. Mat 3:8; Mat 3:10; Mat 7:16-20; Mat 12:33; Mat 13:8).

"One of the Old Testament images of God’s judgment on Israel was the picture of the land being unable to bear figs (Jer 8:13; Mic 7:1-6)." [Note: Bailey, in The New . . ., p. 43. Cf. Jer 24:1-10; Hos 9:10; Hos 9:16-17; Mic 7:1-6.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

; Mat 22:1-46; Mat 23:1-39

Chapter 17

Conflict in the Temple – Mat 21:18-46 – Mat 22:1-46 – Mat 23:1-39

IT had been written that the Lord should suddenly come to His Temple; {Mal 3:1} but He would not too hastily assert His rights. The first day He simply “looked round about upon all things,” {Mar 11:11} and then withdrew to Bethany. The second day-without, however, even yet assailing the authority of those in power-He assumed His prerogative as Lord of the Temple by casting out the traffickers, healing the blind and the lame, and accepting the hosannas of the children. The scribes and Pharisees showed some displeasure at all this, and raised objections; but the answer they received silenced, if it did not satisfy them. Thus two days passed without any serious attempt to dispute His authority; but on the third day the conflict began. It was a dark and terrible day, and of its fateful history we have a full account in this Gospel.

The day opens with the sight on the-way to the city of the withered fig tree, a sad symbol of the impending fate of Israel, to be decided ere the day closed by their final rejection of their Saviour-King. This was our Lords single miracle of judgment; many a stern word of warning did He speak, but there is no severity in His deeds: they are all mercy and love. The single exception, if exception it may be called, makes this great fact stand out only the more impressively. It was necessary for loves sake to show that in that arm, which was always strong to save, there was also strength to smite if the sad necessity should come; but so tender-hearted is He that He cannot bear to strike where the stroke can be felt, so He lets it fall on an unconscious tree. Thus to the end He justifies His name of Jesus, Saviour, and illustrates the blessed truth of which His whole life is the expression, that “God is love.” “The Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them.” Judgment is His strange work; from the very thought of it He shrinks, as seems suggested to us here by the fact that, in the use He makes of the circumstance in His conversation with the disciples, He refrains from speaking of its dark significance, but rather takes the opportunity of teaching from it an incidental lesson full of hope and comfort regarding the power of faith and the value of prayer (Mat 21:21-22).

As soon as on the third day He enters the Temple the conflict begins. It would seem that the interval our Lord had in mercy allowed for calm reflection had been used for no other purpose than to organise a conspiracy for the purpose of entangling Him in His words and so discrediting His authority. We gather this from the carefully framed questions with which He is plied by one party after another. Four successive attacks are recorded in the passage before us: the first by the chief priests and elders of the people demanding His authority; the next by the Pharisees, assisted by the Herodians, who endeavoured by means of the difficulty of the tribute money to embroil Him with the Roman power; this was again immediately followed by a third, in which the prime movers were the Sadducees, armed with what they considered an unanswerable question regarding the life to come; and when that also broke down there was a renewed attack of the Pharisees, who thought to disconcert Him by a perplexing question about the law,

We may not discuss the long sad history of these successive attacks with any fulness, but only glance first at the challenge of our Lords authority and how He meets it, and next at the ordeal of questions with which it was followed.

I-THE CHALLENGE. {Mat 21:23-46 – Mat 22:1-14}

“By what authority doest Thou these things? And who gave Thee this authority?” The question was fair enough; and if it had been asked in an earnest spirit Jesus would have given them, as always to the honest inquirer, a kind and satisfying answer. It is not, however, as inquirers, but as cavillers, they approach Him. Again and again, at times and in ways innumerable, by fulfilment of prophecy, by His mighty deeds and by His wondrous words, He had given proof of His Divine authority and established His claim to be the true Messiah. It was not therefore because they lacked evidence of His authority, but because they hated it, because they would not have this man to reign over them, that now they question Him. It was obvious that their only object was to entangle Him; accordingly our Lord showed how in the net they were spreading for Him their own feet were caught.

He meets their question with a counter-question, “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?” The more we examine this question, the more must we admire the consummate wisdom it displays. We see at once how it turns the tables on His critics; but it is far more important to notice how admirably adapted it was to lead them to the answer of their own question, if only they would follow it out. They dared not repudiate the baptism of John; and had not John baptised Jesus, and solemnly borne repeated testimony to His Messiahship? Had he not most emphatically borne that very testimony to a formal deputation sent by themselves? {Joh 1:19-27} Finally, were not the ministry and testimony of John closely associated in prophecy with that very coming of the Lord to His Temple which gave them so deep offence: “Behold, I will send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple: behold, He shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.” Our Lords counter-question, then, was framed with such exquisite skill as to disappoint their malice, while at the same time it was suited to-guide the earnest inquirer to the truth.

The propounders of the question were not true men, but hypocrites. A negative answer they could not give. An affirmative they would not give. So when they refused to answer, our Lord replied, “Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.”

The Lord of the Temple now assumes the offensive, and directs against His opponents a series of parables which He holds up to them as a triple mirror in which from different points of view they may see themselves in their true character, and as a set of danger signals to warn them of their impending doom. He presents them with such marvellous skill that He makes the Pharisees their own judges, and constrains them to pass sentence on themselves. In the first parable He constrains them to declare their own guilt; in the second, He makes them decree their own punishment; in the third, He warns them of the impending fate of the people they were leading to destruction.

We have said that in these parables Christ assumes the offensive; but this is true only in a very superficial sense. In the deepest sense He spoke them not against the Pharisees, but for them. His object was to carry home to their hearts the conviction of sin, and to impress them with a sense of their danger before it was too late. This was what above all they needed. It was their only hope of salvation. And how admirably suited for His purpose were these three parables! Their application to themselves was plain enough after it was stated, but not beforehand; the effect of which was that they were put in a position to give an impartial verdict on their own conduct. It was the same method so effectively employed by Nathan in bringing conviction to the conscience of David. Had Christ charged the sin of the Pharisees directly home upon them they would have been at once thrown on the defensive, and it would have been impossible to reach their conscience through the entanglements of prejudice and personal interest.

Christ wishes to disentangle them from all that was darkening their moral vision, and He uses the parable as the most effective means. It is a great mistake, then, to suppose that Jesus contented Himself with turning the tables on them, and carrying the war, so to speak, into the enemys country. It was with them a war of words, but not with Him. He was seeking to save these poor lost ones. He wished to give them His best for their worst. They had come to entangle Him in His talk. He does His best to disentangle them from the meshes of self-deception. The tone of all three parables is exceptionally severe; but the spirit of them is love.

THE TWO SONS. {Mat 21:28-32}

The parable of the two sons is exceedingly simple; and the question founded upon it, “Whether of them twain did the will of his father?” admitted of but one answer-an answer which seemed, as it was spoken, to involve only the simplest of all moral judgments; yet how keen the edge of it when once it was disclosed! Observe the emphatic word did, suggesting without saying it, that it made comparatively little difference what they said. {see Mat 23:3} So far as profession went, the Pharisees were all that could be desired. They were the representatives of religion in the land; their whole attitude corresponded to the answer of the second son: “I go, sir.” Yet when John-whom they themselves admitted to be a prophet of the Lord-came to them in the way of righteousness, they set his word aside and refused to obey him. On the other hand, many of those whose lives seemed to say “I will not,” when they heard the word of John, repented and began to work the works of God. Thus it came to pass that many of these had entered the kingdom, while the self-complacent Pharisee still remained without.

The words with which the parable is pressed home are severe and trenchant; but they are nevertheless full of gospel grace. They set in the strongest light the welcome fact that the salvation of God is for the chief of sinners, for those who have been rudest and most rebellious in their first answers to the divine appeal; and then, while they condemn so very strongly the self-deceiver, it is not for the purpose of covering him with confusion, but in order to open his eyes and save him from the net in which he has set his feet. Even in that terrible sentence which puts him lower down than open and disgraceful sinners, there is a door left still unlatched for him to enter. “The publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you”; but you may enter after them. If only you, like them, would “afterward” repent-if you would repent of your hypocrisy and insincerity, as they have repented of their rudeness and rebellion-you would be as gladly welcomed as they into the kingdom of God.

THE HUSBANDMEN. {Mat 21:33-46}

The second parable follows hard on the first, and presses the chief priests and Pharisees so closely that they cannot fail to see in the end that it is themselves they have been constrained to judge and condemn (Mat 21:45). It is indeed difficult to suppose that they had not even from the beginning some glimpse of the intended application of this parable. The vineyard was a familiar symbol with a definite and well-understood meaning, from which our Lord in His use of it does not depart. The vineyard being the nation, the owner is evidently God; the fruit expected, righteousness; the particulars mentioned (the fence, the press, the tower) implying the completeness of the arrangements made by the owner for securing the expected fruit. The husbandmen are the leaders of the people, those who are responsible for their direction and control. The going to a far country represents the removal of God from their sight; so that they are, as it were, put upon their honour, left to act in the matter of the vineyard according to the prompting of their own hearts. All this is contained in the few lines which make up verse 33 {Mat 21:33}, and forms the groundwork of this great parable. Thus are set forth in a very striking manner the high privileges and grave responsibilities of the leaders of the Jewish people, represented at the time by the chief priests and Pharisees He was then addressing. How are they meeting this responsibility? Let the parable tell.

It is a terrible indictment, showing in the strongest light the guilt of their fathers, and pointing out to them that they are on the verge of a crime far greater still. Again and again have prophets of righteousness come in the name of the Lord, and demanded the fruits of righteousness which were due. How have they been received? “The husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.” So have their fathers acted time after time and still the patience of the owner is not exhausted, nor does He even yet give up all hope of fruit from His favoured vineyard; so, as a last resort, He sends His son, saying, “They will reverence my son.”

We can imagine the tone in which the Son of God would speak these words. What a sublime consciousness is implied in His use of them! and how touchingly does He in this incidental way give the best of all answers to the question with which His enemies began! Surely the son, the only and well-beloved son, had the best of all authority to act for the father! In the former parable He had appealed to the recognised authority of John; now He indicates that the highest authority of all is in Himself. If only their hearts had not been wholly shut against the light, how it would have flashed upon them now! They would have taken up the cry of the children, and said, “Hosanna! blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord”: and the parable would have served its purpose before it had reached its close. But they are deaf and blind to the things of God; so the awful indictment must proceed to the bitter end.

If there was in the heart of Christ an exalted consciousness of His filial relation to God as He spoke of the sending of the Son, what a pang must have shot through it as He proceeded to depict in such vivid colours the crime they are now all ready to commit, referring successively as He does to the arrest, the handing over to Pilate, and the crucifixion without the gate: “They caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.” How appalling it must have been to Him to speak these words! how appalling it ought to have been to them to hear them! That they did feel the force of the parable is evident from the answer they gave to the question, “What will he do to those husbandmen?” and, as we have said, they must surely have had some glimpses of its application to themselves; but it did not disturb their self-complacency, until our Lord spoke the plain words with which He followed up the parable, referring to that very Psalm from which the childrens cry of “Hosanna” was taken. From it He selects the symbol of the stone rejected by the builders, but by God made the head of the corner, applying it to Himself (the rejected stone) and them (the builders). The reference was most appropriate in itself; and it had the further advantage of being followed by the very word which it would be their salvation now to speak. “Hosanna” is the word which immediately follows the quotation He makes, and it introduces a prayer which, if only they will make their own, all will yet be well with them. The prayer is, “Save now, I beseech Thee, O Lord”; followed by the words, “Blessed be He that cometh in the name of the Lord.” May we not assume that our Lord paused after making His quotation to give them the opportunity of adopting it as their own prayer? His whole heart was longing to hear these very words from them. Have we not the proof of it further on, in the sad words with which He at last abandoned the hope: “I say unto you, ye shall not see Me henceforth till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord”? {Mat 23:39}

Seeing they will not take the warning of the parable, and that they refuse the opportunity given them while yet under its awe-inspiring influence, to repent and return, He must give sentence against them: “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” This sentence He follows up by setting before them the dark side of the other symbol: “Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” They were stumbling on the stone now, and about to he broken upon it; but the danger that lay before them if they persisted in their present unbelief and sin, would be far greater still, when He Whom they now despised and rejected should be at the head of all authority and power.

But all is vain. Steeling their hearts against His faithful words, they are only the more maddened against Him, and fear alone restrains them from beginning now the very crime against which they have just had so terrible a warning: “When they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitudes, because they took Him for a prophet.”

THE MARRIAGE FEAST. {Mat 22:1-14}

The manner in which this third parable is introduced leaves room for doubt whether it was spoken in immediate connection with the two preceding. The use of the word “answered” (Mat 22:1) would rather suggest the idea that some conversation not reported had intervened. But though it does not form part of a continuous discourse with the others, it is so closely connected with them in scope and bearing that it may appropriately be dealt with, as concluding the warning called forth by the first attack of the chief priests and elders. The relation between the three parables will be best seen by observing that the first has to do with their treatment of John; the second and third with their treatment of Himself and His apostles. The second and third differ from each other in this: that while the Kings Son, Who is prominent in both, is regarded in the former as the last and greatest of a long series of heavenly messengers sent to demand of the chosen people the fruits of righteousness, in the latter He is presented, not as demanding righteousness, but as bringing joy. Duty is the leading thought of the second parable, privilege of the third; in the one sin is brought home to Israels leaders by setting before them their treatment of the messengers of righteousness, in the other the sin lies in their rejection of the message of grace. Out of this distinction rises another-viz., that while the second parable runs back into the past, upwards along the line of the Old Testament prophets, the third runs down into the future, into the history of the apostolic times. The two together make up a terrible indictment, which might well have roused these slumbering consciences, and led even scribes and Pharisees to shrink from filling up the measure of their iniquities.

A word may be necessary as to the relation of this parable to the similar one recorded in the fourteenth chapter of St. Luke, known as “The parable of the Great Supper.” The two have many features in common, but the differences are so great that it is plainly wrong to suppose them to be different versions of the same. It: is astonishing to see what needless difficulties some people make for themselves by the utterly groundless assumption that our Lord would never use the same illustration a second time. Why should He not have spoken of. the gospel as a feast, not twice merely, but fifty times? There would, no doubt, be many variations in His manner of unfolding the thought, according to the circumstances, the audience, the particular object in view at the time; but to suppose that because He had used that illustration in Galilee He must be forbidden from reverting to it in Judea is a specimen of what we may call the insanity of those who are ever on the watch for their favourite “discrepancies.” In this case there is not only much variation in detail, but the scope of the two parables is quite different, the former having more the character of a pressing invitation, with only a suggestion of warning at the close; whereas the one before us, while preserving all the grace of the gospel as suggested by the figure of a feast to which men are freely invited, and even heightening its attractiveness inasmuch as it is a wedding feast-the most joyful of all festivities-and a royal one too, yet has throughout the same sad tone of judgment which has been characteristic of all these three parables, and is at once seen to be specially appropriate to the fateful occasion on which they were spoken.

As essentially a New Testament parable, it begins with the familiar formula “The kingdom of heaven is like.” The two previous parables had led up to the new dispensation; but: this one begins with it, and is wholly concerned with it. The Kings Son appears now, not as a messenger, but as a bridegroom. It was not the first time that Jesus had spoken of Himself as a bridegroom, or rather as the Bridegroom. The thought was a familiar one in the prophets of the Old Testament, the Bridegroom, be it remembered, being none other than Jehovah Himself. Consider, then, what it meant that Jesus should without hesitation or explanation. speak of Himself as the Bridegroom. And let. us not imagine that He simply took the figure, and applied it to Himself as fulfilling prophecy; let us not fail to realise that He entered fully into its tender meaning. When we think of the circumstances in which this parable was spoken we have here a most pathetic glimpse into the sanctuary of our Saviours loving heart. Let us. try with reverent sympathy to enter into the feeling of the Kings Son, come from heaven to seek humanity for His bride, to woo and to win her from the cruel bondage of sin and death, to take her into union with Himself, so that she may share with Him the liberty and wealth, the purity and joy, the glory and the hope of the heavenly kingdom! The King “made a marriage for His Son”-where is the bride? what response is she making to the Bridegrooms suit? A marriage for His Son! On Calvary?

It must have been very hard for Him to go on; but He will keep down the rising tide of emotion, that He may set before this people and before all people another attractive picture of the kingdom of heaven. He will give even these despisers of the heavenly grace another opportunity to reconsider their position. So He tells of the invitations sent out first to “them that were bidden”-i.e., to the chosen people who had been especially invited from the earliest times, and to whom, when the fulness of the time had come, the call was first addressed. “And they would not come.” There is no reference to the aggravations which had found place in the former parable. {Mat 21:39} These were connected not so much with the offer of grace, which is the main purport of this parable, as with the demand for fruit, which was the leading thought of the one before. It was enough, then, in describing how they dealt with the invitation, to say, “They would not come”; and, indeed, this refusal hurt Him far more than their buffets and their blows. When He is buffeted He is silent, sheds no tears, utters no wail; His tears and lamentation are reserved for them: “How often would I, have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” “They would not come.”

But the love of the King and of His Son is not yet exhausted. A second invitation is sent, with greater urgency than before, and with fuller representations of the great preparations which had been made for the entertainment of the guests: “Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.” As the first invitation was that which had been already given and which they were now rejecting, the second refers to that fuller proclamation of the gospel which was yet to be made after the work of the Bride-groom-Redeemer should be finished when it could be said, as not before: “All things are ready.”

In the account which follows, therefore, there is a foreshadowing of the treatment the apostles would afterwards receive. Many, indeed, were converted by their word, and took their places at the feast; but the people as a whole “made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: and the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.” What was the consequence? Jerusalem, rejecting the gospel of the kingdom, even when it was “preached with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven,” must be destroyed; and new guests must be sought among the nations that up till now had no especial invitation to the feast. This prophetic warning was conveyed in terms of the parable; yet there is a touch in it which shows how strongly the Saviours mind was running on the sad future of which the parable was but a picture: “When the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.” Why “city”? There had been no mention of a city in the parable. True; but Jerusalem was in the Saviours heart, and all the pathos of His lament over it is in that little word. “Their city” too, observe, -reminding us of “your house” at the close of this sad day. {Mat 23:38} In the same way the calling of the Gentiles is most skilfully brought within the scope of the parable, by the use of the peculiar word translated in the Revised Version-“the partings of the highways,” which seems to suggest the thought of the servants leaving the city precincts and going out in all directions along the main trunk roads to “the partings of the highways,” to carry the gospel to all without distinction, wherever could be found an ear of man to listen, or a human heart to welcome the Kings grace and the Bridegrooms love. Thus, after all, the wedding was to be furnished with guests.

The parable, as we have seen, is one of grace; but righteousness too must find a place in it. The demand for fruits of righteousness is no less rigid in the new dispensation than it had been in the old. To make this clear and strong the parable of the Feast is followed by the pendant of the Wedding Garment.

There are two ways in which the heavenly marriage feast may be despised: first, by those who will not come at all; next, and no less, by those who try to snatch the wedding joy without the bridal purity. The same leading thought or motive is recognisable here as in the parable of the two sons. The man without the wedding garment corresponds to the son who said “I go, sir,” and went not, while those who refuse altogether correspond to the son who answered “I will not.” By bearing this in mind we can understand, what to many has been a serious difficulty-how it is that the punishment meted out to the offender in this second parable is so terribly severe. If we simply think of the parable itself, it does seem an extraordinary thing that so slight an offence as coming to a wedding feast without the regulation dress should meet with such an awful doom; but when we consider whom this man represents we can see the very best of reasons for it. Hypocrisy was his crime, than which there is nothing more utterly hateful in the sight of Him Who desireth truth in the inward parts. It is true that the representation does not at first seem to set the sin in so very strong a light; but when we think of it, we see that there was no other way in which it could be brought within the scope of this parable. It is worthy of notice, moreover, that the distinction between the intruder and the others is not observed till the king himself enters, which indicates that the difference between him and the others was no outward distinction, that the garment referred to is the invisible garment of-righteousness. To the common eye he looked like all the rest; but when the all-searching Eye is on the company he is at once detected and exposed. He is really worse than those who would not come at all. They were honest sinners; he was a hypocrite-at the feast with mouth and hand and eye, but not of it, for his spirit is not robed in white: he is the black sheep in the fold; a despiser within, he is worse than the despisers without.

Even to him, indeed, the king has a kindly feeling. He calls him “Friend,” and gives him yet the opportunity to repent and cry for mercy. But he is speechless. False to the core, he has no rallying point within to fall back upon. All is confusion and despair. He cannot even pray. Nothing remains but to pronounce his final doom (Mat 22:13).

The words with which the parable closes (Mat 22:14) are sad and solemn. They have occasioned difficulty to some, who have supposed they were meant to teach that the number of the saved will be small. Their difficulty, like so many others, has been due to forgetfulness of the circumstances under which the words were spoken, and the strong emotion of which they were the expression. Jesus is looking back over the time since He began to spread the gospel feast, and thinking how many have been invited, and how few have come! And even among those who have seemed to come there are hypocrites! One He specially would have in mind as He spoke of the man without the wedding garment; for though we take him to be the type of a class, we can scarcely think that our Lord could fail to let His sad thoughts rest on Judas as He described that man. Taking all this into consideration we can well understand how at that time He should conclude His parable with the lamentation: “Many are called, but few chosen.” It did not follow that it was a truth for all time and for eternity. It was true for the time included in the scope of the parable. It was most sadly true of the Jewish nation then, and in the times which followed on immediately; but the day was coming, before all was done, when the heavenly Bridegroom, according to the sure word of prophecy, should “see of the travail of His soul, and be satisfied.” No creed article, therefore, have we here, but a cry from the sore heart of the heavenly Bridegroom, in the day of His sorrows, in the pain of unrequited love.

II-THE ORDEAL OF QUESTIONS. {Mat 22:15-46}

The open challenge has failed; but more subtle weapons may succeed. The Pharisees have found it of no avail to confront their enemy; but they may still be able to entangle Him. They will at all events try. They will spring upon Him some hard questions, of such a kind that, answering on the spur of the moment, He will be sure to compromise Himself.

1. The first shall be one of those semi-political semi-religious questions on which feeling is running high-the lawfulness or unlawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar. The old Pharisees who had challenged His authority keep in the background, that the sinister purpose of the question may not appear; but they are represented by some of their disciples who, coming fresh upon the scene and addressing Jesus m terms of respect and appreciation, may readily pass for guileless inquirers. They were accompanied by some Herodians, whose divergence of view on the point made it all the more natural that they should join with Pharisees in asking the question; for it might fairly be considered that they had been disputing with one another in regard to it, and had concluded to submit the question to His decision as to one who would be sure to know the truth and fearless to tell it. So together they come with the request: “Master, we know that Thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest Thou for any man: for Thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?”

But they cannot impose upon Him: “Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites?” Having thus unmasked them, without a moments hesitation He answers them. They had expected a “yes” or a “no”-a “yes” which would have set the people against Him, or better still a “no” which would have put Him at the mercy of the government. But, avoiding Scylla on the one hand, and Charybdis on the other, He makes straight for His goal by asking for a piece of coin and calling attention to Caesars stamp upon it. Those who use Caesars coin should not refuse to pay Caesars tribute; but, while the relation which with their own acquiescence they sustain to the Roman emperor implied corresponding obligations in the sphere it covered, this did not at all interfere with what is due to the King of kings and Lord of lords, in Whose image we all are made, and Whose superscription every one of us bears: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesars; and unto God the things that are Gods.” Thus He not only avoids the net they had spread for Him, and gives them the very best answer to their question, but, in doing so, He lays down a great principle of far-reaching application and permanent value respecting the difficult and much-to-be-vexed question as to the relations between Church and State. “O answer full of miracle!” as one had said. No wonder that “when they had heard these words they marvelled, and left Him, and went their way.”

2. Next come forward certain Sadducees. That the Pharisees had an understanding with them also seems likely from what is said both in ver. 15 (Mat 22:15), which seems a general introduction to the series of questions, and in ver. 34 (Mat 22:34), from which it would appear that they were somewhere out of sight, waiting to hear the result of this new attack. Though the alliance seems a strange one, it is not the first time that common hostility to the Christ of God has drawn together the two great rival parties. {see Mat 16:1} If we are right in supposing them to be in combination now, it is a remarkable illustration of the deep hostility of the Pharisees that they should not only combine with the Sadducees against Him, as they had done before, but that they should look with complacency on their using against Him a weapon which threatened one of their own doctrines. For the object of the attack was to cast ridicule on the doctrine of the resurrection, which assuredly the Pharisees did not deny.

The difficulty they raise is of the same kind as those which are painfully familiar in these days, when men of coarse minds and fleshly imaginations show by their crude objections their incapacity even to think on spiritual themes. The case they supposed was one they knew He could not find fault with so far as this world was concerned, for everything was done in accordance with the letter of the law of Moses, the inference being that whatever confusion there was in it must belong to what they would call His figment of the resurrection: “In the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.”

It is worthy of note that our Lords-answer is much less stern than in the former case. These men were not hypocrites. They were scornful, perhaps flippant; but they were not intentionally dishonest. The difficulty they felt was due to the coarseness of their minds, but it was a real difficulty to them. Our Lord accordingly gives them a kindly answer, not denouncing them, but calmly showing them where they are wrong: “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.”

Ye know not the power of God, or ye would not suppose that the life to come, would be a mere repetition of the life that now is, with all its fleshly conditions the same as now. That there is continuity of life is of course implied in the very idea of resurrection, but true life resides not in the flesh, but in the spirit, and therefore the continuity will be a spiritual continuity; and the power of God will effect such changes on the body itself that it will rise out of its fleshly condition into a state of being like that of the angels of God. The thought is the same as that which was afterwards expanded by the apostle Paul in such passages as Rom 8:5-11, 1Co 15:35-54.

Ye know not the Scriptures, or you would find in the writings of Moses from which you quote, and to which you attach supreme importance, evidence enough of the great doctrine you deny. “Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?” Here, again, Jesus not only answers the Sadducees, but puts the great and all-important doctrine of the life to come and the resurrection of the body on its deepest foundation. There are those who have expressed astonishment that He did not quote from some of the later prophets, where He could have found passages much clearer and more to the point: but not only was it desirable that, as they had based their question on Moses, He should give His answer from the same source; but in doing so He has put the great truth on a permanent and universal basis; for the argument rests not on the authority of Moses, nor, as some have supposed, upon the present tense “I am,” but on the relation between God and His people. The thought is that such a relation between mortal man and the eternal God as is implied in the declaration “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” is itself a guarantee of immortality. Not for the spirit only, for it is not as spirits merely, but as men that we are taken into relation to the living God; and that relation, being of God, must share His immortality: “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” The thought is put in a very striking way in a well-known passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “But now they the patriarchs desire a better country, that is, a heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for He hath prepared for them a city.”

Our Lords answer suggests the best way of assuring ourselves of this glorious hope. Let God be real to us, and life and immortality will be real too. If we would escape the doubts of old Sadducee and new Agnostic, we must be much with God, and strengthen more and more the ties which bind us to Him.

3. The next attempt of the Pharisees is on an entirely new line. They have found that they cannot impose upon Him by sending pretended inquirers to question Him. But they have managed to lay their hands on a real inquirer now-one of themselves, a student of the law, who is exercised on a question much discussed, arid to which very different answers are given; they will suggest to him to carry his question to Jesus and see what He will say to it. That this was the real state of the case appears from the fuller account in St. Marks Gospel. When, then, St. Matthew speaks of him as asking Jesus a question, “tempting Him,” we are not to impute the same sinister motives as actuated those who sent him. He also was in a certain sense tempting Jesus-i.e., putting Him to the test, but with no sinister motive, with a real desire to find out the truth, and probably also to find out if this Jesus was one who could really help an inquirer after truth. In this spirit, then, he asks the question, “Which is the great commandment in the law?”

The answer our Lord immediately gives is now so familiar that it is difficult to realise how great a thing it was to give it for the first time. True, He takes it from the Scriptures; but think what command of the Scriptures is involved in this prompt reply. The passages quoted lie far apart-the one in the sixth chapter of Deuteronomy, the other in the nineteenth of Leviticus in quite an obscure corner; and nowhere are they spoken of as the first and second commandments, nor indeed were they regarded as commandments in the usually understood sense of the word. When we consider all this we recognise what from one point of view might be called a miracle of genius, and from another a flash of inspiration, in the instantaneous selection of these two passages, and bringing them together so as to furnish a summary of the law and the prophets beyond all praise which the veriest unbeliever, if only he have a mind to appreciate that which is excellent, must recognise as worthy of being written in letters of light. That one short answer to a sudden question-asked indeed by a true man, but really sprung upon Him by His enemies who were watching for His halting-is of more value in morals than all the writings of all the ethical philosophers, from Socrates to Herbert Spencer.

It is now time to question the questioners. The opportunity is most favourable. They are gathered together to hear what He will say to their last attempt to entangle Him. Once more He has not only met the difficulty, but has done so in such a way as to make the truth on the subject in dispute shine with the very light of heaven. There could not, then, be a better opportunity of turning their thoughts in a direction which might lead them, if possible in spite of themselves, into the light of God.

The question Jesus asks (Mat 22:41-45) is undoubtedly a puzzling one for them; but it is no mere Scripture conundrum. The difficulty in which it lands them is one which, if only they would honestly face it, would be the means of removing the veil from their eyes, and leading them, ere it is too late, to welcome the Son of David come in the name of the Lord to save them. They fully accepted the psalm to which He referred as a psalm of David concerning the. Messiah. If, then, they would honestly read that psalm they would see that the Messiah when He comes must be, not a mere earthly monarch, as David was, but a heavenly monarch, one who should sit on the throne of God and bring into subjection the enemies of the kingdom of heaven. If only they would take their ideas of the Christ from the Scriptures which were their boast, they could not fail to see Him standing now before them. For we must remember that they had not only the words He spoke to guide them. They had before them the Messiah Himself, with the light of heaven in His eye, with the love of God in His face; and had they had any love for the light, they would have recognised Him then-they would have seen in Him, whom they had often heard of as Davids Son, the Lord of David, and therefore the Lord of the Temple, and the heavenly King of Israel. But they love the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds are evil: therefore their hearts remain unchanged, the eyes of their spirit unopened; they are only abashed and silenced: “No man was able to answer Him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask Him any more questions.”

III-THE HOUSE LEFT DESOLATE. {Mat 23:1-39}

The day of grace is over for the leaders of the people; but for the people themselves there may still be hope; so the Lord of the Temple turns to “the multitude,” the general throng of worshippers, mingled with whom were several of His own disciples, and solemnly warns them against their spiritual guides. There is every reason to suppose that many of the scribes and Pharisees were within hearing; for when He has finished what He has to say to the people, He turns round and addresses them directly in that series of terrible denunciations which follow (Mat 13:1-58, seq.).

His warning is couched in such a way as not in the least degree to weaken their respect for Moses, or for the sacred Scriptures, the exposition of which was the duty of their spiritual guides. He separates sharply between the office and the men who hold it. Had they been true to the position they occupied and the high duties they had been called to discharge, they would have been worthy of all honour; but they are false men: “they say, and do not.” Not only so, but they do positive evil, making that grievous for the people which ought to be a delight; and when they do or seem to do the right thing, it is some petty observance, which they exaggerate for the sake of vain display, while their hearts are set on personal pre-eminence. Such are the leading thoughts set forth with great vigour of language and force of illustration, and not without a touch of keen and delicate irony in our Lords remarkable indictment of the scribes and Pharisees recorded by our Evangelist (Mat 23:2-7).

Then follows one of those passages of profound significance and far-reaching application which, while admirably suiting the immediate occasions on which they were spoken, prove to be a treasury of truth for the ages to come. At first sight it strikes us as simply an exhortation to cultivate a disposition the reverse of that of the scribes and Pharisees. He has been drawing their portrait; now He says, Be ye not like unto them, but unlike in every respect. But in saying this He succeeds in laying down great principles for the future guidance of His Church, the remembrance of which would have averted most of the evils which in the course of its history have weakened its power, hindered its progress, and marred its witness to the truth. With one stroke He abolishes all claims of men to intervene between the soul and God. “One is your Teacher” (R.V), “One is your Father,” “One is your Master.” Who is that One? He does not in so many words claim the position for Himself; but it is throughout implied, and at the end almost expressed; for, while in speaking of the Teacher and the Father He says nothing to indicate who the One is, when He comes to the Master He adds “even the Christ” (R.V). Standing thus at the end of all, these words suggest that the office of the Christ was to bring God within reach of every soul, so that without any intervention of scribe or Pharisee, priest or pope, each one could go direct to Him for instruction (Teacher), for loving recognition (Father), for authoritative guidance and control (Master).

We must remember, too, that He was speaking to His disciples as well as to the multitude, and to them these words would be full of meaning. When He said, “One is your Teacher,” of whom could they possibly think but of Him-self? When He said, “One is your Father,” they would recall such utterances as “I and My Father are One,” and have suggested to them the truth which was so very soon to be plainly stated: “He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father.” It is probable, then, that even before He reached the end, and added the words “even the Christ,” the minds of His disciples at least had anticipated Him. Thus we find in these remarkable words an implicit claim on the part of Christ to be the sole Prophet, Priest, and King of His people: their sole Prophet, to teach them by the enlightening and sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit; their sole Priest, to open up the way of access to a reconciled Father in heaven; their sole King, alone entitled to be the Lord of their conscience and their heart.

If only the Christian Church had been true to all this, how different would her history have been! Then the Word of God would have been, throughout, the only and sufficient rule of faith, and the Holy Spirit dealing directly with the spirits of men its sole authoritative interpreter. Then would there have been no usurping priesthood to stand between the soul of men and their Father in heaven, to bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne and lay them upon mens shoulders, to multiply forms and observances and complicate what should have been simplest of all-the direct way to the Father in heaven, through Christ the great Priest of humanity. Then would there have been no lordship over mens consciences, no ecclesiastical usurpation, no spiritual tyranny, no inquisition, no persecution for conscience sake. How inexcusable has it all been! It would seem as if pains had been taken deliberately to violate not only the spirit, but the very letter of the Saviours words, as, e.g., in the one fact that, while it is expressly written “Call no man your father upon the earth,” the Church of Rome has actually succeeded age after age in getting the millions under its usurped spiritual control, to give a man that very title; for the word “pope” is the very word which our Lord so expressly forbids. But all clerical assumption of priestly power is just as certainly and as clearly in violation of this great charter of our spiritual liberties.

“And all ye are brethren.” This is the second commandment of the true canon law, like unto the first and springing naturally out of it, as naturally as the love of neighbour springs out of love to God. As soon as the time shall come when all Christians shall own allegiance alike, full and undivided, to the one Lord of mind and heart and conscience, then will there be an end to all ecclesiastical exclusiveness; then shall we see realised and manifested to the world the brotherhood in Christ of all believers.

Turning once again to the scribes and Pharisees, the Lord of the Temple denounces them in words perhaps the most terrible in the whole Bible. It is a very thunderstorm of indignation, with flash after flash of scorn, peal after peal of woe. It is “the burden of the Lord,” “the wrath of the Lamb.” Is this at all inconsistent with the meekness and lowliness of His heart, the love and tenderness of His character? Certainly not! Love is no love at all, unless it be capable of indignation against wrong. Besides, it is no personal wrongs which stir the heart of Jesus, “Who when He was reviled, reviled not again, when He suffered, He threatened not”; but the wrong these hypocrites are doing to the poor sheep they are leading all astray. The occasion absolutely demanded a tempest of indignation. There is this further to be considered, that the Lord Jesus, as Revealer of God, must display His justice as well as His mercy, His wrath as well as His love.

This passage, terrible as it is, commends itself to all that-is noblest and best in us. Who is there who does not thank God for this scathing denunciation of that most hateful of all abominations-hypocrisy? See how He brands it in every sentence-“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” – how piece by piece He shows their miserable life to be a lie. Hypocrites! because you profess to sit in Moses seat, to have the key of knowledge, to know the way of life yourselves, and show it to others; and all this profession is a lie (Mat 23:13). Hypocrites! because your pretended charity is a lie, aggravated by the forms of devotion with which it is masked, while the essence of it is most sordid avarice (Mat 23:14). Hypocrites! because your zeal for God is a lie, being really a zeal for the devil, your converts being perverts worse than yourselves (Mat 23:15). Hypocrites! because your morality is a lie, making the law of God of none effect by your miserable casuistry (Mat 23:16-22). Hypocrites! because your devotion is a lie, consisting merely in punctilious attention to the minutest forms, while the weighty matters of the law you set aside, like those who “strain out the gnat and swallow the camel” (Mat 23:23-24, R.V). Hypocrites! because your whole demeanour is a lie, all fair without like a whited sepulchre, while within ye are “full of dead mens bones, and of all uncleanness” (Mat 23:25-28). Hypocrites! because your pretended reverence for the prophets is a lie, for had you lived in the days of your fathers you would have done as they did, as is plain from the way in which you are acting now; for you build the tombs of the dead prophets and put to death the living ones (Mat 23:29-31).

The sin branded, sentence follows: “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.” Since you will not be saved, there is nothing for it but that you go on in sin to the bitter end: serpents, “for ever hissing at the heels of the holy,” a brood of vipers, with no hope now of escaping the judgment of Gehenna!

As in the Sermon on the Mount (see page 722) so here, when He speaks as Judge He cannot conceal His personal majesty. All throughout He has been speaking with authority, but has, as usual, avoided the obtrusion of His personal prerogative. Even in saying “One is your Master, even the Christ,” it is not at all the same as if He had said, even Myself. All it necessarily conveyed was, “One is your master, even the Messiah,” whoever he may be. But now He speaks as from His judgment throne. He is no longer thinking of Himself as one of the prophets, or even as the Kings Son, but as Lord of all; so He says: “Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth,” from Abel to Zacharias. And, again, “Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.”

But judgment is His strange work. He has been compelled by the fire of His holiness to break forth into this tempest of indignation against the hypocrites, and to pronounce upon them the long-deferred sentence of condemnation and wrath. But there has been a wail in all His woes. His nature and His name is love, and it must have been a terrible strain on Him to keep up the foreign tone so long. “The wrath of the Lamb” is a necessary but not a natural combination. We may not wonder, then, though well we may adore, when after the tension of these woes, His heart is melted into tenderness as He mourns over the fate which all His love may not avert: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Again, observe the lofty consciousness shining out in the little pronoun “I.” He is a young man of little more than thirty; but His personal consciousness runs back through all the ages of the past, through all the times of the killing of the prophets and stoning of the messengers of God, from Abel on to Zachariah: and not only so, but this Son of Israel speaks in the most natural way as the brooding mother of them all through all their generations-what wonders, not of beauty alone, and of exquisite pathos, but of conscious majesty in that immortal lamentation!

Our Saviours public ministry is closed. He has yet many things to say to His disciples-a private ministry of love to fulfil ere He leave the world and go to the Father; but His public ministry is ended now. Commenced with beatitudes, it ends with woes, because the blessings offered in the beatitudes have been rudely rejected and trampled underfoot. And now the Lord of the Temple is about to leave it-to leave it to its fate, to leave it as He counselled His disciples to leave any city or house that refused to receive them: shaking the dust off His feet; and in doing so, as He turns from the astonished hierarchs, He utters these solemn words, which close the time of their merciful visitation and leave them to “eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices”; “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” Your house. It was Mine. I was its glory, and would have been its defence; but when I came unto My own, Mine own received Me not; and now it is no longer Mine but yours, and therefore desolate. Desolate; and therefore defenceless, a ready prey for the Roman eagles when they swoop on the defenceless brood. “For I say unto you, Ye shall not see Me henceforth till”-till when? Is there still a door of hope? There is, even for scribes and Pharisees-hypocrites; the door ever open here on earth: “Him that cometh unto Me, I will in nowise cast out.” The door is closed upon them for ever as leaders of the people; as temple authorities they can never be recognised again, -their house is left to them desolate, but for themselves there is still this door of hope; these awful woes therefore are not a final sentence, but a long, loud, last call to enter ere it be too late. And as if to show, after all the wrath of His terrible denunciation, that judgment is “His strange work” and that He “delighteth in mercy,” He points in closing to that still open door, and says, “Ye shall not See Me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.”

Why did they not say it then? Why did they not entreat Him to remain? But they did not. So “Jesus went out, and departed from the Temple.” {Mat 14:1} and though eighteen hundred years have rolled away since then, the time has not yet come when as a people they have said, “Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord”; accordingly their house is still desolate, and they are “scattered and peeled”-chickens that will not nestle under the mothers wing.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary