BIBLE IN TEN

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.

 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.

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.
 

Friday, 24 July 2026
 
Which of the two did the will of his father?”
They said to Him, “The first.”
Jesus said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you. Matthew 21:31
 
“‘Which from the two, He did the ‘determination, the father’?’ They say to him, ‘The first.’ He says to them, the ‘Jesus’, ‘Amen! I say to you that the taxmen and the prostitutes, they precede you into the ‘kingdom, the God’.’” (CG)
 
In the previous verse, Jesus continued the parable, noting that the second son said he would go into the field, but he didn’t go. Jesus next asks the leader a question, “Which from the two, He did the ‘determination, the father’?”
 
The question probably didn’t take long for them to think through. The first son said he wouldn’t go, but later regretted it and went. The second son said he would go, but never went. The answer is obvious, and so, “They say to him, ‘The first.’”
 
The leaders of Israel were able to figure it out. Even if the first was testy in his response and left dad without committing to work, he had a conscience and let it work through until he resolved to go. The second was quick with a positive response, but he never did what he said he would do. Having answered correctly, Matthew next records, “He says to them, the ‘Jesus’, ‘Amen! I say to you that the taxmen and the prostitutes.’”
 
A new word is seen here, porné, a sex worker. Figuratively, it is applied to idolaters. The two categories, taxmen and prostitutes, were about as lowly as one could go in the Israelite society. Understanding that Jesus is speaking to the leaders of Israel, who were rather amazing in their own eyes, the next words must have been very hard for them to receive. These lowly people, Jesus continues, “they precede you into the ‘kingdom, the God.’”
 
Jesus will explain the reason for His words in the next verse, but it is obvious that they are the second son referred to in the parable. They have said they would do something, but their actions belie their words.
 
Life application: Think about how God receives people. The Bible says we are saved by grace through faith. No works are included in the equation. And yet, all over the world, people are doing their very best to earn God’s favor in some manner or another.
 
This is true with the world at large, but the attitude permeates Christianity as well. Much of this is prompted by denominations and churches that mandate certain things from their people, as if those things will make a person right before God.
 
Obviously, money is one of the big items on such a list. Sometimes, the expectation for money is so inculcated into people that there is no need to mention tithing. The RCC has a pretty good handle on their people giving, even though tithing is not a main weekly teaching.
 
If you go into a Baptist church, you might hear tithing mentioned two or three times in every meeting you attend. Some churches make it sound like you will receive God’s favor if you give, pulling verses from Scripture out of their context in order to get their followers to give more. But the implication is that in not giving, you are not doing right.
 
They will use catch phrases, repeating them again and again to assure their followers that giving will mean getting. The great ATM in the sky rewards you with interest every time you give to the church. In the end, such teachings make people feel like they must earn God’s favor.
 
Other groups of people believe they are inherently good as individuals or as a culture. Because of this, God loves them and will swing the door of salvation open to them just because of who they are. Many Jewish people are certain they are in this category and that they have automatic entrance into heaven because of who they are (Jews).
 
Jesus sweeps all of this nonsense away. He alone has accomplished what is necessary to be pleasing to God. You cannot buy your way into it, and you are not inherently special enough for God to make an exception for you. The things you possess, the degrees you might have, the family line you belong to, etc., are not exceptions to God’s plan of salvation.
 
There are those who have received the gospel, accepted Jesus’ payment for their sin, and who will be saved, and there is everyone else. Jesus’ words to the leaders of Israel must have been shocking and offensive to their ears, and this was before He died for their sins. How much more offended must they have been when they were told that they were sinners like all other people, and they would not see heaven without believing the gospel?
 
But this is how it was, how it is, and how it will be. Jesus alone restores fallen man to God. Let us be wise in our choice and then diligent in our proclamation to others. To the glory of God who sent Jesus to bring us back to Himself!
 
Lord God Almighty, thank You for receiving lowly people who come to You by faith. Thank You for allowing us to be included in Your wonderful plan of salvation through simple belief in what You have done. All praise, glory, and honor to You forever and ever. Amen.

Thursday, 23 July 2026
 
Then he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, ‘I go, sir,’ but he did not go.  Matthew 21:30
 
“Having approached, also, the second, he said as thus. The ‘also having answered’, he said, ‘I, lord.’ And not he went.” (CG)
 
In the previous verse, Jesus continued the parable of the two sons, noting that the first said he would not go work in the vineyard. Later, however, he regretted his words and went. Unlike him, Jesus continues with another son, saying, “Having approached, also, the second, he said as thus.”
 
As previously mentioned, the number two signifies division or difference. Sets of two will follow this thought. Those in this parable are no different. The man goes to the second son and says just as he did to the first.
 
With such a curt response from the first, he must have wondered what response he expected to find from the second. In asking, he must have been relieved. Matthew records, “The ‘also having answered’, he said, ‘I, lord.’”
 
The answer is short and direct. It must have filled the father with hope that this son would be a good example of the family values set forth from generations past. The words “I, lord” are a shortened form of “Here I am, lord, send me.” In other words, there is a happy acceptance of the request and the surety that it will be fulfilled. However, Matthew next records, “And not he went.”
 
God has a vineyard, and He expects it to be tended to. One group of people, represented by one of the sons, refuses to participate, but later regrets the thought and heads into the vineyard to work. The other group, represented by the second son, readily accepts the commission, but never follows through with it.
 
Jesus is showing a distinction between these groups before explaining who they are. The explanation will not be withheld for long. First, however, He will have a question for His hearers.
 
Life application: Jesus’ use of the parable is not unlike how an undercover reporter works. At times, they first set up a scenario by inserting themselves into a situation, becoming a part of the ongoing matter being investigated.
 
While involved with their target, they elicit information from them by presenting themselves as one of them, all the while standing separate from them in any real way. As the reporter learns about their true motives and intentions, he carefully records what is going on. This is the true self that is hidden from public sight.
 
Once the heart has been exposed through this investigative manner, the reporter then openly confronts those they are investigating with the proof of what they have been doing. They cannot deny that they have been doing it. There have been recordings, documentation of the events, and maybe witnesses have been brought in at times to verify what has been going on.
 
What was hidden has been exposed. The one exposing the matter has not done anything wrong. He has simply worked within the targeted group to reveal their wrongdoing.
 
Jesus did this with His own life, coming in the form of a man, living among the people, and doing what is right and expected while also exposing the wrong conduct of the nation. At times, He would even show them that is what He was doing by telling them in parables what He had exposed.
 
This was not cunning and deceptive. Rather, the prophets said He would come and reveal such things to the people, providing all the evidence necessary to turn them back to God or to further harden their hearts toward Him. None can say they weren’t warned. To this day, the record stands as recorded in Scripture that He has done this.
 
On the day of judgment, God will be able to present the evidence to all people of His knowledge of all things. There will be no cries that it is unfair or unjust. He is God. We are to do as He determines. When we say we will go, He expects that we will follow through with that. If we say we won’t go, but later regret that, He will know it and act accordingly.
 
We, too, are admonished to bring darkness to light so that people may see and learn from it. Let us do our best to help those around us to evaluate their lives in an attempt to get them to regret how they are living, reconsider their ways, and turn to the living God through Jesus Christ for salvation.
 
“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. 13 But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light.” Ephesians 5:11-13
 
O God, help us to bring light to the dark recesses of this world through the pursuit of the truth. May we be ever on the advance in our knowledge of Your word so that we can lead others to right thinking concerning their need for You. Amen.

Wednesday, 22 July 2026
 
He answered and said, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he regretted it and went. Matthew 21:29
 
“The ‘also answering’, he said, ‘Not, I will.’ Afterward, also, having regretted, he went.” (CG)
 
The previous verse noted that Jesus asked the leaders about a man with two sons. The man went to the first and asked him to go work in the vineyard. The son’s response is next recorded by Matthew, saying, “The ‘also answering’, he said, ‘Not, I will.’”
 
Without hesitation, the son refuses to go. His attitude is reflected in the abrupt, disrespectful response. There wasn’t any excuse-making or trying to work around the refusal with platitudes. He just refused outright.
 
Without jumping ahead, it is apparent that Jesus is making a point about a group of people who are disrespectful and unwilling to do what their “Father” has asked them to do. As seen in the previous verse, the vineyard represents the economy (a cultural expression) where God is dealing with man in order to bring about a result. Despite knowing this, who this son represents is still up in the air. Jesus will define it in the verses ahead, though. As for his negative attitude, Jesus next says, “Afterward, also, having regretted, he went.”
 
A new word is seen here, metamelomai. It is derived from meta, after, and meló, to be of interest to. Specifically, it means “to care afterwards.” Thus, it is translated as remorse or regret. This is not the same as metanoeó, to reconsider (or, as many translations say, repent). That signifies a change of mind. This does not necessarily signify a change of mind, but a state of regret.
 
A person can get caught stealing and regret his actions, but there may be no reconsideration about the path he is on. Regret can lead to reconsideration, but it does not necessarily do so. A person who refuses to wear shoes may regret stepping in an ant pile, but it doesn’t mean he will reconsider having bare feet.
 
This is especially so because he knows that ants will bite a person who wears shoes, often more violently than the barefooted person. because they have time to get into socks before they begin tearing into the poor hapless soul.
 
Life application: Words have importance in Scripture. Different words with similar meaning are used at times, and it must be considered why this is so. Vincent’s Word Studies gives a lengthy analysis of the word metamelomai –
 
“This is a different word from that in Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; μετανοεῖτε [metanoeite], Repent ye. Though it is fairly claimed that the word here implies all that is implied in the other word, the New Testament writers evidently recognize a distinction, since the noun which corresponds to the verb in this passage (μεταμέλεια [metameleia]) is not used at all in the New Testament, and the verb itself only five times; and, in every case except the two in this passage (see Matthew 21:32), with a meaning quite foreign to repentance in the ordinary gospel sense. Thus it is used of Judas, when he brought back the thirty pieces (Matthew 27:3); of Paul's not regretting his letter to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 7:8); and of God (Hebrews 7:21). On the other hand, μετανοέω [metanoeo], repent, used by John and Jesus in their summons to repentance (Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17), occurs thirty-four times, and the noun μετάνοια [metanoia], repentance (Matthew 3:8, Matthew 3:11), twenty-four times, and in every case with reference to that change of heart and life wrought by the Spirit of God, to which remission of sins and salvation are promised. It is not impossible, therefore, that the word in this passage may have been intended to carry a different shade of meaning, now lost to us. Μεταμέλομαι [metamelomai], as its etymology indicates (μετά [meta], after, and μέλω [meló], to be an object of care), implies an after-care, as contrasted with the change of mind denoted by μετάνοια [metanoia]. Not sorrow for moral obliquity and sin against God, but annoyance at the consequences of an act or course of acts, and chagrin at not having known better. ‘It may be simply what our fathers were wont to call hadiwist (had-I-wist, or known better, I should have acted otherwise)’ (Trench). Μεταμέλεια [metameleia] refers chiefly to single acts; μετάνοια [metanoia] denotes the repentance which affects the whole life. Hence the latter is often found in the imperative: Repent ye (Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19); the former never. Paul’s recognition of the distinction (2 Corinthians 7:10) is noteworthy. ‘Godly sorrow worketh repentance (μετάνοιαν [metanoian]) unto salvation,’ a salvation or repentance ‘which bringeth no regret on thinking of it afterwards’ (ἀμεταμέλητον [ametameleton]). There is no occasion for one ever to think better of either his repentance or the salvation in which it issued.”
 
It is good to evaluate such seemingly trivial changes in wording to grasp the nuances of what God is telling us. This is especially so when translations quite often fail to indicate that different words are being used. For example, the KJV says in this verse, “He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.”
 
How can one know that a different word is used if the translators fail to make a distinction between the two? From the analysis of Vincent’s Word Studies, it is obvious that repent incorrectly identifies what is being conveyed. Therefore, it is good that the NKJV cleaned up the translation, making it more in line with the intent of the Greek.
 
Pay attention to these subtleties. If you are unsure about the meaning, go to a reliable Greek lexicon, which can be found online, and do a personal study. You will surely be rewarded with valuable insights when you do.
 
Lord God, thank You for how intricately You have woven Your word together to give us a precise and detailed record of Your workings in human history to bring us back to Yourself. What a treat and a joy it is to study Your precious word. Amen.

Tuesday, 21 July 2026
 
“But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go, work today in my vineyard.’ Matthew 21:28
 
“What, also you, it seems? A man, he had ‘sons, two’, and having approached the first, he said, ‘Son, you go this day. You work in the ‘vineyard, mine’.’” (CG)
 
In the previous verse, Jesus responded to the leaders of Israel, telling them that He would not disclose to them the Source of His authority. Matthew next records Jesus’ words, saying, “What, also, you it seems?”
 
This is a way of eliciting those hearing to stop and consider what will next be said. It can be expected that what will be said will directly challenge the hearer. It may even involve the hearer in a direct or indirect way. As for what He will ask, He begins with, “A man, he had ‘sons, two’.”
 
This is the beginning of a short parable directed to the leaders of Israel. In the Bible, the number two is the number of division or difference. Generally, when two things are noted, there is a contrast and yet a confirmation of a whole.
 
For example, there are two testaments in Scripture, the Old and the New. They contrast, dealing with law vs. grace, but they confirm the whole counsel of God. Likewise, there is day, and there is night. They contrast, and yet they confirm the totality of a day. In this case, a man has two sons, “and having approached the first, he said, ‘Son, you go this day. You work in the ‘vineyard, mine’.’”
 
Jesus again brings in the thought of the vineyard, which was also presented in the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard in Matthew 20:1-16. In Scripture, the vineyard represents the economy (a cultural expression) where God is dealing with man in order to bring about a result. Understanding this, the rest of this short parable will certainly be seen to be in line with that thought.
 
Life application: The Bible deals in metaphor, typology, chiasms, parallelisms, and a seemingly unlimited number of other literary devices. These help to illuminate what is going on within its pages. God has chosen to work in this way because an incredible amount of overlapping information can be packed into the word by using these various tools.
 
Some of that information is intended to come out at certain times in history, before which it was secreted away by Him. This allows us to see that He was in control of the process of redemption all along. With the advent of the printing press, computers, and now AI, information is being unpacked from Scripture that never could have been seen before.
 
Understanding this, it must be remembered that not everything someone thinks he has found in Scripture is actually valid. People often make faulty conclusions about what God is saying. For example, someone may misunderstand a particular metaphor. In thinking it represents one thing, incorrect conclusions will result.
 
Because of this, we need to not just accept someone’s conclusions about a matter at face value, even if it at first seems reasonable. Everything must align with what God intends to show us as we consider what is presented.
 
Another matter to consider is that if something is not recorded in Scripture, it is to be considered highly suspect. Supposed Jewish traditions, for example, are often shoved into Scripture to make an unfounded point about what God is doing.
 
An example of that is the Galilean Wedding Ceremony. If you’re unaware of that myth, just search the internet, and innumerable sites will come up claiming that it explains what Jesus is doing and the circumstances surrounding His return for His bride.
 
The problem with that is that it is a made-up tradition, and it has nothing to do with what the Bible presents. But by shoving that teaching into the Bible, an entire generation of Christians has been misled by a false teaching.
 
Recent teachings on the Shemita, the Red Heifer, and the Year of Jubilee are faulty. They make unfounded claims about those issues, books are written about them, and people are deluded into bad theology.
 
This is true with the timing of Jesus’ birth, where some claim He was born in the springtime. That is based on an untruth about it being too cold in the fields for flocks in the wintertime, as if flocks are shipped to Florida to stay warm during those months.
 
False teachings about the handkerchief that covered Jesus’ face abound. Made-up teachings about Jewish traditions are shoved into the passage to come to erroneous conclusions. Just because you read something on the internet or see it on a YouTube video, don’t accept the teaching until you have checked it out more thoroughly.
 
The Bible and what it is telling us are far too important to be mishandled or misinterpreted. Be careful what you assimilate into your doctrine. There is a world full of incorrect analyses out there. So be wise and discerning as you study the word.
 
Lord God, help us to be responsible with our time, knowing that the more of it we spend in Your word, the less we will waste on teachings that are not in accord with it. We will be able to weed out what is suspect and not be filled with a lot of bad information. Help us in this regard, O God. Amen.
 

Monday, 20 July 2026
 
So they answered Jesus and said, “We do not know.”
And He said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things. Matthew 21:27
 
“And answering, the ‘Jesus’, they said, ‘Not we have known.’ He said to them, also He, ‘Nor I, I tell you in where-such authority these I do.’” (CG)
 
In the previous verse, the leaders of Israel, pondering among themselves, realized that if they said John’s authority was from men, the multitude might come after them. With them being stuck in a hard place concerning Jesus’ question, Matthew next records, “And answering, the ‘Jesus’, they said, ‘Not we have known.’”
 
The leaders of the nation were wholly incapable of making a simple proclamation concerning John as proposed by Jesus in His question to them. The answer was something that was as evident as the nose on a person’s face if John’s role was evaluated from their own Scriptures. But because they lacked any intestinal fortitude at all in relation to standing on the authority of Scripture, while at the same time standing at odds with Jesus’ ministry, they were unwilling to answer His question.
 
Because of that, Matthew next records Jesus’ emphatic response to these leaders, “He said to them, also He, ‘Nor I, I tell you in where-such authority these I do.’”
 
The leaders had a right to question Jesus. However, they did not have a right to a response from Jesus if they could not answer His question to them about John. Because John testified that Jesus was the Messiah, and because they could not validate John’s source of authority through open confession, they no longer had a right to question His authority further.
 
Life application: When a person is summoned to appear before Congress, he is required to show up. The Congress has this authority. Likewise, the leaders of Israel had the authority to question Jesus. However, if those in Congress asked a question about a matter they themselves could not properly answer, it would make no sense for the person being interrogated to have to answer that same question.
 
Jesus worked within the framework of Israel’s laws and culture, never subverting them but using them in a manner that was acceptable to anyone in the society. We possess the same rights in the nations where we live. It is true that some nations deprive their citizens of various rights. Some nations also allow rights that exist to be ignored.
 
There is often nothing that can be done in such circumstances. We just have to live with the unrighteous conduct that is targeted against us. This is what Jesus had to suffer. During His trial before the leaders of Israel, the rights He possessed as a citizen of Israel were denied Him. An internet search immediately pulled up the following: 
 
Procedural and Timing Violations
Nighttime Proceedings: Capital trials were strictly forbidden from being conducted at night. Jesus underwent preliminary trials before Annas and Caiaphas, and a final condemnation before the Sanhedrin, all occurring before dawn. 
Premature Scheduling: Courts were not permitted to convene before the morning sacrifice was offered. All three religious trials were concluded before this ritual took place. 
Holiday Timing: No legal proceedings for capital cases were allowed on the eve of the Sabbath or during holy festivals, such as Passover. Jesus’s trials occurred during this prohibited period. 
Lack of Delay: Jewish law required a night to pass between a death sentence and its execution to allow for reconsideration; Jesus was condemned and executed within hours. 
Judicial and Evidentiary Infractions
Bribery: The acceptance of Judas Iscariot’s thirty pieces of silver constituted a bribe, which invalidates any subsequent legal proceedings under Mosaic Law. 
Self-Incrimination: The accused was not permitted to ask self-incriminating questions. The High Priest directly asked Jesus if He was the Messiah, leading to His own statement being used as the primary evidence for conviction. 
Lack of Defense: The accused was denied the right to counsel or representation. Furthermore, the court refused to allow Jesus to call witnesses in His defense. 
Invalid Indictment: The Sanhedrin originated the charges itself rather than investigating accusations brought by independent witnesses.  Proper procedure required two agreeing witnesses to formulate an indictment publicly.
Sole Judge: The High Priest examined Jesus privately before the full court assembled, violating the rule that capital cases require a full panel and public examination.
Acclamation Verdict: In capital cases, judges were required to vote individually. Jesus was condemned by acclamation (unanimous shout) rather than a formal, recorded vote. 
Jurisdictional Errors
Lack of Authority: The Sanhedrin lacked the jurisdiction to execute capital punishment under Roman rule; only the Roman governor had the authority to impose death sentences. 
Charge Substitution: When brought before Roman authorities, the religious charge of blasphemy was replaced with political charges (treason, subverting the nation, and forbidding taxes) to secure a Roman conviction. (Brave Browser Generated Response)
 
Despite all of this, Jesus submitted to the ruling authorities, knowing that the tortures ahead were necessary to restore us to our heavenly Father. Today, take time to consider the love of God that would prompt Him to do what He did for us. When we face our own times of injustice, if we have the ability to appeal, we should use it.
 
However, it may be that we will have to endure unfair verdicts and unjust treatment as Christians. If we do, let us consider it an honor for the sake of His glorious name –
 
“So they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name.” Acts 5:41
 
Lord God, may we honor the glorious name of Jesus Christ our Lord in all we say and do. If we find we must bear injustice because of our faith in Him, strengthen us through the trial and give us wisdom to proceed in the manner that will most glorify You. Amen.
 

Sunday, 19 July 2026
 
But if we say, ‘From men,’ we fear the multitude, for all count John as a prophet.” Matthew 21:26
 
“If, also, we should say, ‘From men,’ we fear the crowd, all, for, as a prophet, they have the ‘John’.” (CG)
 
In the previous verse, the leaders of Israel responded to Jesus’ question, saying that they didn’t want to admit John’s authority came from heaven because they knew Jesus would then ask why they didn’t believe him. They next say, “If, also, we should say, ‘From men.’”
 
Their next dilemma supposes that John’s authority is not at all from God, but that someone, including John himself, made up his calling out of his head. There is always that possibility. Israel’s recorded history is lined with false prophets. However, there is a problem with making such a claim. They say, “we fear the crowd, all, for, as a prophet, they have the ‘John’.”
 
The masses of the people accepted that John was a prophet. To openly and publicly deny his ministry was of God would cause a riot, and their very lives could be in jeopardy. This is stated explicitly in Luke 20:6, “But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”
 
Because of their fecklessness, they were unable to give Jesus a suitable answer to His question. But this was the condition upon which Jesus promised to respond to their request.
 
Life application: This same line of response can be used against those who try to use the Bible as a tool to shut Christians up or to make invalid arguments concerning a matter. For example, New York currently has a mayor who is opposed to anything godly or biblical. However, we can be certain that at some point, he will cite a verse from the Bible out of its intended context. Maybe he will say, “The Bible says to love one’s neighbor” to justify supporting homosexuality.
 
If he does this, a valid response to him would be, “Ok, we will argue from your premise, which is citing the Bible as an authoritative reason to justify homosexuality. Because you have done so, I need to ask, ‘Do you hold Scripture as authoritative?’”
 
He is now stuck in a conundrum. If he says no (which he would have to do being a Muslim), then the next obvious response to him would be, “Then why are you citing Scripture?” If he says yes, then you have the right to tell him that his verse was taken out of its intended context, and a thorough evaluation of the acceptability of homosexuality can be presented.
 
Either way, he has opened himself up to showing he has no right to cite Scripture in the manner he did. Remember this tactic. Jesus used it to silence those who challenged Him. We, too, have the right, the responsibility, and the duty to do likewise.
 
Lord God, help us to be quick enough in our thinking to accurately defend Your word from those who would misquote it, abuse its precepts, and attempt to silence Your people over issues that have no basis in biblical reality. May we responsibly handle Your word at all times. Amen.