13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.
14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
Christ had preached that He was the way into the kingdom. By rejecting Christ (v.13), the Pharisees were closing the kingdom to any who followed them.
False religion and pretense are always the worst enemies of the truth and are far more dangerous than immorality or indifference. As the religious leaders of the Jews, they were held guilty before God of blocking the way for others seeking to enter into the kingdom of God. — Walvoord, page 172
Verse 14 isn’t in most manuscripts. It was probably copied from Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47.
The Jews recognized two sorts of proselytes [converts from paganism to Judaism]: those who agreed to the so-called seven precepts of Noah, and those who submitted to circumcision and became full Jews by religion. — KJV Commentary, page 1220.
__________
The Pharisees were described as extremely energetic on both land and sea to make proselytes of the Jewish religion. But when they were successful, Jesus Charged, “Ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves,” In referring to hell, Christ used the word Geenna or Gehenna, a reference to eternal damnation, rather than to Hades, the temporary abode of the wicked in the intermediate state. The Pharisees and their proselytes both would end up in eternal damnation. — Walvoord, page 172.
1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.
3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long;
6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues;
7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.
9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.
11 The greatest among you will be your servant.
12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
Portions of this account also appear in Mark 12:38-40 and Luke 20:45-47.
This was Christ’s last public discourse.
Moses’ seat (v.2) — the seat of authority, custodians of the Scriptures. Some commentaries think that Christ was saying that the Pharisees “sat themselves” in the seat of authority. Either way, the people were to listen to and obey them as far as, and only as far as, the teaching of the actual law was concerned.
phylacteries (v.5) — an amulet consisting of a strip of parchment on which was inscribed certain portions of the Pentateuch and which was rolled and placed in a small metal cylinder inside a square leather case. The cases were attached by the Jews with straps to their foreheads and to the back of their right hands, following a strictly literal interpretation of Deuteronomy 6:8-9. They were normally worn only during prayer, but the Pharisees appear to have worn them always and to have made them especially conspicuous. The borders of the garments were the fringes worn in obedience to Numbers 15:38-39. — KJV Commentary, page 1220.
Rabbi (v.7) = my teacher
His disciples were not to seek to be called rabbi and were forbidden to use the word “father” indiscriminately, even though Paul used “father” correctly in 1 Corinthians 4:15, and John addressed fathers in 1 John 2:13-14. The general teaching is clear. They were not to seek man-exalting titles such as rabbi, father, or minister to gain the recognition of men. Disciples of Christ should not exalt themselves but should seek to serve others and leave the exalting to God Himself. — Walvoord, page 171.
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?” They said to Him, “The Son of David.”
43 He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying:
44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”’?
45 If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?”
46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore.
In the Spirit (v.43) — inspired by the Holy Spirit and, therefore, true and accurate.
The Lord was referring to Psalm 110 (vs.43-44), which the Jews recognized as Messianic.
Lord (v.44, 1st use) = Jehovah
Lord (v.44, 2nd use) = Master
The LORD says to my Lord: Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet (Psalm 110:1). This psalm was universally recognized as messianic. The One invited to sit at the Lord’s right hand was the Messiah. The “LORD” who invited Him to sit at His right hand was the God of Abraham. The Messiah was referred to as “my Lord.” With this interpretation the Pharisees would have been in agreement. Christ addressed this question to them: If the Messiah was the “son,” or descendant, of David, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, called him ‘Lord’?” It was not natural for one to call his own son “my Lord.” The fact that Messiah was David’s Son testified to Messiah’s true humanity, but the fact that David called Him “my Lord” testified to His true and undiminished deity, for Lord was a title for Deity. Christ interrogated the Pharisees again, Asking, “If then David calls Him ‘Lord,’ how can He be his son?” (v.45). The Psalm taught the true humanity and the true deity of Messiah. It was just such a claim as the psalmist foretold of Messiah that Jesus made for Himself. If the Pharisees answered that David called Him his Lord because He is God, then they could not object to Christ, David’s Son according to the flesh, claiming to be the Son of God. If they agreed that Messiah was to be truly human and truly God, they must ceases their objections to Christ’s claim concerning His person. The Pharisees realized the dilemma that faced them and refused to answer. — Pentecost, pages 391-392.
34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together.
35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying,
36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
This account also appears in Mark 12:28-34.
lawyer (v.35) — an expert in Old Testament law
great commandment (v.36) — This does not mean, “Name one of the commandments which is greater than the rest.” The particular word translated “which” is qualitative; and therefore the meaning of the lawyer was, “What is the principle which makes any commandment great?” In that day men were teaching the relative importance of the commandments. There was a school of interpretation which taught that the third commandment in the Decalogue was the supreme commandment, and that all the rest were minor ones; and so this particular question grew out of the differences of opinion concerning which commandments were greatest, and they asked Christ to decide what was the real principle by which they might test the greatness of a commandment. — Morgan, pages 269-270.
In verses 37 and 39, Jesus referred to Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18.
with all your heart (v.37) — In Hebrew thought, the total being (Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:13-21; Numbers 15:37-41).
The Pharisees had codified the law into 248 commandments and 365 prohibitions. These 613 precepts were imposed by the Pharisees on their followers as their obligation. When a Jew tried to fulfill the requirements of the law so codified, it sometimes appeared to that person as though one law came into conflict with another law. It was necessary then to determine which of the two took precedence so that if a law had to be violated because of the conflict, one would violate the lesser and not the more important law. There was constant argument among the Pharisees concerning which commandment took precedence over the other. The Pharisees had not been able to solve the problem or further reduce their codification of the law to assist their disciples in this observance. The Pharisees were testing Christ to see whether He had greater insight into the law than they had. Christ summarized the demands of the Mosaic law under two precepts. The first was an all-inclusive precept that governed their responsibility toward God, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37). The second precept was all-inclusive of their responsibility to man, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (v.30). — Pentecost, pages 390-391.
23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him,
24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.
25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother.
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh.
27 Last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.
31 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying,
32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”
33 And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.
This account is also found in Mark 12:18-27 and Luke 20:27-38.
The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection — their question reflected this belief by attempting to mock it. The only accepted the Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy).
The Sadducees were Nationalists and did not believe in angels or any invisible powers, nor in the resurrection. Their main dispute with the Pharisees was as to whether the oral tradition was binding. The Pharisees held it of equal value with the written law; the Sadducees said that everything not written might be rejected or was at least open to question. They considered the doctrine of the resurrection a mere matter of pious opinion. They said the doctrine was without authority in the written law, especially since, in their opinion, the prophets were not of equal value with the Pentateuch.
Christ showed that those who professed reverence for the law and showed their respect for it by quoting it on this occasion were really ignorant of what the law taught. Jesus quoted what God had said to Moses: “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Matthew 22:32). The force of Christ’s argument turned on the present tense of the verb “I am.” God should have said, “I was,” if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died, and were now dead, and there was no resurrection. But since God said, “I am” the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, He was testifying to their existence and the ultimate resurrection of their bodies. There could be no doubt but that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died physically when God spoke these words to Moses. But God’s words indicated that they were alive and that there would be a bodily resurrection. Christ not only affirmed the fact of resurrection but indicated something of the nature of life in resurrection when He said, “People will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). This statement was designed to refute the false concept of the Sadducees concerning the nature of life in resurrection that led them to repudiate the doctrine. — Pentecost, page 389.
Moses said (v.24) — Deuteronomy 25:5 — If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.
like angels (v.30) — a glorified body incapable of reproduction or destruction
The quote in verse 32 is from Exodus 3:6.
15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted how they might entangle Him in His talk.
16 And they sent to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do You care about anyone, for You do not regard the person of men.
17 Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?
19 Show Me the tax money.” So they brought Him a denarius.
20 And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?”
21 They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
22 When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left Him and went their way.
disciples (v.16) — followers of the Pharisees. The Pharisees probably figured Jesus knew them and would be on His guard, so they sent others to flatter and trap Him.
Herodians (v16) — Those who supported the rule of the Herods, and, therefore, Rome. They were normally opposed by the Pharisees because of their disregard of religion.
Their question (v.17) was a trap. If Jesus said “yes,” they could accuse Him of being a traitor to Israel. If He said “no,” they could denounce Him to the Roman authorities.
By simply asking for a penny, He left them under the yoke which they were obliged to confess they had themselves adopted; and by inviting them to render to Him as God, the things that were God’s, He offered to release them from that yoke, as also from the greater yoke of their sins. — Williams, page 722.
lawful (v.17) — Is it against Jewish law?
The tax they were referring to was the poll tax, a small tax levied on women aged twelve to sixty-five and men aged fourteen to sixty-five. it was a relatively small tax, as the Romans also exacted a ten-percent tax on grain and a twenty-percent tax on wine and fruit, as well as other taxes for road and bridge improvements. The Pharisees had chosen the least of the taxes, but to pay it was to recognize Roman oppression, which was most unpopular with the Jews. — Walvoord, page 166.
you hypocrites (v.18) — He saw through their flattery immediately.
denarius (v.19) — a Roman coin worth about 16 cents (according to Walvoord)
Thus Christ recognized two divinely constituted spheres of authority. In the one sphere God is supreme. In the other Caesar has delegated authority. Christ’s statement anticipated Paul’s teaching that all civil authorities are constituted by God. As such they are God’s minsters to maintain law and order and to provide an atmosphere in which righteous men may live in peace. Consequently they are to be supported by the payment of taxes (Romans 13:1-7). Christ recognized the authority given to Caesar as God’s servant, and therefore He confirmed that Caesar must be supported by the payment of taxes. This teaching did not conflict with God’s right to rule, and the payment of taxes to Caesar did not nullify the fact that ultimately God will appoint His Son as Ruler in Caesar’s place. Thus Christ recognized Caesar’s right, but He did not deny that Israel’s hope to be ruled by their Messiah will eventually be realized. — Pentecost, page 388
1 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said:
2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son,
3 and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come.
4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.”’
5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business.
6 And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them.
7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy.
9 Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’
10 So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment.
12 So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless.
13 Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”
There (v.4) we find the record of the second call to Israel. The preaching of the kingdom is resumed for a brief period and with this preaching is the promise of forgiveness of sins and the times of refreshing and restitution. The invitation, which went forth after the Lord had taken His place at the right hand of the Majesty on high, is clearly stated by Peter in the third chapter of Acts. “Repent, therefore, and be converted, for the blotting out of your sins, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and He may send Jesus Christ, who was foreordained for you, whom heaven indeed must receive till the times of restoration of all things, of which God has spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets since time began” (Acts 3:19-21). No Gentile heard this message, nor was it meant for a Gentile; it was exclusively addressed to Jerusalem. — Gaebelein, page 441.
burned up their city (v.7) — a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70.
wedding garment (v.12) — In the east, garments were provided by the host. To refuse to wear it is an insult. This guest considered his own garment good enough. (Zephaniah 1:7-8; Isaiah 61:10).
The word not in verse eleven is a different word from the not [without] in verse twelve, and it is impossible to translate the different meaning by any equivalent in our language. In the Greek language the first not was always used when referring to a matter of fact, while the second was always used in reference to a matter of thought. This is certainly the intention of the passage — there came in a man not having a wedding garment; that is the fact. But when the king looked at him and said “How camest thou in hither not having,” that is, deliberately not having, with determination not having, it is the not of thought — you did not mean to have a wedding garment, you have dared to come without a wedding garment. — Morgan, page 265.
Here’s my understanding of this passage.
The first invitation to the wedding was made to Israel in the Old Testament and during the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. God sent the prophets who were ignored and mistreated and killed.
The second invitation to the wedding was made, again to Israel, by the apostles after the resurrection, at Pentecost and for a short time after. (See Gaebelein’s quote above.) When this was refused — the messengers during this time were also mistreated and killed (Stephen) — the Jews were attacked by the Romans and many died. Jerusalem was destroyed.
The third invitation was not to the church and doesn’t relate to this age. This is obvious because the Lord begins this parable with “The kingdom of heaven is like …”
The kingdom of heaven is the Millennial Kingdom. The bad and good, I’m guessing, are the Gentiles and the Jews. All will be blessed during the kingdom when Christ is on the throne ruling with an iron hand.
The guest without the garment is the individual who is in the kingdom but who hasn’t trusted Christ, whether Jew or Gentile.
That these people will exist is evident from Revelation 20:7-10.
Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Note the similarity in consequences for these unbelievers in the kingdom and the wedding guest in the parable in Matthew 22.
chosen (v.14) — Vine (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words) defines chosen as “pick out, select, to choose for oneself, not necessarily implying the rejection of what is not chosen, but choosing with the subsidiary ideas of kindness or favor or love”
So … the verse could mean, “Many are invited, but few fit in the category of those whom I favor or love.”
The idea, in context, being that anyone is invited to come to the wedding, but I have chosen to favor only those who do come and who put on the wedding garments. Those who don’t come or who come and don’t put on the garments will not be among the chosen group of those whom I favor. This view is supported by the parable itself. Many were invited who chose not to come. One came but refused, by an act of his own will, to wear the wedding garments. All of them were welcome to join the chosen group, but they chose not to.
33 “Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country.
34 Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit.
35 And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another.
36 Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them.
37 Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’
38 But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’
39 So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.
40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”
41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.”
42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?
43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.
44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”
45 Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them.
46 But when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitudes, because they took Him for a prophet.
landowner (v.33) — picturing God
vineyard (v.33) — picturing the nation of Israel
Now let me sing to my Well-beloved a song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard on a very fruitful hill. He dug it up and cleared out its stones, and planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, and also made a winepress in it; so He expected it to bring forth good grapes, but it brought forth wild grapes. “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. What more could have been done to My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, did it bring forth wild grapes? And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard: I will take away its hedge, and it shall be burned; and break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down. I will lay it waste; it shall not be pruned or dug, but there shall come up briers and thorns. I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain on it.” For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are His pleasant plant. He looked for justice, but behold, oppression; for righteousness, but behold, a cry for help (Isaiah 5:1-7). (See also Jeremiah 2:21 and Psalm 80:8.)
The description of the preparation of the vineyard in verse 33 is, I think, to show that God created Israel, cared for Israel, and gave Israel everything the nation needed to succeed. (But the priests and rulers He appointed to govern treated it like it was their own.)
servants (v.34) — picturing the prophets sent to Israel
son (v.37) — picturing Christ
It is probably true that no person would send his son into a situation where servants had previously killed his other representatives but would immediately call the authorities. The contrast is between what men would do and what God had done. God did send His Son, even though Israel had rejected His prophets earlier and killed them and had rejected John the Baptist. — Walvoord, page 162.
__________
What will he do? (v.40) — He had made them find the verdict (v.31); He now made them pass the sentence. He who compelled them to be the jury, finding the verdict in the case of their own wrong, now compelled them to be the judge, passing sentence upon their own iniquity. And they were quite vehement about it, and their very vehemence is the evidence of the tremendous force with which Jesus spoke the words, that searching intensity that stirred the conscience, and compelled attention, and made the chief priests forget their quarrel with Him and speak out the truth. — Morgan, page 261.
The figure of a stone is found often in Scripture, Jesus being referred to both as the foundation stone and the head of the corner (1 Corinthians 3:11; Ephesians 2:20-22; 1 Peter 2:4-5). To Israel, Jesus was a stumbling stone and a rock of offense (Isaiah 8:14-15; Romans 9:32-33; 1 Corinthians 1:23; 1 Peter 2:8). At the time of His second coming, He will be a smiting stone of destruction (Daniel 2:34). — Walvoord, page 162.
A nation (v.43) — in the original, there is no “a” — it’s just “nation,” so it’s not referring to a specific nation but to those who bring forth fruit—believing Israel. It can’t be the church (see Gaebelein’s quote below). And it certainly can’t be Gentiles in general because in no way can they be said to be bringing forth fruit. It can only refer to the believing remnant in the Tribulation who will enter the kingdom.
The nation to whom the Lord promises the kingdom is not the Church. The Church is called the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the Habitation of God by the Spirit … but never a nation. The nation is Israel still, but that believing remnant of the nation, living when the Lord comes. — Gaebelein, page 437
broken (v.44) — Some commentaries say this is speaking of the brokenness necessary to receive salvation but that didn’t make sense to me. Gaebelein has another take (below).
The Lord in these few words predicts the coming judgment of the Jews and the Gentiles. The one sentence has been carried out and the other is still to be executed. The Jews have fallen on this stone and they have been broken. How it has become true! The stone is yet to fall and strike the world-powers, the Gentiles, and grind them to powder. [Turn to] Daniel 2 and read Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and the divinely given interpretation. The stone cut out without hands, falling out of heaven, smiting the great image at its feet, is the Lord Jesus Christ in His second coming. The Lord refers to this here. As truly as He broke the Jews who fell on Him, so will He pulverize Gentile world power and dominion, when He is revealed from heaven. The nations are ripe for their judgment. — Gaebelein, page 437-438.
I e-mailed Ricky Kurth and got this response:
If your question is about “broken,” the right cross reference is Isaiah 8:14-15. Those are the verses the Lord is thinking of.
He will be as a sanctuary, but a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, as a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble; they shall fall and be broken, be snared and taken.
Isaiah 8:14 speaks of “both the houses of Israel” and “the inhabitants of Jerusalem,” and then says “many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken…” The Lord is speaking to “the chief priests and elders” (Matthew 21:23), so we know that He is talking about what will happen to them if they “fall” or “stumble” on the rock of Christ. Even the chief priests knew He was talking about them (Matthew 21:45; Luke 20:18-19). It is always Israel that is said to have “stumbled at that stumblingstone” (Romans 9:32).
The rest of the verse, the part about the stone grinding them to powder, I think concerns the Gentiles (Psalm 2:8-9; Daniel 2:34-35, 44-45).
28 “But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go, work today in my vineyard.’
29 He answered and said, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he regretted it and went.
30 Then he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, ‘I go, sir,’ but he did not go.
31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said to Him, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you.
32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him.
regretted (v.29) = lit. “to care for” (care about), repented himself
I go, sir (v.30) = lit. “I, sir” — to contrast himself with the other son
For the purpose of this contrast, He had taken them back to John’s ministry. They had heard him, and professing obedience had been disobedient. The publicans and harlots had heard him, and they who had said, We will not go, had repented … There is no question as to what Christ thought of those men; He knew perfectly well that they were sure John’s ministry was from heaven. John came in the way of righteousness, and they knew that they, the exponents of the ethic of Judaism, could not quarrel with the great ethic he declared; they knew it was the way of righteousness; and yet when he pronounced the way of righteousness they did not obey; they who affirmed their loyalty to God, would not obey the ethic through John. And it was not merely true that the publicans and harlots believed and obeyed, and they did not; the truth was that they refused to believe, even though they saw the signs of the publicans and harlots entering into the way of righteousness. They not only refused to be persuaded by John himself, but when they saw the effect of John’s preaching, that those men and women whom they despised, and would not help, were helped, and lifted, and healed they still refused. — Morgan, page 260
__________
By their spoken word Israel’s leaders professed to be sons, but by their disobedience to the Father’s word they proved they were not sons. When John had come appealing to them for repentance, they had professed to repent but had not, for they had not produced fruits of righteousness. Tax collectors and others of similar character were changed and brought forth fruits of righteousness (cf. Luke 5:27-29; 7:36-50). Christ demonstrated that He was willing to accept sinners, but the leaders would not admit that they were sinners; and they therefore refused to come to Him for salvation. Thus in this parable Christ had shown that those who claimed to be sons of the kingdom were not sons; their disobedience to His word revealed that fact. — Pentecost, page 384.
23 Now when He came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, “By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?”
24 But Jesus answered and said to them, “I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things:
25 The baptism of John—where was it from? From heaven or from men?” And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’
26 But if we say, ‘From men,’ we fear the multitude, for all count John as a prophet.”
27 So they answered Jesus and said, “We do not know.” And He said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.
This probably took place on Tuesday.
elders (v.23) — scribes and other laymen who served on the high court
authority (v.23) — They considered the things He taught about to be under their authority. He had also taken it upon Himself to clear the temple the day before. They attempted to trap Him into blasphemy by saying He was from God.
They dared not directly oppose Him, but endeavored, by attacking Him on the one point where He seemed to lay Himself open to it, to arrogate to themselves the appearance of strict legality, and so to turn popular feeling against Him.
For, there was no principle more firmly established by universal consent that that authoritative teaching required previous authorization. Indeed, this logically followed from the principle of Rabbinism. All teaching must be authoritative, since it was traditional — approved by authority.
And, to decide differently from authority, was either the mark of ignorant assumption or the outcome of daring rebellion, in either case to be visited with “the ban.” — Pentecost, pages 382-383.
__________
If they were unable to determine the authority behind John, they would be unable to determine the authority behind Christ, even though He demonstrated that authority to them. Consequently He refused to answer (v.34). His silence did not deny that His authority had come from God. Rather, He was withholding any further evidence from these leaders, though in view of their rejection they would be held responsible. — Pentecost, page 383.
