An exposition of The Gospel According to Matthew
by David L. Cooper, Th.M., Ph.D., Litt. D.
Installment twenty

IN THE LAST INSTALLMENT of this series we studied about the rich young ruler who volunteered to follow Jesus, but who was not willing to pay the price—to sell all that he had and to follow Jesus. His wealth and property were a millstone about his neck. Our Lord in telling him to dispose of his property and to give the proceeds to the poor was simply attempting to remove from him this great hindrance. Not having a sufficient appetite for spiritual things and not being surrendered to the will of God, the young man went away sorrowful. This incident called forth the statement from our Lord that it is as difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle as it is for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. This last statement astonished the disciples, who asked the question, "Who then can be saved?" Peter, in his impulsive manner spoke up and said, "Lo, we have left all, and followed thee; what then shall we have?" (19:27). Our Lord then showed what the Apostles would receive in the regeneration—the great Millennial Age. In doing this, He made a definite promise to everyone who will forsake houses, lands, brothers, sisters, father and mother, and children for His sake and for the gospel. These shall receive in this life a hundred fold and in the one to come eternal life. But there are many who shall be last but who are first, and visa versa. To illustrate this point our Lord gave the parable of the laborers in the vineyard.

In Matthew 20:1-16 Jesus gave us the parable in which He compared the kingdom of heaven to a householder that hired men in his vineyard, agreeing to pay them a shilling a day. This is a most beautiful and marvelous parable, the details of which are as follows: Early in the morning the landlord went to the market place, where those desiring employment would congregate with the hope of finding a job, to hire laborers in his vineyard. At this "employment office" he found a number of men with whom he agreed that they should work in his vineyard for one shilling a day, the ordinary price for a day's work at that time. At the third hour of the day he went out to the employment bureau and hired others. He did this again at the ninth hour. Finally at the eleventh hour, late in the afternoon, he did the same thing and found men standing there idle. Of them he asked the question, "Why stand ye here all the day idle?" In reply they said, "Because no man hath hired us." Then he told them to work in his vineyard, promising that whatever was right he would pay them. Without any discussion they went and labored faithfully during that last hour of the day. When quitting time came, the householder told his steward, or foreman, to begin with those who came in last and to give each one a shilling, which thing he did. Those who labored only one hour received the shilling and of course were delighted with their remuneration. Those who came at the ninth and the sixth hours likewise received a shilling. When, however, those who had labored all day came and received only one shilling—that upon which they had agreed with the landlord—they began to murmur and complain, thinking that they had been treated unjustly. They stated that they had borne the burden and the heat of the day and had received only a shilling, whereas those who came in at the eleventh hour did very little work, and yet they received an amount equal to theirs. To this complaint the landlord correctly stated that he had done them no wrong, for they had agreed to work for a shilling. Before they had entered the vineyard, they had a clear understanding with the employer, who carried out his part of the contract just as faithfully as they had done. It was a clear case of both the employer and the employee living up to their respective parts of a contract or a bargain. These laborers had no right, either moral or legal to complain about the action of the landlord.

The employer out of the goodness of his heart and in accordance with his will, decided to give to those laboring only one hour a shilling, as he agreed to do for those laboring all day. He had a right to do with that which was his own as he chose. The laboring man today has a right to do as he chooses with that which is his own property, and no one has any right or authority to question his action in any disposition of his own property—so long as it does not injure another and does not break or violate any law. This same right the employer has. It is therefore a breach of human rights for one to complain and murmur against another in any disposition that he may make of his own personal, private property. Thus the grumbling and complaining laborers were entirely out of order in finding fault with the action of their landlord.

This parable, though not intended to deal with any economic problem that arises between capital and labor, is drawn from that field and does throw light upon the relationship of the employer and the employee. From it we learn that the employer should give the regular standard living wage to those who labor for him. Every man and woman has a right to just remuneration. Any employer who does not consider his help but who wishes to get just as much as he can out of the laborer irrespective of how the latter has to live and is deprived of the necessities of life, is untrue to society and is not worthy of the position he occupies in the community. Every Christian employer should, practice the Golden Rule with reference to his employees. To fail to do this is to live out of harmony with the will of God.

On the other hand, the employee has duties and responsibilities to perform and is morally obligated to fulfill his contract and to give honest, conscientious labor. It is obligatory upon him to look out for the interests of the man who is employing him. If at the present time both labor and capital would view their mutual relations from this standpoint, all our labor troubles in this country would be a thing of the past. But of course we cannot expect such ideal conditions so long as the devil is present in the world and so long as people are unregenerated and unsaved. Only in the Millennium can we expect a cessation of labor troubles. Let Christians, however observe the broad, general principles that are set forth in the Scriptures in their relationship one to another and to those with whom they have any working connection.

The main point in the parable is that the landlord has a perfect right to do with his own property as he chooses. If he is minded to divide his goods and his profits with anyone of his employees, or with anyone else, that is a matter for him to decide and not for any third person. "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own or is thine eye evil, because I am good?"

This parable was spoken by our Lord to correct the Apostle Peter's erroneous ideas concerning having an agreement with the Lord as to what reward he should have for a certain amount of service. Peter told the Lord what he had done and what sacrifices he had made and asked what his reward would be. In other words he had a bargaining, dickering spirit and wanted to know exactly what he might expect from the Lord. Jesus abominates that spirit. It manifests a lack of faith. It is walking by sight. It is the opposite of trusting the Lord's goodness and mercy and His sense of right.

Those laborers who entered at the eleventh hour, responding to the first opportunity that they had for work that day, did not have the bargaining, dickering spirit, but trusted implicitly the goodness of the employer to do that which was right. The landlord appreciated that spirit and rewarded them for manifesting it. It is not for us to work for the Master expecting a definite, specific reward—so much work, so much reward. We are not to enter into any bargaining with Him. He will do that which is right; yes, He will do far more, exceedingly and abundantly, for us by His grace than that which we can even think or ask. When the Lord sits upon the judgment seat to award the rewards of the saints, one of the factors that will enter into the decisions is that of the spirit in which we serve: whether or not we are trusting Christ and His goodness, or whether we have this bargaining spirit. Two other elements entering into the decision is that of the quality of the work which we render and also the quantity.

The Hebrew people of the first century, knowing that the Messiah was God in human form according to the predictions, thought that He would abide forever. This fact is seen in John 12:34. That they believed that he was the Son of God is clear from Matthew 26:63: "And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God." This verse records the language of Caiaphas, the high priest, to Jesus when He was on trial. It is clear from this statement that the high priest, who was voicing the sentiments of the nation, believed that the Messiah was the Son of the living God, although He was a man. But believing that He was God in human form, they did not think that He would or could die. Hence the question found in John 12:34 relative to who this Son of man is.

The disciples likewise were blinded by the same theory, that the Messiah, being the Son of God, abides forever—never dies. This inference was a hasty deduction which they drew from the Old Testament Scriptures. It was of course an induction based upon a partial and incomplete survey of the various prophecies relating to Messiah and His life and works. Had Israel only studied the various passages relating to His entire redemptive career, she would have seen that He was scheduled to die. But she, like people in general today, took a partial and an incomplete survey of all related passages on certain subjects, and drew erroneous conclusions. The Apostles likewise shared this same error. Doubtless because of the power of prejudice and an unwillingness on the part of humanity to abandon beliefs that have been inherited from forefathers, our Lord did not mention the subject to His disciples for three years. Not until within six months of the crucifixion did He broach the subject. They were not prepared to hear any such message as this, and, when He did mention it for the first time, Peter rebuked Him and said that such a fate should never overtake the Lord. This incident occurred when Jesus and the Apostles were at Caesarea-Philippi (Matt. 16:21-28).

We today should profit by the experience of the Apostles. Doubtless there are many things regarding which we have inherited certain ideas and prejudices. We will not therefore open our minds to receive new light and information. We are determined to continue in the way that we have gone. Let us by the help of God abandon such an idea and be open to conviction on any and every point. We should desire the truth above everything else.

As we see in Matthew 20:17-19, the Lord for the third time foretold His rejection, crucifixion, and resurrection. This message should not have been new to the Apostles, because the prophets had clearly foretold them. For instance, in Psalm 22:1-21, David spoke of the execution of King Messiah. Again, in Isaiah 53:1-9 the passion is prophesied. His resurrection is clearly revealed in Psalm 16:8-11. Jesus, in foretelling His death and resurrection, said that He would rise on the third day. There are other passages which clearly show that He would rise after three days. There is still one other prediction that declares that, as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Some earnest students have concluded that our Lord intended us to understand that He would be actually seventy-two hours in the grave. If we take all these statements literally and rigidly, there is a plain contradiction. It is clear that all three expressions refer to the time beginning with his interment until He rose from the dead. This period was a certain definite, specific time. It could not be after three days and at the same time literally on the third day. Neither could it be equal to seventy-two exact hours and be either on the third or after the third day. How long, then, was our Lord in the tomb? By looking at the record found in Luke 23:50-24:12, we can get the facts and can determine the significance of these expressions. According to Luke 23:54 Jesus was buried on the day of the preparation and the Sabbath was drawing on. According to verse 56 the women who watched the interment of Christ rested on the Sabbath. Then, on the first day of the week, Jesus arose from the dead (24:1). It is clear from reading the context of these verses that Luke is narrating what occurred at the time of the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection, and he is itemizing the accounts, day by day. Jesus was placed in the tomb late on the day of the preparation as the Sabbath day, the weekly Sabbath, was drawing on. This places the interment of Jesus on Friday afternoon. While He was in the tomb on Saturday, the women who observed the burial rested according to the commandment. Then on the first day of the week when they visited the tomb, they found that He had been raised from the dead. These facts show that on the third day our Lord came forth from the tomb, bringing life and immortality to light through the gospel. The first day of the week, which follows Saturday, the Sabbath, was the third day after His interment. He was in the grave actually a small portion of Friday, all day Saturday, and a small portion at the beginning of the first day of the week.

In view of the actual facts, the literal time of his being in the tomb, we must conclude that the Jews used the expression "after three days" and "on the third day" synonymously. A similar usage of this kind is found in Acts, chapter 10. An angel of God appeared to Cornelius on a given day, at the ninth hour (Acts 10:3). On the morrow (vs. 9) the messengers from Cornelius were approaching the city where Peter was, Joppa. On the morrow (vs. 23) Peter arose and went with these messengers from Cornelius. Upon his arrival at Caesarea Cornelius said to him, "Four days ago, until this hour, I was keeping the ninth hour of prayer in my house ..." (vs. 30). In reality the time was actually and literally seventy-two hours—no more, no less. Nevertheless, Cornelius said "four days ago." Four days were involved in this computation—two full days and parts of two others. Nevertheless, Cornelius said that, when the angel first appeared to him, it was four days ago. From these facts it is clear that parts of days are sometimes spoken of as if they were whole days. The expression, "three days and three nights," is simply another way of saying "three days." In Genesis, chapter 1, we read that there was evening and morning, day one; evening and morning, day two, etc. Thus the expression, "three days and three nights," simply is just another way of saying three days. But the expression "three days" is a synonym for "on the third day" as we have already seen. Jesus was in the tomb parts of two days and one whole day.

We thank God for the empty tomb and for our risen Lord who conquered death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel (II Tim. 1:10).

In Matthew 20:20-28 we have an account of the mother of James and John, who came to Jesus and asked Him to grant that her two sons should sit, one on His right hand and the other on His left hand in His kingdom. It is clear from the record that she, as well as they, expected Jesus to set up a political kingdom upon earth. Why was it that they expected Jesus to set up a temporal kingdom and not a spiritual one as He actually did? The answer to this question is to be found in the way that they, together with all other Jews, viewed the Old Testament predictions. There are four types of messianic prophecy to be found in the Old Testament. One of these focuses attention exclusively upon the first coming of the Messiah; the second, on the contrary, devotes the entire time to a discussion of the events connected with the second coming; a third type blends a description of the two comings into a single picture—as if there were but one event; and the fourth gives a blueprint, so to speak, of Messiah's entire redemptive career consisting of His first, coming, rejection, death, burial, resurrection, ascension to the right hand of the throne of God, His session there during the present era, and His coming again to reign and to rule for one thousand years. There are numbers of passages of scripture that show this redemptive career. Unfortunately, the sages in Israel focused their attention on those prophecies that speak of His glorious reign when Israel shall be the head of the nations instead of being the tail, as she is at the present time. They therefore passed over those that foretold His sufferings. Whenever they saw anything that spoke of His rejection, they either forced an interpretation upon it contrary to the facts of the context, or ignored it. The result was that the whole nation was expecting Him to establish His reign of righteousness at His first appearance upon earth. The Apostles shared this same view. It seemed impossible for Jesus to correct this error to which they were committed. From the beginning of His ministry until the very close they kept their eyes focused upon a glorious political kingdom, although Jesus from time to time taught them that the kingdom which He was then going to establish was a spiritual one. His teaching was in perfect alignment with that of the prophets, concerning His death, burial, resurrection, and His inauguration of the Gospel Era, during which the truth was to be proclaimed to all nations. Even after Christ's resurrection the Apostles still held to these views. He appeared to them during a period of forty days, talking on the subject of the kingdom of God. Nevertheless, in His last interview with them at the time of the ascension, they asked Him, "Dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" If they had only known the messages of the prophets, they would have seen clearly that, upon His first coming, Messiah would establish a spiritual kingdom upon the earth, that this reign during the Dispensation of Grace would culminate in apostasy, and that this era would be followed by the Tribulation Period, which in turn would be followed by the great Kingdom Era, when Christ will reign upon the earth.

Since James and John did not see the Old Testament picture of this present phase of the kingdom, they asked Jesus to allow them to occupy the highest positions in the political kingdom which they expected Him to set up at that time, which He did not then bring into existence, but which He will establish when He returns in glory and power.

The request of James and John made the other ten Apostles indignant at them. Why was this? Evidently because they themselves cherished such temporal ambitions. That which in another person irritates one is probably the latter's own besetting sin—as a rule. Jesus reprimanded James and John for entertaining such worldly ambitions and told them that the rulers among the Gentiles exercised authority over others, but that it should not be that way with us today. The one who really wishes to become great, let him become a servant first. The Lord Jesus has set the example. He came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.

The very heart of the gospel is expressed in verse 28, which declares that Jesus gave His life a ransom for many. He paid the redemption price. The stroke that was due to fall upon each of us fell upon Him. He tasted death for every man. No man will be condemned because of Adam's transgression, because Christ paid the penalty. Men will be lost eternally because of their not accepting the atonement which the Lord Jesus made.

Matthew informs us that as Jesus and those attending Him went out of Jericho He healed two blind men. Mark, in recording this same incident, tells us that, as He entered into Jericho, He healed a blind man by the name of Bartimaeus. There seems to be a contradiction between the two records, but, when we recognize the historical facts, we see that there is perfect harmony. There were two Jerichos at the time of Jesus—the ancient fortress overthrown by Joshua and the Roman city of the first century. The road up from the Jordan to Jerusalem passed through the two. Thus as He went out of one, He was approaching the other. These facts remove this phase of the difficulty. Mark tells us that one blind man was healed and gives his name. Matthew says that there were two. There is no disagreement in these statements. Mark is simply calling attention to the outstanding one of the two and gives his name. He does not say that there was but one. If he had made a statement like that whereas Matthew says that there were two, then there would have been a contradiction. But as the statements appear, there is no contradiction.

According to Matthew 20:31 the blind men cried out to Jesus saying, "Lord, have mercy on us, thou son of David." When this passage is viewed in the light of the predictions found in the Old Testament relative to the Messiah, it is seen that this is purely a messianic title; because the Messiah was to be a descendant of David. By way of pre-eminence He is called the Son of David. Jesus was moved with pity and had mercy upon them. He therefore touched their eyes, immediately their sight was restored, and they followed Him. There was no question at any time concerning the reality of the cures which Jesus performed. Unfortunately, there are many today who are claiming that they have the ability to heal the sick; but when a thorough and scientific investigation is made concerning many of these claims, it is discovered that they are only claims, and that there is no reality backing them.

The Lord can and does answer prayer. He often heals people in answer to prayer—even at the present day. When sickness or other things come into the life of the faithful child of God, one can know that there is a reason in the divine mind for permitting such a condition to arise. When God finishes His plan in His permitting one of His saints to be sick, He cures that one. He may use medical science or He may effect the cure in answer to believing prayer. The Lord is not shut up to any one method. He does that which meets the situation. He is the one who "healeth all our diseases."