THE last chapter closed with the important doctrine that in the kingdom the Lord will remember all suffering and service here for His name’s sake. But it is evident that, though this be an undoubted truth of scripture, referred to in the epistles of Paul, and elsewhere in the New Testament, it is one which the heart would be ready to abuse to self-righteousness; and that a person might soon forget that all is of grace, and might be disposed to make a claim upon God by reason of anything which He had enabled a soul to do. Hence a parable is added which brings in a totally different principle — where the prominent thought is the sovereignty of God — for the express purpose, I think, of guarding against such effects. For God is not unrighteous to forget our work and labor of love which we may have shown toward His name. But there must be a danger in our remembering it. It does not follow, because God will not forget what His people do for Him, that His people are to remember it themselves. We have but one thing to think of, and set before our souls — Christ Himself: as the Apostle Paul said, “This one thing I do; forgetting those things winch are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before” — forgetting our progress, rather than what we have done wrong: the very reverse of this will be even in glory. When there is not a vestige of humiliation, we shall have a more lively sense than ever of our manifold failures; but not as producing one feeling of doubt, or fear, or unhappiness. Such thoughts would be contrary to the presence of God. It is a good thing for the believer, holding fast his full blessing, to think of what he is — to humble himself day by day in the sight of God; always remembering that true humiliation is on the ground of our being children of God. If we take the place of being still in our sins, and needing to start afresh, as it were, over and over again, there never can be proper Christian experience, or progress: the starting point and spring are yet unknown.
There is a great difference between the humiliation of a sinner and that of a saint, who, while he has an evil nature, has also a new nature in Christ. Humility is always right; but when we draw near in worship to God, it is no proof of this humility to be speaking about ourselves as poor sinners. We come together to enjoy Christ, to set forth what God is; and, after all, can there be a doubt that this, involving as it does the consciousness of our nothingness, really indicates the deepest and most genuine humility? A person who had some office about the queen, and who had proper respect for her, would be thinking of her, not of himself. How much more when we are in the presence of God! This ought to fill our souls with joy in the worship of the Lord. What is comely for the saint, what is most acceptable to God, is not the constant bringing in of ourselves in one way or another, right as this may be, in a certain sense, in our closet. But the praise of God for what He is, above all, in the knowledge of His Son and of His work, is the great end of all the dealings of God with His children.
This will be a test for the soul. Where there is a consciousness of habitual carelessness and lack of dependence, with their sad results, there will not be a preparedness of heart for worship. In such circumstances the Spirit makes the conscience active, instead of drawing out the heart. What does not the Lord deserve from us? When we go to praise Him, breaking bread in His name, it is not because we can take comfort from anything but Himself; and this will not arrest, but strengthen, our self-judgment. What is the word of God, and what is the Holy Ghost for? Is it not that we should be growing up into Christ in all things? The proper thought connected with the Lord’s table is that I am going to meet with Christ, to praise Him, together with His saints: and this keeps a check upon our spirits, and brings before our souls what a thing it is to meet with Christ, and to be found in His presence. Worship is the soul finding itself in the presence of God in the Spirit. By-and-by we shall have perfect worship in heaven. Now we have it only in part, even as we know but in part. But in principle the worship of the believer is a heavenly thing, even while accomplished on the earth, as we ourselves are said to be “heavenly” also.
Certainly we ought not to forget our shortcomings, or be indifferent and light about them; but let a man discern, or examine, himself: inward discernment of the soul is enjoined. And what then? “So let him eat.” That is, the Christian, even if conscious that he has forgotten the Lord during the week, is not to distrust Him. What is he to do? To go to the Lord’s table as if it were no matter at all? This would be sin. Is he, then, to stay away? Neither the one, nor the other. What, then, can he do? He is to judge himself, to confess his fault, to humble himself before God; and “so let him eat.” This is God’s way. A person staying away does not mend matters. I am as good as saying that I am not a Christian at all, if I keep away from the Lord’s table; or that I have been behaving so badly that others would consider me not a Christian if they knew it. Constantly bringing it before the soul is one of God’s ways for preserving from sin. But let it be done in the spirit of self-judgment at home, so that we praise when we come together in the name of the Lord.
In order to keep up this sense of grace, the Spirit of God recurs in this chapter to the sovereignty of God; the counteractive to the self-righteousness that is to be found even in the heart of a disciple. Peter might say, “We have left all, and followed thee,” and the Lord might assure him that it would not be forgotten; but He immediately adds the parable of the householder. Here you find, not the principle of rewards, or God’s righteous recognition of the service done by His people, but His own rights, His own sovereignty. Hence there are no differences here―no one is specially remembered because he had won souls to Christ, or left all for Christ. The principle is this, that while God will infallibly own every service and loss for the sake of Christ, yet He maintains His own title to do as He will. There might be some poor soul brought to the knowledge of Christ at the day of his death. Now, God the Father claims His own title to give what He may please; he may have done no work, but God’s title is reserved to give to those who have. not wrought anything at all — as you may think — just what is good in His own eyes. This is a very different principle from what we had in the last chapter, and exceedingly counter to the mind of man. “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire laborers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the laborers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.” (vss. 1, 2.)
The common application of this parable to the salvation of the soul is a mistake. For this is that which Christ wrought for, suffered for, and lives for, independently of man. The poor sinner has just to give himself up to be saved by Christ. When brought to an end of himself, acknowledging that he deserves nothing but hell, how sweet that God brings before such a soul that Jesus Christ (and this is a faithful saying) came into the world to save sinners! When content to be saved as nothing but a sinner, and by nothing but Christ, there and then only is true rest given of Him. Wherever we have to contribute our part, it will be only uncertainty, and doubts, and difficulties. And where does the salvation of God shine forth? Christ alone is salvation. The man that is saved contributes nothing but his sins. But God is delighted (and not the less so because it is the fruit of His grace) to hear a poor sinner acknowledge that Jesus is worthy to bring him, freed from sin, to heaven. But in this parable the question is not this. There is nothing in it about believing in Christ or His work. It is positive work that is done. There you may think, Surely the Lord will reward the work according to its kind and degree. This we have seen: but there is another principle not always understood — God reserves in His own hand the right to do as He pleases, and He never makes a mistake. It may seem hard that a man should be toiling for fifty years, and that another, brought in just at the close of his life, should be honored in heaven as much as himself. But God is the only righteous, the only wise, Judge of what is for His own glory. If He please, He will put all upon an equal footing. He will reward the work that is done, but He will give as He will.
“When he had agreed with the laborers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the market-place, and said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.” (vss. 2-4.) It is not grace in the sense of salvation here. “Whatsoever is right I will give you.” It is God that judges what is becoming. “Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise.” And, singular to say, “about the eleventh hour he went out.” What a heart this tells of! What infinite goodness! that God, who recognizes every service and suffering done for Himself, yet keeps intact the prerogative of going out at the last moment to bring in souls, and occupy them with what might seem to be a little service! But He can give grace to do that little well.
“About the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive. So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the laborers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first” (vss. 6-8.) — “beginning from the last” in the perfect wisdom of God. And why is it that “the last” are made so much of in this parable? What makes it the more striking is that, in the close of the preceding chapter, it was not so. There, “many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.” But here the last are always spoken of first. So the steward is told to begin from the last unto the first. And again, when the master of the vineyard has to speak himself, it is the same thing; “the last shall be first, and the first last.”
It is the sovereignty of grace in giving as He pleases; not alone in saving, but in rewarding in the time of glory; for this is what is spoken of. Of course the last received their wages thankfully. But when the first heard about it, they began to think themselves entitled to more — they who had borne the burden and heat of the day. But the master reminds them that all was a settled thing before they entered upon their work. In their selfishness, they forgot both the terms and the righteousness of him with whom they had to deal. If, out of the liberality of his heart, the householder was pleased to give others, who had worked the twelfth part of what they had done, as much as he gave themselves, what was that to them? It was his affair entirely. God maintains His own rights.
It is of the greatest importance for our souls that we hold to the rights of God in everything. Persons will argue as to whether it is righteous for God to elect this person or that. But if you go upon the ground of righteousness, all are lost, and lost forever. Now, if God is pleased to use His mercy according to His wisdom, and for His glory, among these poor lost ones, who is to dispute with him? Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God? God is entitled to act according to what is in His heart: and “shall not the judge of all the earth do right?” Is He entitled to act from Himself? He cannot act from man on the grounds of righteousness. There is no foundation on which He can thus deal; it is entirely a question of His own good pleasure. And we must remember that there is not a man that is lost but rejects the mercy of God — despises it, or uses it for his own selfish purposes in this world. The man that is saved is the only one that has a true sense of sin, the only one that gives himself up unto God as really lost; but then he falls back upon His infinite mercy in Christ to save a lost sinner.
In the case we have here, when the first came and complained to the goodman of the house, he answered them, “Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way; I will give unto this last even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? is thine eye evil, because I am good?” (vss. 13-15.) There comes out the whole secret. Man, yea, a professing disciple of the Lord, a laborer in His vineyard, may be disputing because he is to have no more than another who, in his opinion, has done little as compared with himself. It was the same principle that made the Judaizers so jealous about the Gentiles being brought in. So, says the Lord, “the last shall be first, and the first last.”
Let me just ask, Why in the last chapter is it, “Many that are first shall be last, and the last first,” and here “The last shall be first, and the first last?” In speaking about rewards, according to the work done, the failure of man is intimated; for indeed weakness soon shows itself — the first shall be last. But in this new parable is the sovereignty of God that never fails. Consequently here “The last shall be first, and the first last.” “Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world.” There was a first, we may say, who became last — a laborer for the Lord, who had not given up Christianity, but had grown tired of the path of unremitting service for Christ. If, instead of honor now, the thousands of those who are engaged in the service of Christ were to receive only scorn and persecution, there would be no slight thinning of their ranks. The present return should be shame and suffering. This must be looked for by him who intelligently seeks to serve the Lord faithfully in this world. Demas may have been a believer; but the trial and reproach, the love of ease and other things all came strongly over his spirit, and he abandoned the service of the Lord. “All seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s”; there is a similar principle.
We have our Lord next seen going up to Jerusalem; and now He prepares them for still greater trouble. “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.” (vss. 18, 19.) And yet even after this, so selfish is the heart of man, that the mother of Zebedee’s children comes to Him with her sons, who were among the apostles themselves. She pays her worship to Him and desires a certain thing of Him. “And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, in thy kingdom.” (vs. 21.) Now comes out another principle; for, indeed, so perfect is the humiliation of Christ — such the self-abandonment of the only One who had a perfect knowledge of all things, and a right to everything by His personal glory — that He says, I have no place to give you in My kingdom. It is not Mine to give, save as My Father may desire. But I have something to give you now: and what is it? Suffering.
Yes, suffering is what Christ gives His servants now, and this as the highest privilege. When the apostle Paul was converted, he asks at once, “What wilt thou have me to ?” The Lord tells him what great things he should stiller for His name’s sake. Suffering all is better than doing anything. It is the best portion a saint can have in this world. The highest honor we can have here is suffering with, and for, Christ. This our Lord lets the mother of Zebedee’s children know, when she asks for a place for her sons on His right hand and on His left in His kingdom. “Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able” (vs. 22.) He took in two different kinds of suffering: the cup, which is inward suffering; and the baptism, which expresses what we are immersed into outwardly. The two include every kind of trial, inward and outward.
Christ is not here speaking about the cross in atonement, for there can be no fellowship in this. But there might be the cross in rejection, though not as atonement. There may be the sharing of what Christ suffered from man, but not of what He suffered from God. When He was suffering for sin on the cross, He drops relationship, and bows in infinite grace to the place of judgment. He is made sin. He realizes what it is to be forsaken of God, making Himself responsible for the sins of men. He says therefore in that terrible moment on the cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” With this we have nothing to do — no rejection because of sin. God forsook Jesus that He might not forsake us. There never can be God forsaking a Christian, or even hiding Himself from him. There is no such thing in scripture since the death of Christ as God hiding Himself from a believer. We have not a promise merely, but the accomplishment of it. The first principle, and present point, of the gospel is perfect forgiveness and reconciliation. We are brought nigh unto God through the blood of Christ, and are forgiven all trespasses.
The Lord then says that they knew not what they were seeking, and asks if they were able to drink of the cup that He should drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that He was baptized with. “They say unto him, We are able.” They did not know what they said, any more than what they asked. For after this, when our Lord was only in danger of death, we find that they all forsook Him and fled. As for one of these two sons of Zebedee, if he did venture into the hall of judgment, it was merely, as it were, under the high priest’s robe, that is, on the plea of being known to him. When Peter followed on his own ground, it was only to show his utter weakness. In presence of such a cup as this, and such a baptism, the Lord says, “Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with” (not Ye are able): “but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” (vs. 23.) I would just remark that the words which are put in the Authorized Version in italics mar the sense very much. They are inserted without warrant. Leave them out, and the sense is better. It was His to give to those only to whom the Father destined it. Christ is the administrator of the rewards of the kingdom. He says, As I am now the servant in suffering, so I shall be in the glory. In everything Christ is the One who will turn all things to the glory of God. Every knee shall bow to His name, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; but then it will all be to the glory of God the Father.
“And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.” A good deal of our indignation is no better than theirs. Their own pride was wounded. No doubt it seemed a very right thing to put down these two brethren who were so full of themselves. But why were they thus indignant? Because they, too, were full of themselves. Christ was not filled with indignation. It was a sorrow to Him but they were moved with hot feeling against the two brethren. We have to take care. Often where we seek to pull down those that seek to exalt themselves, there is self on our part too. Supposing, too, we take one who has fallen into sin. There is often a good deal of strong feeling about it: but is this the best wav of sheaving our sense of sin? Those who feel most for God have always the deepest feeling for poor sinners, and for saints who have slipped away from God. “If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye winch are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.”
“But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them; and they that are great exercise authority upon them.” (vs. 25.) He put His finger upon that very love of greatness in themselves. They were loud in condemning it in James and John; but the feeling with which it was condemned betrayed that they had the same thought in their own hearts. He says, “It shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.” There is a difference between the two words. The word translated “minister” means a servant, but not necessarily a slave, though a person who might be hired. But in verse 27 it is a bondman, or slave. Do you want to be really great according to the principles of my kingdom? Go down as low as you can. Do you want to be the greatest? Go down the lowest of all. Whoever has least of self is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. For “the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (vs. 28.) He took the lowest place of all, and gave His life a ransom for many. Blessed forever be His name!
The last verses properly belong to the next chapter, which is the approach of our Lord to Jerusalem by way of Jericho. And it is necessary to take the two chapters together, to have the proper connection of all that the Holy Ghost has given us here. But I cannot close even this part of the subject without recalling attention to the principles of the kingdom of God as shown us by Christ Himself. What a wonderful call it is for self-renouncing service! What a joy to think that everything that is now a trial will be found as a joy in that kingdom! There are those who may think that they are favored with few opportunities for serving the Lord — who are shut out from what their hearts would desire. Let us remember that He who knows everything reserves His right to give as He will to His own and of His own. He will do the very best according to His heart. Our one business now is to think of Him who came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many. That is our prime call and need — to be Christ’s servants in serving each other.
In the transfiguration we had a picture of the coming kingdom; Christ, the Head and Center, with representatives of its heavenly and earthly things; on one side, Moses and Elias glorified; and on the other, the three disciples in their natural bodies. This was a turning point in the history of our Lord’s course which John passes by, but it is given fully in the other three gospels. The cross, now that sin exists, is the foundation of all glory. There could be nothing stable or holy without it. It is the sole channel through which flows to us all our blessing; and Christ’s decease, we know from Luke, was the theme on the holy mount. But John gives us nothing of that scene. The reason is because he is occupied with Christ as the Son; we find there, not the human side, but the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. His rejection by Israel, and Israel consequently rejected by God, are assumed from the beginning of John’s Gospel: as we read, “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” Now, the transfiguration does not bring out the deity of Christ, but His glory as exalted Son of man, owned withal as Son of God. This was a sample of the glory of the Lord in His future kingdom, with the types of some risen, and of others in their natural state. So will it be by-and-by. John does not show us the mount, but the Father’s house. This is for the church. The world may see the glory, more or less, as foreshown on the mount, but this is not our best portion. We look for that blessed hope and the appearing of the glory. Our hope is Christ, to be with Him in the many-mansioned Father’s house — a hope which is far beyond any blessing of the kingdom. Neither will it be displayed. The secrets of love and communion which the church will have with Christ in the Father’s house can never be the subject of manifestation to the world. Who now could, or would, publish the tenderest feelings of his heart? Doubtless the glory, the external pomp, and the place of power which the church will possess in the coming kingdom will be displayed; for these form some of the chief features in the millennial reign. We shall reign with Christ, the glory of the Bridegroom enveloping, as it were, the Bride. If we discriminate what the scriptures distinguish, we may find a marked distinction between the proper position and hopes of the church, and the glories of the kingdom, however real, which all the glorified share, when it is established in power. Thus the mount of transfiguration holds an important place in the three synoptic gospels, as shewing Christ in the capacity of Messiah, Servant, and Son of man. As such, He will be displayed after the pattern in the mount, and accordingly, the three Evangelists, who present Christ in these three aspects, give us the transfiguration. Further, the thought of present reception by the Jews had been entirely given up, and the new thing begins to be announced immediately before it. Christ must suffer and die: and those who follow Him during His rejection will be in the kingdom, but not as subjects; they will be kings with Him when He reigns. When responsibility and even individual privileges come in, “the kingdom” is the thought; but when our corporate place is intended, “the Church” is spoken of. (Matt. 16; 18)
Here, in this chapter (21), and from verse 30 of chapter 20, a preface to it, we have the last formal presentation of the King, though not with the thought of being received; but in order to the filling up of man’s iniquity, and the accomplishment of the counsels of God, He presents Himself as such. We find first, that He is on His way to Jerusalem and sees two blind men who cry unto Him, “Have mercy upon us, thou Son of David!” If they knew nothing of the impending crisis, they, notwithstanding, were completely in the spirit of the scene. The Holy Ghost was acting upon them, that they might bear testimony to Jesus, who was now for the last time to be publicly presented as Heir to the throne. What a picture! The seeing ones, in their blind hardness of heart, rejecting their own Messiah, though owned of Gentiles as the born King of the Jews; and the poor blind ones, through faith, loudly confessing Him the true King. Perhaps their principal — their one — desire may have been to be healed of their blindness. Be it so; but God at any rate gave to their faith the proper object and the just confession for that moment, for He was guiding the scene. His hand was upon the spring; and whatever was the thought of the blind men in crying after the Lord, God’s design was that there should be a suited testimony rendered to His King, the “Son of David.” A Jew would well understand all that was implied in the title. What a condemnation of Pharisees who had rejected Christ!
The highest point of view is by no means always that which is most proper; a lower one is sometimes far more right. Thus the confession of Christ as “Son of David” was more in keeping here than if they had said, “Thou Son of God.” This may sound strange where the various titles have not been weighed; but in hailing Him according to His Jewish glory, they uttered that which was in unison with what God was then doing.
And now, let me ask reverently, Why should the resurrection of Lazarus be omitted in the first three Gospels. Man, if these accounts had been his work, would not have omitted it; he would deem the insertion of it in each gospel as necessary for a full and truthful account. Besides, it would have been thought far too important an item to be left out under any consideration. The omission of so stupendous a miracle, in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, points out clearly that it is the Spirit of God who wrought sovereignly and writes by each with a special purpose. If so, all which men call inconsistencies and imperfections finds no place here, unless God can make mistakes, which none will say. It was a part of the special purpose of God to omit the miracle; for He only presents those facts which suit His design in each Gospel. Now this miracle of raising Lazarus does not show us Jesus as the Messiah, or the Servant, or the Son of man, but as the Son of God, who gives life and raises the dead — a grand point of doctrine in John 5 and there alone found in the Gospels.
There were other miracles of raising from the dead in the other Gospels; but the truth of His Sonship and present glory in communion with the Father is not in these others the prominent one. It is not; therefore, as Son of God that He appears in them. Take, for instance, the raising of the widow’s son at Nain. What are the circumstances brought into emphasis there? He was the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. Luke, or rather the Spirit, is careful to note this; for it is what gives point to the touching story. “He delivered him to his mother.” It is the Lord’s human sympathy, the Lord as Son of man, which is the object here. True, He must have been Son of God, or He could not have thus raised the dead. If the Godhead, and relation to the Father, of Him who was made flesh, had been the only truth to show, the attendant circumstances need not have been narrated; the Gospel of John might have sufficed, as it does, to display eminently the Lord Jesus as the Son.
All this manifests the extreme perfectness of the word of God in these Gospels. When the mind is subject to Him this is seen, and He teaches those who submit themselves, and confide in Him. There is a blind man healed in John 9; it is not these near Jericho who appealed to Jesus, but as Jesus passed by He saw a man blind from his birth. Rejected of men, He was going about, seeking for objects on whom to bestow His blessing; the Son acting in grace and truth, who, unsought, saw the deep need and dealt accordingly. It was an opportunity of working the works of God. He waits for nothing, goes to the man, and the work is done, though it was the Sabbath day. How could the Son of God rest in the presence of sin and wretchedness, whatever religious pride might feel? The Lord leaves him not until he can say “Son of God,” and worship. Moreover, we may say, John never mentions a miracle simply for the display of power, but in order to attest the divine glory of Christ. In Matthew it is the rejected Messiah. Here (chap. 20.) the thought is, that, being despised by the nation, God makes two blind men bear testimony to Him as Son of David; and this, in the well-known spot of Israel’s triumphant power, and alas! also of rebellious unbelief entailing a curse, now of the Messiah come in grace, and with equal ability and readiness to bless.
The place (near Jericho) was accursed. But if Jesus has come as Messiah, although the Jews reject Him, He proves Himself to be Jehovah — not only Messiah under the law, but Jehovah above it; and so He blesses them even at Jericho, and they follow Him. This was the place that Israel should have taken: they ought to have known their King. The two blind men were a witness for Him, and against them. There was a competent testimony — two witnesses: “In the mouth of two,” &c. Mark and Luke, whose object was not to bring out testimony valid according to the law, mention only one. There is, of course, no contradiction in this. One thing is certain, that they were both healed in the journey from Jericho to Jerusalem. Luke mentions simply the vicinity Jericho — not as He was come nigh, but as He was nigh, which would be equally true when He left the place. The Authorized Version has unwittingly increased the difficulty.
Jesus goes to the Mount of Olives. The Jews well know what was prophesied concerning this mountain; they ought to have entered into the spirit of what the Lord was doing.
The sending for the colt is on the Lord’s part as Jehovah, who has a perfect right to all. “The Lord [Jehovah] hath need of him.” What more thorough than His knowledge of circumstances in the womb of the future? How evident His control over the owner’s mind and feeling! Meek as He was, sitting upon an ass, the King of Zion according to the prophet, He was indeed as surely Jehovah, as Messiah coming in His name — the “need” as amazing as the glory of His person. But the Lord goes onward to Jerusalem. And the multitude cry, “Hosanna to the Son of David!... Behold, thy King cometh.” They apply Psa. 118 to Messiah, and they were right. They might be very unintelligent, and perhaps many of them joined later in the fearful cry, “His blood be on us”; but here the Lord guides the scene. He comes to the city; but He is unknown: His own citizens know Him not. They ask, “Who is this?” So little understanding had the multitude, who had just been saying “Hosanna to the Son of David!” that they answer, “This is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.”
But though they only see Jesus of Galilee, yet He shows Himself as King, and takes a place of authority and power. He enters into the temple, and overthrows the tables of the money changers, &c. This may certainly be looked at as a miraculous incident; for it was astonishing that He, whom they knew only as the prophet of Nazareth, should so boldly enter their temple, and drive out all who were desecrating it. But they turn not upon Him. The power of the God of the temple was there, and they flee, their consciences doubtless echoing the Lord’s words, that they had made His house a den of thieves. But here we see, not only the testimony of the crowd to the kingship of Jesus, but the response to it, as it were, in the act of Jesus. As if He had said, “You hail me as King, and I will demonstrate that I am.” Accordingly, He anticipatively rules in righteousness, and cleanses the defiled temple. Into what a state had the Jews fallen! A clear testimony it was to them what Jesus thought about them; for what more severe condemnation than “ye have made it a den of thieves?”
There were two cleansings — one before our Lord’s public ministry, and the other at its close. John records the first, Matthew the last. In our gospel it is an act of Messianic power, where He cleanses His own house, or, at least, acts for God, as His King. In John it is rather zeal for the injured honor of His Father’s house — “Make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.” A collateral reason why John tells us of the first cleansing in the beginning of his Gospel is, that he assumes the rejection of Israel at once. Hence their rejection by Christ, set forth in this act, was the inevitable consequence of their rejection of Him: and this is the point from which John sets out when he begins with the ways of the Lord before His ministry.
But now the blind and the lame come to Him to be healed. He healed their diseases and forgave their iniquities. Both these classes were the hated of David’s soul — the effect of the taunt upon David’s soul. How blessed the contrast in the Son of David! He turns out the selfish religionists from the temple, and receives there the poor, blind, and lame, and heals them — perfect righteousness and perfect grace.
On the one hand, there are the voices of the children crying, “Hosanna,” — the ascription of praise to Him as King, the Son of David; on the other, there is the Lord acting as King, and doing that which the Jews well knew had been prophesied of their King. He was there the confessed King; but not by the chief priests and scribes, who took umbrage, willfully and knowingly rejecting Him — “we will not have this man to reign over us.” Naturally, therefore, they seek to stop the mouths of the children, and ask Jesus to rebuke them: “Hearest thou what these say?” But the Lord sanctions their praises: “Have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes?” &c. (vs. 16.) The power of Jehovah was there, and there was a mouth to own it, though only in babes and sucklings. It is a wondrous scene. The Lord here quotes from Psa. 8, where He is seen as Son of man after His rejection as Son of David in Psalm Psa. 8 seqq. In Psa. 8 we have the suffering and exaltation of the Son of man. Herod and Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and Israel, gather, and do their worst. Refused, then, as the Messiah, He takes the higher place of Son of man, humbled first, and then glorified. The blind men owned Him in the first, and the babes in the last and deeper way. What has God wrought He left them — a significant and solemn act. They rejected Him, and He abandons them, turning His back upon the beloved city.
As to the fig tree, Mark says that the time of figs was not yet. Many have been perplexed at this, thinking that the Lord sought figs at a time when there could be none. The meaning is, that the time was not come for the gathering of figs; and consequently, if the tree had been bearing, the Lord must have found figs thereon, for the time to gather them — the time of figs — was not yet. There ought to have been a bearing of fruit, but there was no appearance, save of leaves — outward profession. It was thoroughly barren. The Lord pronounces a curse upon it, and presently it withered away. Looking at Mark 11:12, you will see how Matthew disregards time; for the circumstance occupied two days, which he puts together without distinguishing. The sentence on the fig tree was an emblematic curse upon the people, inasmuch as it was the national tree. The Lord found nothing but leaves, and the word is that henceforth no fruit shall grow upon it forever. The nation. had failed in fruit to God, when they had every means and opportunity for glorifying and serving Him; and now all their advantages are taken away, and it is not possible for them as the old stock. The remnant even now is excepted who believe in Christ, and so is “the generation to come.” The disciples wondered; but the Lord further says to them, “If ye shall say to this mountain [the mountain symbolizing Israel’s political place among the nations, as exalted among them], be thou cast into the sea,” &c. This has been done. Not only is there no fruit borne for God, but Israel, as a nation, has vanished — cast into the sea — scattered, and to appearance lost in the mass of people — trodden down and oppressed under the feet of the Gentiles.
Here, then, in these miracles and scenes is a remarkable witness of the Lord’s last presentation to the Jews, and an equally striking picture of the judgment of God on Jerusalem and on the Jews because of their rejection of the Messiah who, according to Dan. 9, was cut off and had nothing, only to have all things far more gloriously by-and-by; and if we suffer, we shall also reign with Him.
To the question about His authority, our Lord answers the chief priests and the elders of the people by inquiring their thought of John’s baptism. He appeals neither to miracles, nor to prophecy, but to conscience. How evident the accomplishment of the ancient oracles in His person, life, ministry! How full the testimony of signs and wonders wrought by Him! Yet their question proved how vain all had been, as His question proved either their dishonesty or their incompetency. In either case, who were they to judge? Little did they think that they and every other class in Israel, who successively sought to canvass the Lord of glory, were in truth but discovering their own distance and alienation from God. So indeed it ever is. Our judgments of others and of all things, above all of what concerns Christ, are the unfailing gauge of our own condition; and equally are we laid bare, whether right or wrong, by our refusal to judge.
In this instance (vs. 23-27) the want of conscience was manifest — nowhere so fatal as in religious guides. “They reasoned within themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.” God was not in their thoughts; and thus all was false and wrong. And if God be not the Object, self is the idol, and what is more debasing? These chief priests were, at the bottom of their hearts, the abject slaves of the people over whose faith, or superstition, they had dominion. “We fear the people.” This at least was true. “And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell.” This was as clearly false, the merest shift of men who preferred to allege their incapacity to judge in their own sphere, rather than own what they knew must convict them of fighting against God. They could tell, but would not, because of the felt consequences. In the hands of Satan they are the main energy of evil and enemy of good, their private interests being always opposed to the real interests of God’s people.
Blind guides by their own acknowledgment Infinitely worse the blindness, which, governed by no motive higher than present advantage and self-importance, overlooked God manifest in the flesh and threw away, as incredulity ever does, riches greater by far than the treasures in Egypt! To such as these the Lord with ineffable dignity declines to render an account of His authority: He had often borne witness to it before. To ask it of Him now, furnished of itself the best proof than an answer was useless. How explain color to men who never saw? to men who would not see, if they could?
But our Lord does more. In the parable of the two sons commanded to work in the vineyard (vss. 28-32) He convicts these religious leaders of being worse before God than the most despised classes in the land. “Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not.” Decent lip-homage forms — “I go, sir: and went not” — such was the religion of those who stood highest in the world’s estimate of that day. Self-will was unbroken and unjudged. As for people who disgraced the decencies of society in riotous, or otherwise disreputable, ways, they were more accessible to the stirring, searching appeals of John. Their very open and unrestrained evil exposed them to his righteous rebuke; and in fact, they, not the respectable devotees, “believed him.”
Such as made a fair show in the flesh were not prepared to withdraw the veil of a fair reputation without, from a godless, self-pleasing course and character within: and as they rejected the counsel of God against themselves at John’s summons, so they would not follow the example of the poor outcasts now repentant. Deaf to the call of righteousness, they were just as hardened against the operations of God’s grace, even where it was most conspicuous. “And ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.” Repentance awakens the sense of relationship to God as the One sinned against. The resolutions of nature begin, and end, in “I go, sir.” The Spirit of God produces the deep and overwhelming conviction that all has been evil against Him, with neither room for, nor desire of, excuse. But it is lost for worldly religion, which, resisting alike God’s testimony and the evidence of conversion in others, sinks into increasing darkness and hostility to God. The ordained Judge of living and dead pronounces these proud, self-complacent men worse than those they deemed the worst. They were no judges now: nay, they were judged.
But next the Lord sets forth, not merely man’s conduct toward God, but God’s dealing with man, and this in a two-fold form: first, in view of human responsibility as under law; and secondly, in view of God’s grace under the kingdom of heaven. The former is developed in the parable of the householder (vss. 33-41), the latter in that of the king’s marriage feast for his son. (Chapter 22:1-14.) Of these let us now look at the first.
“Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: and when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.” (vss. 33, 34.) It is a picture founded on, and filling up the sketch in Isa. 5 — a picture of God’s pains-taking dealings with Israel. “What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?” Then He looked for fruit. All had been settled by His directions, every outward advantage afforded by His goodness and power under Moses, Joshua, &c. There was definite arrangement, abundant blessing, ample protection, and adequate assertion of His rights by the prophets. “And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.” (vs. 35.) There was full patience, too. “Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.” (vs. 36.)
Was there a single possibility that remained, a hope however forlorn? “Last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.” (vs. 37.) Alas! it was but the crowning of their iniquity, and the occasion of bringing out their guilt and hopeless ruin. For “when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him,” (vss. 38, 39.) They recognized the Messiah then, but only so as to provoke their malice and worldly lusts. “Let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.” It was not only lack of fruit, persistent refusal of all the just claims of God, and robbing Him of every due return, but the fullest outbreak of rebellious hatred, when tested by the presence of the Son of God in their midst. Probation is over; the question of man’s state and of efforts to get fruit from His vineyard is at an end. The death of the rejected Messiah has closed this book. Man — the Jew — ought to have made a becoming answer to God for the benefits so lavishly showered on him; but his answer was — the cross.
It is too late to talk of what men should be. Tried by God under the most favorable circumstances, they betrayed and shed the innocent blood; they killed the Heir to seize on His inheritance. Hence judgment is now the only portion man under law has to expect. “When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?” Seared as the poor Jews were, they could not but confess the sad truth: “He will miserably destroy those wicked men.” (vs. 41.) The wickedness of the husbandmen failed to achieve its own selfish end, as surely as it had never rendered fruits meet for Him whose provident care left men without excuse. But the rights of the householder were intact; and if there was still “the lord of the vineyard,” was He indifferent to the accumulated guilt of wronged servants and of His outraged Son? It could not be. He must, themselves being the witnesses, avenge the more summarily, because of His long patience and incomparable love so shamefully spurned and defied. Others would have the vineyard let to them, who should render Him the fruits in their seasons.
Thus the death of Christ is viewed in this parable, not as the groundwork of the counsels of God, but as the climax of man’s sin and the closing scene of his responsibility. Whether law, or prophets, or Christ sought fruit for God, all was vain, not because God’s claim was not righteous, but because man — aye, favored man, with every conceivable help — was incorrigible. In this aspect the rejection of the Messiah had the most solemn meaning; for it demonstrated, beyond appeal, that man, the Jew, was good for nothing if weighed in divine scales. It was not only that he was evil and unrighteous, but he could not endure perfect love and goodness in the person of Christ. Had there been a single particle of divine light or love in men’s hearts, they would have reverenced the Son; but now the full proof stood out, that human nature as such is hopelessly bad; and that the presence of a divine Person, who deigned in love to be of themselves as man, gave only the final opportunity to strike the most malicious and insulting blow at God Himself. In a word, man was now shown, and pronounced, to be LOST. “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.” Christ’s death was the grand turning-point in the ways of God; the moral history of man, in the most important sense, terminates there.
“Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?” (vs. 42.) It was the revealed conduct of those who took the lead in Israel — so revealed in their own scriptures. Marvelous doing on the Lord’s part! — in manifest reversal of such as set themselves up, and were accepted, as acting in His name: yet to be marvelous in Israel’s eyes, when the now-hidden, but exalted, Saviour comes forth, the joy of the people, who shall then welcome, and forever bless, their once-rejected King: for truly His mercy endures forever. Meanwhile His lips utter the sentence of sure rejection from their high estate: “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God [not of heaven, for this they had not] shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (vs. 43.) Nor was this all: for “whosoever shall fall on this stone [Himself in humiliation] shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall [i.e., consequent on His exaltation], it will grind him to powder.” (vs. 44.) Thus, He sets forth the then ensuing stumbles of unbelief; and further, the positive execution of destructive judgment, whether individual or national, Jewish or Gentile, at His appearing in glory. (Compare Dan. 2)
It is in all respects a notable scene, and the Lord, now drawing to the conclusion of His testimony, speaks with piercing decision. So that, spiritually impotent and dull as the chief priests and Pharisees might be, and couched as His words were in parables, the drift and aim were distinctly felt. And yet, whatever their murderous will, they could do nothing till His hour was come; for the people in a measure bowed to His word, and took Him for a prophet. He brought God in presence of their conscience, and their awe feebly answered to His words of coming woe.