THE LAST WEEK OF JESUS' PUBLIC MINISTRY AND HIS CRUCIFIXION
-Jesus Teaches With a Group of Parables
-Matthew 21:28-22:13; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 9-18
-The Parable of the Two Sons - Matthew 21:28-32
-This parable depicts a father asking his two sons to work in his vineyard. The first son that he
asked initially delivered a blunt refusal. However, he later repented and worked in the vineyard.
The second son initially and respectfully agreed to do the work but never did.
-After delivering this brief parable, Jesus asked, “Which of the two did the will of his
father?” (vs 31, NASB).
-“There is a world of emphasis on the word did. Of all things that could be said about
them, the only important things, according to Jesus, is whether the sons did the will of
their father. All else is of no consequence. No matter how good the intentions, no
matter how many the promises, the simple fact is that one son did and one son did not”
(Lightfoot, pg 157).
-The Jewish leaders answered the question accurately - not understanding, at that moment,
that they were making a judgment against themselves.
-Jesus then revealed the application of the parable - “Verily I say unto you, That the publicans
and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you” (vs 31).
-“This parable does not primarily apply to the Jews and Gentiles, but must be referred
rather to the two bodies within the bosom of the Jewish people...” (Trench, pg 68).
-“John came as a Jew and a prophet of the strictest and purest type; he did the very
righteousness which the law demanded, and that for which the Pharisees boasted in their
own self-righteous claims; yet they had rejected him. They could not detect in John the
slightest departure from the law, still they rejected his message” (Boles, Matthew, pg 421).
-The common Jewish people, whom the Jewish leaders (in self-righteousness) exalted
themselves above, would enter the kingdom before them. This was due to the people’s
willingness to recognize and accept heavenly authority (i.e. John the Baptizer) and their
willingness to then respond with repentance.
-Notice, the door to the kingdom was not shut to these Jewish leaders. They would continue to
have the opportunity to enter into the kingdom through repentance.
-The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen - Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19
-“What Jesus would not do directly in response to the Jewish leaders’ hostile challenge to His
authority, He then did indirectly as He taught the parable about the wicked vinedressers; He
spoke about His authority and the source of His authority. He also challenged the claim to
authority made by the chief priests, scribes and elders” (Companion, pg 96).
-In this parable, a man (representing God) planted a vineyard (representing the Jewish nation)
which was well supplied and protected. He then rented it out to husbandmen (representing the
Jewish leadership) while he went into a far country. When the time for fruit arrived, the owner
of the vineyard sent his servants (representing the prophets) to those renting the vineyard to
collect the fruits. However, rather than producing the proper fruit, they killed the servants. The
owner of the vineyard eventually sent his son (representing Jesus) whom they also killed.
-As with the previous parable, Jesus then posed a question to his audience, “When the lord
therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?” (Matt 21:40).
-Notice, in Matthew’s account, some answered correctly - unknowingly pronouncing a
judgment against themselves. However, Luke’s account reveals that some then said,
“God forbid” (vs 16).
-“Part of the multitude, hearing only the story, pronounced unhesitatingly the judgment
which ought to be inflicted upon such evil-doers, and Jesus confirmed their judgment. But
others, perceiving the meaning underlying the parable, shrank from accepting what would
otherwise have been to them a very proper ending, and said...Be it not so, and which might
properly be paraphrased by our emphatic ‘Never!’...” (McGarvey/Pendleton, pg 593).
-To their objection, Jesus questioned them regarding Psalm 118:22-23. The Jewish nation was
expecting the Messiah and longing for the kingdom He was to establish. Yet, by rejecting
Jesus, they were rejecting the very cornerstone of the foundation upon which the kingdom was
to be built.
-Those who stumble over the cornerstone (rejecting Jesus and therefore failing to adhere to
the doctrine of Christ) will eventually be ground to powder (a reference to the completeness
and severity of the judgment against them).
-Note: There is another lesson that we can and should take from this parable - “...that human
privileges and human responsibilities cannot be taken lightly. When God makes provision for
man, He expects something in return. This is the way it has always been. When times are good
as they are now, when human freedoms are many, when the opportunities of living in a great
land are so unlimited, God surely expects much of us. In the church our resources of wealth and
learning have never been more abundant. Our opportunities to serve mankind and to reach the
world with Christ’s message have never been so vast. And these opportunities, numerous as
they are, transmit to us certain inescapable responsibilities” (Lightfoot, pg 162).
-The Parable of the Marriage of the King’s Son - Matthew 22:1-14
-This parable is similar to one previously delivered by Jesus in Luke 14. (pg 101 of our study)
-“I regard this parable as a remodeling of the parable given by Luke, the changes being made
to suit the changed relation between Jesus and his auditors. In the parable in Luke, God is
represented as one who invites us as a friend, and whose invitation is simply disregarded. Since
the speaking of that parable the situation had become more tense and the relations more strained,
and hence the parable takes on a more severe form. The host is not to be disregarded, for he is
a king, and the supper is not to be despised, for it is a marriage supper. The invitation, therefore,
savors of commandment, and while some still continue to treat it with indifference, others feel
the constraint of the invitation and reject it in a spirit of rebellion which manifests itself in
violence toward the king’s servants. The king, in turn, is moved by this to retaliate, and visits
upon the offenders an overwhelming judgment - P.Y.P.” (McGarvey, Pendleton, pg 596, fn).
-Invitations had been extended. The wedding feast had been prepared and was now ready. The
servants were sent out to bid the invited guests to come - “…all things are ready: come…” (vs 4).
-Some made light of this last invitation and simply went about their business. Others “…seized
his servants, mistreated them and killed them” (vs 6, NIV).
-The king was understandably irate and sent his armies to destroy those who rejected the
invitation. Other servants were sent out to invite as many as they could find.
-When the king came in to see his guests, he noticed a man without a wedding garment.
-“Some think that it was a custom of the king to furnish proper garments for their guests at
such feasts. It matters not whether that be true or not; one guest did not have on the wedding
garment and had no excuse for not being properly clothed…The man made no excuse, hence
‘he was speechless’; this shows that he was responsible for his unprepared condition” (Boles,
Matthew, pg 430). As a result, the man was cast out.
-“In this parable the first parties invited represent the Jews; the city of the murderers is
Jerusalem; the persons called from the highways are the Gentiles; the entrance of the king is the
coming of the Lord to final judgment; and the man without the wedding-garment is any one who
will be found in the church without a suitable character” (McGarvey/Pendleton, pg 597).
-“For many are called, but few are chosen” (vs 14) - “Membership in the church, and acceptance
of its privileges, are not enough to assure eternal life. Every diligence to appear before God, not
naked, but clad in the garments of righteousness, should be exerted by all who hope to enter
eternal fellowship with God (Rev 3:18)” (Coffman, Matthew, pg 347).