On Monday morning Jesus returned to Jerusalem. As He and the apostles were walking along the road, He saw a fig tree which had leaves, but no fruit. He, therefore, pronounced a curse upon it, that no one should ever eat fruit of it. Immediately it began to wither. The next day it seemed to be completely dead. The fact that leaves were on the tree would lead everyone to believe that there were also figs. But this tree had no fruit. Jesus, consequently, brought a blasting curse upon it.

This tree was a literal one (Mark 11:12-14). Why then was it placed under a curse? Clearly, the reason was to teach an object lesson regarding fruit-bearing. The cursing of the fig tree reminds one immediately of Isaiah, chapter 5. In this passage appears the parable of the vineyard of Jehovah of hosts, which is the house of Israel and the house of Judah. At the season of the harvest, instead of having luscious, juicy fruit, this vineyard bore wild, bitter grapes. Six curses were, therefore, pronounced upon it. (For a discussion of the cursing of the fig tree, see my booklet "Is the Fig Tree Cursed Forever?")

The cleansing of the temple occurred on Monday morning, as shown in Mark 11:15-18. At the beginning of the personal ministry of Jesus (John 2:13), He went to Jerusalem and cleansed the Temple, driving out the cattle, which were for sale in the temple enclosure, and turning over the tables of the money-changers. This event occurred three years prior to the time of this second cleansing, when He again cast out those who were making merchandise of the truth of God.

According to Isaiah, God wants His Temple to be the house of prayer for all nations: "Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples" (Psa. 56:7). Though His Temple has never been such thus far, it will be in the great Kingdom Age.

Naturally the Jerusalem authorities were enraged by the boldness of Jesus in entering the city and cleansing the Temple, casting out those who were allowed to sell animals for sacrifices. The rift that had developed between Him and the religious authorities shortly after He had started His public ministry became wider and wider as the months passed. Their feeling of estrangement and embitterment probably was heightened by the fact that He had never studied in their theological seminary and scholastically was not one of them, but was standing aloof from all parties and sects. They believed that He was an uneducated bigot who was assuming rights and prerogatives over them. To many He became the archenemy. Frankly, if you and I had been in their places, we probably would have acted as they did.

Upon His arrival in the Temple on Monday morning, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to Him and challenged His authority, saying: "By what authority art Thou doing these things? And who gave Thee this authority?" (Matt 21:23). Jesus replied by saying, "24 ... I also shall ask you one question, which if you tell me, I also shall tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or from men? But they kept reasoning within themselves, saying: If we shall say, From heaven, He will say to us, Why, therefore, did you not believe him? 26 And if we shall say, From men, we are afraid of the multitude, for all hold John as a prophet. 27 Replying to Jesus, they said, We do not know. And He said to them, I shall not tell you by what authority I am doing these things" (Matt. 21:24-27).

Jesus replied by giving three parables: that of the two sons, that of the vineyard, and that of the marriage feast and the slighted invitation. The parable of the two sons is very clear.

The second of these parables is that of a vineyard and the wicked husbandmen (Matt. 21:33-46). This parable is based upon Psalm 80:8-16 and Isaiah, chapter 5. In this passage Jesus goes to the heart of the national problem, revealing the two focal points of Jewish history, the first and the second coming of Messiah.

The parable is as follows: A householder planted a vineyard and provided all things necessary. Then he turned it over to husbandmen who were to keep it and deliver the fruit to the owner at the proper time. When the season of fruit drew near, he sent a delegation of his servants to receive the fruit. The husbandmen beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Then he sent a second delegation. The wicked husbandmen did to them as they had done to the others. Finally the householder sent his son, thinking that the husbandmen would respect him. When they saw the son coming, they instantly decided to kill him and take the vineyard.

Having thus stated the case, Jesus asked His critics what they thought the householder would do to those wicked men. They replied that he would destroy them and let the vineyard out to other husbandmen who would be faithful and true. In thus stating the case, they were correct.

Then Jesus quoted Psalm 118:22,23, as seen above in Matthew 21:42: "The stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the head of the corner ..." From the context of Psalm 118 it is clear that the word stone is not used literally, but symbolically. An examination of each passage in which this word is thus used shows obviously that it signifies the Messiah of Israel. According to these verses, the builders, the leaders of the nation, at first reject the cornerstone, but later see the truth relative to it and place it in its proper position—as head of the corner. Since this stone represents the Messiah, it is clear that at His first coming He is rejected by the leaders. Later they see the truth relative to Him and place Him in His proper position in the nation, acknowledging that He, the long rejected Messiah, is the only and rightful King of Israel. When they thus accept Him and plead for Him to return, He will do so and will establish a reign of righteousness upon the earth.

When the leaders of Israel reject the Messiah, the Lord takes the Kingdom of God from the people of Israel and gives it to another nation bringing forth the fruit thereof. The Kingdom of God during the period from Sinai to the cross was co-extensive with the nation of Israel. King David touches on this point in I Chronicles 28:5: "... he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of Jehovah over Israel." According to this statement, the throne of David over Israel is identified as the throne of Jehovah. Hence the kingdom of Israel was the kingdom of Jehovah. All the spiritual values of life at that time were centered in the nation of Israel, the Kingdom of God. According to the prediction of Jesus Christ, when the Chosen People reject Him, God takes the Kingdom from Israel and bestows it upon another nation bringing forth the fruit thereof. To what nation is the Kingdom of God given when it is taken from Israel? As may be seen from the context, this statement of Jesus is an example of paronomasia, a play on words. As the facts just presented prove, the Kingdom of God was given to the nation of Israel. According to this prediction, it is to be taken from Israel and given to another group that is spoken of as a nation. The people thus spoken of as a nation, to whom the Kingdom is given, are believers from all nations, both Jews and Gentiles. In the New Testament these people are known as the Church, or the body of Christ.

Terrific and appalling is the prediction concerning the fate awaiting those who fall upon this stone and those upon whom it will fall: "and the one falling upon this stone shall be broken in pieces; but, upon whomsoever it falls, it shall grind him to powder" (Matt. 21:44). The leaders of Israel rejected this stone, Messiah, at His first coming. In so doing, they fell upon it. As punishment for this crime, those falling upon it were broken to pieces in the catastrophe of A.D. 70. This same rejected stone, at His Second Coming, will fall upon those who, notwithstanding the light and advantages they enjoy, still reject Him. The stone will scatter them as dust. This prediction is without doubt an echo of the image vision of Daniel 2:1-45.

The parable of the marriage feast made by the king for his son (Matt. 22:1-14) was a warning to the leaders of that time. The king in the parable is obviously God the Father. The son for whom the marriage festivities are made is none other than the Son of God. The invited guests are the Jewish people who had been invited by Moses and the Prophets. The servants calling the invited guests to the marriage festivities are John the Baptist and the apostles who proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom to Israel during the personal ministry of Jesus. In the regular translation the word rendered dinner in verse 4 should properly be translated breakfast.

By the Resurrection of Christ, the breakfast had been made ready for the invited guests. The king sent out the second deputation of announcers, pleading with the invited guests to come and partake. As a group, they were uninterested and turned to their merchandising and other secular activities. Enraged by this slighting of the royal invitation, the king sent "his armies and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city" (Matt. 22:7). The prophecy of this parable was literally fulfilled in A.D. 70 by the destruction of the Jewish state and Jerusalem under the sledge hammer blows of Titus, the Roman general.

After destroying those who had spurned the invitation to the wedding breakfast, the king sent forth his messengers into the highways and byways to invite people of all races and tribes to come and partake of the supper, which was observed at the close of the day of the wedding festivities. When the king came to the marriage supper, he saw a man without a wedding garment and ordered him cast into outer darkness because he had not availed himself of the one provided for him.

Undoubtedly it was obvious to the Jerusalem authorities that Jesus spoke these three parables against them because of their attitude and action.

The Jerusalem authorities struck back, figuratively speaking. The Pharisees took counsel as to how they might ensnare Him in His talk (Matt. 22:15-22). They also tried to involve Him with the Roman authorities by asking Him whether or not it was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar. He replied that they should pay tribute to whom tribute is due. Thus their attempt failed utterly.

Then the Sadducees, who did not believe in life after death or in angels, tried to involve Him in the discussion of a theological question concerning the Resurrection. He answered their questions by showing that they did not know the power of God or the Scriptures (Matt. 22:23-33). Finally a lawyer of the Pharisees tried to ensnare Him by asking which commandment of the law was the greatest. The answer that Jesus gave to this question was overwhelmingly successful and defeated the efforts of His opponents.

At this point Jesus took the offensive in the controversy by referring to Psalm 110:1,2. He called attention to the fact that David spoke of one of his descendants as being his Lord. Then Jesus asked His opponents how David's Son could be David's Lord. Unable to answer, they withdrew, leaving Him alone. The only way that one of David's descendants could be David's Lord would be for him to be of a higher order of being than his father. Since it is recognized in this passage that this descendant is greater than David, it is therefore to be assumed that he is of an order higher than man. But to whom specifically does this passage refer? It has been recognized by many scholars as a Messianic prediction. This fact is apparent from the data of the context and other passages related to it. This descendant of David can be none other than Messiah, who is God in human form, having entered the world by miraculous conception and virgin birth. This passage becomes clear in the light of such predictions as Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." The information in this passage shows how this descendant of David is of a higher order than His father David. According to it, He is Immanuel, God in human form. No wonder David called Him his Lord.

Jesus concluded His public ministry in the Temple by delivering a scathing rebuke of His opponents, the Pharisees and the scribes. According to John 11:57, before the feast of the Passover, the chief priests and the Pharisees had commanded that any man who knew where Jesus was should reveal His whereabouts so that they might take Him. Jesus was aware of their intentions. For the last three days—Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday—He and they, as just seen, had clashed in verbal battles. He was victorious in each instance. He concluded His ministry by delivering the message found in Matthew 23:1-39. If this passage were the only one extant concerning what He said about the scribes and Pharisees, it might be concluded that He denounced all scribes and all Pharisees as men of like character. But there were notable exceptions to the rule. For instance, Nicodemus, who was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, was a friend of Jesus and a sincere man. Likewise Joseph of Arimathea was an honest truth-seeker. Notwithstanding the wide variance between Jesus and the Pharisees as a group, some of them at times entertained Him. In Luke 14:1ff., for instance, Jesus accepted an invitation to dine with an outstanding Pharisee. On another occasion, while He was in Galilee, He was entertained by a Pharisee (Luke 7:36-50). Thus, as one reads Matthew, chapter 23, he must bear in mind that Jesus' denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees on this occasion was not the condemnation of the entire group, but of only those who proved to be insincere, hypercritical.

Jesus recognized the positions of authority which the scribes and the Pharisees held. Since they were the exponents of the law and of the messages of the Prophets, Jesus instructed the multitudes to obey them implicitly, but not to do as they were doing.

Jesus pronounced seven woes upon the scribes and Pharisees. Some Bible students have pointed out that He was very caustic in His denunciation of them. He was no more severe in His criticism of the scribes and Pharisees than some of the prophets were in their denunciation of Israel. Moses was unsparing in his remarks at various times. When Israel came to Mount Sinai, for instance, the people made a golden calf and worshipped it. Aaron, the high priest, spoke to Moses and said that Israel was set on evil. By this statement he meant that they were determined to do evil and wicked things (Ex. 32:22). They were so very rebellious at times that Moses on one occasion, when he was to bring forth water from the rock, shouted, "Hear now, ye rebels; shall we bring you forth water out of this rock?" (Num. 20:10). This natural outburst of anger kept him out of the Promised Land. In the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy, chapter 32), the great lawgiver delineated very vividly the sinful, rebellious life that the people would live from his day and forward until the great Kingdom Age. The inspired writer of the Book of Judges states that every man of that period in Israel did that which was right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6; 21:25). Also the writers of the historical books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles constantly call attention to the sinful condition of the nation and to how God had to punish it. Isaiah the Prophet, in chapter 1, said that the body politic was sick from head to foot. In chapter 5, he pronounced one woe after another against the nation of Israel. Jeremiah the Prophet spoke of the nation and condemned the people, declaring that the Lord would make Jerusalem like Shiloh because of the sins of the people. Also at a later date he compared the Kingdom of Judah to two baskets of figs. The fruit of the first basket was comparatively good, but that of the second was so very bad that it could not be eaten. Ezekiel compared Jerusalem to Sodom and Gomorrah (Ezekiel, chapter 16). Then in chapter 23 he called Jerusalem and Samaria Oholah and Oholibah, two lewd, adulterous women. Malachi wished that someone with courage and moral stamina would close the doors of the Temple so that the worship could not be continued, because of the corruption of the people (Mal.1:10). Then he claimed that the whole nation was depraved and accursed because it had dealt corruptly with God.

This little glance at the history of Israel and the messages of the prophets shows that they frequently denounced the whole nation, as well as individuals. Many prophets of God were persecuted for speaking faithfully the Word of God. When all the facts are taken into consideration, one sees that the prophets and the historians were as outspoken against Israel's sins as Jesus of Nazareth was in His denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, as recorded in Matthew, chapter 23.

This scathing denunciation of the religious leaders is found in Matthew 23:1-36—with the closing lamentation over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37-39, in which Jesus addressed them as, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that kills the prophets, and stones them that are sent to her." Throughout the history of Israel, God sent His prophets to Jerusalem, the capital of the nation; but official Jerusalem, the leaders of the nation, killed and stoned them because of their denunciation of sin in high places.

In this final exclamation Jesus declared that their house, their Temple—possibly their "Beth Din," the supreme court—would be left to them desolate; and He assured them that they would never see His face again until they change their attitude and say, as foretold in Psalm 118:26, "Blessed is the one coming in the name of the Lord." According to various predictions of the prophets, the people of Israel will be brought to the point that they will see the mistake of the centuries, will rectify it by genuine repentance, and will call upon God for mercy and for deliverance. When the nation acts thus, the Messiah will come and bring the longed for deliverance and will solve the Jewish problem once and for all.

The Olivet Discourse is the most important prophecy that the Lord Jesus made. He delivered it on the Mount of Olives on Tuesday, the last day of His public ministry, after He had finished His service in the Temple. It is recorded in Matthew, chapters 24 and 25; Mark, chapter 13; Luke, chapter 21. These three accounts must be studied together if one is to get an accurate and full picture of the great prophetic outline of the centuries. This message of Matthew, chapters 24 and 25, brings together in the compass of a few words many of the great outstanding prophecies found throughout the messages of the Prophets.

1. A Prediction of the Destruction of the Temple
and Questions Growing Therefrom