The Arrogance of Legalism Blinds the Soul, Matthew 21:33-43

What we are seeing throughout this section as Jesus confronts the religious leaders of Israel is the fact that they have adopted an approach to relationship with God that is just as idolatrous as the religions they had adopted in the Old Testament period.

Continuously in the Old Testament God warned them against idolatry. He warned them that he was to be worshipped as God alone, and that all of these false gods were no gods. He warned them that if they violated the covenant with Him and were disloyal and committed treason that God would visit various judgments against the nation, the severest being that He would remove them from the land He had promised to give them and would scatter them among the nations. They would reap the consequences of their spiritual infidelity.

When the Jews returned to the land from their captivity in Babylon they set forth to not commit that same sin of idolatry again. In the development of Pharisaism from the time Ezra the priest until the second century BC there was the gradual development of what they called the Oral Law, the way of walking. It was an interpretation of the Law that added a lot of traditions to it. These traditions they thought of as a fence that would protect the Law. They set up this fence that took up the same authority as the Law itself. This tradition was elevated to the level of a divine mandate.

We see the same kind of thing happen in our own culture in certain denominations. They decide that the best way to glorify God is to apply the Scriptures in a certain way. That may have to do with the style of clothing, with avoiding certain kinds of activity, and those decisions then become set in concrete and become as authoritative as the Word of God. This creates what we call legalism.

That was the problem with the leaders of Israel as they created an idolatry out of their legalistic application so that their ideas had the same authority as that of God. These things went far beyond what was actually stated in the Mosaic Law. It was more of a mental idolatry as opposed to the worship of gods made of stone or wood. All idolatry is grounded in arrogance: man thinking that somehow he can do things that will so impress God that God will bless them. That is the essence of legalism.

The essence of grace is to recognize—not that we can do whatever we want to; grace isn't licentiousness—that God has provided all of the solution, and the solution to sin is not our obedience but the righteousness of Christ which we receive at the instant of salvation.

What we see in this condemnation running through chapters twenty-one through twenty-three is this problem of arrogance and the religious arrogance of the Pharisees. Legalism blinds the soul to grace, to truth, and it ends up rejecting God, being unable to see or understand His grace or His goodness. We are more concerned about upholding our own opinion rather than what he has said in His Word.

Looking back to where we have come from in this section this actually begins back in verse 23. When Jesus came into the temple He was confronted the chief priests and elders who challenged His authority. Jesus in an extremely sophisticated manner turned this back on them.

Each of the parables is this chapter feature a father, a son or sons, and a response to the father's authority. Thus we see in each part of the answer to the challenge, the basis for Jesus' authority.

In the first parable (v. 28) He points out that the issue he is expressing is that the Pharisees and the chief priests have failed to trust in God—v. 32, “you did not believe him [John].” The tax collectors and harlots believed him. So the contrast is between the religious leaders who did not believe John and the tax collectors and prostitutes who did believe. That is the issue. The issue in the gospel is always faith alone in Christ alone.

At this point Jesus introduces the next parable.

Matthew 21:33 ^NASB “Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who PLANTED A VINEYARD AND PUT A WALL AROUND IT AND DUG A WINE PRESS IN IT, AND BUILT A TOWER, and rented it out to vine-growers and went on a journey.”

We have to understand principles about parables. Not every detail in a parable is significant spiritually. It is a story, the general story of which is designed to teach a general principle. There are details that are important and have application, and usually the Lord identifies what those elements are so that we can properly understand and interpret the parable.

The parable here is reminiscent of some stories and parables and analogies that are used in the Old Testament. When reading or hear a sermon you will frequently hear that this parable is built off an analogy that God uses in Isaiah chapter five.

Is 5:1, 2 ^NASB “Let me sing now for my well-beloved A song of my beloved concerning His vineyard. My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill. He dug it all around, removed its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. And He built a tower in the middle of it And also hewed out a wine vat in it; Then He expected {it} to produce {good} grapes, But it produced {only} worthless ones.”

In this analogy used by Isaiah, which is very similar to how Jesus sets this up, Israel is the vineyard. And so you will find about eighty per cent of commentaries make the statement that the vineyard here in Matthew is Israel. It is not.

Jesus begins, “Listen to another parable”--another of the same kind. That first phrase tells us that what he is saying in the second parable is related to and developed out of what He said in the first parable; all of which is related to the authority question.

There are several elements to the parable. We have a landowner, a vineyard, a contract between the land owner and the vinedressers or tenant farmers that are going to take care of the vineyard. There is a wall or fence that is built around the vineyard, the mention of a wine press and a tower. We need to identify what these different elements describe.

First we have the landowner—OIKODESPOTES [OIKOS: house or building; DESPOTES: master]. It refers to somebody who primarily has authority over a house. This is describing God in terms of His sovereign rule over human history. The landowner represents God the Father who is the creator God who rules over human history.

The second element that we see is the vineyard. As pointed out, there are many who go back to Isaiah chapter five and say the vineyard is Israel. That is about 80 per cent true; it has to be made more specific than that. But there is nothing in the context of what Jesus is saying that causes us to interpret what he is saying on the basis of Isaiah 5. That is just an assumption that is brought to the text.

In fact, what Jesus says when He interprets it to the religious leaders is: “The kingdom of God will be taken from you”.

In the analogy of the parable the vinedressers don't ever give the fruits of the vineyard to the landowner. God never receives the fruit that was expected from the vineyard, so the vinedressers are going to be taken away. The fact that the vinedressers are taken indicates that they are removed from the position. So the vineyard that they are removed from is identified by Jesus in this statement as the kingdom of God.

Further, we should notice that when He says [v. 43], “The kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation”, if the vineyard represents Israel then that would have to mean Israel “is taken from you and given to another nation”. That doesn't even make sense. So we can't interpret the vineyard here as Israel, we must interpret it as the kingdom that has been offered and rejected by Israel.

The vineyard represents the theocratic kingdom that has been offered to Israel. All through the Gospel the kingdom of God is consistent with the Old Testament promise and prophecy of the kingdom of God that this is a literal, physical kingdom that is established on land that God promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is a literal kingdom on the earth ruled by a King from the throne of David in Jerusalem. It isn't a spiritual kingdom.

So it is very clear that the kingdom of God Jesus mentions in v. 43 is a literal geophysical kingdom, the one that John the Baptist announced, that He announced, that the leaders rejected, and so He is talking about the fact that what He announced in Matthew chapter twelve: this kingdom will be taken from them, “from you”, and He is talking about the religious leaders.

It is important to understand that He is not talking to all of ethnic Israel; He is talking to the religious leaders and their failure. This is seen in v. 45 ^NASB “When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them [Not of Israel].” So this is going to be a condemnation of that leadership at that time in Israel's history.

The landowner is God, the vineyard represents the kingdom offered to Israel and rejected by the religious leaders, and there is a contract mentioned as the landowner hires vinedressers. He leased it to vinedressers. There is a contract there. That represents the Mosaic covenant where God delegated the leaders of Israel to rule over the nation.

Three things are mentioned together. There is a fence that is built around the vineyard, there is a winepress where the grapes would be crushed and the juice would run out, and then there is a tower built. The fence is designed to keep the thieves out so that they don't come in at harvest time and steal the grapes. The winepress is to develop the production and to create a profit from the vineyard, and the tower is a watchtower for when the grapes near the ripening stage and where they would have a guard to protect the vineyard.

Each of these together shows the attention and care of the landowner to provide for the security and productivity of the vineyard. This is the idea. God has provided everything for Israel. He is pictured in the psalms as their strong fortress, as their tower. He is the one who hedges them about, who builds that protection.

What all of this is designed to do in the parable is show that the landowner has provided everything necessary for the productivity of the vineyard. Then he goes into a far country; he is an absent landlord, but he has leased out to these tenant farmers or vinedressers. They are identified in v. 45 as the religious leaders of that generation. It is that generation that has rejected the offer of the kingdom and it is that generation that is going to come under judgment that is fulfilled in AD 70 when the Romans overrun Jerusalem.

It is the religious leaders who lose access to the kingdom, not Israel. If the vineyard is the kingdom and the parable is about the loss of authority of the religious leaders and judgment on them, then we realize Jesus is not saying that Israel is going to lose the kingdom forever and ever. The reason that is important is that in church history this is one of several verses that have been used to teach what is known as “replacement theology”. Matthew 21:43 says that it is the kingdom of God that is taken from you, i.e. the religious leaders—not from Israel but from you.

Replacement theology: definitions.

Ronald Diprose in his book Israel and the Church, which is a study of replacement theology, defines it this way:

The church completely and permanently replaced ethnic Israel in the working out of God's plan and as a recipient of Old Testament promises to Israel.

So when God promised a specific piece of real estate to Abraham, Abraham though that referred to a piece of real estate. But now in the New Testament we realize that really meant heaven. So there is a change in terminology because they have moved from a literal interpretation to an allegorical interpretation. In most forms of replacement theology the New Testament is used to interpret the Old Testament and the significance of Israel becomes irrelevant and unimportant.

Another work that has been done is by Michael Vlach. He says that there are a couple of important features to replacement theology.

a) The nation Israel has somehow completed or forfeited its status as the people of God and will never again possess a unique role or function apart from the church. The church is what is important, not Israel.

So modern Israel has no significance and never will have significance in God's plan or purpose because God is through with Israel.

b) The second aspect is that the church is now the true Israel that has permanently replaced or superseded national Israel as the people of God.

That word superseded is important because the more academic term for this is called supersessionism. And that is becoming a little more popularly used today.

The danger with replacement theology (replacement theology goes back to the mid-1^st century) is that it is the soil out of which Christian anti-Semitism develops, and it is the soil out of which the horrors of the Holocaust developed. Not everyone who holds to a form of replacement theology is necessarily anti-Semitic but that is where it eventually leads if it is followed out to its logical conclusion.

Question: What is the relationship of Covenant Theology with replacement theology?

Answer: Covenant Theology is just one form or expression of replacement theology.

Covenant Theology was developed within the history of Calvinism in the late 1600s. Replacement theology goes further. Most systems of theology have some form of replacement theology in them; some are more extreme. Some teach that because God is punishing Israel because they rejected and crucified Jesus then Christians should also punish and be harsh toward Jews. That is the most extreme for of replacement theology. A lot of replacement theology is milder than that and would reject some of the harsher elements.

Matthew 21:43 has been one of the verses that has been used to try t support replacement theology. Also Matthew 21:19 where Jesus cursed the fig tree and said, “Let no fruit grow on you ever again”, and immediately the fig tree withered away. These are not verses that announcing a permanent, eternal judgment on Israel but a judgment on that generation—consistent with Matthew 12 and other passages, that it was that generation receiving this judgment.

How do we understand that? First of all, the basic problem that that generation had at that time was legalism. That is what is being judged. In defining legalism, it is not coming along and saying you shouldn't do this, you should do that. There are more imperatives in the New Testament than in the 613 commandments in the Old Testament. Saying thou shalt do this; thou shalt not do that, is not legalism. Legalism is when the thou shalts and the thou shalt nots don't have anything to do with the specifics of Scripture.

1. Legalism is basically man seeking God's approval for his own works of righteousness.

2. Legalism, therefore, is a product of human arrogance. Human arrogance is the opposite of submission to God's authority.

So it is man saying, I am going to define what righteousness, I am going to produce my definition of righteousness, and God is going to bless me.

3. All arrogance blinds us to the truth. Arrogance is blinding and arrogance is tenacious.

It is hard to get rid of arrogance and we have to face that. Our sin nature is grounded in arrogance and it affects every single one of us.

4. A commitment to arrogance always leads to hostility to God.

So when Jesus comes along and tells the religious leaders that they are wrong they are going to react. They want to kill Him. Paul says in Romans chapter one that arrogance suppresses truth in unrighteousness. He goes on to say, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”. That applies to the religious leaders of Israel and all religious leaders—not Christian leaders; not those who are grace oriented but those who are oriented to human works. Notice what they do, v. 23: “and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.” That is overt legalism.

Phariseeism and religious legalism is worshipping our own ideas of God, and that becomes a cerebral legalism. Religious legalism is a form of idolatry, the idolatry of personal morality and religious activity.

Eventually Paul goes on to deal with the issue of Israel. This goes to the issue of replacement theology. In Romans chapter eleven Paul clearly affirms that God has temporarily set aside Israel; it is not permanent.

In Romans 11:1 he raises the first question: “God has not rejected His people, has He?” He forcefully says no [ME GENOITO—a strong rejection]. He says, “not at all”. “... For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.” So he is going to reflect the same idea that we see developed in Jesus' telling of the parable in vv. 34-36 of Matthew 21.

Matthew 21:34 ^NASB “When the harvest time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine-growers to receive his produce.” What did the vive-growers do? [35] “The vine-growers took his slaves and beat one, and killed another, and stoned a third. [36] Again he sent another group of slaves larger than the first; and they did the same thing to them.”

We can't really press as to who these are. Maybe it is the former prophets and the later prophets, but it is the idea God is sending the prophets and they are rejected by the religious leadership of Israel.

This is the same thing Paul says in Romans 11:3-5 ^NASB “Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE.” [4] But what is the divine response to him? “I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL.” [5] In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to {God’s} gracious choice.

That goes back to 1 Kings 17 & 18 and what was happening in Israel. There was a remnant. Remnant is a term that always refers to the remnant of Israel. The church is not a remnant. Remnant isn't church terminology; it is Israel terminology. God always has a remnant: the 7000 who did not bow the knee to Baal.

Paul says, “... there has also come to be at the present time [the apostolic period] a remnant according to {God’s} gracious choice.” These are the Jews who accept Jesus as Messiah. He is saying at that time in the early church there was a remnant, according the election of grace.

He asks a second question: “I say then, they [ethnic Israel] did not stumble so as to fall, did they? ...” The idea in the word stumble is a permanent stumble. “... May it never be! [ME GENOITO – Not at all] “... But by their transgression salvation {has come} to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.”

Romans 11:12 ^NASB “Now if their transgression [the apostasy of ethnic Israel] is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfilment be!” That indicates there is going to be a future fullness for Israel. This is what Paul will conclude with at the end of the chapter.

Romans 11:25 ^NASB “For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until [until something happens] the fullness of the Gentiles has come in”. That word “until” indicates that something in the future will happen to change this. Once the fullness of the Gentiles has come in [26] and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, 'THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB'.”

So Romans 11:25-29 makes it clear that there is a future for Israel, and when Paul concludes he says, “for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” God called out Israel for a specific purpose. While Israel is temporarily set aside in God's plan and the church is the way in which God is working today there will be a change in the future and God has a future plan and purpose for the nation Israel. You can't go, as the replacement theologians do, and allegorize the New Testament and say there is no purpose for Israel.

You can't say, as one person did, well Israel today is apostate, they're not accepting Jesus as Messiah so they are not important. But wait a minute. How many times in the Old Testament were the Israelites apostate and in rebellion against God? And how many times did God punish those who treated them poorly out of anti-Semitism, even though Israel was apostate?

The promise of God in the Abrahamic covenant, “I will bless those who bless you”, does not say, “I will bless those who bless you when you are spiritually correct”. It doesn't say, “I will curse those who curse you when you are spiritually correct, but when you are apostate it doesn't matter”. That is not what the text says. The text says that it doesn't matter whether you are obedient, disobedient, apostate or spiritual, I am going to bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you. So God has a plan and a purpose for Israel.

Matthew 21:37 ^NASB “But afterward he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’” This is the first time we have the use of HUIOS in these parables. The word for son back in the first parable was really just male children; it could apply to an adult child. Jesus doesn't use HUIOS until He gets to this point so that it is clear He is talking about Himself as the Son of God.

Matthew 21:38 ^NASB “But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ [39] They took him, and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.” This is a clear allusion to the coming crucifixion. He is indicting them.

Jesus doesn't interpret the parable at this point. In good rabbinical fashion He asks them to interpret it for Him. What should happen to the vinedressers? What should the owner of the vineyard do?

Matthew 21:40 ^NASB “Therefore when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?”

A lot of times when we are talking to people we don't ask enough questions, and we don't pause to let them answer. It is important when talking to unbelievers to ask them questions. Let them come to conclusions as they think things through for themselves. This is what Jesus is doing. He is going to give them enough rope so that they hang themselves.

Matthew 21:41 ^NASB They said to Him, “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers who will pay him the proceeds at the {proper} seasons.”

Remember what John the Baptist said at the beginning? “Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand”. The Pharisees and the Sadducees came out to see what was going on down there in the Jordan valley. John called them the seed of the serpent: “You brood of vipers”. He identifies them as the seed of the serpent and says, “Produce works in keeping with repentance”. There is no fruit, no fruit on the fig tree, and no fruit in the vineyard that is getting to the owner of the vineyard, because of legalism. Legalism can't produce fruit that counts.

Matthew 21:42 ^NASB Jesus said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER {stone;} THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES’?

The Pharisees, the chief priests and the scribes were the ones who really knew the Scriptures. Many of them had the entire Old Testament memorized. Jesus is really offending the Pharisees. There is nothing wrong in offending somebody in the right way, but that doesn't mean we go around offending everybody. Jesus don't say this to everyone He met. He only said it to the arrogant and critical religious leaders who claimed to be the national and only interpreters of the Word of God.

He said: “Haven't you ever read this?” They had but they had misinterpreted it. And He goes to psalm 118:22 where He quotes: “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief corner {stone.}” In the context that referred to Israel that had been overlooked by the builders of empires and had been captured and deported, but God restored them to fulfil His plan and purpose.

This verse is applied in a number of places to Jesus in the New Testament as the representative of true Israel.

Peter refers to this in Acts 4:10, 11. He identifies Jesus as the stone “rejected by you builders”. He is applying it to the religious leaders.

In Romans 9:30 Paul uses the stumbling stone metaphor, which is a quote from Isaiah 28:16: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone {for} the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes {in it} will not be disturbed.” It is also quoted in 1 Peter chapter two.

The problem that they had was legalism. They were ignorant of God's righteousness and sought to establish their own righteousness, having not submitted to the righteousness of God.

Jesus makes the statement that He is going to take the kingdom of God from you (the religious leaders) and give it to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

There are two views here. One view is that the word nation here refers to a future nation of Israel, the nation at the end of the Tribulation period that will accept Jesus as Messiah. There are other who think that nation here is referring to Gentiles (but it is not a plural), and of those who think this is referring to a future Gentile nation there are two groups: a very conservative group, Stan Toussaint, G. N. H. Peters Theocratic Kingdom, Alva McLain—all people who would agree 100% about what I have said about the kingdom. They take it as applying to the church. I don't think they are right for a number of reason; others, like Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Kenneth Wuest and a number of others, who recognize that this refers to a future nation of Israel that will respond, that God is going to give the kingdom to a future generation because it is going to be a future Jewish kingdom.

Jesus shifts (Matthew 21:44) the imagery. He changes the metaphor from the metaphor of the vineyard to the stone. “And he who falls on this stone [the chief corner stone] will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.”

There are two statements here. One is that there are those who are going to fall on the stone, and that would refer to those who reject Jesus as Messiah. They will be judged. Then there is a second group, those on whomever the stone falls, which indicates a judgment by Jesus. He is the one to whom all judgment is given (John 5:25-27). They will be crushed or scattered. That might be an indication of the scattering of the Jewish people after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Matthew 21:45 ^NASB “When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.” That is key. He is not talking about future generations, He is not wiping out all future for Israel; He is bringing judgment on that generation just as He did in 586 and 722 BC.

Matthew 21:46 ^NASB “When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.” They are angry because He has challenged the very core of their belief system. They couldn't seize Him because they feared the multitudes (for the second time). The crowd took Jesus for a prophet. The people who were listening to Jesus understood that He was the Messiah.

Slides