BIBLE IN TEN

Tuesday, 4 August 2026
 
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:‘The stone which the builders rejectedHas become the chief cornerstone.This was the Lord’s doing,And it is marvelous in our eyes’?”  Matthew 21:42
 
“He says to them, the ‘Jesus’,
 
‘Never you read in the Scriptures?“Stone – which they rejected, those building – this,It has become to ‘head, corner’.From ‘Lord’, it was, this,And it is marvelous in ‘eyes, ours’.”’” (CG).
 
In the previous verse, the response to Jesus concerning what the housemaster would do was that he would come and destroy them and lease his vineyard out to others willing to render him the fruits when they were ready. Next, it says, “He says to them, the ‘Jesus’.”
 
Mark and Luke seemed to differ in who the speaker was in the previous verse, but all three agree that Jesus is the One who says the next words, beginning with, “Never you read in the Scriptures.”
 
Jesus returns to Scripture to make His point. He cites Psalm 118:22. Depending on who the author of the Psalm is, it would have been between four hundred and a thousand years old at the time of Jesus.
 
What is implied in His quoting this psalm is that He understood that the Scriptures were both reliable and authoritative. Further, there was a context to the words that was to be understood at the time when they would be fulfilled.
 
Various interpretations of what the psalm was referring to were made, such as that it references David or Israel the nation. However, the context within the psalm clearly identifies it as referring to the Messiah who would be recognized by His rejection at some point.
 
As for the words, they come from the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Jesus begins the citation with, “‘Stone – which they rejected, those building – this’.”
 
The metaphor of a stone suddenly comes forward. But it is not inconsistent. The last reference in the parable was that of the son. Jesus is saying that the son in the parable is the Stone in the psalm.
 
Jesus implies here that because the psalm speaks of the Stone, which is the son in the parable, He is the fulfillment of the Psalm. He further implies that He is the Son of the Housemaster as conveyed in the parable. Everything is being tied together, and the leaders would fully understand His intent. Of this rejected Stone, He continues with, “It has become to ‘head, corner’.”
 
A stone was looked over in the quarry for shape, size, beauty, etc. When it was considered, those doing the building rejected it. Jesus is telling them, in advance, that He would be rejected by them, just as the son was rejected by the vinedressers.
 
In Jesus’ case, Isaiah 53 says that the Messiah would have no form or comeliness and that there was no beauty in Him that made Him desirable. He was overlooked as someone unfit for ruling, or so they thought. However, the One who was rejected became the very foundation stone of the temple. Jesus continues, “From ‘Lord’, it was, this.”
 
This was God’s design all along. He determined when His Messiah would come, what He would look like, where He would grow up, etc. Every aspect of who Jesus is was determined by the Lord to perfectly fit His designs. Once this was understood by those seeing it, Jesus finishes with, “And it is marvelous in ‘eyes, ours’.”
 
Those who see who Jesus is and how God orchestrated all things in relation to His being the Messiah, would consider it marvelous. Two thousand years later, this continues to be true. Each person who comes to God by seeing what He has done through Jesus finds it wondrous.
 
Someday, even those who rejected Jesus will stand before God and consider His ways. They too will find it wondrous, but for them, it will be too late.
 
Life application: Consider the love of God in what He has done in the giving of Jesus. If God wanted to rule over the people from the start with a brutal fist and a demanding hand, He could have done so. Instead, He slowly and methodically laid forth the plan of redemption both in literal history and in typology found in stories from that same history.
 
That way, He could lead the world to Jesus while showing what He had done and would do in Jesus’ coming, and even till the end of the age. Throughout it all, the story continuously brings us back to God’s care for those who demonstrate faith in who He is and what He has done and will do.
 
For us, that faith is in the giving of His Son. He was willing to send Jesus to bring us back to Himself, and all He asks of us is to believe. What a great, glorious, and loving God to do what He has done.
 
Lord God, thank You for Your tender mercies which You have lavished upon us. Thank You that while there was enmity, You came forward to offer peace. We love You and praise You for Your tender mercies. Amen.
 

Monday, 3 August 2026
 
They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.” Matthew 21:41
 
“They say to Him, ‘Worthless! Badly, he will destroy them, and the vineyard, he will lease to other farmers who, they will give him the fruits in the ‘junctures, theirs’.” (CG).
 
In the previous verse, Jesus asked Israel’s leaders what the housemaster would do when he comes to his vineyard. In response, “They say to Him, ‘Worthless! Badly, he will destroy them.’”
 
If the response is from the leaders, they have admitted with their own mouths that such treatment is from worthless people who deserve to be destroyed. The reason for the “if” will be explained later. As for the continued words, they say, “and the vineyard, he will lease to other farmers.”
 
The leaders of Israel were the ones being spoken of. They rejected Christ, failed their people, and were set for a bad end. However, the vineyard won’t simply be left unattended. God is working in the world for the redemption of man.
 
The economy in which this takes place will be a new cultural setting. In fact, it is one that spans the entire world of cultures. Anywhere the gospel is believed and churches are formed, the leaders of those churches bear the responsibility for tending to God’s vineyard. As for those responding to Jesus, they say these new vinedressers will be those “who, they will give him the fruits in the ‘junctures, theirs’.”
 
When the fruits are ready, they will be offered to God accordingly. This will come about in the various ways people are brought to saving faith, discipled in doctrine, reassured through preaching, raised up to become ministers, etc. As for the words of this verse, it appears that the response to Jesus is from the leaders. However, in Mark and Luke, the answer appears to be given by Jesus –
 
“Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vinedressers, and give the vineyard to others.” Mark 12:9
 
“Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others.”And when they heard it they said, “Certainly not!” Luke 20:15, 16
 
So how can this be reconciled? There are at least a couple of possibilities. One is that the leaders, in fact, spoke to Jesus as is recorded in Matthew. After that, Jesus then responded with their own words in a manner that made them understand He was referring to them, such as “He WILL come and destroy those vinedressers...” while looking directly at them.
 
From there, they responded, “Certainly not!” as is recorded in Luke, having realized Jesus was speaking of them. A second option is that the word “they” in Matthew 21:41 is not the leaders, but the other people who were listening. From there, the leaders called out, “Certainly not!”
 
Either way, there is no reason to assume there is any contradiction.
 
Life application: God was evaluating the leaders of Israel and held them accountable for their failure to acknowledge Christ in His coming. They were the stewards of the law and should have known perfectly well that Jesus was the Christ. Because of their rejection of Him, they were judged accordingly.
 
As this is true, there is no reason to assume God will be any less ready to judge those leaders in the church who mislead their people. It has become almost fashionable in liberal churches to deny the resurrection, to make sick claims about Jesus that have no basis in Scripture, etc.
 
Such people will not fare well when they stand before the Lord to give an account of their lives. Similarly, false prophets and teachers like Joseph Smith and Ellen G. White, among a host of others, will suffer the consequences of their false teachings.
 
Even if not teachers, each of us should tread carefully when we conduct our affairs before God, treating His name with great honor, exalting Him for His goodness. We will be evaluated on the lives we live, so be sure to keep in mind that you are always in the presence of the Creator.
 
Lord God, we thank You for the salvation You have provided us in Christ. Help us to remember that You are always present and that we should conduct our lives before You in holiness all our days. May it be so to Your glory. Amen.
 

 Sunday, 2 August 2026
 
“Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?” Matthew 21:40
 
“When, therefore, he should come, the ‘lord, the vineyard’, what he will do to the agronomists, to those?” (CG).
 
In the previous verse, Jesus said that the agronomists took the son, cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. He now questions Israel’s leaders concerning the matter, beginning with, “When, therefore, he should come, the ‘lord, the vineyard’.”
 
This is the time of judgment that will come upon Israel for their having crucified the Son of God. Paul explains this in 1 Thessalonians –
 
“For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. 14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, 16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.” 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16
 
For Israel, there was a certain amount of sin that the Jews could expect to be dismissed by God through His grace and mercy, but there is a point at which that amount would be filled up, and beyond which only destruction could be the result. This same concept is true with any given nation, church, or person. There is a point where sin finally fills up to its measure, and then only wrath can be the inevitable result.
 
This is what Paul is saying concerning his people of national heritage. They had filled up the measure of their sins, and he knew, as he says, “that wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.” Understanding this, Jesus asks the question: “what he will do to the agronomists, to those?”
 
The answer is obvious, and Jesus is asking them this for a particular reason. In their response, they will indict themselves. As for Paul’s words in 1 Thessalonians, he knew that the time had come, that Israel had r ejected Christ, and that there was no remedy left for them as a nation.
 
The cup was full, the wrath had been ordained, and it was only a matter of time before the wine would be poured out. This would be realized at the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, and the dispersion of the nation to the four corners of heaven, just as their response will indicate.
 
Life application: The words of Isaiah are calling out to the people of Israel, instructing them on exactly what Jesus conveys to them. The leaders, without considering their own Scriptures, were being presented with the fulfillment of the prophetic word –
 
“And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.4 What more could have been done to My vineyardThat I have not done in it?Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes,Did it bring forth wild grapes?5 And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard.”
 
Israel was filled with bad grapes. To this day, it is that way. There was a portion of the people who believed, but they were a fraction of the whole. Today, this is true as well. The messianic believers who look to Jesus as the fulfillment of their Scriptures are taunted by the observant Jews.
 
But the observant Jews are observant in a system of pick-and-choose religiosity that ignores precepts of the law they are unable or unwilling to observe, while proclaiming their “holiness” by the things they do observe. They may hold fast to the Sabbath and dietary laws, but they ignore innumerable other laws found in their Scriptures.
 
It’s the problem with the law. It always reflects back on us. We pick and choose our “holiness” through law. But it doesn’t work. Only when Jesus is our holiness do we come to the point of having fulfilled the law. His righteousness is granted to us. In Him, we now have rest and fellowship with God. Thank God for Jesus.
 
Lord God, help us to remember to set aside attempts at justifying ourselves before You through our own efforts. Rather, keep us trusting in what Jesus has done. May pride in our accomplishments never cloud our understanding that we need Jesus. He alone is our righteousness. Amen.
 

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

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

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.