1. There was a very interesting discovery that came to light as the Gospels were placed together, and that is this: Initially when it was seen that the two accounts of a woman anointing Jesus with oil – two accounts with which one gospel puts at the beginning of Jesus ministry and the other at the end – it was figured that they were really only one account, and that one of the two Gospels had placed it into the wrong location chronologically. Therefore, what was done in this publication is that the two were initially spliced together and then would come the step on figuring out which chronological location was correct.
As they were spliced together, however, it became more and more apparent that they were in reality two totally different accounts; and that they could not successfully be combined into one without creating a mixed-up and inconsistent picture – like taking two photographs of the same person from two completely different days and transposing them over each other.
The most obvious difference was that the earlier account seems to say that the woman only used SOME of the oil to anoint Jesus’ feet. But she mostly used her tears and dried His feet with her hair. And the reason she was doing this was out of repentance and love because Jesus had "forgiven her much (Luke 7:47)."
In the later account, on the other hand, it says that the woman in fact broke the bottle and poured the whole thing over His head. And the reason she had done this was because "she was SAVING it for His burial."
And it was only in this second account that the woman was identified as Mary, the sister of Martha.
As well, my suspicion is that, since the first account identifies the woman as having been "a sinner," she is none other than Mary Magdalene. That also, it seems, is why Mary Magdalene was introduced right at this point of the text – and at this point only. In other words, right after Luke’s account of the woman anointing Jesus’ feet, he then introduces Mary Magdalene into his account (Luke 8:1-3).
In a nutshell, what it looks like the Gospels indicate is that Mary Magdalene was Martha’s sister, a woman who lived in Magdala because of her lifestyle, a woman who had left her hometown, Bethany, because it was near Jerusalem, a city of religious rules. And only later, when Jesus healed her, she was at the same time reconciled to her family.
What that would mean then is this. On the first occasion, she only used a little of the oil – out of gratitude of being delivered from "seven demons" – and then later emptied the rest of the bottle over His head, knowing He was going to die (Matthew 26:12).
In summary, finding that the two accounts could not be spliced together into a singular event, they can be spliced together in relationship to each other in the Gospels as a whole. And once this is done, it give us evidence that Mary, Martha’s sister, and Mary Magdalene are in fact the same person. That would also explain why Mary, the sister of Martha, is so conspicuously missing from the entire resurrection account. Why would she be so attentive to Jesus’ teaching at Lazarus' dinner but then be almost indifferent, it would seem, at His resurrection – especially since she only lived about a ½ mile walk from Jerusalem, where He was crucified and buried. (Also see endnote 8:39.) She is not missing. Mary, Martha's sister, is Mary Magdalene!
3. That which is translated here as, "so that you will learn to trust God" is actually the phrase "so that you will believe" in the Greek. It is translated here this way to give it a more practical flavor.
4. This word here translated as "achieved," is the Greek word teleo (τελέω). It is the word from which we get our word teleological, meaning an "argument for design," speaking of the universe. It is a theological word for the argument for the existence of God.
In this context, however, it only has the meaning of a goal being reached; or that the whole design of what the prophets had written about was surrounding the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus the Messiah – it was the goal for which they aimed. All the Law and the Prophets were written for the purpose of equipping the people of God to recognize the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and what it means to each of us personally.
6. Matthew records that their mother had said, "We want you to grant for us anything we ask;" while Mark says that Jacob and John had asked, "Grant us to sit, one on Your right hand, and the other on the left when you are in Your kingdom, in Your glory."
Well it seems that what may have happened is that John and Jacob had talked about how they wanted this request, but it was only through their mother’s coaxing that they had actually asked it. She had probably felt that using something Jesus had previously said (Matthew 6:22) would be a good method in getting what they wanted, though her two sons may have been reluctant to use such a tactic.
7. Matthew says, "in your Kingdom" and Mark says, "in your glory."
8. "Dipped into" is a translation of the Greek word popularly only transliterated into baptism. Also see endnote 2:49.
9. Or ". . . rulers over the Gentiles."
10. The words, ". . . in the place of many . . ."asserts that He is doing this in the place of, or instead of someone else, which would be us. If not, the only other way for us to pay for our own sin is by spending eternity in Hell – not a good situation.
11. When Jesus came to Jericho and met the tax collector, of the three, Luke says that he had healed the blind man as he entered Jericho – but Matthew and Mark both say it was as He was leaving Jericho.
Well due to the nature of this conflict, I immediately thought of a beggar whom I see every day as I leave work. He doesn’t just stand anywhere; he stands in a strategic place. He stands where he can be in the path of the most people. That is when I saw that since Jesus healed Bartimaeus at the time of Passover, and many of the Jews from all over Israel were going up to Jerusalem, this beggar would have situated himself where he could get the most people. Therefore, if he were on the side opposite Jerusalem, he would miss everybody going from Jericho to Jerusalem. But if he were on the side of Jerusalem, he would get everybody.
That, however, was not conclusive enough by itself: The other evidence is, if Mark even knew his name, Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46), it is most likely that he also knew which side of Jericho he was sitting. This, among the very very few differences between Mark's and Luke's chronological placement of events, Mark always proved to be the clearest one of the two and held the key to the solution. (Also see endnote 8:23 and 24.)
12. The Greek here literally reads, "He was about to pass by there . . ."rather than ". . . headed towards." This second phrase was chosen for this translation because the phrase, "He was about to pass by there . . ."did not seem concise enough.
13. The Greek word, which translated here as ". . . that which was destroyed," is the word apololos (ἀπολωλός), and literally means "to destroy."
In most Bibles it is translates as ". . . that which was lost." And it is translated as such because the idea is that those who have wandered from God’s intention and plan for their life – obedience to the laws of God – are in essence being destroyed. (Also see endnote 7:62.)
14. As mentioned in the preface, Matthew clumped together all the parables and all the teachings of Jesus into a couple different areas of his book. He did this in spite of the fact that they may have actually happened throughout the events of Jesus’ ministry. These two parables, here, "The Kingdom of God is like a Hidden Treasure" and, "The Kingdom of God is like a Pearl Merchant" seem to fit best, and begin to make much more sense when they are put right after this account with Zaccheus. For these parables describe exactly the attitude Zaccheus had just demonstrated.
16. Luke 18:9-14 has been moved to this location to contrast it with the account with Zaccheus. In the original context, it came just before the rich young ruler asks Jesus, "What must I do to be saved," and it was followed by Jesus healing the two blind men, followed by this interaction with Zacchaeus. But here it is placed just after the account with Zaccheus. This has been done for the same reason mentioned in the endnote 8:14.
17. This is a law that was set down in Deuteronomy 14:22-28.
18. The Greek literally reads, "to receive his royal power."
19. The words ". . . until I return" are already at the end of this verse. Therefore, it is taken from here to keep the text from being redundant.
20. The Greek here literally reads, "your Mina has earned ten more Minas. "
A mina was the equivalent to one hundred days worth of wages. Minas is translated as three month’s worth of pay, rather than transliterated as simply a mina. It seems that when the term "three months of pay" is used, it makes it understandable to anybody, especially since most people do not have a clue what a mina is.
23. The idiom used here by Luke, "as they came near to Jericho" is the same as saying, "when they were at Jericho." This is not necessarily trying to indicate a detailed chronology but, rather, to give a broad generalization by saying, "while they were at Jericho, such and such happened." Whether it was while they were leaving or entering Jericho that was not the point. And from what I understand, the phrase "as they approached Jericho" was equivalent in the mind-set of Luke to, "while they were there. . . ."
Again, Luke does not even mean to indicate whether it was or was not the time they were entering or leaving Jericho. He just meant that it was at that point in Jesus’ ministry as a whole that He was at Jericho and met Bartimaeus.
24. Here Matthew says that it was "two blind men," and we have no reason to think otherwise. However, Luke was being more specific in his account by focusing-in on one of the blind men. Mark, on the other hand, gets even more specific and says how the blind man’s name was Bartimaeus (who was the focus of both Luke's and Mark’s account). This also seems to be evidence that Mark had a relationship with an actual eyewitness (see the preface for more about Mark’s relationship to an eyewitness).
Also, Mark puts this event at the point when Jesus was leaving Jericho because that is when he says it happened. So does Matthew. Again, Luke just says that it was while they had been at Jericho. Not giving any indication of whether it was while they were on their way in or out of Jericho. (Also see endnote directly above.)
25. This phrase, "Hearing Jesus and the crowd passing by, Bartimaeus asked some of those in the crowd . . ."is a paraphrase/amplification added in this publication to give it more of a descriptive flavor.
26. The Greek word commonly translated as "encourage" is a compound word made up of two Greek words: para, meaning "along side of" and kaleo, meaning "to call." These two words, when put together, mean "to call along side of," which was usually for help or encouragement. However, the word used here is the word tharsei (θάρσει) and means "to be of good courage." I find that the English word "encourage" is more appropriately translated as such, here, from this Greek word tharsei (θάρσι), rather than the Greek word parakaleo (παρακάλεω), meaning "to call alongside of."
27. Here Mark indicates that the blind man used the word Rabboni, meaning "my teacher," while Matthew and Luke say that the blind man had said, "Lord." These two terms, however, to the Jew of that day, meant very much the same thing. (Also see endnote 5:60 and 6:28.)
28. The Greek literally reads, "your faith has saved you." This, I believe, is because Bartimaeus was saved at this point. That, also, is why the eyewitnesses became familiar with him on a "first name basis." Additionally, receiving your sight is also a metaphoric synonym to being saved (John 9:25).
29. Bethany means, "house of dates (the food)."
30. The Greek says, "fifteen stadium lengths," which was equivalent to about two miles. It is translated as such for clarification to the reader.
31. Resurrection from the dead was a clearly understood teaching in The Law and The Prophets. You can see this most clearly in Daniel 12:2 and 13 where it says:
"And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. . . . But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age."
(Also, see Job 19:26.)
32. "Do you believe this . . ."is a translation of the Greek word pisteuo (πιστεύω). It is a word that also means "to trust."
33. See endnote directly above concerning the word "trust" or "believe." Also, "Anointed One" is the Greek word "Christ," which is a translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah."
34. The Greek word translated here as "irritated and moved in the spirit with anger" is the word embrimaomai (ἐμβριμαομα ι), and literally means "to be moved with anger." It is commonly translated here, in this particular passage, as "moved in Spirit." But that is more of an interpretation rather than a translation.
Also, as you follow the context of this event, you will find that Jesus was well aware of the fact that Lazarus was dead. He even deliberately hesitated going to him because He wanted to use this occasion to teach His disciples about faith (John 11:14-15). Therefore, it becomes evident that He was "moved in Spirit" because He was, in a sense, irritated about the fact that they were not getting it.
This is also the sense of the text when it says, "He wept," when He got to Mary and saw her unbelief. He was not sad because Lazarus was dead (for He knew what He was going to do (John 11:14-15)). Jesus was sad because of their unbelief.
At the same time, He was also human, and being human, it hurts to have all your work and labor to seem as if it were all to no avail. In fact there are several times when Jesus was disappointed in their unbelief (Matthew 17:17 being just one of them).
These people at the event only assumed that it was because of "how much He loved Lazarus" (John 11:36).
35. In the Greek there are three words for our one word "love." They had the word agape, meaning "unconditional love;" eros, meaning an "erotic love;" and philaeo, meaning "brotherly love." The third word, philaeo, is the one being used here in this verse.
36. When this verse was originally translated for this publication, there was some confusion because of the Greek word that says that the stone was "upon" the tomb, and so it was translated as "against." Weeks later, I watched a documentary that talked about Lazarus’ tomb and how they said – without mentioning the Greek – that the tomb was probably in the ground, with a stone lying over the opening like a well. Therefore, the word in this publication is now translated as "upon." (Also see endnote 7:32.)
37. The remark, "the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation" is probably talking about the place of the Temple and the position of autonomy the Romans had allowed the Jews to have.
38. The Greek here says, "gather together the children of God who are scattered abroad." But for reason of clarity, this portion is amplified into saying, "gather together the children of God who were scattered among the rest of the nations as well." Because the fact is that since the Babylonian captivity the Jews had been scattered abroad. In other words, scattered among all the nations.
And it was the Jews desire back then, as it is today for a lot of them to have all the descendants of Abraham gathered and reestablished in the land of Israel.
39. Originally I had woven together Mark, Luke, and John’s accounts of a woman who anointed Jesus with oil into one. However, no matter how well or how smoothly I thought I had them woven together, it still read as two distinctly separate accounts.
Some of the defining points that declared them to be separate were that Luke’s account told us of a sinful woman who stood behind Jesus crying, who also anointed His feet with only some of the oil she had (See endnote 8:1) – a woman who had also washed them with her tears and wiped them dry with the hair on her head. After which the host of the dinner objects by saying to himself, "if this man were a prophet, He would know what kind of a woman this is – for she is a sinner (Luke 7:39)." Something he had probably said because she may have been a prostitute.
On the other hand, Mark and John say that Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha, had broke open her flask of perfume and poured the whole thing over His head. This action of hers having some of the people in the room (one of whom was Judas Iscariot) complaining about how they thought the perfume was wasted, saying, "why wasn’t this perfume sold (since it was worth about a year’s worth of wages) and given to the poor."
This is aside from the fact that Luke puts this towards the beginning of Jesus’ ministry while Mark and John have theirs towards the end of His ministry.
However, having made an attempt to weave these details together into one account was not a wasted task because it did draw out some very interesting differences, differences that in fact complemented each other.
One of the differences was when the context of the entire Gospels as they are when they are put together is in view, directly after the first account of "a woman" anointing Jesus feet with oil, Luke then immediately introduces us to "Mary Magdalene – a woman from whom seven demons have come out ("a sinful woman" (Luke 7:39)) (Luke 8:2)." Was this because it was at this point that Mary Magdalene had joined the group?
Then when we consider the second account of Martha’s and Lazarus’ sister, Mary, anointing Jesus with oil, Jesus makes a very interesting statement, He says, "she has been saving this for my burial."
Could Mary Magdalene and Mary the sister of Lazarus be one and the same? How could Mary afford to buy a bottle of perfume that was worth a year’s wages? If it was Mary Magdalene, we know she had the money because she could afford to "support Him from what she had on hand (Luke 8:3, 3:169 of this publication)?" (Where she got that kind of money in those days as a woman is another question.)
These are just questions, but when we consider how riveted Mary, the sister of Martha, was to Jesus just prior to His death (Luke 10:39), why is it that she is not even mentioned during His resurrection. All four gospels only mention Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Jacob (Jesus brothers (Matthew 13:55-56). (Also, see endnote 8:1). That is because Mary, the sister of Martha is Mary Magdalene.
41. The Greek text actually reads, "three hundred denarii." In that day a denariiwas worth about a day’s wage.
42. The Greek also has the two words ". . . my burial." But this is understood by the text even without these words. When they are there in English it only makes the grammar redundant.
43. In this context, Jesus’ death is the subject being considered; therefore, the words, ". . . of my death" are added.
44. In Matthew 21:1 it says, "when they . . . had come to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of His disciples . . ."while Mark 11:1 says that it was while "they were at Bethphage and Bethany" that He sent these two disciples. Even further, Luke says that it was "when He had approached Bethphage and Bethany."
Given the paragraph above, all these accounts seem to give us a conflict. Matthew and Mark say that it was while they were "at Bethphage," while Luke says that it was when they had only "approached Bethphage and Bethany." Which is it? Was it when they were at Bethphage or was it while they were approaching Bethphage? Well, in reality, this is not a conflict at all because the words "approaching" and "at" are interchangeable words, when they are used for the purpose of pointing out a detail within a much bigger context. For further understanding, see endnote 8:23.
45. It seems to be that the town of Bethphage was the "town opposite" the city Jesus was referring to. If that is the case, then the donkey and its foul were in Bethphage, and Jesus and His disciples were at Bethany – or right on the outskirts of Bethany – when He gave them these orders. In support of this, we know that Bethany was the town the text says they were just at, eating a meal with Lazarus and his sisters. Giving these details, the context dictates that when Jesus and His disciples had just left Bethany – while they were standing on the edge of town – Jesus said to His disciples, "go to the town opposite" and get the donkey. The town opposite would be Bethphage
46. The Greek word amthodou (ἀμφόδου), popularly translated as road, literally means road-around. So then because Jesus had told them that they would see the colt immediately as they entered the village, it is translated as, "on the road that wraps around as you enter the village" – italicizing the added words. I did this to try and give us a more visual picture of what was going on.
47. The Greek literally reads "into the most high."
48. The Greek word transliterated here as disciple, also means student; but a disciple was much more committed than just a regular student that would, say, sit in class once a week.
49. ". . . not one of your stone standing upon another . . ."is referring to "all the beautiful buildings" that were there. The Western Wall in Jerusalem that is still standing today is the remains of a retaining wall Herod had built to enlarge the Temple Mount. None of the stones standing upon another in Jerusalem today are from any of the buildings Jesus and His disciples were looking at.
51. To rightly understand what is going on here, we need a description of the geographies surrounding the Temple mount and Jerusalem. And that is this: when stripped away of all the manmade structures, we have a small mountain peak with a long gradual slope to the south, with the upper part of this slope being called the "Ophel."
Around the temple mount, there is a small valley on the north and on the west, with a steep decline to the valley on the east – a steep decline that gradually lessens the further you go down the slope to the south of the peak that the Dome of the Rock stands on today. It was on this peak that the Temple of Jesus' day was built, and it was on this slope that the Jerusalem of David was built.
In Scripture there are only two east gates mentioned that could be the east gate Jesus walked through – and will walk through again (Ezekiel 43:4-5 and 44:1-2): The east gate of Jerusalem, which was built on the east side of this Ophel slope, the slope that lies south of the peak called the Temple mount or Mt. Moriah. Or the east gate of the actual Temple structure itself. (This wall not being the same wall that was built around the outer parameter of the entire Temple Mount.)
East of the Temple mount, across the valley that runs along the whole length of the Ophel, and Mt. Moriah’s eastern edge, is the Mount of Olives. And coming down from Bethsaida, on the Mount of Olives, there was a road that lead down towards the valley which then turned left at the bottom (directly east of the Temple), and finally lead to the east gate of the city of Jerusalem – a city built on this Ophel slope and not on the actual Temple mount itself.
Keeping all this pictured in your mind, and then considering the east gate of the Temple structure, things get a little more complicated. For, today, if you go to Israel, you can see the remains of the walls and gates from the city of Jerusalem of Herod’s day, along with the remains of the wall and the gates on the wall surrounding the Temple area.
However, when you go to the valley that runs along the east side of the Temple mount, and the Ophel slope on which ancient Jerusalem was built, the incline leading up to the Temple area is very steep. Sure, you can climb up the modern zigzag staircase to go stand outside the east gate of the Temple mount that had been built in 700 AD. But the problem comes in, when you look for the ancient remains of any staircase or gate from Herod’s time. There is none. This steep slope was a natural barrier from any attacks and, therefore, it would not have been wise to build access at this spot.
There are remains of a gate found below the one we see today, but there is absolutely no evidence of there ever being an accessible path or road leading from the Mt. of Olives to this east gate – plain and simple. Sure we see pictures today of artists rendition of the supposed large bridge that gaps the Kidron valley connection the Mt. of Olives to the east gate of the wall around the Temple mount, but there is no archaeological remains of any such gate.
There is a gate called "the Nicanor gate (a gate that separated the general courtyard of the people, called the "court of the women (since women could only go as far as this courtyard)" and the courtyard where the men, after leaving their family behind in the court of the women, would continue on with any particular sacrifice to meet up with the priest who would be waiting in this inner courtyard, where the sacrifices were made. This is the gate that Jesus will walk through and will then be permanently shut (Ezekiel 43:1-2 and 44:4-5)."
However, the reason all this is mentioned is to set up for the scene of Jesus when He entered Jerusalem on a colt. Because when we look at the wording in the Gospels, we have Jesus coming down the Mount of Olives on a colt (and even if there was a staircase leading up to an east gate that lead into the Temple area, a donkey certainly was not able to climb them.), and once He arrives at the valley between the Temple mount and the Mt of Olives, He then turns left, off the Mount of Olives, and goes down the valley until it got to the east gate of the city of Jerusalem.
From there, the donkey then turns right and entered into the city of Jerusalem through its east gate. And it was from this gate, with which the Gospels then tell us that, when Jesus entered through it, "the whole city of Jerusalem was stirred. The people saying, ‘what does this mean?’" And only after this, it say Jesus entered the Temple area; implying that it was after He had first gone through the city of Jerusalem.
To follow it even further, today you can see the remains of a southern gate that led from the city of Jerusalem into the Temple area – which was called the "beautiful gate" in Jesus’ day (Acts 3:10). And you can still see the stairs that had led up to this gate. These are stairs – not on the east, but on the south of the Temple mount – on which you can stand today and know that you are looking at Roman pavement – pavement Jesus Himself had walked over.
52. The Greek says, "it was already evening time."
53. Matthew 21:19-21 starts off saying, "At once the fig tree withered. And seeing this, the disciples marveled, saying, "How did the fig tree wither at once?" And Jesus answered . . ."and so on.
Mark in chapter 11 verses 12-14 and 20-22 mentions that Jesus had cursed the fig tree and that the disciples had only "heard Him says this." But then it goes on to say that it wasn’t until the next morning, when the disciples had seen that the tree had withered away and said what they had said, that Jesus responded to them with what He did (Matthew 21:21-22; Mark 11:22-23).
In this instance, Mark gives a very detailed account, while Matthew only uses a type of ellipsis for the details Mark fills in. Matthew was cutting it to the quick and was only interested in given the object of the lesson, rather than all the details surrounding it. This is, in fact, the nature of his whole book (see the preface).
54. When we understand the sanctity that the Jews held for the temple, along with the archaeological studies that have been done concerning the Temple mount, we find that the moneychangers had been doing their business in the Court of the Gentiles. This is why Jesus quotes the particular verse He does, saying, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations (Isaiah 56:7)."
56. There are two Greek words that are translated as Temple, which is translated as "house of God" here. They are heron (ἱερὸν) and naos (ναὸς). When the word heron is used, it is referring to the Temple area, or part of the Temple area in general. But when the word neos is used, it is indicating that it was the main Temple building. The building that had possessed the Holy and the Most Holy place, the place where the Ark of the Covenant was, under which the Holy Spirit used to dwell (Exodus 25:22). In this text, it is the word heron. (Also see endnote 9:17.)
57. The phrase given here in the Greek literally translates as, "Save now to the son of David." And the words, "save now" come from the Greek word hosanna. But since the sense of the text is that they are giving Jesus praise as the Son of David who was there to save, the word Hosanna is translated in this verse rather than transliterated (as most publications choose to do.)
So giving the implications of the text and the translation of the word Hosanna, this publication reads, "Praise to the Son of David! He is our salvation." And this phrase is amplified here because only saying "Save now to the son of David" can be a little hard to comprehend.
58. In Psalm 8:2 of this passage (which is the verse Jesus is quoting here) there is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word owz (עז), which means "strength." This being the case, the Greek verse, in Matthew 21:16, is translated as, "You have ordained the praise of Your strength to come from the mouth of children and nursing babies."
As well, consider the verse in John 5:17, when Jesus said, "My Father is working even up to now, and, thus, I am working;" saying, that the things for which the children are praising Him for, are, in fact, the very things His Father is doing in Him.
59. The Nestle Alan Greek text does not include Mark 11:26, which is worded in the NKJV as "But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses."
60. In Luke 20:1a we have the phrase, "And it came about on one of those days . . . (NASB)" However, now that we know the exact day, as Matthew 21;20 and Mark 11:20 inform us, this phrase is no longer relevant.
There is no reason for it because from the two verses above, when they are taken along with the whole context of these few days being described, we now know the actual day that this event had happened. And if we now know the exact day something has happened, we no longer need to make a general statement such as saying, ". . . one of those days."
61. In this scene Matthew says that the people had said, "He will bring those wretches to a wretched end and will rent out the vineyard to others . . . (NASB)." While Mark says, Jesus said, "the owner of the vineyard . . . will come and destroy the vine-growers, and will give the vineyard to others (NASB).’" while Luke, even further, says how "Others in the crowd said, ‘That will never happen!’"
In other words, we have one gospel saying that Jesus answered His own question and another gospel saying that the Pharisees had answered Jesus question. . . . Which is it?
Well at first glance this may seem to be conflicting eyewitness accounts. But when you consider the possibility that a real interaction between a group of people is much more dynamic then what we may sometimes give credit, we can then see that it would make total sense if Jesus had said this; while some of the people in the crowd, agreeing with Him, had said, at the same time, a similar thing; with still others in the crowd not agreeing with either of them.
In fact, this is evidenced by the different words in the statements between Jesus saying the owner of the vineyard ". . . will come and destroy the vine-growers, and will give the vineyard to others (NASB).’" and the people saying, "He will bring those wretches to a wretched end and will rent out the vineyard to others . . . (NASB)."
For not only is the choice of these words slightly different from each other, but the words each group chose to use also reveal the hearts of the ones who said them. Notice the emphasis given by the people when they said, "bring those wicked men to a wicked end." It is a slightly different emphasis than the one Jesus gave of a consequential retribution, when He says how the unrighteous vine-growers will lose their position. This being the opposite of what a man’s response would be, who would in a lot of cases say, "destroy them!" (See Luke 12:48).
63. The idea of this expression, "chief cornerstone," is similar to a capstone that rests on top of a pyramid. It is the prominent or main stone.
64. In Matthew 21:43, where it says, "I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation growing the fruits of it." The Greek actually reads, "doing [or making] the fruits of it." But since we can "do nothing apart from the vine (John 15:5)," it appears to be more precise to say, "growing the fruits of it."
The text actually does have the sense of us doing our part of "producing the fruit." And there is always God’s sovereignty and our responsibility working it out hand in hand. But the emphasis always needs to be on God’s part of the doing. For apart from Him we can do nothing (John 15:5)."
