Matthew 21:18

Mat 21:18-22. In the morning, as he returned, he hungered — For, being a man, he was subject to all the innocent infirmities of our nature, and he had come out from Bethany early without eating any thing: And when he saw a fig-tree (Gr. συκην μιαν, a single fig-tree) in the way — Having a fine spread of leaves upon it, and therefore appearing to be one of the earlier kind; he came to it — In expectation of finding figs thereon, for the season of gathering them was not yet come, Mar 11:12; and found nothing but leaves only — By which it plainly appeared that, though it looked so beautiful, it was a barren tree. Thus Christ’s just expectations from flourishing professors are often disappointed; he comes to many seeking fruit, and finds leaves only: they have a name to live, but are dead. And he said, Let no fruit grow on thee for ever — As thou art now fruitless, continue always so. Thus the sin of hypocrites and unfruitful professors is made their punishment; they would not bring forth the fruits of righteousness, and therefore they shall not bring them forth. And presently the fig-tree withered away — That is, began to wither away. This, like many other of our Lord’s actions, was emblematical. It signified that the curse of God would thus wither and destroy the Jewish nation, which he had before compared to a barren fig-tree; Luk 13:6-9. And when the disciples saw it — As they went by the next day, Mar 11:20, they marvelled, saying, How soon, &c. — They were astonished to see it withered down to the roots in the space of one day. Jesus answered, If ye have faith, and doubt not — So the same word διακρινομαι is rendered Jas 1:6, and so it doubtless frequently signifies; but Dr. Whitby proposes rendering it here, do not discriminate, or put a difference: as if our Lord had said, “If you have such a faith as puts no difference between things you can, and things you cannot do, but makes you fully persuaded you can do any thing which tends to the glory of God, and is requisite for the promotion of the Christian faith, you shall be able to perform the most difficult things; which is the meaning of the phrase, to remove mountains.” Thus we learn that one great end of our Lord in this miracle was, to confirm and increase the faith of his disciples: another was, to warn them against unfruitfulness. And all things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer — All things that God in his word authorizes you to ask, as being for your real profit, or that of others, and for God’s glory, and therefore according to his will, 1Jn 5:14; ye shall receive — “Nothing shall be too hard which God hath promised, and ye by faith and prayer are fit to receive.” So Baxter. “Faith is the soul, prayer is the body; both together make a complete man for any service. Faith, if it be right, will excite prayer, and prayer is not right if it do not spring from faith. This is the condition of our receiving; we must ask in prayer, believing: the requests of prayer shall not be denied: the expectations of faith shall not be frustrated. We have many promises to this purpose from the mouth of our Lord Jesus, and all to encourage faith, the principal grace, and prayer, the principal duty of a Christian. It is but, ask and have; believe and receive; and what would we more?” So Henry.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Monday of Passion Week.

§§ 112, 113. — THE FIG TREE WITHERED, vv. AND ITS LESSON OF FAITH, Mat_21:18-22.

The triumphal entry, the cleansing of the temple, and the withering of the fig tree, are a series of miracles in the order of climax. But it is a climax of judgment. The first indicated a Messiah of peace to the Gentiles; the second a terrible reformation in God’s Church; and the third, the entire blasting of the Jewish pride and power. If the fig tree with its fair promise of leaves and its barrenness of fruit was the Jewish nation, its withering under his malediction was the perdition of the Jewish state and system.

18. In the morning — Of Monday the second day of the Passion Week. He hungered — He probably left Bethlehem before his breakfast, that he might attend the morning service at the temple.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat_21:18. He hungered.—His hungering is pretty good evidence that He had not been staying in the house of Martha and Mary. Most likely He had been much with Himself and with His Father, wrapped up in meditation, rapt up in supplication (Morison).

Mat_21:19. A fig tree.—Rather, a single fig tree.—In the way.—By the way-side (R.V.). It was often planted by the way-sides, because the dust of the road was an absorbing counteraction to the strong flow of the sap—so hindering a too great development of leaves, and promoting its fruitfulness (Lange). Found nothing thereon, but leaves only.—The fig-tree loses its leaves in the winter; indeed it looks particularly bare with its white naked branches. One species, however, puts forth fruit and leaves in the very early spring, the fruit appearing before the leaves. It was doubtless a fig tree of this kind that Jesus observed, and seeing the leaves expected to find fruit thereon. At the time of the Passover the first leaf-buds would scarcely have appeared on the common fig tree, while this year’s ripe fruit would not be found till four months later. The teaching of the incident depends on this circumstance (cf. Luk_13:6-9). The early fig tree, conspicuous among its leafless brethren, seemed alone to make a show of fruit and to invite inspection. So Israel, alone among the nations of the world, held forth a promise. From Israel alone could fruit be expected; but none was found, and their harvest-time was past. Therefore Israel perished as a nation, while the Gentile races, barren hitherto, but now on the verge of their spring-time, were ready to burst into blossom and bear fruit (Carr).

Mat_21:21. Be thou removed, etc.—See note on Mat_17:20.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat_21:18-22

Plenary powers.—All commentators seem agreed in regarding this “fig tree” as emblematical of the then condition of the Jewish people and church. We can all of us see, also, how specially its brief story was connected with the disciples of the Saviour. They alone hear the sentence on it. They alone note its result. They alone hear what their Master afterwards says on the subject. It is in its relative bearing, therefore, on both them and the Jews, that we shall endeavour to consider this story. How does it illustrate the Saviour’s aspect towards Jerusalem—how does it, therefore, illustrate His aspect towards His disciples—at this particular time?

I. Towards Jerusalem and the Jews.—Under this head what illustration there is, first, of His power! The fig tree is said to be the most succulent of all trees. Amongst such trees, also, none could be so more visibly, than one so covered with leaves as to be a conspicuous object a long way off (Mar_11:13). Yet this very tree we see now, at the simple word of Jesus, losing all this in a moment (Mat_21:19). Conspicuous one moment for the abundance of its moisture, it is as conspicuous the next for its lack of moisture, in the eyes of those who look on (Mat_21:20). So with that Jewish church which so visibly abounded then with the showy leaves of “profession.” How they boasted in their “temple,” and “holy city,” and “law” (Joh_2:20; Mar_13:1; Rom_2:17, etc., Mat_3:1-2; Mat_5:35; Mat_27:53). Yet the word of Jesus could strip them of all, and wither the whole of their pride—and would do so before long. This was what the effect of that word on the fig tree was meant to make plain. His doing thus was also an illustration of His justice. That abundant foliage on that particular fig tree was a “profession” of much. None of the fig trees of the neighbourhood had got so far at that season as the production of figs (Mark 11 end of Mat_21:13). This fig tree had reached a stage which usually followed that stage. It had clothed itself (abnormally) with such a mantle of leaves as was generally an indication that, underneath them, there was a like abundance of fruit. Hence it was that, in His extremity, the Saviour came to it with that hope (Mar_11:13 again). And hence it was, also—being disappointed with it—that He bade it be barren for ever (Mat_21:19; Mar_11:14). An apt figure, therefore, of what was then true of the Jewish people and church; and so, also, of that awful sentence, for which, being such, they were then ready and ripe. In their case, also, with much profession, there was “nothing but leaves” (Mat_15:3; Mat_23:3; Rom_2:23-24; 1 Thessalonians 2 end of Mat_21:15, etc.). In their case, also, therefore, a similar sentence to that pronounced on the fig tree would be only equal and just. And yet, lastly, in this incident, we see illustrated, as previously, the then forbearance of Christ. What is said of the fig tree, is not here said yet of what is represented thereby. For the present that spiritual “tree” remains in all its greenness of leaf. All its prodigality of profession, all its lack of obedience, all its contradiction in practice, remain unvisited yet. In this respect the symbol is instructive in the way of contrast alone. Nothing is shown here, in the matter of punishment, but that which is ready to be!

II. The Saviour’s aspect at this time towards the disciples themselves.—We may judge of this, in some measure, from the speciality, now, of His manner. Why did He go up now, in their sight, to this tree? Why with such evident hope, to begin; and such similar disappointment, to follow? Why, also, were both His words and their consequences made so perceptible now to their senses? Evidently, we may infer, to impress them, first, with a sense of His power, to show what He could do if He would. Also to impress them, next, with a sense of His justice—to show that, in what He was now doing before them, He was not acting without cause. And also, finally, and in proportion as the flight of time should explain to them the meaning and application of the parable, to impress them with a sense of His forbearance and mercy. To impress these things, we say, in this special manner, upon their own minds; and so, by this means, to increase within them their faith in Himself. And nothing, surely, could be more conducive to this than the very combination just named. Irresistible power, unimpeachable justice, untiring mercy, form ground for confidence, when taken together, if anything does. Also, and further, we are taught the same by the speciality of the Saviour’s words at this time. “Having faith in God” is just the application to which He here points them Himself (Mat_21:21; Mar_11:22). This, He gives them to understand, is what He would have that withered fig tree teach them above all. Have faith in “God” as able to accomplish things greater by far (Mat_21:21). Have faith in “prayer” as able to move Him to do things of that kind (Mat_21:22). Have faith, therefore, in your own position as believers in Me!

The especial suitability of such a lesson, and of such a method of conveying it also, to the disciples at that particular juncture, may be noted, to conclude. This would be true in regard:—

1. To the probable perplexities of the moment.—To those disciples, with what we know of their then expectations and knowledge (Mat_20:20-21), that clearly defined line of conduct, now so plainly adopted and afterwards so strictly adhered to by the Saviour, would appear astonishing in the last degree. Why thus openly claim the sceptre, and yet just as openly refrain from using it? Was it secret lack of power to inflict punishment, or secret indifference about the existence of evil? That withered fig tree would silence both surmises at once, and, by so doing, in time would point to the Saviour’s mercy as the true answer to both. The disciples would bear with this “mystery” as they thus learned that the Saviour’s “mercy” lay at its root!

2. To the certain impediments of the future.—After the Saviour’s departure what formidable obstacles there would be in their way! (see Act_5:27, etc., etc.). How helpful to them, therefore, to have such recollections as this of “the withered fig tree” to fall back upon in such circumstances! How helpful to them also (for some time afterwards?) to have the sight of it within reach! And how equally helpful to have the recollection also of those words of the Saviour’s (end of Mat_21:21) in their thoughts! Everything might be hoped for in the way of help by those who had such a task as theirs on their hands. The greenest would be withered—the largest removed (Zec_4:7) if it stood in their way.

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat_21:18-22. The fig tree cursed.—

1. Our Lord was never so hungry for meat and drink, but He could forbear it till a fit time, and make it His meat and drink to be doing good, and fulfilling the Father’s will; for He loveth to edify and feed His disciples here more than to feed His natural hunger.

2. Albeit our Lord did never harm to any man by any of His miracles, yet had He power to curse, and miraculously to destroy, as well as to save, if He had pleased to put forth His power in justice; for the fig tree was not able to stand when He did curse it.

3. He trained His disciples by His own example unto all duties which he put them unto, and here He traineth them unto the exercise of the gift of miracles.

4. The gift of miracles was never to be exercised in particular, but upon a ground of faith, i.e. upon a warrant given from Christ’s Spirit, for doing of that work in particular; and it was necessary for him who had the gift and warrant for doing a miracle to strengthen his faith on the warrant, or else to miss of his intent, as in Peter’s sinking did appear. Therefore, saith He, “If ye have faith and doubt not.”

5. The Lord requireth faith in prayer for obtaining promised mercies, or else, if we come short, to blame our misbelief. Therefore, saith He, “Whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive it.”—David Dickson.

The withering of the fruitless fig tree.—This incident stands entirely alone among the miracles as the only one which is not of a beneficent or merciful character. Long custom has made all readers familiar with the designation of it as a miracle of judgment. The expression is misleading. It was a symbol or prediction of judgment. The burden it bore in act and sign was doom for that which the fruitless fig tree represented. But so far as concerns the literal object upon which the word fell, the expression is too large. It is out of all just proportion of thought and language to place the blasting of a way-side tree over against Christ’s numberless miracles of mercy, and note it as a judgment miracle. Indeed, the incident barely falls within the class of miracles. The supernatural element in it is predictive rather than directly miraculous. The word spoken against the tree was fulfilled in a way so notable and immediate as to mark a Divine hand. But in its proper object and scope it was really an acted parable, like those symbolic actions or prophecies “without words” of which the ancient seers, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, furnish plenty of instances.—Prof. Laidlaw, D.D.

Mat_21:19. Hypocrites and their doom.—This cursing of the barren fig tree represents the state of hypocrites in general; and so it teacheth us:—

I. That the fruit of fig trees may justly be expected from those that have the leaves.—Christ looks for the power of religion from those that make profession of it.

II. Christ’s just expectations from flourishing professors are often frustrated and disappointed.—Many have a name to live, and are not alive indeed.

III. The sin of barrenness is justly punished with the curse and plague of barrenness.

IV. A false and hypocritical profession commonly withers in this world.—The gifts wither, common graces decay, the credit of the profession declines and sinks, and the falseness and folly of the pretender are manifested to all men.—Matt. Henry.

The withering of the fig tree symbolic.—To understand Christ’s act aright, we must not conceive that He at once caused a sound tree to wither. This would not be in harmony with the general aim of His miracles; nor would it correspond to the idea which He designed to set vividly before the disciples. A sound tree, suddenly destroyed, would certainly be no fitting type of the Jewish people. We must rather believe that the same cause which made the tree barren had already prepared the way for its destruction, and that Christ only hastened a crisis which had to come in the course of nature. In this view it would correspond precisely to the great event in the world’s history which it was designed to prefigure; the moral character of the Jewish nation had long been fitting it for destruction; and the Divine government of the world only brought on the crisis.—Neander.

The fig tree destroyed.—Why might not the Lord, consistently with His help and His healing, do that in one instance which His Father is doing everyday? In the midst of the freshest greenery of summer, you may see the wan branches of the lightning-struck tree. As a poet drawing his pen through syllable or word that mars his clear utterance or musical comment, such is the destruction of the Maker. It is the indrawn sigh of the creating Breath.—G. Macdonald, LL.D.

Mat_21:21-22. Faith and prayer.—

I. The description of this wonder working faith. “If ye have faith and doubt not.”

II. The power and prevalency of it, expressed figuratively. “Ye shall say unto this mountain,” etc.

III. The way and means of exercising this faith, and of doing that which is to be done by it. “All things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer,” etc. Faith is the soul, prayer is the body; both together make a complete man for any service.—M. Henry.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 21:18-22.

The Barren Fig-Tree

Found also in Mar 11:12-14, Mar 11:20-26. If we had only Matthew, we should suppose that all this occurred the morning which followed the triumphal entry and the cleansing of the temple. But Matthew does not at all contradict the fuller account of Mark, viz., that after the triumphal entry (probably on the first day of the week) Jesus returned to Bethany; the next morning (Monday) on his way to the city he pronounced a curse upon the fig-tree, and afterwards cleansed the temple; and the following morning (Tuesday) the disciples expressed their surprise that the tree had at once withered. Matthew has simply thrown together the whole matter of the fig-tree, just as in narrating the ministry in Galilee he often arranges topically rather than chronologically.

Mat 21:18. As he returned, or probably, upon returning[1] He hungered. The first meal was usually taken about the middle of the forenoon. (Act 2:15) Compare on Mat 22:4. The case in Joh 21:12 is exceptional. Walking up and down the steep mountain in the early morning air would naturally awaken appetite, especially in one who had eaten moderately the evening before. There is no occasion for the supposition that he had spent the night in special prayer.

[1] Aorist part. in à (first hand), B (first hand), L (followed by Tischendorf and Westcott Hort), ’upon returning,’ ’after returning,’ ’having returned.’ This, as the more difficult reading, easily changed by copyists into the other, has strong claims to adoption. The immediately following ’by the road’ would show that the former expression is meant loosely, that though he had reached the city, he had not entered it. There is thus only an apparent contradiction between this and Mark, ’when they were come out from Bethany he was hungry.’ It was less than two miles from one place to the other. Buttmann would here translate ’put off’ as it means in Luk 5:3 f., thus making it ’after putting off to the city.’ But it can hardly be shown that the word has that exact sense, unless the phrase were ’after putting off from Bethany.’—The Aorist part. in Act 25:13, which Scrivener says is "manifestly false" though read by all uncials and some other good documents, and which Hort regards as an instance of "prior corruption" of the text, may perhaps be explained as meaning "they came down to Cesarea by way of greeting to Festus," since the coming itself was a greeting as well as the words spoken on arriving. This would be like "You did well in reminding me" (anamnesas), Plato. (Compare below Mat 25:3, Mat 26:12, Mat 27:4) The present part. would mean, "they came down while saluting." Compare on Mat 23:20, as to the general theory of the aorist.

Mat 21:19. A fig-tree, or more probably, in the strict sense (Rev. Ver margin), ’a single fig-tree’(comp, on Mat 8:19), perhaps one that stood apart, or that attracted attention by the rich development of leaves which it alone presented. Pliny ("Natural History "XVI, 49) says of the fig-tree, "Its leaf comes later than tile fruit, except a certain species in Cilicia, Cyprus, and Greece. "Tristram says ("Not. Hist. of the Bible") that in Palestine "the fruit appears before the leaves." Dr. Chainbets (in Schaff) denies this, but the conflict of reports is accounted for by the statement of Thomson ("Land and Book "): "The fig often comes with, or even before, the leaves." Mark’s expression,"seeing a fig-tree afar off, having leaves, he came, "shows that the presence of leaves suggested the presence of fruit. They had perhaps eaten new figs in the deep plain of Jericho a few days before. And though "it was not the season of figs," Mar 11:13 here on the mountain, yet this appeared to be an exceptional tree, bearing fruit earlier than usual. Thomson says he has eaten very early figs on Lebanon in May, and that fruits are there a month later than in Jerusalem. So it was not impossible that in some warm nook of the Mount of Olives an exceptionally early variety might have figs at the beginning of April. To suppose that Jesus expected to find a few figs remaining from the fall and winter crop is entirely unsuitable. Leaves would be no sign of such remaining fruit; there would be no occasion for finding fault, and no symbolical lesson. The artificial translation of Mark which some have proposed, "for the season was not a good one for figs," is without warrant in grammar, and a mere expedient to escape a difficulty.—To take from a fruit tree beside the road, or even to pluck ears of grain in passing, was entirely in accordance with law and custom, Deu 23:24 f., compare above on Mat 12:1. See the thorough humanity of our Saviour—hungry from a mountain walk, seeking food from a tree beside the road, and disappointed in not finding figs when there was such a show of leaves. His human mind, which had grown in wisdom, Luk 2:52 which did not know the day and hour of his own second coming, Mar 13:32 Was of necessity, as a finite mind, unable to contain all knowledge. We must beware of unchastened inferences from this fact that he did not know some things, remembering that in the unity of his person dwelt a divine as well as a human nature, and that the Holy Spirit was given him without measure; Joh 3:34 but we must not deny or becloud the fact, when distinctly set forth. This is indeed a necessary part of a real incarnation, and we must accept it as a mystery. Maldonatus holds that Jesus feigned to be hungry, and feigned to seek what he knew he would not find—which painfully reminds us that the great commentator was a Jesuit. Let no fruit grow on thee hence forward forever. So Mark, and this is what Peter called a curse. Mar 11:21 To suppose that Jesus angrily uttered imprecations against the inanimate object is not only irreverent, but gratuitous and silly. Our Lord sought illustration of religious truth from all sources; from food and water, patching clothes and bottling wine, sowing and reaping, and changes of weather, birds and flowers, plants and trees, as well as the doings and sayings of men around him, all were made to teach lessons. And here was an opportunity for a very striking lesson. The tree gave by its leaves a false sign of possessing fruit, and so would strikingly represent false professions of piety without the effects thereof, as so plainly seen in the contemporary Jews, and alas! not in them alone. By the curse pronounced it became a symbol and a warning to all who should ever hear the gospel. That withered fig-tree stands as one of the most conspicuous objects in sacred history, an object lesson forever (compare on Mat 18:2). Its lesson corresponded exactly to that of a parable given some months earlier, (Luk 13:6-9) and corresponds generally to the lamentation over Jerusalem the day before, Luk 19:42 to the cleansing of the temple which immediately followed, and to the long course of teaching on the next day. Mat 21:28, Mat 23:39 There was among the Jews of the time great religiosity, and little religion. Witness the trading in the temple, the hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees, their refusal to believe John the Baptist, Mat 21:32 their rejection of the long expected Messiah. The fig-tree destroyed was of extremely little value, as it bore no fruit. It may be that standing ’on the road’ it was not private property. The Talmud often distinguishes (Lightf.) between the fruit of trees that grew in commons, and the fruit of trees that grew in gardens or fields. But that a prophet, a "teacher come from God," should destroy a piece of property of trifling value for the sake of teaching a great lesson, would seem to the Jews no ground whatever of complaint; much less will it seem so to those who believe in his divinity. Compare the destruction of the herd of swine, Mat 8:30 ff. Theophyl. remarks that our Lord’s other miracles were all beneficent, and lest it should be thought that he cannot punish, he wrought two that were punitive: yet these were not upon men, but upon the tree and the swine, and really meant kindness toward men; "he withers the tree that he may chasten men." And presently (Rev. Ver., immediately) the fig-tree withered away, does not necessarily mean that the withering was completed in a moment. And when Mark (Mar 11:20) states that "in the morning they saw the fig-tree withered away from the roots," he indicates that the withering had previously occurred. So there is no contradiction.

Mat 21:20. And when the disciples saw it, which we learn from Mark was the following morning. Matthew does not mention the lapse of time, but does not deny nor exclude it. How soon, etc., better, as in Rev. Ver., How did the fig-tree immediately, etc. See Winer, p. 276 345. The Greek cannot mean ’how soon,’ for the word is ’immediately,’ just as in the preceding verse. The disciples inquire how the immediate withering occurred. The process was justly characterized as immediate, as there had been only twenty-four hours, and it was withered from the roots (Mark). The Master had not expressly said that the tree should wither at once, but only that it should never bear fruit. We learn from Mark (Mar 11:21) that Peter, so often spokesman, mentioned the matter to the Teacher, but the answer was addressed to them all.

Mat 21:21 f. Our Lord indirectly answers their question by telling how they too may work not only such a miracle, but more wonderful ones, and may obtain in prayer all that they ask for, viz., through undoubting faith. Unto this mountain would naturally be the Mount of Olives, and into the sea would be the Mediterranean or the Dead Sea. Mark has both expressions the same. But the example is evidently presented, not as a thing likely or proper to be actually done, but as an extreme case of a conceivable miracle, (compare 1Co 13:1) to illustrate more vividly the miraculous possibilities presented to unwavering faith. (Compare on Mat 17:20) In a similar expression not long before he spoke of rooting up a tree and planting it in the sea. (Luk 17:6) The Talmud of Bah. (Lightfoot) frequently uses "rooter up of mountains " as a figure to describe some teacher who had great power in removing difficulties.—Christians of the present day have no reason to believe themselves commissioned to work miracles, and the attempt to do so is either irreverent trifling, or a fanaticism injurious to themselves and repulsive to thoughtful observers. Every true prayer of Christian faith is taught by the Spirit of God (Rom 8:26 f.), and he will never teach men a presumptuous prayer.

From the power which faith will give them to work miracles, our Lord passes to its more general power in prayer (Mat 21:22). This in Matthew is merely added; in Mark (Mar 11:25) it is declared to follow as a consequence from what precedes. If faith could work miracles, it follows that faith can secure whatever we pray for. (compare Jas 5:16) Believing, ye shall receive. Of course this promise has limitations; we shall receive what we ask, or something which our Heavenly Father knows to be better (compare on Mat 7:7, Mat 7:11). Mark has a yet stronger and quite peculiar expression, "believe that ye receive (Rev. Ver., margin received) them, and ye shall have them"; from the time of asking go on believing that your prayer was heard, that you virtually received when you asked, and you shall have the things in due season. Mark also adds (Mar 11:25) an injunction to forgive others when we are praying for God’s forgiveness; which Matthew might omit from having recorded it as also given in connection with the "Lord’s Prayer." (Mat 6:14)

Homiletical And Practical

Mat 21:18 f. Nothing but leaves. (1) Profession without practice is worthless. (2) Profession without practice is offensive to God and man. (3) Profession without practice is in great danger of becoming perpetual. (4) Profession need not be laid down if practice be taken up. Hall: "That which was the fault of this tree is the punishment of it, fruitlessness. Woe be to that church or soul that is punished with her own sin."

Mat 21:21 f. The power of Christian faith. (1) In the time of Christ and his apostles it could work miracles. (2) If we suppose it can now work any miracle, it ought to be able to work the greatest miracles. (Joh 14:12) (3) Its power in miracle-working assures and illustrates its present power in prayer (comp, Jas 5:17 f.; Luk 10:20). (4) We cannot be sure that miracles would now do good, but we know that the prayer of faith in every age brings the richest blessings. (5) It enhances the privilege of prayer to believe that God will give what we ask, or what he sees to be better.

John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

THE BARREN FIG-TREE

Mat 21:18-19; Mar 11:12-14. “And on the following day, they having come out from Bethany, He was hungry.” Doubtless He had enjoyed the kind hospitality of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, the hunger here mentioned being simply an appetite for some good figs, as they were very scarce in that time of the year, April 11th, as they ripen in the summer and fall. “And seeing a fig-tree afar off having leaves, He came, if perchance He shall find something on it; and having come to it, He found nothing but leaves; for it was not the time of figs. Responding, He said to it, Let no one ever eat fruit from thee. And His disciples were hearing.” Matthew says the fig-tree immediately withered away. Why did He go to it if it was not the fruit season?

a. As this was early in April, and the figs do not ripen till summer and fall, it was not the time of fruit.

b. The fact of its grand foliage was calculated to impress the traveler that it belonged to the species known as winter figs, which hold their fruit tough the winter, which is there very mild, and ripen it in the spring. Hence the nice, full foliage, indicating a healthful condition, led Him to expect ripe figs on it, having survived the winter, and now ready and delicious for eating. We must not conclude that the man Jesus always utilized the God Jesus, especially in the small affairs of life; as in that case He would have known that there was no fruit before He went.

c. There are some trees belonging to all the fruitful genera which do not produce fruit. This was one of the non-fruit-bearing species, and consequently not only worthless, but deceptive.

d. The foliage of a tree is the advertisement of its vitality and consequent fruitfulness, corresponding to the profession of a Christian.

e. Here is a tree with full foliage and no fruit, never had borne any, and never would; but by its copious leaves attracting people to it only to be disappointed. Hence it is not pertinent that it cumber the ground, and absorb the fertility away from fruit-bearing trees. So Jesus pronounces on it a woe, and it withers away instantaneously.

f. This is an awful warning to hypocrites, who make a loud profession, but have no spiritual fruit, which is experimental and practical holiness. The meaning of this transaction is, that though you may occupy a prominent place in the Church, and make ever so loud profession, without holiness, you are destined to wither away and abide the fate of all dead trees, which is to be burned with fire. The Lord help us all to profit by the fate of the barren fig-tree, which so suddenly withered away! The time is at hand when all who do not bear the fruit of holiness shall wither away so suddenly that all will be astonished, as the disciples were in case of the fig- tree.

g. The Jewish Church and people are often compared to a fig-tree. Hence the withering of this fig-tree, because it bore no fruit, symbolized the terrible fate destined so quickly and decisively to overtake and even annihilate the Jewish polity.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 17

Conflict in the Temple - Mat_21:18-46 - Mat_22:1-46 - Mat_23:1-39

IT had been written that the Lord should suddenly come to His Temple; {Mal_3:1} but He would not too hastily assert His rights. The first day He simply "looked round about upon all things," {Mar_11:11} and then withdrew to Bethany. The second day-without, however, even yet assailing the authority of those in power-He assumed His prerogative as Lord of the Temple by casting out the traffickers, healing the blind and the lame, and accepting the hosannas of the children. The scribes and Pharisees showed some displeasure at all this, and raised objections; but the answer they received silenced, if it did not satisfy them. Thus two days passed without any serious attempt to dispute His authority; but on the third day the conflict began. It was a dark and terrible day, and of its fateful history we have a full account in this Gospel.

The day opens with the sight on the-way to the city of the withered fig tree, a sad symbol of the impending fate of Israel, to be decided ere the day closed by their final rejection of their Saviour-King. This was our Lords single miracle of judgment; many a stern word of warning did He speak, but there is no severity in His deeds: they are all mercy and love. The single exception, if exception it may be called, makes this great fact stand out only the more impressively. It was necessary for loves sake to show that in that arm, which was always strong to save, there was also strength to smite if the sad necessity should come; but so tender-hearted is He that He cannot bear to strike where the stroke can be felt, so He lets it fall on an unconscious tree. Thus to the end He justifies His name of Jesus, Saviour, and illustrates the blessed truth of which His whole life is the expression, that "God is love." "The Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them." Judgment is His strange work; from the very thought of it He shrinks, as seems suggested to us here by the fact that, in the use He makes of the circumstance in His conversation with the disciples, He refrains from speaking of its dark significance, but rather takes the opportunity of teaching from it an incidental lesson full of hope and comfort regarding the power of faith and the value of prayer (Mat_21:21-22).

As soon as on the third day He enters the Temple the conflict begins. It would seem that the interval our Lord had in mercy allowed for calm reflection had been used for no other purpose than to organise a conspiracy for the purpose of entangling Him in His words and so discrediting His authority. We gather this from the carefully framed questions with which He is plied by one party after another. Four successive attacks are recorded in the passage before us: the first by the chief priests and elders of the people demanding His authority; the next by the Pharisees, assisted by the Herodians, who endeavoured by means of the difficulty of the tribute money to embroil Him with the Roman power; this was again immediately followed by a third, in which the prime movers were the Sadducees, armed with what they considered an unanswerable question regarding the life to come; and when that also broke down there was a renewed attack of the Pharisees, who thought to disconcert Him by a perplexing question about the law,

We may not discuss the long sad history of these successive attacks with any fulness, but only glance first at the challenge of our Lords authority and how He meets it, and next at the ordeal of questions with which it was followed.

I-THE CHALLENGE. {Mat_21:23-46 - Mat_22:1-14}

"By what authority doest Thou these things? And who gave Thee this authority?" The question was fair enough; and if it had been asked in an earnest spirit Jesus would have given them, as always to the honest inquirer, a kind and satisfying answer. It is not, however, as inquirers, but as cavillers, they approach Him. Again and again, at times and in ways innumerable, by fulfilment of prophecy, by His mighty deeds and by His wondrous words, He had given proof of His Divine authority and established His claim to be the true Messiah. It was not therefore because they lacked evidence of His authority, but because they hated it, because they would not have this man to reign over them, that now they question Him. It was obvious that their only object was to entangle Him; accordingly our Lord showed how in the net they were spreading for Him their own feet were caught.

He meets their question with a counter-question, "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?" The more we examine this question, the more must we admire the consummate wisdom it displays. We see at once how it turns the tables on His critics; but it is far more important to notice how admirably adapted it was to lead them to the answer of their own question, if only they would follow it out. They dared not repudiate the baptism of John; and had not John baptised Jesus, and solemnly borne repeated testimony to His Messiahship? Had he not most emphatically borne that very testimony to a formal deputation sent by themselves? {Joh_1:19-27} Finally, were not the ministry and testimony of John closely associated in prophecy with that very coming of the Lord to His Temple which gave them so deep offence: "Behold, I will send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple: behold, He shall come, saith the Lord of hosts." Our Lords counter-question, then, was framed with such exquisite skill as to disappoint their malice, while at the same time it was suited to-guide the earnest inquirer to the truth.

The propounders of the question were not true men, but hypocrites. A negative answer they could not give. An affirmative they would not give. So when they refused to answer, our Lord replied, "Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things."

The Lord of the Temple now assumes the offensive, and directs against His opponents a series of parables which He holds up to them as a triple mirror in which from different points of view they may see themselves in their true character, and as a set of danger signals to warn them of their impending doom. He presents them with such marvellous skill that He makes the Pharisees their own judges, and constrains them to pass sentence on themselves. In the first parable He constrains them to declare their own guilt; in the second, He makes them decree their own punishment; in the third, He warns them of the impending fate of the people they were leading to destruction.

We have said that in these parables Christ assumes the offensive; but this is true only in a very superficial sense. In the deepest sense He spoke them not against the Pharisees, but for them. His object was to carry home to their hearts the conviction of sin, and to impress them with a sense of their danger before it was too late. This was what above all they needed. It was their only hope of salvation. And how admirably suited for His purpose were these three parables! Their application to themselves was plain enough after it was stated, but not beforehand; the effect of which was that they were put in a position to give an impartial verdict on their own conduct. It was the same method so effectively employed by Nathan in bringing conviction to the conscience of David. Had Christ charged the sin of the Pharisees directly home upon them they would have been at once thrown on the defensive, and it would have been impossible to reach their conscience through the entanglements of prejudice and personal interest.

Christ wishes to disentangle them from all that was darkening their moral vision, and He uses the parable as the most effective means. It is a great mistake, then, to suppose that Jesus contented Himself with turning the tables on them, and carrying the war, so to speak, into the enemys country. It was with them a war of words, but not with Him. He was seeking to save these poor lost ones. He wished to give them His best for their worst. They had come to entangle Him in His talk. He does His best to disentangle them from the meshes of self-deception. The tone of all three parables is exceptionally severe; but the spirit of them is love.

THE TWO SONS. {Mat_21:28-32}

The parable of the two sons is exceedingly simple; and the question founded upon it, "Whether of them twain did the will of his father?" admitted of but one answer-an answer which seemed, as it was spoken, to involve only the simplest of all moral judgments; yet how keen the edge of it when once it was disclosed! Observe the emphatic word did, suggesting without saying it, that it made comparatively little difference what they said. {see Mat_23:3} So far as profession went, the Pharisees were all that could be desired. They were the representatives of religion in the land; their whole attitude corresponded to the answer of the second son: "I go, sir." Yet when John-whom they themselves admitted to be a prophet of the Lord-came to them in the way of righteousness, they set his word aside and refused to obey him. On the other hand, many of those whose lives seemed to say "I will not," when they heard the word of John, repented and began to work the works of God. Thus it came to pass that many of these had entered the kingdom, while the self-complacent Pharisee still remained without.

The words with which the parable is pressed home are severe and trenchant; but they are nevertheless full of gospel grace. They set in the strongest light the welcome fact that the salvation of God is for the chief of sinners, for those who have been rudest and most rebellious in their first answers to the divine appeal; and then, while they condemn so very strongly the self-deceiver, it is not for the purpose of covering him with confusion, but in order to open his eyes and save him from the net in which he has set his feet. Even in that terrible sentence which puts him lower down than open and disgraceful sinners, there is a door left still unlatched for him to enter. "The publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you"; but you may enter after them. If only you, like them, would "afterward" repent-if you would repent of your hypocrisy and insincerity, as they have repented of their rudeness and rebellion-you would be as gladly welcomed as they into the kingdom of God.

THE HUSBANDMEN. {Mat_21:33-46}

The second parable follows hard on the first, and presses the chief priests and Pharisees so closely that they cannot fail to see in the end that it is themselves they have been constrained to judge and condemn (Mat_21:45). It is indeed difficult to suppose that they had not even from the beginning some glimpse of the intended application of this parable. The vineyard was a familiar symbol with a definite and well-understood meaning, from which our Lord in His use of it does not depart. The vineyard being the nation, the owner is evidently God; the fruit expected, righteousness; the particulars mentioned (the fence, the press, the tower) implying the completeness of the arrangements made by the owner for securing the expected fruit. The husbandmen are the leaders of the people, those who are responsible for their direction and control. The going to a far country represents the removal of God from their sight; so that they are, as it were, put upon their honour, left to act in the matter of the vineyard according to the prompting of their own hearts. All this is contained in the few lines which make up verse 33 {Mat_21:33}, and forms the groundwork of this great parable. Thus are set forth in a very striking manner the high privileges and grave responsibilities of the leaders of the Jewish people, represented at the time by the chief priests and Pharisees He was then addressing. How are they meeting this responsibility? Let the parable tell.

It is a terrible indictment, showing in the strongest light the guilt of their fathers, and pointing out to them that they are on the verge of a crime far greater still. Again and again have prophets of righteousness come in the name of the Lord, and demanded the fruits of righteousness which were due. How have they been received? "The husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another." So have their fathers acted time after time and still the patience of the owner is not exhausted, nor does He even yet give up all hope of fruit from His favoured vineyard; so, as a last resort, He sends His son, saying, "They will reverence my son."

We can imagine the tone in which the Son of God would speak these words. What a sublime consciousness is implied in His use of them! and how touchingly does He in this incidental way give the best of all answers to the question with which His enemies began! Surely the son, the only and well-beloved son, had the best of all authority to act for the father! In the former parable He had appealed to the recognised authority of John; now He indicates that the highest authority of all is in Himself. If only their hearts had not been wholly shut against the light, how it would have flashed upon them now! They would have taken up the cry of the children, and said, "Hosanna! blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord": and the parable would have served its purpose before it had reached its close. But they are deaf and blind to the things of God; so the awful indictment must proceed to the bitter end.

If there was in the heart of Christ an exalted consciousness of His filial relation to God as He spoke of the sending of the Son, what a pang must have shot through it as He proceeded to depict in such vivid colours the crime they are now all ready to commit, referring successively as He does to the arrest, the handing over to Pilate, and the crucifixion without the gate: "They caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him." How apalling it must have been to Him to speak these words! how appalling it ought to have been to them to hear them! That they did feel the force of the parable is evident from the answer they gave to the question, "What will he do to those husbandmen?" and, as we have said, they must surely have had some glimpses of its application to themselves; but it did not disturb their self-complacency, until our Lord spoke the plain words with which He followed up the parable, referring to that very Psalm from which the childrens cry of "Hosanna" was taken. From it He selects the symbol of the stone rejected by the builders, but by God made the head of the corner, applying it to Himself (the rejected stone) and them (the builders). The reference was most appropriate in itself; and it had the further advantage of being followed by the very word which it would be their salvation now to speak. "Hosanna" is the word which immediately follows the quotation He makes, and it introduces a prayer which, if only they will make their own, all will yet be well with them. The prayer is, "Save now, I beseech Thee, O Lord"; followed by the words, "Blessed be He that cometh in the name of the Lord." May we not assume that our Lord paused after making His quotation to give them the opportunity of adopting it as their own prayer? His whole heart was longing to hear these very words from them. Have we not the proof of it further on, in the sad words with which He at last abandoned the hope: "I say unto you, ye shall not see Me henceforth till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord"? {Mat_23:39}

Seeing they will not take the warning of the parable, and that they refuse the opportunity given them while yet under its awe-inspiring influence, to repent and return, He must give sentence against them: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." This sentence He follows up by setting before them the dark side of the other symbol: "Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." They were stumbling on the stone now, and about to he broken upon it; but the danger that lay before them if they persisted in their present unbelief and sin, would be far greater still, when He Whom they now despised and rejected should be at the head of all authority and power.

But all is vain. Steeling their hearts against His faithful words, they are only the more maddened against Him, and fear alone restrains them from beginning now the very crime against which they have just had so terrible a warning: "When they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitudes, because they took Him for a prophet."

THE MARRIAGE FEAST. {Mat_22:1-14}

The manner in which this third parable is introduced leaves room for doubt whether it was spoken in immediate connection with the two preceding. The use of the word "answered" (Mat_22:1) would rather suggest the idea that some conversation not reported had intervened. But though it does not form part of a continuous discourse with the others, it is so closely connected with them in scope and bearing that it may appropriately be dealt with, as concluding the warning called forth by the first attack of the chief priests and elders. The relation between the three parables will be best seen by observing that the first has to do with their treatment of John; the second and third with their treatment of Himself and His apostles. The second and third differ from each other in this: that while the Kings Son, Who is prominent in both, is regarded in the former as the last and greatest of a long series of heavenly messengers sent to demand of the chosen people the fruits of righteousness, in the latter He is presented, not as demanding righteousness, but as bringing joy. Duty is the leading thought of the second parable, privilege of the third; in the one sin is brought home to Israels leaders by setting before them their treatment of the messengers of righteousness, in the other the sin lies in their rejection of the message of grace. Out of this distinction rises another-viz., that while the second parable runs back into the past, upwards along the line of the Old Testament prophets, the third runs down into the future, into the history of the apostolic times. The two together make up a terrible indictment, which might well have roused these slumbering consciences, and led even scribes and Pharisees to shrink from filling up the measure of their iniquities.

A word may be necessary as to the relation of this parable to the similar one recorded in the fourteenth chapter of St. Luke, known as "The parable of the Great Supper." The two have many features in common, but the differences are so great that it is plainly wrong to suppose them to be different versions of the same. It: is astonishing to see what needless difficulties some people make for themselves by the utterly groundless assumption that our Lord would never use the same illustration a second time. Why should He not have spoken of. the gospel as a feast, not twice merely, but fifty times? There would, no doubt, be many variations in His manner of unfolding the thought, according to the circumstances, the audience, the particular object in view at the time; but to suppose that because He had used that illustration in Galilee He must be forbidden from reverting to it in Judea is a specimen of what we may call the insanity of those who are ever on the watch for their favourite "discrepancies." In this case there is not only much variation in detail, but the scope of the two parables is quite different, the former having more the character of a pressing invitation, with only a suggestion of warning at the close; whereas the one before us, while preserving all the grace of the gospel as suggested by the figure of a feast to which men are freely invited, and even heightening its attractiveness inasmuch as it is a wedding feast-the most joyful of all festivities-and a royal one too, yet has throughout the same sad tone of judgment which has been characteristic of all these three parables, and is at once seen to be specially appropriate to the fateful occasion on which they were spoken.

As essentially a New Testament parable, it begins with the familiar formula "The kingdom of heaven is like." The two previous parables had led up to the new dispensation; but: this one begins with it, and is wholly concerned with it. The Kings Son appears now, not as a messenger, but as a bridegroom. It was not the first time that Jesus had spoken of Himself as a bridegroom, or rather as the Bridegroom. The thought was a familiar one in the prophets of the Old Testament, the Bridegroom, be it remembered, being none other than Jehovah Himself. Consider, then, what it meant that Jesus should without hesitation or explanation. speak of Himself as the Bridegroom. And let. us not imagine that He simply took the figure, and applied it to Himself as fulfilling prophecy; let us not fail to realise that He entered fully into its tender meaning. When we think of the circumstances in which this parable was spoken we have here a most pathetic glimpse into the sanctuary of our Saviours loving heart. Let us. try with reverent sympathy to enter into the feeling of the Kings Son, come from heaven to seek humanity for His bride, to woo and to win her from the cruel bondage of sin and death, to take her into union with Himself, so that she may share with Him the liberty and wealth, the purity and joy, the glory and the hope of the heavenly kingdom! The King "made a marriage for His Son"-where is the bride? what response is she making to the Bridegrooms suit? A marriage for His Son! On Calvary?

It must have been very hard for Him to go on; but He will keep down the rising tide of emotion, that He may set before this people and before all people another attractive picture of the kingdom of heaven. He will give even these despisers of the heavenly grace another opportunity to reconsider their position. So He tells of the invitations sent out first to "them that were bidden"-i.e., to the chosen people who had been especially invited from the earliest times, and to whom, when the fulness of the time had come, the call was first addressed. "And they would not come." There is no reference to the aggravations which had found place in the former parable. {Mat_21:39} These were connected not so much with the offer of grace, which is the main purport of this parable, as with the demand for fruit, which was the leading thought of the one before. It was enough, then, in describing how they dealt with the invitation, to say, "They would not come"; and, indeed, this refusal hurt Him far more than their buffets and their blows. When He is buffeted He is silent, sheds no tears, utters no wail; His tears and lamentation are reserved for them: "How often would I, have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" "They would not come."

But the love of the King and of His Son is not yet exhausted. A second invitation is sent, with greater urgency than before, and with fuller representations of the great preparations which had been made for the entertainment of the guests: "Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage." As the first invitation was that which had been already given and which they were now rejecting, the second refers to that fuller proclamation of the gospel which was yet to be made after the work of the Bride-groom-Redeemer should be finished when it could be said, as not before: "All things are ready."

In the account which follows, therefore, there is a foreshadowing of the treatment the apostles would afterwards receive. Many, indeed, were converted by their word, and took their places at the feast; but the people as a whole "made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: and the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them." What was the consequence? Jerusalem, rejecting the gospel of the kingdom, even when it was "preached with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven," must be destroyed; and new guests must be sought among the nations that up till now had no especial invitation to the feast. This prophetic warning was conveyed in terms of the parable; yet there is a touch in it which shows how strongly the Saviours mind was running on the sad future of which the parable was but a picture: "When the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city." Why "city"? There had been no mention of a city in the parable. True; but Jerusalem was in the Saviours heart, and all the pathos of His lament over it is in that little word. "Their city" too, observe, -reminding us of "your house" at the close of this sad day. {Mat_23:38} In the same way the calling of the Gentiles is most skilfully brought within the scope of the parable, by the use of the peculiar word translated in the Revised Version-"the partings of the highways," which seems to suggest the thought of the servants leaving the city precincts and going out in all directions along the main trunk roads to "the partings of the highways," to carry the gospel to all without distinction, wherever could be found an ear of man to listen, or a human heart to welcome the Kings grace and the Bridegrooms love. Thus, after all, the wedding was to be furnished with guests.

The parable, as we have seen, is one of grace; but righteousness too must find a place in it. The demand for fruits of righteousness is no less rigid in the new dispensation than it had been in the old. To make this clear and strong the parable of the Feast is followed by the pendant of the Wedding Garment.

There are two ways in which the heavenly marriage feast may be despised: first, by those who will not come at all; next, and no less, by those who try to snatch the wedding joy without the bridal purity. The same leading thought or motive is recognisable here as in the parable of the two sons. The man without the wedding garment corresponds to the son who said "I go, sir," and went not, while those who refuse altogether correspond to the son who answered "I will not." By bearing this in mind we can understand, what to many has been a serious difficulty-how it is that the punishment meted out to the offender in this second parable is so terribly severe. If we simply think of the parable itself, it does seem an extraordinary thing that so slight an offence as coming to a wedding feast without the regulation dress should meet with such an awful doom; but when we consider whom this man represents we can see the very best of reasons for it. Hypocrisy was his crime, than which there is nothing more utterly hateful in the sight of Him Who desireth truth in the inward parts. It is true that the representation does not at first seem to set the sin in so very strong a light; but when we think of it, we see that there was no other way in which it could be brought within the scope of this parable. It is worthy of notice, moreover, that the distinction between the intruder and the others is not observed till the king himself enters, which indicates that the difference between him and the others was no outward distinction, that the garment referred to is the invisible garment of-righteousness. To the common eye he looked like all the rest; but when the all-searching Eye is on the company he is at once detected and exposed. He is really worse than those who would not come at all. They were honest sinners; he was a hypocrite-at the feast with mouth and hand and eye, but not of it, for his spirit is not robed in white: he is the black sheep in the fold; a despiser within, he is worse than the despisers without.

Even to him, indeed, the king has a kindly feeling. He calls him "Friend," and gives him yet the opportunity to repent and cry for mercy. But he is speechless. False to the core, he has no rallying point within to fall back upon. All is confusion and despair. He cannot even pray. Nothing remains but to pronounce his final doom (Mat_22:13).

The words with which the parable closes (Mat_22:14) are sad and solemn. They have occasioned difficulty to some, who have supposed they were meant to teach that the number of the saved will be small. Their difficulty, like so many others, has been due to forgetfulness of the circumstances under which the words were spoken, and the strong emotion of which they were the expression. Jesus is looking back over the time since He began to spread the gospel feast, and thinking how many have been invited, and how few have come! And even among those who have seemed to come there are hypocrites! One He specially would have in mind as He spoke of the man without the wedding garment; for though we take him to be the type of a class, we can scarcely think that our Lord could fail to let His sad thoughts rest on Judas as He described that man. Taking all this into consideration we can well understand how at that time He should conclude His parable with the lamentation: "Many are called, but few chosen." It did not follow that it was a truth for all time and for eternity. It was true for the time included in the scope of the parable. It was most sadly true of the Jewish nation then, and in the times which followed on immediately; but the day was coming, before all was done, when the heavenly Bridegroom, according to the sure word of prophecy, should "see of the travail of His soul, and be satisfied." No creed article, therefore, have we here, but a cry from the sore heart of the heavenly Bridegroom, in the day of His sorrows, in the pain of unrequited love.

II-THE ORDEAL OF QUESTIONS. {Mat_22:15-46}

The open challenge has failed; but more subtle weapons may succeed. The Pharisees have found it of no avail to confront their enemy; but they may still be able to entangle Him. They will at all events try. They will spring upon Him some hard questions, of such a kind that, answering on the spur of the moment, He will be sure to compromise Himself.

1. The first shall be one of those semi-political semi-religious questions on which feeling is running high-the lawfulness or unlawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar. The old Pharisees who had challenged His authority keep in the background, that the sinister purpose of the question may not appear; but they are represented by some of their disciples who, coming fresh upon the scene and addressing Jesus m terms of respect and appreciation, may readily pass for guileless inquirers. They were accompanied by some Herodians, whose divergence of view on the point made it all the more natural that they should join with Pharisees in asking the question; for it might fairly be considered that they had been disputing with one another in regard to it, and had concluded to submit the question to His decision as to one who would be sure to know the truth and fearless to tell it. So together they come with the request: "Master, we know that Thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest Thou for any man: for Thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?"

But they cannot impose upon Him: "Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites?" Having thus unmasked them, without a moments hesitation He answers them. They had expected a "yes" or a "no"-a "yes" which would have set the people against Him, or better still a "no" which would have put Him at the mercy of the government. But, avoiding Scylla on the one hand, and Charybdis on the other, He makes straight for His goal by asking for a piece of coin and calling attention to Caesars stamp upon it. Those who use Caesars coin should not refuse to pay Caesars tribute; but, while the relation which with their own acquiescence they sustain to the Roman emperor implied corresponding obligations in the sphere it covered, this did not at all interfere with what is due to the King of kings and Lord of lords, in Whose image we all are made, and Whose superscription every one of us bears: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesars; and unto God the things that are Gods." Thus He not only avoids the net they had spread for Him, and gives them the very best answer to their question, but, in doing so, He lays down a great principle of far-reaching application and permanent value respecting the difficult and much-to-be-vexed question as to the relations between Church and State. "O answer full of miracle!" as one had said. No wonder that "when they had heard these words they marvelled, and left Him, and went their way."

2. Next come forward certain Sadducees. That the Pharisees had an understanding with them also seems likely from what is said both in ver. 15 (Mat_22:15), which seems a general introduction to the series of questions, and in ver. 34 (Mat_22:34), from which it would appear that they were somewhere out of sight, waiting to hear the result of this new attack. Though the alliance seems a strange one, it is not the first time that common hostility to the Christ of God has drawn together the two great rival parties. {see Mat_16:1} If we are right in supposing them to be in combination now, it is a remarkable illustration of the deep hostility of the Pharisees that they should not only combine with the Sadducees against Him, as they had done before, but that they should look with complacency on their using against Him a weapon which threatened one of their own doctrines. For the object of the attack was to cast ridicule on the doctrine of the resurrection, which assuredly the Pharisees did not deny.

The difficulty they raise is of the same kind as those which are painfully familiar in these days, when men of coarse minds and fleshly imaginations show by their crude objections their incapacity even to think on spiritual themes. The case they supposed was one they knew He could not find fault with so far as this world was concerned, for everything was done in accordance with the letter of the law of Moses, the inference being that whatever confusion there was in it must belong to what they would call His figment of the resurrection: "In the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her."

It is worthy of note that our Lords-answer is much less stern than in the former case. These men were not hypocrites. They were scornful, perhaps flippant; but they were not intentionally dishonest. The difficulty they felt was due to the coarseness of their minds, but it was a real difficulty to them. Our Lord accordingly gives them a kindly answer, not denouncing them, but calmly showing them where they are wrong: "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God."

Ye know not the power of God, or ye would not suppose that the life to come, would be a mere repetition of the life that now is, with all its fleshly conditions the same as now. That there is continuity of life is of course implied in the very idea of resurrection, but true life resides not in the flesh, but in the spirit, and therefore the continuity will be a spiritual continuity; and the power of God will effect such changes on the body itself that it will rise out of its fleshly condition into a state of being like that of the angels of God. The thought is the same as that which was afterwards expanded by the apostle Paul in such passages as Rom_8:5-11, 1Co_15:35-54.

Ye know not the Scriptures, or you would find in the writings of Moses from which you quote, and to which you attach supreme importance, evidence enough of the great doctrine you deny. "Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?" Here, again, Jesus not only answers the Sadducees, but puts the great and all-important doctrine of the life to come and the resurrection of the body on its deepest foundation. There are those who have expressed astonishment that He did not quote from some of the later prophets, where He could have found passages much clearer and more to the point: but not only was it desirable that, as they had based their question on Moses, He should give His answer from the same source; but in doing so He has put the great truth on a permanent and universal basis; for the argument rests not on the authority of Moses, nor, as some have supposed, upon the present tense "I am," but on the relation between God and His people. The thought is that such a relation between mortal man and the eternal God as is implied in the declaration "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" is itself a guarantee of immortality. Not for the spirit only, for it is not as spirits merely, but as men that we are taken into relation to the living God; and that relation, being of God, must share His immortality: "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." The thought is put in a very striking way in a well-known passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "But now they the patriarchs desire a better country, that is, a heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for He hath prepared for them a city."

Our Lords answer suggests the best way of assuring ourselves of this glorious hope. Let God be real to us, and life and immortality will be real too. If we would escape the doubts of old Sadducee and new Agnostic, we must be much with God, and strengthen more and more the ties which bind us to Him.

3. The next attempt of the Pharisees is on an entirely new line. They have found that they cannot impose upon Him by sending pretended inquirers to question Him. But they have managed to lay their hands on a real inquirer now-one of themselves, a student of the law, who is exercised on a question much discussed, arid to which very different answers are given; they will suggest to him to carry his question to Jesus and see what He will say to it. That this was the real state of the case appears from the fuller account in St. Marks Gospel. When, then, St. Matthew speaks of him as asking Jesus a question, "tempting Him," we are not to impute the same sinister motives as actuated those who sent him. He also was in a certain sense tempting Jesus-i.e., putting Him to the test, but with no sinister motive, with a real desire to find out the truth, and probably also to find out if this Jesus was one who could really help an inquirer after truth. In this spirit, then, he asks the question, "Which is the great commandment in the law?"

The answer our Lord immediately gives is now so familiar that it is difficult to realise how great a thing it was to give it for the first time. True, He takes it from the Scriptures; but think what command of the Scriptures is involved in this prompt reply. The passages quoted lie far apart-the one in the sixth chapter of Deuteronomy, the other in the nineteenth of Leviticus in quite an obscure corner; and nowhere are they spoken of as the first and second commandments, nor indeed were they regarded as commandments in the usually understood sense of the word. When we consider all this we recognise what from one point of view might be called a miracle of genius, and from another a flash of inspiration, in the instantaneous selection of these two passages, and bringing them together so as to furnish a summary of the law and the prophets beyond all praise which the veriest unbeliever, if only he have a mind to appreciate that which is excellent, must recognise as worthy of being written in letters of light. That one short answer to a sudden question-asked indeed by a true man, but really sprung upon Him by His enemies who were watching for His halting-is of more value in morals than all the writings of all the ethical philosophers, from Socrates to Herbert Spencer.

It is now time to question the questioners. The opportunity is most favourable. They are gathered together to hear what He will say to their last attempt to entangle Him. Once more He has not only met the difficulty, but has done so in such a way as to make the truth on the subject in dispute shine with the very light of heaven. There could not, then, be a better opportunity of turning their thoughts in a direction which might lead them, if possible in spite of themselves, into the light of God.

The question Jesus asks (Mat_22:41-45) is undoubtedly a puzzling one for them; but it is no mere Scripture conundrum. The difficulty in which it lands them is one which, if only they would honestly face it, would be the means of removing the veil from their eyes, and leading them, ere it is too late, to welcome the Son of David come in the name of the Lord to save them. They fully accepted the psalm to which He referred as a psalm of David concerning the. Messiah. If, then, they would honestly read that psalm they would see that the Messiah when He comes must be, not a mere earthly monarch, as David was, but a heavenly monarch, one who should sit on the throne of God and bring into subjection the enemies of the kingdom of heaven. If only they would take their ideas of the Christ from the Scriptures which were their boast, they could not fail to see Him standing now before them. For we must remember that they had not only the words He spoke to guide them. They had before them the Messiah Himself, with the light of heaven in His eye, with the love of God in His face; and had they had any love for the light, they would have recognised Him then-they would have seen in Him, whom they had often heard of as Davids Son, the Lord of David, and therefore the Lord of the Temple, and the heavenly King of Israel. But they love the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds are evil: therefore their hearts remain unchanged, the eyes of their spirit unopened; they are only abashed and silenced: "No man was able to answer Him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask Him any more questions."

III-THE HOUSE LEFT DESOLATE. {Matt. 23}

The day of grace is over for the leaders of the people; but for the people themselves there may still be hope; so the Lord of the Temple turns to "the multitude," the general throng of worshippers, mingled with whom were several of His own disciples, and solemnly warns them against their spiritual guides. There is every reason to suppose that many of the scribes and Pharisees were within hearing; for when He has finished what He has to say to the people, He turns round and addresses them directly in that series of terrible denunciations which follow (Matt. 13, seq.).

His warning is couched in such a way as not in the least degree to weaken their respect for Moses, or for the sacred Scriptures, the exposition of which was the duty of their spiritual guides. He separates sharply between the office and the men who hold it. Had they been true to the position they occupied and the high duties they had been called to discharge, they would have been worthy of all honour; but they are false men: "they say, and do not." Not only so, but they do positive evil, making that grievous for the people which ought to be a delight; and when they do or seem to do the right thing, it is some petty observance, which they exaggerate for the sake of vain display, while their hearts are set on personal pre-eminence. Such are the leading thoughts set forth with great vigour of language and force of illustration, and not without a touch of keen and delicate irony in our Lords remarkable indictment of the scribes and Pharisees recorded by our Evangelist (Mat_23:2-7).

Then follows one of those passages of profound significance and far-reaching application which, while admirably suiting the immediate occasions on which they were spoken, prove to be a treasury of truth for the ages to come. At first sight it strikes us as simply an exhortation to cultivate a disposition the reverse of that of the scribes and Pharisees. He has been drawing their portrait; now He says, Be ye not like unto them, but unlike in every respect. But in saying this He succeeds in laying down great principles for the future guidance of His Church, the remembrance of which would have averted most of the evils which in the course of its history have weakened its power, hindered its progress, and marred its witness to the truth. With one stroke He abolishes all claims of men to intervene between the soul and God. "One is your Teacher" (R.V), "One is your Father," "One is your Master." Who is that One? He does not in so many words claim the position for Himself; but it is throughout implied, and at the end almost expressed; for, while in speaking of the Teacher and the Father He says nothing to indicate who the One is, when He comes to the Master He adds "even the Christ" (R.V). Standing thus at the end of all, these words suggest that the office of the Christ was to bring God within reach of every soul, so that without any intervention of scribe or Pharisee, priest or pope, each one could go direct to Him for instruction (Teacher), for loving recognition (Father), for authoritative guidance and control (Master).

We must remember, too, that He was speaking to His disciples as well as to the multitude, and to them these words would be full of meaning. When He said, "One is your Teacher," of whom could they possibly think but of Him-self? When He said, "One is your Father," they would recall such utterances as "I and My Father are One," and have suggested to them the truth which was so very soon to be plainly stated: "He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father." It is probable, then, that even before He reached the end, and added the words "even the Christ," the minds of His disciples at least had anticipated Him. Thus we find in these remarkable words an implicit claim on the part of Christ to be the sole Prophet, Priest, and King of His people: their sole Prophet, to teach them by the enlightening and sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit; their sole Priest, to open up the way of access to a reconciled Father in heaven; their sole King, alone entitled to be the Lord of their conscience and their heart.

If only the Christian Church had been true to all this, how different would her history have been! Then the Word of God would have been, throughout, the only and sufficient rule of faith, and the Holy Spirit dealing directly with the spirits of men its sole authoritative interpreter. Then would there have been no usurping priesthood to stand between the soul of men and their Father in heaven, to bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne and lay them upon mens shoulders, to multiply forms and observances and complicate what should have been simplest of all-the direct way to the Father in heaven, through Christ the great Priest of humanity. Then would there have been no lordship over mens consciences, no ecclesiastical usurpation, no spiritual tyranny, no inquisition, no persecution for conscience sake. How inexcusable has it all been! It would seem as if pains had been taken deliberately to violate not only the spirit, but the very letter of the Saviours words, as, e.g., in the one fact that, while it is expressly written "Call no man your father upon the earth," the Church of Rome has actually succeeded age after age in getting the millions under its usurped spiritual control, to give a man that very title; for the word "pope" is the very word which our Lord so expressly forbids. But all clerical assumption of priestly power is just as certainly and as clearly in violation of this great charter of our spiritual liberties.

"And all ye are brethren." This is the second commandment of the true canon law, like unto the first and springing naturally out of it, as naturally as the love of neighbour springs out of love to God. As soon as the time shall come when all Christians shall own allegiance alike, full and undivided, to the one Lord of mind and heart and conscience, then will there be an end to all ecclesiastical exclusiveness; then shall we see realised and manifested to the world the brotherhood in Christ of all believers.

Turning once again to the scribes and Pharisees, the Lord of the Temple denounces them in words perhaps the most terrible in the whole Bible. It is a very thunderstorm of indignation, with flash after flash of scorn, peal after peal of woe. It is "the burden of the Lord," "the wrath of the Lamb." Is this at all inconsistent with the meekness and lowliness of His heart, the love and tenderness of His character? Certainly not! Love is no love at all, unless it be capable of indignation against wrong. Besides, it is no personal wrongs which stir the heart of Jesus, "Who when He was reviled, reviled not again, when He suffered, He threatened not"; but the wrong these hypocrites are doing to the poor sheep they are leading all astray. The occasion absolutely demanded a tempest of indignation. There is this further to be considered, that the Lord Jesus, as Revealer of God, must display His justice as well as His mercy, His wrath as well as His love.

This passage, terrible as it is, commends itself to all that-is noblest and best in us. Who is there who does not thank God for this scathing denunciation of that most hateful of all abominations-hypocrisy? See how He brands it in every sentence-"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" - how piece by piece He shows their miserable life to be a lie. Hypocrites! because you profess to sit in Moses seat, to have the key of knowledge, to know the way of life yourselves, and show it to others; and all this profession is a lie (Mat_23:13). Hypocrites! because your pretended charity is a lie, aggravated by the forms of devotion with which it is masked, while the essence of it is most sordid avarice (Mat_23:14). Hypocrites! because your zeal for God is a lie, being really a zeal for the devil, your converts being perverts worse than yourselves (Mat_23:15). Hypocrites! because your morality is a lie, making the law of God of none effect by your miserable casuistry (Mat_23:16-22). Hypocrites! because your devotion is a lie, consisting merely in punctilious attention to the minutest forms, while the weighty matters of the law you set aside, like those who "strain out the gnat and swallow the camel" (Mat_23:23-24, R.V). Hypocrites! because your whole demeanour is a lie, all fair without like a whited sepulchre, while within ye are "full of dead mens bones, and of all uncleanness" (Mat_23:25-28). Hypocrites! because your pretended reverence for the prophets is a lie, for had you lived in the days of your fathers you would have done as they did, as is plain from the way in which you are acting now; for you build the tombs of the dead prophets and put to death the living ones (Mat_23:29-31).

The sin branded, sentence follows: "Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers." Since you will not be saved, there is nothing for it but that you go on in sin to the bitter end: serpents, "for ever hissing at the heels of the holy," a brood of vipers, with no hope now of escaping the judgment of Gehenna!

As in the Sermon on the Mount (see page 722) so here, when He speaks as Judge He cannot conceal His personal majesty. All throughout He has been speaking with authority, but has, as usual, avoided the obtrusion of His personal prerogative. Even in saying "One is your Master, even the Christ," it is not at all the same as if He had said, even Myself. All it necessarily conveyed was, "One is your master, even the Messiah," whoever he may be. But now He speaks as from His judgment throne. He is no longer thinking of Himself as one of the prophets, or even as the Kings Son, but as Lord of all; so He says: "Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth," from Abel to Zacharias. And, again, "Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation."

But judgment is His strange work. He has been compelled by the fire of His holiness to break forth into this tempest of indignation against the hypocrites, and to pronounce upon them the long-deferred sentence of condemnation and wrath. But there has been a wail in all His woes. His nature and His name is love, and it must have been a terrible strain on Him to keep up the foreign tone so long. "The wrath of the Lamb" is a necessary but not a natural combination. We may not wonder, then, though well we may adore, when after the tension of these woes, His heart is melted into tenderness as He mourns over the fate which all His love may not avert: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" Again, observe the lofty consciousness shining out in the little pronoun "I." He is a young man of little more than thirty; but His personal consciousness runs back through all the ages of the past, through all the times of the killing of the prophets and stoning of the messengers of God, from Abel on to Zachariah: and not only so, but this Son of Israel speaks in the most natural way as the brooding mother of them all through all their generations-what wonders, not of beauty alone, and of exquisite pathos, but of conscious majesty in that immortal lamentation!

Our Saviours public ministry is closed. He has yet many things to say to His disciples-a private ministry of love to fulfil ere He leave the world and go to the Father; but His public ministry is ended now. Commenced with beatitudes, it ends with woes, because the blessings offered in the beatitudes have been rudely rejected and trampled underfoot. And now the Lord of the Temple is about to leave it-to leave it to its fate, to leave it as He counselled His disciples to leave any city or house that refused to receive them: shaking the dust off His feet; and in doing so, as He turns from the astonished hierarchs, He utters these solemn words, which close the time of their merciful visitation and leave them to "eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices"; "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." Your house. It was Mine. I was its glory, and would have been its defence; but when I came unto My own, Mine own received Me not; and now it is no longer Mine but yours, and therefore desolate. Desolate; and therefore defenceless, a ready prey for the Roman eagles when they swoop on the defenceless brood. "For I say unto you, Ye shall not see Me henceforth till"-till when? Is there still a door of hope? There is, even for scribes and Pharisees-hypocrites; the door ever open here on earth: "Him that cometh unto Me, I will in nowise cast out." The door is closed upon them for ever as leaders of the people; as temple authorities they can never be recognised again, -their house is left to them desolate, but for themselves there is still this door of hope; these awful woes therefore are not a final sentence, but a long, loud, last call to enter ere it be too late. And as if to show, after all the wrath of His terrible denunciation, that judgment is "His strange work" and that He "delighteth in mercy," He points in closing to that still open door, and says, "Ye shall not See Me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord."

Why did they not say it then? Why did they not entreat Him to remain? But they did not. So "Jesus went out, and departed from the Temple." {Mat_14:1} and though eighteen hundred years have rolled away since then, the time has not yet come when as a people they have said, "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord"; accordingly their house is still desolate, and they are "scattered and peeled"-chickens that will not nestle under the mothers wing.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

Mat 21:18. Ἐπείνασε, He hungered) though He was the King of Glory, see Mat 21:5. Wondrous humiliation!

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 21:18-22 . The barren fig tree (Mar 11:12-14 ; Mar 11:19-26 ). The story of two morning journeys from Bethany to Jerusalem ( vide Mk.) is here compressed into one.

Mat 21:18 . ἐπείνασε , He felt hungry. The fact seems to favour the hypothesis of a bivouac under the sky overnight. Why should one be hungry leaving the hospitable house of friends? ( vide Mk.). This was no difficulty for the Fathers who regarded the hunger as assumed ( σχηματίζεται πεινᾶν , Euthy.).

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Hypocrites shall at length have their masks discovered, and their vizards plucked from their faces.

Mark 21:12

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 18. Now in the morning, as he returned into the city] Which was his custom from the time he wholly left Jerusalem, spending only the day time teaching in the temple; see Mt 21:17. This was probably on Thursday, the 12th day of the month Nisan.

He hungered - Probably neither he, nor his disciples, had any thing but what they got from public charity; and the hand of that seems to have been cold at this time.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(18) In the morning.—The word implies “daybreak,” probably about 5 A.M. This was the usual Jewish time for the first food of the day. If we may infer from Luk_21:37, Joh_18:1, that the greater part of the night had been spent either in solitary prayer or in converse with the disciples, we have an explanation of the exhaustion which sought food wherever there might seem even a chance of finding it.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18–22. The Cursing of the Fig-Tree

Mar_11:12-14; Mar_11:20-24. St Mark places this incident before the “Cleansing of the Temple,” see note Mat_21:12-14.

19 a fig tree] Rather, a single fig-tree.

found nothing thereon, but leaves only] The fig-tree loses its leaves in the winter: indeed it looks particularly bare with its white naked branches. One species, however, puts forth fruit and leaves in the very early spring, the fruit appearing before the leaves. It was doubtless a fig-tree of this kind that Jesus observed, and seeing the leaves expected to find fruit thereon. At the time of the Passover the first leaf-buds would scarcely have appeared on the common fig-tree, while this year’s ripe fruit would not be found till four months later.

The teaching of the incident depends on this circumstance (comp. Luk_13:6-9). The early fig-tree, conspicuous among its leafless brethren, seemed alone to make a show of fruit and to invite inspection. So Israel, alone among the nations of the world, held forth a promise. From Israel alone could fruit be expected; but none was found, and their harvest-time was past. Therefore Israel perished as a nation, while the Gentile races, barren hitherto, but now on the verge of their spring-time, were ready to burst into blossom and bear fruit.

presently=immediately; cp. French présentement.

the fig tree withered away] From St Mark we gather that the disciples observed the effect of the curse on the day after it was pronounced by Jesus.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Now in the morning,.... Greek "in the first", or morning light, in the dawn, or break of day, the first spring of light; so the Latins (s) use "prima luce" for early in the morning, as soon as ever day breaks: so early did Christ rise, and return from Bethany to Jerusalem;

and as he returned to the city. The Persic version renders it, "they returned"; which, though not a good version, gives a true sense; for, as Christ went with the twelve to Bethany, as Mark affirms, so these returned with him, as is clear from what follows. Thus Christ, day after day, went to and from Jerusalem: in the evening he went to Bethany, or to some part of the Mount of Olives, and there abode all night, and returned in the daytime to Jerusalem, and taught in the temple; for it does not appear that he was one night in Jerusalem, before the night of the passover.

He hungered, rising so early before his friends were up, he had eaten nothing that morning, and so before he had got far from Bethany, found himself hungry; which proves the truth of his human nature, which was in all respects like to ours, excepting sin.

(s) Caesar. Comment. 1. 1. p. 14. & passim. Curtius, 1. 5. c. 5. passim. Apulei Metamorph. 1. 9. p. 134.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

18 Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.

Ver. 18. As he returned into the city] There his work lay chiefly; thither therefore he goes early, and had forgotten, for haste, to take his breakfast, as it may seem, for ere he came to the city he was hungry, though it were but a step thither. A good man’s heart is in the place where his calling is: such a one, when he is visiting friends or so, is like a fish in the air; whereunto if it leap for recreation or necessity, yet it soon returns to its own element.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

In the morning, returning into the city, he was hungry. This hunger, though real and pressing, was mysterious, and affords an opportunity of giving instruction both to the Jews and to all his disciples. By the fig-tree, was represented the Jewish synagogue; the hunger of Christ was a figure of his extreme desire of finding it productive of good works, (and there is no time nor season when the servants of God can be excused from bringing for good works) answerable to the pains of cultivation he had taken for more than three years. The leaves were their pompous shew of exterior service, the barren foliage of legal rites, void of the internal spirit and good works, the only valuable produce of the tree. By the withering of the tree subsequent to Christ’s imprecation, the reprobation and utter barrenness of the synagogue are represented. St. Mark observes, (xi. 13,) that it was not the season for figs; nor are we to suppose that our Saviour went up to the tree expecting to find fruit; but if some of the evangelists mention this circumstance, they only relate the surmises of the disciples. Though he had before shewn his power by innumerable miracles, Christ still thought this necessary to excite the hearts of his disciples to greater confidence. He had often exercised his power to do good, but now for the first time shews himself able to punish. Thus he testifies to the apostles and to the Jews themselves, that he could with a word have made his crucifiers wither away, and therefore that he willingly bore the extremity of the sufferings he should in a few days have to undergo. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. lxviii.)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Vers. 18-22. The cursing of the barren fig tree. (Mar_11:12-14, 20-26)

In the morning (prwiav , which implies a very early time of the day, and is a term used for the fourth or last watch of the night, Mar_1:35). St. Matthew has combined in one view a transaction which had two separate stages, as we gather from the narrative of St. Mark. The curse was uttered on the Monday morning, before the cleansing of the temple; the effect was beheld and the lesson given on the Tuesday, when Jesus was visiting Jerusalem for the third time (vers. 20-22). Strauss and his followers, resenting the miraculous in the incident, have imagined that the whole story is merely an embodiment and development of the parable of the fruitless fig tree recorded by St. Luke, (Luk_13:6, etc.) which in course of time assumed this historical form. There is no ground whatever for this idea. It claims to be, and doubtless is, the account of a real fact, naturally connected with the circumstances of the time, and of great practical importance. He hungered. True Man, he showed the weakness of his human nature, even when about to exert his power in the Divine. There is no need, rather it is unseemly to suppose (as many old commentators have done), that this hunger was miraculous or assumed, in order to give occasion for the coming miracle. Christ had either passed the night on the mountain-side in prayer and fasting, or had started from his lodging without breaking his fast. His followers do not seem to have suffered in the same way; and it was doubtless owing to his mental preoccupation and self-forgetfulness that the Lord had not attended to bodily wants.

Vers. 18-22. The omnipotence of faith.

The miracles of Jesus were generally miracles of mercy. There are a few exceptions. Conspicuous amongst these is the withering of the fig tree with a word. When the disciples marvelled Jesus expounded to them his astonishing doctrine of the power of faith. We learn

I THAT BELIEVING IS ESSENTIAL TO PREVAILING PRAYER.

1. There can be no prayer without faith in a personal God.

(1) The atheist cannot pray. The reason is obvious. He has no God to pray to. His is a melancholy orphanage.

(2) The pantheist cannot pray. His god is an infinite It, unsusceptible to prayer. "He that cometh to God must believe that he is". (Heb_11:6)

(3) The Christian can pray. He believes in a personal God, who created us after his image. As a man can intelligently speak to his friend, so, etc. (see Exo_33:11)

2. There can be no prayer without faith in a Person susceptible to human appeals.

(1) The deist cannot pray. His god is too far removed from his works to notice the specks upon a tiny planet.

(2) The Christian can pray. For he has loftier views of God. He is so great that nothing can escape him. While he rules firmaments of suns and systems of worlds, he feeds the animalcule.

(3) The Christian, moreover, is encouraged to pray by his faith in the mediation of Christ. Without such mediation the sinner might shrink from approaching the infinitely Holy. In it mercy in harmony with justice is assured.

3. Faith is active in successful prayer.

(1) The power of faith is like that of water, impotent in quiescence, but efficient when in motion. It is like heat, impotent when latent, but whose energy when molecules are in motion is tremendous.

(2) It is the active faith of saints that alarms Satan. It stirs three worlds, viz. heaven, earth, and hell.

II THAT BELIEVING PRAYER IS INFALLIBLY EFFECTIVE.

1. Because God has pledged himself to it.

(1) He is able to do whatever he will. The power of the Promiser was exemplified in the withering of the fig tree. The moral is drawn from this example: "If ye have faith, and doubt not," etc. (vers. 21, 22).

(2) He is willing to do whatever he promises. He cannot deny himself. "Heaven and earth may pass away." The Creator may reverse his act of creation. But the Uncreate cannot annihilate himself. But to falsify would be to annihilate Infinite Truth.

2. But how is the infallible effectiveness of believing prayer reconciled with the wisdom of God?

(1) If omnipotence is pledged to faith, may not omnipotence be put into commission to folly; for man is confessedly fallible?

(2) Faith, in the nature of the case, presupposes a promise. Where has the God of wisdom promised a foolish thing?

(3) But is there not here an open cheque: "All things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive"? The particular promise is still implied in the term "believing;" for faith itself is the gift of God. The God of wisdom cannot inspire faith in the interests of folly.

3. But how can efficacy in prayer comport with the uniformity of nature"s processes?

(1) So undeviating is the order in the revolutions of the spheres that eclipses, occultations, conjunctions, epacts, and other matters may be calculated with certainty. In like manner, chemical changes never vary when the conditions are the same. Can prayer disturb these things?

(2) Who wants it to do so? There is no need to disturb matter when prayer is made for spiritual blessings. What relation is there to eclipses and epacts in answering the cry for mercy? A whole millennium of spiritual glory may flood this earth in answer to prayer, without touching the properties of a molecule of matter.

(3) But how does the argument stand in relation to providence? There is a sphere in nature for human providence. The farmer does not violate the order of nature when he grows corn in response to the cry of a nation for food. By draining and tillage he can alter the climate of his country and alter its flora and fauna, and all this without altering the properties of a single molecule of matter. In like manner, on a far grander scale, God also has reserved to himself a sphere for his providence in nature, within which he can answer every prayer he pleases to inspire.

III THAT PRAYER FAILS THROUGH THE INFLUENCE OF CONDITIONS INIMICAL TO ACTIVE FAITH.

1. As when the matter of the suit is unwise.

(1) "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss". (Jam_4:3) In such a case God will in mercy withhold his gift of faith.

(2) Or he may honour the sincerity of the prayer by conferring an equivalent to that which his grace withholds. So he dealt with Paul when he sought the removal of his "thorn in the flesh.

(3) Honest prayer is never vain. Its very exercise ennobles. As the domestic animal is ennobled by his conversation with man, infinitely more is man ennobled by conversing with his Maker.

2. As when the motive is unworthy of the suit.

(1) Is our prayer for business prosperity? But is the motive good? Else the answer may come in anger. To how many is the accession of material wealth the wasting of the infinitely more precious moral properties!

(2) Is our prayer for the spiritual conversion of a child? The end here is undoubtedly good. But what is the motive? Is it that his consequent dutifulness may increase the comfort of the home, rather than bring glory to God and save a soul from death? Feather the arrows of prayer with the very best motives.

3. As when the disposition of the suppliant is inconsistent with sincerity.

(1) Such is the case when the lazy pray for a revival. Work for it while you pray.

(2) When the impenitent seek salvation. This is like a rebel suing to his sovereign for pardon with a leaded revolver in his hand. The salvation of the gospel is a salvation from sin. Repentance is therefore indispensable. (see Psa_66:18 Isa_1:15-20 Mat_5:23-26) There is no mercy for the implacable. J.A.M. (see Mat_6:12-15)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18. Now in the morning. Compare Mark 11:12–19, and Luke 19:45–48. This was Monday.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Jesus uses a fig tree to teach his disciples about faith and prayer.

Now

This word is used here to mark a break in the main story line. Here Matthew explains that Jesus is hungry and that is why he stops at the fig tree.

withered

died and dried up

translationWords

fig

fruit

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

18–22. THE CURSING OF THE FIG-TREE

Mar 11:12-14; Mar 11:20-24. St Mark places this incident before the ‘Cleansing of the Temple,’ see note Mat 21:12-14. It is an interesting and leading instance of miracle and parable in one. The miracle is an acted parable.

18. ἐπείνασεν, late for ἐπείνησεν, the contraction of αε into α instead of η in πεινάω, διψάω and χράω against the Attic rule appears rarely in the later authors, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Plutarch, &c.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18-22.] The curse of the barren fig-tree. Mar 11:12-14, Mar 11:20-26, where see notes. St. Luke omits the incident.

The cursing of the fig-tree had in fact taken place on the day before, and the withering of it was now noticed. St. Mark separates the two accounts, which are here given together. We must remember that this miracle was wholly typical and parabolical. The fig-tree was the Jewish people—full of the leaves of an useless profession, but without fruit:—and further, all hypocrites of every kind, in every age. It is true, as De Wette observes, that no trace of a parabolic meaning appears in the narrative (and yet, strangely enough, he himself a few lines after, denying the truth of the miracle, accounts for the narrative by supposing it to have arisen out of a parable spoken by our Lord); but neither does there in that of the driving out the buyers and sellers from the temple, and in those of many other actions which we know to have been symbolic.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18-22. From Mar 11:2-14, Mar 11:20-25.

(M) 18. And early in the morning, as He made for the city, He was hungry.] Mk. has: “And as they were passing by early in the morning,” v. 20; and: “And on the morrow as they went out from Bethany, He was hungry,” v. 12.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.