BIBLE IN TEN

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.
 

Saturday, 18 July 2026
 
The baptism of John—where was it from? From heaven or from men?”
And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ Matthew 21:25
 
“The ‘immersion, John’, whence it was? From heaven or from men?” These, also, they deliberated with themselves, saying, ‘If we should say, “From heaven’, He will say to us, ‘Through why, therefore, not you believed him?’” (CG)
 
In the previous verse, it said that Jesus, while speaking to the chief priests and elders, said that He would answer their question if they would first answer His question. Continuing, He now asks that question, beginning with, “The ‘immersion, John’.”
 
His question deals with John the Baptist’s work, meaning his immersing people as described earlier in Matthew. As John’s main mission was to baptize people based on acknowledging wrongdoing and reconsidering their ways, the “immersion, John” encompasses his entire ministry, all of which was as a precursor, preparing the people for the coming of the Messiah. His specific question concerning that is, “whence it was?”
 
In other words, these leaders had just come to Jesus asking by what authority He was doing what He did. Specifically, who gave Him the authority? Jesus, taking the initiative, asks the same basic question concerning John’s call to baptize. Where did that authority come from? He continues, asking, “From heaven or from men?”
 
It is a logical question. These leaders want to know who gave Jesus His authority. But John openly and explicitly testified concerning Jesus, as recorded in John 1. Therefore, before they can rightly understand Jesus’ authority, they would first need to understand and confess John’s source of authority. Was it sent by God, or was it something that he or another man conjured up? Having asked that, it next says of the leaders, “These, also, they deliberated with themselves.”
 
One can see they are in a pickle. If they knew the answer, they would just say it directly, unless there was a reason why they didn’t want to admit it publicly. Therefore, either they don’t know the answer, which means they have no right to know where Jesus’ authority came from, or (because John testified concerning Jesus) they knew and were unwilling to state what they believed to be true.
 
If this were the case, they would again have no right to an answer from Jesus. In their deliberations, they were “saying, ‘If we should say, “From heaven”, He will say to us, “Through why, therefore, not you believed him?”’”
 
This reveals the first part of the reason for the pickle they are in. If John’s commission was from God, then they would have to admit that Jesus was the Messiah. John openly proclaimed Him as the One, testifying that He was the promised Messiah –
 
“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ 31 I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.’32 And John bore witness, saying, ‘I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. 33 I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, “Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” 34 And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.’” John 1:29-34
 
Life application: As noted before, Jesus is not being disrespectful to these leaders. He is making an obvious case that in asking Him for the source of His authority, they would only entrap themselves by His answer when they gave it. He is giving them a chance to back up from whatever their plans were and to think the matter through logically.
 
Would it change their hearts or minds toward Jesus? Probably not. But it would allow Him to continue His ministry until the time appointed by the Father. If they thought about John’s source of authority and decided he was sent by God, maybe some of them would be determined to accept John’s words and believe in Jesus.
 
If they rejected John’s ministry, thus rejecting the One who sent him, then they would never accept Jesus. Instead, they would look for another way to have Him removed. That is what will come about, but before it does, there are a few days of His ministry left. A great deal of important information will be recorded concerning what He will tell the people of Israel.
 
He will detail what will come upon them because of their rejection of Him. Someday, the words He will speak in these final days will be evaluated by them, and they will see that He is, in fact, the Messiah they rejected so long ago. The leader’s failure to provide a response to Jesus at this time has allowed Jesus’ words to continue on as necessary for the people’s future eyes to be opened.
 
Lord God, Israel, and indeed the whole world, have difficult times ahead. As wickedness increases, our time is drawing short. Someday, You will call Your church home, and the world will have to decide where they stand in relation to Jesus. We pray that before that day comes, many eyes will be opened to the truth of His glory. Amen.

Friday, 17 July 2026
 
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: Matthew 21:24
 
“Answering, also, the ‘Jesus’, He said to them, ‘I will entreat you, I also, word one, which if you should say to Me, I also to you, I will say in where-such authority these I do.’” (CG)
 
 In the previous verse, the chief priests and elders of the people confronted Jesus, asking by what authority He was doing the things He was doing. Matthew next records, “Answering, also, the ‘Jesus’, He said to them, ‘I will entreat you, I also, word one.’”
 
As with Hebrew, a “word” signifies more than just a word. It can signify a matter, cause, concern, inquiry, request, and so much more. Following that, English uses it in various ways as well. We might say, “What’s the good word today?” That means more than a word in a Cryptoquip or some other puzzle. We are asking about how a person is doing, what they are up to, etc.
 
In this case, Jesus is asking these leaders to explain something. If they will adequately respond, then He will continue in one way. If they cannot or if they refuse to respond, He will continue in another way. Their response to the word He entreats them to give is thus conditional, as He next says, “which if you should say to Me, I also to you, I will say in where-such authority these I do.”
 
They have asked Jesus under what authority He is acting. The answer might not be difficult to provide, but because Jesus has set a condition, it means they must be careful in how they answer. In such a situation, there will always be some sort of blowback to giving the wrong response. However, if they respond with a proper explanation to His request, they will have their answer from Him.
 
One could say, “That is disobedient to the rulers of the land, something the law does not allow.” Because of this, we can already guess that the question He will ask them will put them on the spot concerning the authority of the law, or it will bear on the source of the law, where it came from, or how it came about.
 
This is a logical assumption because if they cannot sufficiently explain His request, they will actually have no right to know under whose authority Jesus was acting. We can use this same tactic when dealing with judges, politicians, taxing authorities, etc.
 
Where does authority come from? In the case of these leaders, their authority is derived from the Law of Moses. It is what established them as the people of the Lord in a unique way. As such, these men must work within the confines of that body of law to justify their requests, decisions, and mandates.
 
Life application: In the US, the thing that establishes the law of the land is not the Congress, the judicial system, or the president. The US Constitution is the framework that establishes the government and all bodies that operate within the government.
 
This is why the left has attempted to call the Constitution an “organic document,” as if it is alive and changing with time and circumstance. They reject the early writings, which were foundational to understanding the purpose behind the writing and approval of the Constitution.
 
But there is a reason for each thing mandated in the Constitution. To reject the reason behind those mandates empties them of any reasonable purpose. And so, of course, they relish in ignoring that intent. Further, if the constitution is organic and changing, then it is up to whatever government is in power to clip it according to their supposed skill at pruning what is unnecessary.
 
This is how bad people operate. They have no care for the duly established basis for whatever government they live under. Instead, they work against the recognized authority. In the case of the US, the recognized authority for the operation of the government is, first and foremost, the US Constitution. In working against that, they violate the words of Scripture, which were ever on the minds of the Founding Fathers –
 
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” Romans 13:1
 
John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Understanding this, it is evident why those who hate God and what is moral, just, and proper will do their best to undermine the authority and rigid structure of the Constitution.
 
Thank God that there is hope in Christ for a better life beyond this one. Jesus’ question will be one that deals with authority. If they cannot answer His question, they have no right to know what they have asked Him.
 
People ask for answers from God all the time, but unless they are asking through His Mediator, they have no right to an answer. This is the glory of knowing Jesus: we can come to God through Him and ask questions, hoping for a response that will give us wisdom, comfort, and hope. He will answer according to His wisdom. Someday, this will be in a manner we cannot even imagine at this time. Hold fast to Jesus. Great things lie ahead for His redeemed.
 
Lord God, some of us live in godly nations. Some of us live under difficult, ungodly rulers. You have appointed our times and places, and we must live through them as best we can and in accord with Your word. But our hope isn’t in this life. No! Our hope is in the life that is ahead when we are in Your presence under a new, eternal rule in the presence of Jesus. May that day be soon. Amen.
 

Thursday, 16 July 2026
 
Now when He came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, “By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?” Matthew 21:23
 
“And having come, Him, into the temple, they approached Him, teaching, the chief priests and the ‘elders, the people’, saying, ‘In where-such authority these, You do? And who to You, He gave the authority, this?’” (CG)
 
In the previous verse, Jesus told His disciples, “And all, as much – if you should ask in the prayer, believing, you will receive.” With that thought now complete, it next says, “And having come, Him, into the temple.”
 
The very place He was surely referring to in metaphor in the previous verses is where He has come to again. Once in the temple, “they approached Him, teaching.”
 
The temple complex was massive. Being the time of the Passover, there would have been innumerable visitors there to see the sights and to join in conversations, meet old friends, etc. Jesus may have picked a spot and started teaching His disciples. As He talked, others walking by might be curious and start listening as well. Because of this, any number of people might gather around to hear. This is something Jeremiah was instructed to do –
 
“In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came from the Lord, saying, 2 ‘Thus says the Lord: ‘Stand in the court of the Lord’s house, and speak to all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord’s house, all the words that I command you to speak to them. Do not diminish a word. 3 Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may relent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings.’” Jeremiah 26:1-3
 
Jeremiah would have begun speaking, and the people would have flocked to hear what was being proclaimed. Jesus likewise spoke in the temple. When He did, they came, “the chief priests and the ‘elders, the people’.”
 
When Jeremiah spoke, it is noted in Jeremiah 26 that “the priests and the prophets and all the people heard Jeremiah.” Later, the princes of Judah came to judge the matter of Jeremiah’s proclamation in the New Gate of the Lord’s house. Thus, this being challenged by the leaders at Jesus’ time is something that is not without precedent. There is a teaching going on that has come to the attention of the chief priests and the elders. Therefore, they were “saying, ‘In where-such authority these, You do?’”
 
These men had a right to maintain order in the temple complex. Thus, it is a natural question for them to ask. They have heard Jesus’ words and are questioning His authority to say what He was saying. In Jeremiah’s case, he was accused of wrongdoing. Therefore, his response was, “The Lord sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city with all the words that you have heard” (Jeremiah 26:12). As for those confronting Jesus, they continue, saying, “And who to You, He gave the authority, this?”
 
Again, it is a natural question to ask. If Jesus is at the temple teaching, He must feel He had a right or commission to do so. His response to them will show, however, that they are doing more than just trying to maintain order. From what He says, it can be deduced that they already knew Him and His teachings, just as the people would have known Jeremiah claimed to be a prophet of the Lord.
 
Therefore, Jesus’ answer will be one that challenges their own positions on matters that had transpired in the recent past. What He asks them will be intended to get them to consider their stand concerning those things. There is nothing disrespectful in His words. Rather, they are intended to probe them in an attempt to reveal their state before the Lord as His representatives in the religious and civil lives of the people.
 
Life application: When Jeremiah spoke to the princes and people, he plainly told them why he was speaking as he did. After doing so, he said –
 
“Now therefore, amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God; then the Lord will relent concerning the doom that He has pronounced against you. 14 As for me, here I am, in your hand; do with me as seems good and proper to you. 15 But know for certain that if you put me to death, you will surely bring innocent blood on yourselves, on this city, and on its inhabitants; for truly the Lord has sent me to you to speak all these words in your hearing.” Jeremiah 26:13-15
 
His job was to proclaim the word of the Lord. Jesus, the Lord, spoke to the people about matters that He was sent by the Father to convey to the people. In hearing the word of the Lord, choices then have to be made. The main thing we must determine is, “Is this the word of the Lord or a doctrine in accordance with it?”
 
At Jeremiah’s time, there were false prophets galore. The people had to listen to what was said, determine who was telling the truth, and then go forward from that point. The same was true in Jesus’ time. Now, these things are recorded for us to read and consider. Is the Bible the word of God? If it is, then it should be listened to.
 
God doesn’t force us to accept His word. He has put it out for people to read and consider. Other religions have their own supposed sacred texts as well. Within the greater umbrella of Christian faith, there are writings that some claim are supposedly on the same level of authority as the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church has teachings that they hold to as preeminent in their theology, which are separate from the Bible.
 
The Mormons have a third “testament” that they claim is inspired. The Seventh-Day Adventists have the supposedly inspired writings of Ellen G. White. Many people accept extra-biblical writings, such as the Apocrypha, the Book of Enoch, etc. It is our responsibility to consider God, if He has given us His word, and what that word is or is not. 
 
This sacred task has been given to humanity, and we should carefully consider what we will believe and why. Jesus is being asked about His authority. If God gave Him authority to convey God’s word, we should be willing to listen. These things are important. Let us pay heed to the word that God has given for us to know Him, treating it with respect and care.
 
Lord God, we are humans, limited by time and the ability to obtain and remember knowledge. We desire to honor You in the way that You expect of us. Therefore, lead us to Yourself through Your word. May we not be misdirected from this task all our days. Help us in this, O God. Amen.
 

Wednesday, 15 July 2026
 
And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.” Matthew 21:22
 
“And all, as much – if you should ask in the prayer, believing, you will receive.” (CG)
 
In the previous verse, it was noted to the disciples by Jesus that if they had faith without doubt, they could do what was done to the fig tree and have a mountain removed and cast into the sea. Jesus next says, “And all, as much – if you should ask in the prayer.”
 
The definite article before prayer limits this statement to something particular. If it said, “And all, as much – if you should ask in prayer...” it would be an open promise for any and every prayer. But that is not the case. As such, the surrounding context needs to be considered. Jesus just gave two examples of what “the prayer” consisted of –
 
“Answering, also, the ‘Jesus’, He said to them, ‘Amen, I say to you, if you should have faith, and not you should waver, not only the ‘the fig tree’ you will do, but and-if the ‘mountain, this’, you should say, ‘You be borne, and you be cast into the sea, it will become.’”
 
As discussed in that commentary, the two thoughts, meaning the fig and the mountain, equate to overcoming the law. The first was the ending of the Levitical system of the temple sacrifices as the spiritual connection to God (the fig).
 
The second, the mountain (explained as Horeb), equated to the ending of the law in one’s life. Understanding this, “the prayer” is one of trusting in something new to bring restoration between the pray-er and God. Therefore, Jesus continues, “believing, you will receive.” This is beautifully reflected in Hebrews 4 –
 
“Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. 3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said:‘So I swore in My wrath,“They shall not enter My rest,”’” Hebrews 4:1-3
 
Prayer cannot be actualized into reality without faith. Without it, the words, “believing, you will receive,” equate to, “lacking faith, you will not receive.”
 
Those of Israel who stand with one foot in the grace camp and one foot in the law camp have not believed. They are trying to merit God’s favor through two conflicting camps. In essence, “Well, if Jesus doesn’t work out, I always have the law to fall back on.” This is why Hebrews 6:6 says –
 
“if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.”
 
One cannot “fall back” on the law. If he does, there is no suitable sacrifice under that obsolete economy to save him. Jesus’ sacrifice is a one-time-and-for-all-time sacrifice. To go back to the law is to recrucify Him because He would have to die again for the law to be fulfilled in that person’s life. Such will never be the case.
 
Life application: Jesus is speaking to people who are under the law. The law had not yet ended through His sacrificial death. He is doing what the prophets of old did by using metaphor to convey truths to the people.
 
That metaphor is then to be properly understood when it is fulfilled in Jesus’ completed work. This is how the lesson of the fig tree is to be considered and understood. The verse being evaluated today has been so misapplied and abused by people that it means (in their thinking) that anybody with faith should be able to do anything or get anything they want.
 
“I can, by faith, receive a big bank account.” Actually, you probably should get to work and start saving for that.
“I can overcome any obstacle, including this. I claim this problem will go away.” Well, maybe the Lord sent that problem to chastise you and get you to learn a lesson, just as the Bible says will happen.
“I claim this promotion.” What if there are two Christians vying for it and they both “claim” it?
 
Do you see the fallacy in thinking regarding such things? Jesus did not give us an unlimited spending credit card for prosperity and fulfilling selfish desires. He gave His disciples a very specific promise based on a truth that explains the final thought. Without maintaining the context, what is said has no meaning at all. They are just words without any connection to reality.
 
Be circumspect in your understanding of what is happening in Scripture. It is not about us individually, even if it affects us as individuals. It is about what God is doing to restore people to Himself. The audience in this case is the Hebrew people, under the law, who need to be brought out from that unproductive economy and into a glorious new one. Keep the context!
 
Glorious Lord God, thank You for providing everything necessary for us to be saved through the work of Jesus Christ. Through faith in the gospel, we have full, final, finished, and forever release from the need for us to do anything except believe to be brought back to You. Thank You that it is so. Amen.

Tuesday, 14 July 2026
 
So Jesus answered and said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountain, ‘Be removed and be cast into the sea,’ it will be done. Matthew 21:21
 
“Answering, also, the ‘Jesus’, He said to them, ‘Amen, I say to you, if you should have faith, and not you should waver, not only the ‘the fig tree’ you will do, but and-if the ‘mountain, this’, you should say, ‘You be borne, and you be cast into the sea’, it will become.’” (CG)
 
In the previous verse, the disciples marveled and wanted to know how the fig tree desiccated so quickly. With that, Matthew next records, “Answering, also, the ‘Jesus’, He said to them, ‘Amen.’”
 
When Jesus begins a thought with Amen, He intends for His hearers to pay close attention. The matter is something that they should more than just listen to, but consider it carefully. In this case, He next says, “I say to you, if you should have faith, and not you should waver.”
 
The author of Hebrews defines what faith is –
 
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1
 
Faith is something that requires confidence that something will take place. A person may say, “I have faith that you will pay me back.” It is unknown if that will actually take place, but because of past performance, a trust in the individual, the surety of consequences for failure to comply, or some other reason, the person trusts that the debt will be repaid.
 
Wavering is a state of letting one’s faith weaken for any multitude of reasons. We may have faith that a wedding will take place, but because of ten thousand little things creeping up, we may start to question if there aren’t forces behind the scenes working to ensure the wedding never takes place. In such a case, we can double down and say, “I am confident of this outcome.” In the case of Jesus’ words, He continues, saying, “not only the ‘the fig tree’ you will do.”
 
In other words, if His disciples have faith that they can do what Jesus did to the fig tree, it will come to pass. If the withering of the fig tree was a metaphor of the ending of the Levitical system of sacrifices under the law, and that a new and better connection to God through Jesus’ work has been established, then if they believe in Jesus’ fulfillment of the law, they will have that new and better connection to God.
 
There is no reason to assume that Jesus is speaking of literally killing a fig tree to make a point. It is the metaphor that matters. Jesus’ work is what ends the law in the lives of His disciples. Jesus’ work is what allows full, final, and forever access to God through the better connection He establishes. From there, He next says, “but and-if the ‘mountain, this’, you should say, ‘You be borne, and you be cast into the sea’, it will become.”
 
A new word is seen here, the conditional particle, kan, and-if. It is derived from kai, and, and ean, if. Combining the two results in kan, “and-if.” As for the conditional words, there is no reason to assume Jesus is speaking about a literal mountain, as if the disciples had the authority to have mountains physically moved at their command.
 
Jesus was heading to Jerusalem. The place where the Temple Mount was. For all we know, He may have pointed at the city, or even the temple visible within the city, and said His words. The term “mountain of the temple,” or literally “mountain, the house,” is something that would have been known to them from Micah 3:12. Thus, this is not a stretch at all. Whatever took place, He is essentially stating that the mountain of the law, described by Paul in Galatians 4, is what He is referring to –
 
“Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.” Galatians 4:21-26
 
The Law was given at Horeb. It is what Jerusalem and the temple worship were all about. Jesus just made a metaphor using the fig tree to make a point concerning a spiritual connection to God. There is no reason to assume He is not continuing the use of metaphor. If one believes in the full, final, finished, and forever all-sufficient work of Jesus Christ, the “mountain” of the law will be cast into the sea (a picture of chaos).
 
The law is an obstacle to a relationship with God, not a means of a right relationship with Him, except as it is fulfilled in Jesus’ work. As such, Jesus is giving advanced instruction in what He was about to accomplish and how it would eventually be realized through the use of metaphor.
 
Life application: By taking verses such as Matthew 21:21 out of their intended context, people make many wholly inappropriate claims concerning spiritual matters, as if they have the authority to do even the most unrealistic things.
 
At the same time, others arrogantly hint that those around them are lacking faith because they haven’t claimed their way into health, prosperity, etc. This type of theology is wholly inappropriate and demonstrates a shallow understanding of the word of God.
 
Catchy verses are pulled out of their intended context and thrown around like talismans. If the entire Bible is read while keeping passages in their intended dispensational context, people would find out that those being butchered in Africa are just as loved and tended to as those who have million-dollar houses, fancy cars, and who take long vacations.
 
God’s love for a person does not necessarily transfer to wealth, health, and overall prosperity. His love for His people is based on their faith in Him. The Bible promises a future where all trials, sadness, and difficulties will be behind us. But this is not a promise for our lives at this time. If those things come about, that is great. We can thank God for the abundance.
 
But it is better to live in poverty with strong faith in Jesus than to live in wealth without it. Fix your eyes, hearts, and affections on Him regardless of what you are going through. Have faith in His promises at all times. This is what will please the Lord more than anything else.
 
Lord God, help us to be people of faith, not just when things are going well, but at all times. May our lives and actions be honoring of You while we walk in faith, anxiously anticipating what lies ahead. To Your glory, we pray. Amen.

Monday, 13 July 2026
 
And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, “How did the fig tree wither away so soon?” Matthew 21:20
 
“And having seen, the disciples, they wondered, saying, ‘How, straightaway, it desiccated, the fig tree?’” (CG)
 
In the previous verse, Jesus cursed the fig tree, telling it that no fruit would grow on it again. Matthew recorded that the fig desiccated straightaway. As noted, Mark’s gospel gives more detailed information on the event. Unfortunately, the Pulpit Commentary says, “St. Mark's more accurate account.”
 
There is a world of difference between a “more detailed account” and a “more accurate account.” There is nothing inaccurate about Matthew’s record. The word translated as “straightaway” means that it took place forthwith. For example, in Acts 16:33 it says, “And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately [parachréma] he and all his family were baptized.”
 
The event happened straightaway, but it wasn’t like they were standing there and were suddenly baptized. It was the next event in their lives that took place. This is just what was the case in the life of the fig. It went from being alive and vibrant with leaves to being desiccated and dead. Understanding there is nothing inaccurate about Matthew’s words, he next records, “And having seen, the disciples, they wondered.”
 
In Mark 11:21, it says, “And Peter, remembering, said to Him, ‘Rabbi, look! The fig tree which You cursed has withered away.’” Of this, Barnes says, “Peter said this, Mark 11:21 Matthew means only to say that this was said to him; Mark tells us which one of them said it.”
 
Barnes equates Matthew’s words to Peter’s exclamation. That is incorrect. Peter noticed it and made his exclamation, but all of the disciples, once they noticed the tree, would have wondered at the matter, just as Matthew records.
 
Again, there is no contradiction, just more detailed information. Once this was noticed by all of them, they were “saying, ‘How, straightaway, it desiccated, the fig tree?’”
 
Even if someone put poison around a tree, it may die immediately, but it would take time for it to desiccate. In the case of this fig, it died and desiccated overnight. By the morning, as they passed it again, it was completely desiccated.
 
This is what happened to the Law of Moses and the effectiveness of the temple to bring restoration between God and men. Jesus’ passion began in the morning. By the afternoon, He had died on the cross. At that time, Matthew records –
 
“Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split.” Matthew 27:51
 
Jesus was tried, sentenced, and crucified. From there, the next thing to take place, meaning straightaway, was that the law was ended. Free, full, and forever access to God was granted, and the temporary and cumbersome connection to God that came through the Law of Moses was ended. The metaphor of the fig tree was realized in its fullness just a few days after Jesus gave it.
 
Life application: As you can see, commentaries are tools for us to learn information, but they are written down by fallible humans. No one is without errors in thinking. All of us are subject to biases, presuppositions, and cognitive dissonance.
 
When reading commentaries on the Bible, be careful to sift through them, asking questions as you go. Questions like, “How did they come to this conclusion?”, “Why did they say that?”, “Why did they say, ‘more accurate?’”, etc., are important questions to ask when we read something that doesn’t sound right.
 
Such questions will cause us to slow down and think through what we might otherwise have taken for granted. Once we do that, we form a brain squiggle that acknowledges that their commentary is correct. From that point on, it becomes more difficult to overwrite that bad information.
 
So don’t assimilate thoughts without thinking them through. You will benefit in your study by going slowly, carefully, and methodically through whatever you are reading. God’s word is important. We should not make unfounded assumptions, nor assimilate others’ unfounded assumptions concerning it.
 
Lord God, may our time in Your word be methodical, precise, and carefully considered at all times. It is far too precious not to spend it wanting to know Your intent for us. It is a great, wonderful, and precious word that tells us of our Lord and Savior, Jesus. Amen.
 

Sunday, 12 July 2026
 
And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, “Let no fruit grow on you ever again.” Immediately the fig tree withered away. Matthew 21:19
 
“And having seen ‘fig tree, one’ upon the road, He came upon it, and nothing, He found in it, if not leaves only. And He says to it, ‘Not more from you fruit it should be, to the age.’ And it desiccated straightaway, the fig tree.” (CG)
 
In the previous verse, Jesus returned to the city early. As He went, He was hungry. Matthew continues with, “And having seen ‘fig tree, one’ upon the road.”
 
A new word is seen, suké, fig tree. It is derived from sukon, a fig. In the Garden of Eden, this is the third tree mentioned by name. The first was the tree of life. The next was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The third is implicitly mentioned in the fig leaves referred to in Genesis 3:7. If there are fig leaves, then there is a fig tree to put forth the leaves. Of this fig tree, “He came upon it, and nothing, He found in it, if not leaves only.”
 
Another new word is seen, phullon, a sprout, thus a leaf. The tree had sprouted leaves. Thus, it was a show of liveliness and health. However, that is all there was. No fruit was evident on it. Mark adds the words “the ‘for season, not it was, figs.’”
 
The earliest types of figs will appear before the spring leaves unfurl, around the Passover. At this time, they are unripe early figs known as taksh. That serves as an early indicator of the expected harvest. The first ripe figs are generally around May or June, with the main harvest being August to September.
 
Jesus went to the tree because it said in the previous verse that He was hungry. Even if He knew that the first figs would not be ready, He could at least expect to see fruit on the tree, expecting there to be some if it had leaves. This is human nature. We may be hungry for something and just curiously go to the tree to see what it is doing, even if we know that the tree is not yet ready with ripe fruit.
 
In the case of this fig, because it had leaves, it would be expected to have fruit (as noted, the fruit will appear before the leaves). With no figs on it, this was an unproductive fruit tree – flashy with leaves but lacking any hope for a harvest. As such, Matthew next says, “And He says to it, ‘Not more from you fruit it should be, to the age.’”
 
Another new word is seen, méketi, no more. It is from the negative particle mé, not, never, etc., and eti, yet, more, still, etc. Jesus’ words mean that the fig tree, which has failed to bear fruit, will continue to do so “to the age,” meaning henceforth. There will never again be a time when this fig tree bears fruit. With that stated by Him, it next says, “And it desiccated straightaway, the fig tree.”
 
And yet, another new word is seen, parachréma, instantly or immediately. Mark’s gospel further explains what happened. Jesus spoke the words to the tree. After that, Jesus went to Jerusalem and turned over the money tables, etc., and then He went out of the city. At that time, it says, “Now in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.”
 
In other words, the same condensed nature of Matthew’s gospel that was seen in the previous verses is seen again here. Thus, the word “straightaway” means “within 24 hours.” There is no contradiction, just more detail concerning the matter.
 
As has been explained in previous commentaries, the fig is a symbol of a connection to God or its lack thereof. In the Garden of Eden, after the fall took place, it said, “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.”
 
There was a showy presentation of fig leaves, but there was no fruit. The connection to God had been severed. The fig that Jesus has cursed is a metaphor of where He was going, meaning to the temple in Jerusalem. It was a place that was showy and seemingly alive, but it was dead, having never brought a single place to the life it promised –
 
“And you will guard My enactments and My verdicts, which he will do them, the man, and he will live in them. I, Yehovah.” Leviticus 18:5 (CG)
 
The temple, which is the place where the Law of Moses is centralized for the people of Israel, never bore fruit to life eternal. Therefore, in cursing the tree, a metaphor for the officiating of the Law of Moses, He took away its right to bear life. Rather, it bore death, and it would continue to bear death, including the death of Jesus.
 
Only with the introduction of the New Covenant would the fruit of life and a restored connection to God be realized. The Law of Moses had run its course as an attempt to restore life. Its time had come to an end. One can clearly see that those who now attempt to obtain life through the law are performing a self-condemning act.
 
The temple that will be rebuilt for law observance will be the Antichrist’s temple. It is wholly opposed to what God in Christ has done. People should mourn over what lies ahead, not excitedly rejoice in it.
 
Life application: As noted in the commentary on verse 17, there are quite a few possibilities for the meaning of Bethany. Now that the living metaphor has been explained, we can guess at the likely meaning of the name. It would be House of Figs, based on the Hebrew təenah.
 
It would thus be the “House of the connection to God.” Jesus was there, went to the temple, on the way there, He saw the fig tree, the expected symbol of a connection to God. However, it had no fruit, just as the connection to God was lacking in the Law of Moses and the temple in which the rites of the law were officiated.
 
Hence, Jesus cursed the fig as a metaphor of the ending of the law. Henceforth (to the age), the temple and the law would never again be acceptable to God as an expected bearer of fruit. For fourteen hundred and fifty years, it had failed. Something new was coming, something glorious.
 
Stick with the New Covenant. In pursuing the law, you will only find death and continued separation from God.
 
Lord God, may we be responsible Christians who trust solely in the merits of Jesus Christ our Lord for our interactions with You. May we never assume that we can merit Your favor apart from Him. To Your glory, we pray. Amen.