BIBLE IN TEN

Bondservant of Christ

The first episodes are from Genesis. Since Feb 2021 we began an exciting daily commentary in the the book of Acts since it is certain that almost all major theological errors within the church arise by a misapplication, or a misuse, of the book of Acts. If the book is taken in its proper light, it is an invaluable tool for understanding what God is doing in the redemptive narrative in human history. If it is taken incorrectly, failed doctrine, and even heretical ideas, will arise (and consistently have arisen) within the church. Since 2024 we have been going through the Gospel of Matthew verse by verse for the glory of God!

  1. 11h ago

    Matthew 21:39

    Saturday, 1 August 2026   So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Matthew 21:39   “And having taken him, they ejected from the vineyard, and they killed.” (CG)   In the previous verse, the agronomists saw the son and plotted to kill him and take his inheritance. Following through with their plot, it next says, “And having taken him, they ejected from the vineyard.”   As has been seen, the vineyard represents the economy (a cultural expression) where God is dealing with man in order to bring about a result. Therefore, this refers to Jesus being handed over to the Gentiles for sentencing. It was essentially an act of excommunication from them by doing this.   Barabbas was under the Gentile’s full authority. The leaders of Israel asked for him to be returned to them and for Jesus to go under their full authority to be crucified. This is what happened. Thus, Jesus’ next words, “and they killed.”   Whether they actually did the killing or not, the guilt of it was theirs –   “When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, ‘I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.’ 25 And all the people answered and said, ‘His blood be on us and on our children.’ 26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.” Matthew 27:24-26   Through the parable, Jesus is already speaking of His death as a certainty. It is certain that the handing of Jesus over to the Gentiles is what is being referred to in being ejected from the vineyard because Mark reverses the two thoughts, saying they killed him and cast him out. This remains true because they did kill Jesus, and they disavowed Him as the Messiah.   As such, being cast out is not a reference to Jesus’ death outside the city walls. It is a reference to being cast out of the cultural expression where God is dealing with man. Instead, Jesus has been a part of the Gentile-led cultural expression since then. Israel has no national dealings with Him to this day.   Life application: Of this verse, Ellicott says –   “Cast him out of the vineyard.—The minor touches of a parable are not always to be pressed in our interpretation of it; but we can hardly help seeing here a latent reference to the facts (1) that our Lord was delivered over to the judgment of the Gentiles; and (2) that He was crucified outside the Holy City, (John 19:20; Hebrews 13:12), which was, in a special sense, as the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts.”   The minor touches of a parable are a part of the parable. If God is giving it to us, every touch of it has meaning. Because Ellicott misunderstood the typology of the vineyard, he incorrectly evaluated the meaning of the vineyard. Jerusalem may be the seat of power in the vineyard, but it is not the vineyard.   Jesus is building on the words of Isaiah. The vineyard is referred to in Isaiah 1:8 and 3:14. From there, Isaiah 5:1-7, a song of His Beloved “regarding His vineyard,” is given. The words of verse 7 say, “For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel.” It is the cultural expression that defines the vineyard.   Jesus’ words remain in accord with this typology. Therefore, the metaphors being used are understandable and should be consistently maintained. When they are, there is no need to worry about the “minor touches” of a parable, as if they are unimportant. They will fit seamlessly with the larger details.   Someday, Israel will again be the cultural expression in which Jesus is proclaimed. The world is being readied for that today. After the rapture, things will go into hyperdrive as the world begins to tear itself apart. However, God’s plan will unfold as the pages of Scripture detail. Israel will be saved, and Jesus will return to them at that time.   Be firm in your convictions concerning Israel. Many are turning from them today, and that is fine in regard to their unholy practices. But it is not fine if we reject what God is doing to bring them back to Himself. We don’t have to like the things they do, but we should pray for God’s will to be done in and through them. And because the pages of Scripture are written, we know it will be.   Lord God, we pray for Your plan of redemption to continue to unfold, knowing that it will because You have spoken. We pray for deliverance at the rapture, safety for Israel through the tribulation, and a great reunion of them with Jesus, whom they have for so long rejected. May these things come about according to Your word. Amen.

  2. 1d ago

    Matthew 21:38

    Friday, 31 July 2026   But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’  Matthew 21:38   “The ‘also, agronomists’, having seen the son, they said in themselves, ‘This, he is, the heir. You come, we should kill him, and we should retain the ‘inheritance, his’.’” (CG)   In the previous verse, Jesus said to the leaders, while still telling them the details of the parable, “Afterward, also, he sent to them the ‘son, his’, saying, ‘They will be in-turned of the ‘son, mine’.”   As noted, the normally recognized translation of the word entrepó in that verse is a positive state, like respect or reverence. This is something that should cause an immediate difficulty for those who know the outcome of the parable and what it is pointing to.   The word signifies an in-turning. This can be positive or negative. The housemaster would be quite naïve to assume that those who had already killed his other servants would act favorably toward his son.    Rather than respecting him, he would fully expect them to be ashamed of him and respond accordingly. Despite that, he sent him anyway. Having done so, it next says, “The ‘also, agronomists’, having seen the son, they said in themselves, ‘This, he is, the heir.’”   Almost all translations here say “But.” As if the response of the laborers is somehow a surprising new detail in the ongoing narrative. The word de is similar to the Hebrew prefix v’, and. Translations will often translate v’ as but, then, moreover, etc., based on a presupposition about what the text is saying.   Those translations may carry the correct intent, or they may not. As such, it is best to leave it as “and.” Likewise, the Greek de means also (as in continuance). Saying “but” is a presupposition that may or may not rightly translate de. In this case, depending on how the previous verse is rendered, it may be incorrect. Saying “also” or “and” gives the right sense. In this case, the housemaster knew they would not respect his son, and that is just what happened.   His appearance is recognized. He is obviously the son of the housemaster. When Jesus came, it was obvious that He was who He claimed to be. They were told explicitly who He was, and He did everything according to Scripture to prove that it was so. The evidence was overwhelming.   To this day, because of the recorded words of Scripture, that remains true. All a person needs to do is to read the Old Testament, compare what it says in the New Testament, and they will agree that the intent of the writers is that Jesus is the promised Messiah. This may not be believed, but it is undeniable that this is the intent. Understanding the parallel, it next says, “You come, we should kill him.”   Understanding the favorable position of the son in relation to the inheritance, they determine to kill him as well. The parable is given by Jesus. Jesus is God incarnate. Because this is true, it would be ridiculous for Jesus to say that the servants would receive Him favorably and then continue the parable with these words.   It would demonstrate a complete inconsistency in the words of the parable, and in the Person who is speaking the words, to make a comparison to God while knowing that the comparison is faulty.   Despite knowing that the son would be rejected, the house master sent his son. With the agronomists deciding to kill him, they next give the reason for doing so, saying, “and we should retain the ‘inheritance, his’.”   Because of the obvious difficulty presented in the previous verse, the Pulpit commentary says of these words –   “It would have been a wild and ignorant scheme of the husbandmen to consider that by murdering the heir they could obtain and hold possession of the vineyard. Here the parable bursts from the allegorical form, and becomes history and prophecy.”   Rather, the whole parable parallels the historical nature of Jesus’ words. God foreknew that when He sent His Son into the nation of Israel while under the Law of Moses, the leaders would kill Him. Despite knowing in advance that it was so, He sent Him anyway.   Life application: This parable, like the other parables given by Jesus, is given to show exacting truths about what God is doing in redemptive history. It would make no sense for Jesus to present a parable that didn’t match what would be borne out in literal history.   If Jesus’ intent in the previous verse was for the laborers to show respect, esteem, or honor to the son, there are other words in the New Testament that would reflect that sentiment.   Instead, He purposefully chose a word that carries a dual sense to reveal the fact that, despite His foreknowledge of what would occur, He still sent Jesus to accomplish the work intended for Him, including being rejected by Israel’s leaders and being crucified.   This reveals the very heart of God for the people of the world. It also reveals the determination of Jesus, who had already said several times that He would be treated shamefully and killed by those in Jerusalem. Despite all that was to come upon Him, He faithfully and resolutely went forward to do what needed to be done to restore us to God.   Lord God, thank You for what You have done for us in the sending of Jesus. The cross of Christ is truly the most precious symbol of love and reconciliation that could ever be. May we only boast in what He has done, never attempting to set aside the grace poured out on us there. Yes, may our hope rest in Jesus alone. Amen.

  3. 2d ago

    Matthew 21:37

    Thursday, 30 July 2026   Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ Matthew 21:37    “Afterward, also, he sent to them the ‘son, his’, saying, ‘They will be in-turned of the ‘son, mine’.’” (CG)   In the previous verse, Jesus continued the parable, noting that the housemaster sent other servants, greater than the first, and they treated those servants the same. With that noted, He next says, “Afterward, also, he sent to them the ‘son, his’.”   The meaning of the words, at least to us, should be plain and obvious, even if the leaders don’t immediately get what Jesus is saying. A succession of servants has been sent to receive the fruit of the vineyard, and they have been treated shamefully.   These represented the messengers of God, the prophets and wise men, looking for fruit in the nation of Israel. Without success, God sent His Son into the nation, “saying, ‘They will be in-turned of the ‘son, mine’.’”   A new word is seen, entrepó. It is derived from en, a fixed position usually translated as “in”, and tropé, a noun signifying “a turning” which is only found in James 1:17. Together, they give the idea of “in a state of turning,” as in turning “one’s attention to in a riveted (‘locked in’) way” (HELPS Word Studies).   The word is used positively when turning in respect, but it is also used when feeling a state of shame. It is seen when there is no respect (as in Luke 18:2 and 18:4). In Hebrews 12:9, almost all translations say something like, “Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect [entrepó]” (NKJV). However, the verb is passive, and the word “them” is not in the text.   Having said that, because of the difficulty, most take this as a passive with a middle force. This is done to justify the reading as “respect.” However, Thayer’s Greek Lexicon notes the word in classical Greek signifies “properly, to turn about, so in passive even in Homer; τινα, properly, to turn one upon himself, i. e. to shame one.” Thus, if the passive is retained, the word would indicate a sense of personal shame, not respect.   The entire paragraph in which Hebrews 12:9 exists is based on chastisement, either by God or by our fathers. As such, there is a sense of shame for wrongdoing, which is exactly what sin is and what it causes. We are chastised, and we are ashamed because of our actions.   Without that shame because of a lack of correction, we would be unashamed and unrestrained. Something common in the world when there is no correction. Hebrews 12:9 continues, We had fathers who were instructors “... and we were in-turned, not much, also, more we will be subject to the ‘Father, the spirits’, and we will live?”   One can see the progression: 1) Earthly fathers discipline, 2) children respond, being in-turned (ashamed), 3) therefore, how much more should we be subject to God in humility? The same passive mood is found in the three synoptic gospels in regard to this parable.    Because translations reject the passive voice in Matthew 21:37, stating it is to be rendered in the middle voice, it then causes scholars a true dilemma. The Pulpit Commentary, reflective of others, says –   “God condescends to speak in human language, as hoping for a good result from this last effort for man’s salvation. He, as it were, puts aside his foreknowledge, and gives scope to man’s free will. Though the sad issue is known to him, he often acts towards men as if he had hope that they would still use the occasion profitably.”   This makes no sense. Why would the housemaster assume or even hope for those in the vineyard to act appropriately? Why would he assume they could be trusted when they have already killed his servants? Such a thought is not in line with what we would consider concerning Jesus’ portrayal of the omnipotent God in a parable.    An in-turning concerning the son is much more fitting to the surrounding context. And it is exactly what happened to Jesus. Thus, Jesus is clearly saying that they will not accept the son. Rather, they will be ashamed of him. And this is what God the Father knew, in advance, concerning His Son. This is perfectly in line with what Jesus told the disciples just a few days before –   “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death, 19 and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify. And the third day He will rise again.” Matthew 20:18, 19   It is a sentiment He had already stated to them twice before as well. The fact is that, despite knowing in advance, that Jesus would not be accepted, God sent His Son to Israel to offer them salvation. This demonstrates the immense love of God for those He created. It also shows the lengths God was willing to go to for those same creatures.   Life application: If the word discussed above is intended to be translated as “respect,” it would demonstrate a naivete in God that does not exist. The only way to get around that is to deal with the words in the way the Pulpit Commentary did. But parables are not merely an inexact representation of what is going on. Nor are they an accommodation for our sensibilities. Rather, they are a type of speaking intended to convey actual meaning, even if veiled.   Jesus was standing before the leaders, having just been hailed as the Messiah. If He is, then He is God’s selected choice for that position. To say, “Maybe the leaders will respect Me” or “My Father thinks the leaders might respect Me” is completely out of the context of the situation in which He is speaking. The leaders were ashamed of Jesus, and He was rejected and crucified, just as God foreknew that He would be.   This analysis fits the surrounding narrative. As such, leaving the translation as literal as possible allows for a resolution to the otherwise nonsensical idea that God would not know that His Son would not be respected.   Lord God, what a wonderful delight it is to come to Your word and consider its contents. Help us to be diligent each day to pick it up and dive into it with enthusiasm and zeal. Thank You for this beautiful treasure that tells us of JESUS! Amen.

  4. 3d ago

    Matthew 21:36

    Wednesday, 29 July 2026   Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them. Matthew 21:36   “Again, he sent other servants, ‘greater, the first’, and they did to them as thus.” (CG)   In the previous verse, Jesus referred to the treatment of the servants sent to the vinedressers. They were scourged, killed, and stoned. Jesus continues the thought, “Again, he sent other servants, ‘greater, the first’.”   Two words should be considered. The first is allos, other. It refers to another of the same kind. These servants are in the same category as those who were previously sent. If they were in a different category, the Greek word heteros would have been used.   The second word is pleión. It signifies a comparative, such as greater in number, greater in quality, more abundant, etc. It is used in the greater-than-quality sense in Matthew, such as righteousness greater than the scribes and Pharisees is needed to enter the kingdom of the heavens (Matthew 5:20). It is used this way when making a comparison to Jonah (Matthew 12:41) and Solomon (Matthew 12:42). Jesus is greater than them.   What seems likely is that if Jesus is making a comparison, it would be to the pre-exilic and post-exilic prophets. The post-exilic prophets would be “greater” than the pre-exilic prophets because they had greater revelation, for example, in having the word of the previous prophets fulfilled.   As such, they stood in a greater position of knowing the reliability of the word of God, both in judgment and in mercy. There is no reason to assume there were only “more” servants sent either to the vinedressers in the parable or to the prophets after the exile. A good example of this is found in Numbers 22:15 –   “And he added yet, Balak, sending commanders greater and being enweighed from these.” (CG).   This “greater than” is certainly seen in the final prophet of the Old Testament –   “Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” Matthew 11:11   In that verse, a different word, megas, signifying greater, is used, providing extra weight to this idea. Israel had been exiled. They should have known better, and yet, even after the exile, the maltreatment continued, as Jesus indicates, “and they did to them as thus.” This is explicitly recorded in Matthew 17:11-13 –   “Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. 12 But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands.’ 13 Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.”   This, therefore, is the likely meaning of Jesus’ words here. The Bible does not explicitly focus on the maltreatment of the post-exilic prophets outside of John, but Jesus’ words are certainly inclusive of him.   Life application: The Old Testament records maltreatment of the prophets at various times. In Jeremiah 26, the prophet Urijah escaped from King Jehoiakim but was captured, brought back, and put to the sword. The priests of the Lord, including Ahimelech, who inquired of the Lord for David, were put to the sword by Saul through the hand of Doeg.   The Spirit of God came upon Zechariah in 2 Chronicles 24, prophesying to the people who rejected His word. King Joash had Zechariah stoned to death. In 1 Kings 19, Elijah exclaimed to the Lord that the children of Israel had “killed Your prophets with the sword.”   These and other such examples show that the words of Jesus are fulfilled just as the parable proclaims. Despite this overwhelming evidence recorded in Scripture, the Expositor’s Greek Testament unfathomably says –   “The husbandmen treat the messengers in the most barbarous and truculent manner: beating, killing, stoning to death; highly improbable in the natural sphere, but another instance in which parables have to violate natural probability in order to describe truly men’s conduct in the spiritual sphere.”   How can it be “highly improbable in the natural sphere” if the Bible explicitly records it is so, including in Jesus’ words of the previous verse? These, along with verse 37, are explicit references to the ill treatment of the Lord’s people.   Understanding this, be careful not to just accept “scholarly” comments as if they are correct and reliable. Jesus’ parables do not “violate natural probability.” Rather, they are given to reveal exactly what has been going on, or what will occur. They are a unique and marvelous way of conveying information that is reliable and targeted.   Lord God, may we never dismiss what is recorded in Your word as unreliable, questionable, or fanciful. Rather, Your word stands as a witness to what You are doing in the world. Thank You for the sure and reliable word You have given us. Amen.

  5. 4d ago

    Matthew 21:35

    Tuesday, 28 July 2026   And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another.  Matthew 21:35   “And having taken, the agronomists, the ‘servants, his’, one, indeed, they scourged. One, also, they killed. One, also, they stoned.” (CG)   In the previous verse, Jesus said in the ongoing parable that at the time of the ripe fruit, the housemaster sent servants to the agronomists that they might receive its fruit. He continues next, saying, “And having taken, the agronomists, the ‘servants, his’, one, indeed, they scourged.”   The word is deró. It literally signifies to flay. By implication, it means to scourge, which causes the skin to be flayed. This is a painful, and at times lethal, form of punishment. Next, He says, “One, also, they killed.”   This is a general word that signifies to kill outright. No particular type of killing is implied, just that the person is killed. Once again, Jesus says, “One, also, they stoned.”   This is another new word, lithoboleó. It is from lithos, a stone, and balló, to throw, cast, etc. Thus, it signifies lapidation. It is a form of punishment recognized in the Law of Moses, and it is noted as being used against offenders in Israel’s history, such as –   “And Joshua said, ‘Why have you troubled us? The Lord will trouble you this day.’ So all Israel stoned him with stones; and they burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones.” Joshua 7:25   Having gone this far into the parable, we can now start to look at the metaphors that Jesus is using. Thus far, we’ve seen the vineyard that God prepared to bear fruit. It is Israel, the nation. The barrier wall is the Law of Moses. That is seen in the word used, phragmos. Paul uses it in Ephesians 2:14 when referring to the law –   “For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation.”   The purgos, or tower, is defined by Strong as specifically being a burgh, an old word signifying an incorporated town. The main building of the town, often a tower-type building, would be representative of it. This would be the tabernacle/temple with the Levitical system of rites and sacrifices. The agronomists are the leaders of the nation, given charge of the nation’s cultural, political, and religious care.   The fruit season is the time expected for there to be religious fruit borne among the people. There was expected to be a fruitful harvest of the people. However, when God sent the prophets in anticipation of such a harvest, they treated them as is seen in this verse now.   Life application: Jesus is using examples of one thing to convey a message about other things. His words, when He is complete, will be so obvious to those who hear that it will say in verse 45, “Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them.”   Everything about His words relies on other things in Scripture to make these points. By understanding the cultural, political, and religious aspects of Israel that are presented in the Bible, the words come into focus, and the meaning of the overall parable can then be rightly understood.   There is usually no reason to go beyond the word itself to find the meaning of the metaphor, although that may be needed at times. For example, the barrier wall explains itself when studying the other uses of the word. Paul explicitly states that the law is that barrier. The full context in Ephesians 2 says –   “For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.” Ephesians 2:14-16   As the Bible has stated this, there is no need to go further to find other symbolism. Pay attention to what is going on as you read. What a treasure we have in God’s wonderful word.   Lord God, open our eyes as we read and study Your word. Illuminate our understanding so that we can know just what You intend for us to see. And, Lord, help us to live according to this word all the days of our lives. Amen.

  6. 5d ago

    Matthew 21:34

    Monday, 27 July 2026   Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit. Matthew 21:34   “When also it neared, the ‘juncture, the fruits’, he sent the ‘servants, his’ to the agronomists to receive the ‘fruits, his’.” (CG)   In the previous verse, Jesus began another parable about a landowner planting a vineyard, getting it ready, leasing it out, and going to a far country. He continues that, saying, “When also it neared, the ‘juncture, the fruits’.”   This is the particular time when the fruits are ready to be harvested. It is at this time that the housemaster would expect a suitable recompense for the land and expenses he had put into the land to make a vineyard productive.   As a harvest season comes once a year, there is no reason to assume that this is a single point Jesus is referring to. The kairos, the opportune season for fruit, is a recurring event throughout the span of time concerning what Jesus is referring to. The rest of the parable will bear this out. As for the parable, Jesus continues, saying, “he sent the ‘servants, his’ to the agronomists.”   Here is a new word, geórgos. It is derived from gé, soil (and by implication, a region, land, etc.), and ergon, work, deed, labor, etc. A word that exactingly matches this would be agronomist.   These are the people working the land as agreed to by the housemaster. The appropriate juncture in time for the fruits to be harvested has come. This means that he should receive a share of the earnings from the vineyard, as Jesus next says, “to receive the ‘fruits, his’.”   As the housemaster is in a far land, the reception of the fruits will have to come by a proxy. This would be the servants appointed for the task noted earlier. They are being sent to the vineyard on his behalf.   Life application: As we continue through the parable, think about what you already know concerning what is being stated in the metaphor. A vineyard represents the economy (a cultural expression) where God is dealing with man in order to bring about a result.   Jesus is speaking to the leaders of Israel. So, consider what He says to them as the parable continues. The parable is not a complicated one. What it conveys should be readily understood, but you may come up with some interesting questions or insights.   This is what we are to do when we read the Bible. File away known metaphors, look for other metaphors of which you are unaware of their meaning, and try to deduce what is being conveyed. And then form pictures of what may be going on in relation to the rest of Scripture.   It is true that anyone can come to erroneous conclusions about what is going on in a story. So be careful not to be dogmatic about things unless you are certain that your conclusions are defensible.   But for thousands of years, people have been reading the word and forming conclusions about what it is conveying. Many have proven correct over time, and yet there is still much more that can be elicited from its pages. So be diligent in thinking through what you are reading.   God is giving us information. The more we study the word, the more precise our understanding of that information will be.   Lord God, Your word is a treasure. It is filled with wonderful stories that can instruct us on many levels and in differing ways as we progress through our lives. So, Lord, help us to stick with reading it and considering it all the days we walk in Your presence. Amen.

  7. 6d ago

    Matthew 21:33

    Sunday, 26 July 2026   “Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country. Matthew 21:33   “Another parable, you hear, ‘‘Man, certain’, he was ‘housemaster, who, he planted – vineyard’, and barrier, it, he circuited, and he dug in it – winepress, and he built – tower, and he leased it to land-workers, and he abroaded.” (CG)   In the previous verse, Jesus finished His words to the leaders of Israel concerning the parable of the two sons. However, He is not finished addressing the leaders. Matthew records His next words, saying, “Another parable, you hear.”   Jesus continues using parables in an effort to get these men to think things through, see their situation, and make a decision concerning what path they will follow. Understanding that, He begins with, “‘Man, certain’, he was ‘housemaster’.”   Once again, Jesus uses a subject that was readily understandable to His hearers, a housemaster. He used this same terminology in Chapter 20 in the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. This is a man who has authority over the house. In this case, Jesus also returns to the vineyard metaphor, saying, “who, he planted –vineyard.”   Typology must remain consistent unless there is a specific change in the intent of what is being conveyed. As such, the same typology is to be seen here as in the previous vineyard parables.   The vineyard represents the economy (a cultural expression) where God is dealing with man in order to bring about a result. In this case, the initiation of that process is being referred to. The man has planted the vineyard. Next, Jesus says, “and barrier, it, he circuited.”   Two new words are seen again. The first is phragmos, an enclosing barrier. It can be a hedge, partition, fence, etc. The four uses of it in the New Testament are all suited to using the word “barrier.” The next new word is peritithémi, to place around, coming from peri, about, and tithémi, to place. In this case, the word circuit will satisfactorily suit the eight New Testament uses.   The vineyard is now protected by a barrier to keep it from outside influences. After this, Jesus says, “and he dug in it – winepress.”   Two more new words are seen. The first is orussó, to burrow in the ground. The word is seen just three times in Matthew and Mark. The word dug satisfies the three uses. The second new word is lenos, a winepress. It is a primary word signifying a trough. Despite this, all of the New Testament uses are used in conjunction with it being a winepress for the crushing of grapes.   Vineyards produce grapes, or cultural expressions. These are mixed together through a mashing process to produce wine. In the Bible, wine then symbolizes the merging together of these expressions into a result. The thing that ought to happen can happen, symbolized by wine. For the vineyard, Jesus next says, “and he built – tower.”   The purgos, tower, is introduced here. Strong notes that in Greek writings from the time of Homer and afterward, it refers to a tower, meaning a fortified edifice which rises to a considerable height. It was used to repel hostile attacks and to enable watchmen to see in every direction. Such a watchtower is intended to watch over the vineyard for protection. With that complete, Jesus next says, “and he leased it to land-workers.”   Again, two new words are seen. The first is ekdidómi, to give forth. In the New Testament, its four uses are all in relation to leasing out land. The second new word is geórgos, literally a land-worker. It is from gé, soil (by extension, it speaks of a region, ground, land, etc.), and ergon, to work.   The landowner retains the vineyard as his own and has set certain people in the vineyard to do what is necessary for maintaining it. With that, Jesus says, “and he abroaded.”   This is another new word, apodémeó, to go abroad, meaning to visit a foreign land. A single word that carries that exact meaning is the coined word abroaded. The housemaster has headed away from the area, leaving these men in charge with the intent of them caring for his property.   Life application: In one verse, eight new words are seen. It is interesting how a new concept or story will often require the introduction of new words in order to make specific points about what is on God’s mind.   With the introduction of these new words, a story is being developed that is intended to convey information for those who are being addressed to consider what Jesus is telling them. But these leaders are not the only intended recipients of His words. They have been recorded in God’s word.   Because this is so, anyone who picks up the word and reads it should consider what is being said. This is true with those who are not being specifically addressed, meaning the church, which has received God’s word. They are also intended to be considered by the nation of Israel, which originally rejected His words.   As the Gentile led church age, we can learn why things occurred as they did, leading to the current dispensation. As the nation of Israel, they can read what Jesus says, compare His words to their history, and see why they wound up in the situation they have been in for so long.   This parable will explain to any and all what needs to be known concerning a particular issue. Having said that, one parable cannot be used to support a final conclusion about the nation of Israel. It is not uncommon for what Jesus conveys in this parable to be used that way, though. But the whole of Scripture must be considered to form our eschatological doctrines.   So be sure not to assume that because of the words of this parable, there is no future for Israel. It will rather present a reason why Israel is not what God is using for His redemptive purposes at this time.   Lord God, help us to carefully evaluate all that Your word says before we come to conclusions about various things. One story or one teaching may suit a particular timeframe, but it may not be the end of the matter concerning what is being conveyed. So help us to consider the broader picture that is presented at all times. Amen.

  8. Jul 25

    Matthew 21:32

    Saturday, 25 July 2026   For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him. Matthew 21:32   “He came, namely, John, to you in ‘way, righteousness,’ and not you believed him. The ‘also taxmen and the prostitutes’, they believed him. You, also, having seen, not you regretted afterward the ‘believe him’.” (CG)   In the previous verse, Jesus told Israel’s leaders that the taxmen and prostitutes would enter the kingdom of God before them. He now explains why it is so, confirming their own response to His question concerning the parable of the two sons, saying, “He came, namely, John.”   This explains why Jesus gave the parable right after their question to Him concerning what right He had or under whose authority He did the things He was doing –   “But Jesus answered and said to them, ‘I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things: 25 The baptism of John—where was it from? From heaven or from men?’” Matthew 21:24, 25   When they couldn’t answer Him, He told them He wouldn’t answer their question. After that, He immediately brought in the parable of the two sons. It is a parable that is based on the life and actions of John. Jesus is answering the question for them that they failed to answer. He does that with His continued words. He notes that John came “to you in ‘way, righteousness’.”   These words tell us that John’s authority came from heaven. Jesus just said that the taxmen and prostitutes would enter the kingdom of God before the leaders. If entry into the kingdom of God is the goal and it is accessed through what John would proclaim, then John’s authority was from God.   Understanding this, Jesus continues by explaining His statement concerning the matter, saying, “and not you believed him.”   If John’s proclamation was from God, and these men did not accept his proclamation, then it stands to reason that they have rejected what God expects of them. On the other hand, Jesus says, “The ‘also taxmen and the prostitutes’, they believed him.”   This explains why these groups would enter the kingdom of God before Israel’s leaders. John’s message was from God, and they accepted that premise. In this, Jesus equates them to the first son who said he would not go into the vineyard but later regretted it. They ignored the Law of Moses, lived unrighteously, and were stiff-necked toward God’s expectations.   However, in John’s coming, they heard the message, and regret for their way of life sank into their minds. In regretting, they would have done what John proclaimed, which is to believe in Jesus, the One he proclaimed to be the Messiah. On the other hand, Jesus says, “You, also, having seen, not you regretted afterward the ‘believe him’.”   Jesus equates the leaders of Israel to the second son. He said he would go into the vineyard, but then he never went. As noted, the vineyard represents the economy (a cultural expression) where God is dealing with man in order to bring about a result. Jesus is what God is now doing. The whole body of the Law and Prophets pointed to Him and His coming.   John proclaimed that Jesus was the Messiah. Therefore, those who once failed to uphold the law regretted their lives and accepted that God was ready to cleanse them through John’s baptism of reconsideration, preparing them for the coming Messiah. The leaders saw this, the ‘believe him’ of the people, and yet they did not regret their walk before the Lord.   They were so filled with self-righteousness that they could not accept that they needed the Messiah’s healing. In stating His words, He has confirmed John’s source of authority, and He has shown that John’s proclamation that Jesus is the Messiah is valid.   As such, He has actually answered the question that He didn’t answer in verse 27. Only, He has done it indirectly. He demonstrates that John’s authority is of God because his words lead to entrance into the kingdom of God or exclude those who reject it. John’s words pointed to Jesus. Therefore, Jesus’ authority is from God.   Jesus has brilliantly provided exactly what these men needed to know in a way that leaves them a choice that must be made concerning Him.   Life application: Time and again, the Bible shows that a rejection of the Son, Jesus, means a rejection of God. For example –   “Then they said to Him, ‘Where is Your Father?’ Jesus answered, ‘You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.’” John 8:19   Man has a choice set before Him. Jesus is the dividing line. Those who reject Jesus reject God. Jesus offers grace, not law. Jesus fulfilled the law. Therefore, to reject Jesus’ fulfillment of the law is, by default, a rejection of Jesus. In rejecting Jesus, the person rejects God.   One cannot piously claim he follows Abba Father if He is trying to merit what Jesus has already accomplished. It is illogical and contradictory. The choice of Jesus starts with believing in the God of the Bible, but this is not the end of the matter.   A rejection of all false gods is the beginning of the pursuit. But the God of the Bible has set before those who come to Him the choice of law versus grace. Jesus is God’s grace. To attempt to find reconciliation apart from Jesus through law observance is a self-condemning act. Come to Jesus, set your pride aside, and receive His grace.   Lord God, Your word says that the path of restoration to You is narrow. As Jesus is the path, then anything apart from Him is a deviation from the path. Help us to clearly explain this to the people of the world. Without Jesus, no one will ever be restored to You. Give us boldness to proclaim this truth. Amen.

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
7 Ratings

About

The first episodes are from Genesis. Since Feb 2021 we began an exciting daily commentary in the the book of Acts since it is certain that almost all major theological errors within the church arise by a misapplication, or a misuse, of the book of Acts. If the book is taken in its proper light, it is an invaluable tool for understanding what God is doing in the redemptive narrative in human history. If it is taken incorrectly, failed doctrine, and even heretical ideas, will arise (and consistently have arisen) within the church. Since 2024 we have been going through the Gospel of Matthew verse by verse for the glory of God!