THE HUSBANDMEN DISPLACED; THE SON EXALTED
[p. 144] THE HUSBANDMEN DISPLACED; THE SON EXALTED
Matthew 21: 33 - 46; Matthew 22: 1 - 14
It is a point of great moment that our hearts should be established in the first principles of the knowledge of God, and so in the sense of His faithfulness. One generation passes away after another; centuries go by; thousands of years pass; and yet God abides, and abides the same. That is the impression which the history of things that God has been pleased to give to us has produced upon my mind, a sense of the fidelity of God.
I have brought before you on previous occasions what is characteristic of the gospel of Matthew, that is, God coming out in faithfulness to the promises in His Son; but that in the very introduction of the Son of God other and new things necessarily come to light. For instance, there is the church. That comes to light in this gospel. Christ came in faithfulness to God’s promises in regard to Israel, but being the Son of God, it could not be but that God should have other thoughts in His mind. It was impossible that the Son of God should come in to be the crown of things that existed here. He came to test everything that was here. If the Son of God became Man, He must be the beginning. It must be so by reason of what He is. He was the promise of God to Abraham and to David, but He must be the beginning of an order of things which should be entirely according to God. He is “the beginning of the creation of God”, not simply the end of it. So we read in the epistle to the Colossians: “who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence”, that is, the first place. I cannot conceive how it could be otherwise, when we consider that Christ is the Son of God.
God applied the greatest possible test to Israel. He came to them in the person of His Son. They had had many a previous test. That comes out in the first [p. 145] parable that I read. God had sent them prophets previously again and again, but they had no test equivalent to the Son coming. The Son brought in the light of God. He was the true light. The true light came and they were tested by it, but did not answer to it. They did not come to the light. They preferred darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. That was the result of the Son of God coming to the Jew. But although that was the case, and they stumbled, yet God was faithful. We see that coming out in the second parable. God comes out in faithfulness to all that had been, and yet brings in other things. He brings in things according to His purpose, things that must be, yet at the same time vindicates His faithfulness to all that had been.
I cannot conceive anything more important as the foundation in our souls than a sense of the righteousness and faithfulness of God. It forms a foundation on which a superstructure of the knowledge of God can be built up.
I am going to touch on these two parables with God’s help. There is one essential point of difference in them. In the first the vineyard is in view; the second is a similitude of the kingdom. The point in the first is the bringing out of the responsibility of the husbandmen, those in charge of the vineyard. All through the vineyard is in view. God is sending to the husbandmen to receive of the fruit of the vineyard, to which He was entitled. He had formed it and cultured it, and was entitled to look for fruit — evidently it is the vineyard and the husbandmen that are in view. It is man taken up on the ground of responsibility to bring forth fruit to God. It is not exactly man in nature, but under certain conditions and the enjoyment of certain privileges, with a certain experience of God, and so responsible to bring forth fruit to God. I do not think God looked for much fruit, but I think He looked for thankfulness and praise on the part of His people. He intended them to enjoy what He had put within their reach: His sun, His rain, His land; His favours which He had put in their possession. It says in one of the psalms: “Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me”, Psalm 50: 23.
Now the second parable is a great contrast. It is the Son that is in view. The Son is common to both parables. He is the last One sent in the first; that is, the last test which God saw fit to apply to Israel. God had applied many before, but the last was God’s Son. When here He gave abundant proof of who and what He was. “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit”. There was abundant proof in the power of the Spirit of God that Christ was what He maintained He was. The people were left without excuse. He was the final test. “But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said ... This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him”. And that was the end of their responsibility. You have the witness of it at the present day. The Jews are a people under reproach, under the wrath of God, scattered over the face of the earth. They are a standing witness of the judgment of God. Though God afterwards offered mercy to them, they refused the Spirit of God, and wrath came upon them for their rejection and crucifixion of Christ and they are suffering under it now — excluded from their land, having neither ephod nor teraphim. The apostle Paul says in regard to them, “Wrath is come upon them to the uttermost”. And no doubt what has been is a foreshadowing of what will be to them in the judgment of God. They will have to suffer, as we read, “double for all her sins”.
I have said this much because I want you to understand the different point of view in the two parables. Undoubtedly the first represents men in responsibility under the care and culture of God, enjoying advantages, a measure of light and the worship of God. There was no other people that enjoyed the like privileges on the face of the earth. They had a place where God had seen fit to set His name; they had the priesthood and the Urim and Thummim and the prophets. They had, too, God’s discipline from the outset. God punished them for their iniquities. “You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities”; that was an advantage because the chastisement hindered them in the way of evil. It is so in a family; if we exercise discipline in regard to a child it is that the child may be kept from the path of evil and self-will. The discipline was a proof of faithfulness on the part of God to His people.
The vineyard represents the house of Israel and the husbandmen those in charge. It is to these God sent for the fruit of His vineyard. In any nation or company there are leaders; it is inevitable; so there were leaders in Israel; the husbandmen were specially responsible. The same principle is seen in the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3. The “angels” are addressed, those in the church, whoever it might be, who came under special responsibility in regard to the state of the church. It was to such that the Lord spoke.
There is nothing more remarkable than the parables which the Lord uttered. They were pictures that could come only from a divine mind. They are not imaginations, but presentations of the position. Here it is the history of Israel extending over a vast period. Who could have given it from such a standpoint but One who was divine. The detail of it is furnished to us in the Old Testament.
In the next parable, and that is what I want to speak more of, the Son, whom you get also in the first parable, is prominent. The Son is killed in the first parable, but He becomes the great figure in the second. We get in this parable a similitude of the kingdom. I have endeavoured previously to convey an idea of what the kingdom of heaven means, the rule and light of that which God has been pleased to set in heaven. That is the simplest idea I can give of it; and properly man is now under the sway and influence of the kingdom down here. It is akin to what we get in Genesis, where God made a great light to rule the day. God has now set a great moral light in heaven, and we come under the sway and influence of [p. 148] this. That is what I understand by the kingdom of heaven.
The prominent feature in this parable is not Israel, nor the servants, nor the guests; the one who had not on the wedding garment is not the prominent thought, though he comes in; the One prominent is the Son. The King would make a marriage supper for His Son. It is a celebration which has the Son in view. That is the first point in this parable, and it is a contrast to the preceding one where the vineyard and the husbandmen were in view.
The truth is this: God had a great purpose in His mind, and that was to bring in One who should be the pillar and centre of the moral universe. God did not bring Christ in at first, He brought in man at first and man was set up in innocence, and we know the result. But that was not exactly the purpose of God. Then He took up Israel, a people; then in David a kingdom; in Nebuchadnezzar He established imperial power in the hands of man; but there was no real pillar, no centre, no sun as the source of light and influence and rule. The history of the Old Testament fails of that; at the close of the Old Testament we read in Malachi, “Unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings”. That is where everything had failed in regard of the past.
The Son of God was to become the Sun of righteousness, and thus to be the centre and Head of the moral universe. God has made known to us the mystery of His will to gather up in one all things in Christ. Christ is the Son of God, who has come in to take the place of the Sun of righteousness. That was ever in the thought of God.
I quite admit that Christ was to come as the Messiah to Israel according to the promise of God, but He could not be limited in that way. It was revealed by the Father to Peter that Christ was the Son of the living God — not merely the Son of Abraham or David, but the Son of the living God. In the Revelation we find that He is not only the offspring of David but “the root of David”. The Jews had, no doubt, the idea that Messiah would be David’s Son, but I think they forgot He was “the root of David”. That is a very important point, because the Root of David is evidently divine. I want that we should all apprehend the position which the Son of God must take in regard to the moral universe. Everything depends on it. I cannot see any security without it. In that I can understand eternal blessing and security.
But there is another point. In order that the Son of God should come into contact with man, He must have a medium for the world to come. What I understand is, that there must be a body so formed and wrought in the knowledge of the Son of God as that the Son of God might be known through that body, and that body is the bride. I could scarcely understand the constitution of the world to come apart from that. I do not think that the Son of God could come into immediate contact with the world again. There is the idea of the bride, the heavenly city, which has the glory of God, the wall of jasper and every gate a several pearl. It is essential to the universe of bliss that the Son of God should be the Sun and light and principle of rule in it. Another thing seems also essential, that is, a body effulgent with His light. That is what I understand by the holy city, new Jerusalem, the bride, the Lamb’s wife.
Now that was in the thought of God. It has not displaced anything else. God did not bring it to light in Old Testament times, but it was in His thought. It was not intended to displace Israel, but it was a necessity to the world to come. The universe of bliss could hardly be brought into existence save with this. You have often read a remarkable passage in Hebrews 12; you are come to mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. These things are moral necessities. Mount Zion is a moral necessity, everything is established on the ground it represented; so too the heavenly city is a moral necessity, and the church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven. All are part of the great system which [p. 150] God had in His mind, and all necessary parts. That system could hardly exist, so to speak, without them.
Now there is a foreshadowing of these things here. God would make a supper, and those called in to it are called to a celebration, to a place of peculiar privilege in the present time in regard to the Son of God. God will do honour to the Son. The great thing for us is to do honour to the Son. He is the Bridegroom, who is coming again to enter into alliance with everything that was in God’s purpose down here. The Son is for the moment hid in heaven, but He is the Bridegroom. He is the centre and pillar of everything. The universe of bliss centres in the Son of God. That is involved in this parable. “A certain king ... made a marriage for his son”. He invites men to come into the celebration while the King is in heaven — that is, to recognise the thought and purpose of God in regard of His Son.
The parable is a picture of the kingdom of heaven which is still subsisting. We are here on earth, but in the light and under the influence of heaven, that is, of the One God has been pleased to set in heaven. We are called to recognise Christ as the Son of God, and that God has made a marriage for Him. We are to be down here in fidelity to God, and believing that all belongs to Him. The bride is to be taken up with the interests of Christ, Christ dwelling in the heart by faith, and maintaining all that belongs to the Son of God during the time that He is hid in heaven. That is what God has called us to. We have the privilege of being in the secret of God as to what is in heaven. We could not know it unless the Spirit had come down from heaven. The apostles could not know it by their own knowledge. Paul was the only one who had been in heaven, and he heard unspeakable words which it was not possible for a man to utter here. We know it by the Holy Spirit, who has come as a witness of who and where Christ is. He is declared to be the Son of God with power; and we are left upon earth to enter into God’s appreciation, so to speak, of Christ. We are called to the marriage supper to find our delight [p. 151] and joy and food in Christ, in what He is in the thought and purpose of God, the centre and Sun of God’s universe. You can understand how this is, simply because He is the Son of God. That is a far greater thought than His being the Messiah to Israel. He did come as Messiah, as Son of David, but His place in the universe of bliss is an infinitely greater thought; and in the light of that every purpose will be fulfilled.
Now you get the faithfulness of God in regard to the Jews. The first addressed in the parable were those bidden to the marriage. You would have thought, after the preceding parable, there would have been a complete end of Israel, when they said, “This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and seize on his inheritance”. And so there would have been on the footing of their responsibility, but not on the ground of redemption — in redemption every right of God has been discharged, and on that ground God addresses the Jews in regard of the marriage supper. They were the first bidden. They had been tested on the footing of responsibility, and had not answered to it; they had only proved themselves perverse to the backbone. They had no claim as to the supper, but God was faithful, and they were the first addressed. And what came of it? They went “one to his farm, another to his merchandise”. They treated the invitation with indifference, as though nothing had happened, and there was a remnant which “took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them”. In the first parable the Son was slain; in this the servants are slain. That is what came of God addressing the invitation to those who were bidden, the Jew. But God was faithful.
Another point arises. Who were the servants? They were the messengers of the Lord, but they were Jews. The apostles entered undoubtedly into the blessing of the marriage supper. We find that on the day of Pentecost. They were the first to be brought into the light of the glory by the Spirit of God. And they were a remnant of the Jews. Three thousand were afterwards gathered in to the marriage supper. The taking of the servants and [p. 152] slaying them did not come to pass immediately, but it appears very distinctly in the case of Stephen, when they said in effect: “We will not have this man to reign over us”. It would have been the same with all but for the providence of God. But God had proved His faithfulness.
The first to whom the light of Christ above was presented were all Jews. “God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ”. That was the burden of Peter’s preaching. Paul comes after, and in testimony to the Jews says Christ is the Son of God. There was the testimony of the glory of Christ at the right hand of God, and not only that, but of what the Son of God is as the beginning of the universe of bliss. It was in the perverseness of the Jews that they would not come in, and so the invitation goes out beyond. It goes out to every one, according to what was ever in the mind of God.
In the world to come the holy city has a most important place. You cannot attach too great importance to it. It seems so essential. Christ’s glory will be effulgent through a body of people by whom He is perfectly known. They were called to the marriage supper in order that they might all come to the unity of the faith and the full knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man. It is a blessed thing that we should be formed in that way by the Spirit of God. Gifts are given to that end. It is the purpose of God in regard to us down here that we should be bound together not only in the unity of the faith but of the full knowledge of the Son of God. The thought and aspiration of the apostle Paul was, “That I may know him”. That is what we should be set upon, to know Him not only personally, but in all that He is in the thought and purpose of God, the blessed centre and light of all that system that God has in view. That is what we are called to — we come to a perfect man in that way. The apostle Paul speaks of his labour among the gentiles, “Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus”.
[p. 153] I will say one word more in regard to the man who had not on a wedding garment. Though not exactly my subject I cannot very well pass it over. He is a representative man, because a great many people are affected when the invitation goes out far and wide, and good and bad come in. The supper is the celebration of the glory of Christ in heaven; it is the recognition down here that He is the Son of God in heaven. When it is a question of testimony going out and of people accepting it, a great many may come in without very much thought, not having on the wedding garment, without the question being raised in them as to their suitability for the occasion. But that is an extremely important point. The question has to be raised.
And what is our suitability to be at the supper? It is the wedding garment. You must be there according to righteousness. There must be the recognition in the soul of the rights of God and of those having been met in Christ, else you have not righteousness. If you think your own garment will do you have not on the wedding garment which God has provided that we may be in suitability to the occasion. The truth is, where there is faith in Christ and apprehension of the Son of God, we have not to provide anything at all. Christ is provided. He is righteousness to all who come in; they have gone in and are there in suitability. God presents Himself in that way: no longer appealing to the responsibility of man, but calling on him to believe in what He has established in heaven.
If men come in truly they turn to God by the death of Christ. In the gospel there is the witness of forgiveness of sins in Christ’s name. That is presented to men in grace; but there is another question to be met and that is defilement. If a man turns to God by the death of Christ he is free of defilement in the presence of God; and that is an obligation that rests upon every one in coming in to the marriage supper; you cannot come in in any other way. There is no difficulty it seems to me about the forgiveness of sins; it is heralded in the gospel to every [p. 154] man on earth; but that does not release man from the obligation of coming in by the death of Christ so that he might be suitable to God. Such a one has on the wedding garment and is in suitability to the occasion.
A moment will arrive when the King will assert His right to pass in review His guests and His eye will detect the one who is not suitable, and He will consign him to outer darkness.
We see what the kingdom is — Christ at the right hand of God, the sun and centre of all that system of glory which God has ordained for Himself. All here will pass away; the world and the lust of it, to make room for what God will display in the Son of God. Nothing will fail, but all will be maintained according to God. We are in the light of that now — our privilege is to be here in the blessed light of the Son of God. It is a great thing to be in accord with the occasion. If any one asks me how I am, I say, I have Christ! Every right of God is maintained in Christ, and Christ is the covering for me — He is righteousness for me and then I become righteous in practice. I get the “white linen” in that way, the righteousness of the saints. No one will practise righteousness unless he is righteous as Christ is righteous. It is the first principle of christianity to understand where we are in these different relations, and when we understand it by the Spirit of God we can practise righteousness down here. We can shew our fidelity in every relationship in which we stand.
That is what we are called to.