Matthew 21:23-32

CRITICAL NOTES

Matthew 21:23. The chief priests and the elders.—St. Mark and St. Luke add “the scribes,” thus including representatives of the three constituent elements of the Sanhedrin (Plumptre). By what authority, etc.—Their inquiry was hostile in its design; His opponents would oppress Him at once by their authority, and therefore they interrupted Him even in the midst of His teaching. But the form of their inquiry was official, and according to theocratical rule; the Jewish rulers had the right to demand of a man who exercised prophetic functions the warranty of his prophetical character. But, as Jesus had already abundantly authenticated Himself by various miracles, their seemingly justifiable act was only a shameless avowal of unbelief (Lange).

Matthew 21:25. The baptism of John.—Meaning his whole mission and ministry, of which baptism was the proper character (Brown). They reasoned with themselves.—They reasoned aside among themselves. They turned aside to one another, and privately conferred together on the Saviour’s question (Morison).

Matthew 21:27. We cannot tell.—We know not (R.V.). Before such a tribunal the prophet whom they called in question might well refuse to plead (Plumptre).

Matthew 21:32. In the way of righteousness.—The term seems used in a half-technical sense, as expressing the aspect of righteousness which the Pharisees themselves recognised (Matthew 6:1), and which included, as its three great elements, the almsgiving, fasting, and prayer, that were so conspicuous both in the life and in the teaching of the Baptist (ibid.).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Matthew 21:23

A twofold answer.—The question asked in Matthew 21:23 was very natural in its way. Although the Saviour had hitherto done nothing of a strictly punitive kind, He had acted recently with a degree of authority previously unusual with Him (see Matthew 21:1). Naturally, therefore, those who sat in the seat of authority (Matthew 23:2) were stirred up by such doings; and naturally, therefore, came to inquire into their nature and source (Matthew 21:23). They were almost bound, indeed—from their point of view—to do something of the kind. The Saviour answers, first, by asking another question in turn; and, secondly, when that was not answered, by asking another one yet.

I. The first question had to do with the mission and ministry of John the Baptist.—Connected with this we see, first, a most legitimate challenge. Next to the appearance of the Saviour Himself, the appearance of John, as a spiritual phenomenon, had been the most important one of the day. In a manner unknown for centuries past, it had agitated the faith of the day; and had afterwards left behind it an impression of the deepest and widest description (see Matthew 21:26; Matthew 3:5; Acts 19:3). Also, it had been connected intimately with the Person and work of the Saviour Himself. John may almost be said, in fact, to have effaced himself in pointing to Jesus (Matthew 3:11; John 1:19; John 1:29, etc.). It was only to be expected, therefore, that professed teachers in religion (John 3:10), such as these questioners of the Saviour, should have made up their minds about John; and only right, therefore, that they should be asked about him by the Man whom they questioned.” John the Baptist continually pointed to Me. Tell Me, therefore, if you wish to know about Me, what you say about him.” In anwer to this challenge we see, next, a pitiful evasion. That apparently simple question was not so simple as it looked from their point of view. If they said in reply what was certainly true, viz., that the mission of John was from above, they feared the Saviour. He would say at once as in Matthew 21:25; and so would expose them before all as the false guides that they were. If they said what was false and declared it to be only “of men,” they feared the people, who would then listen to them no more. So all they could think of was—in a most clumsy manner—to try and leave the question alone. “The point asked about is not one on which we can give an opinion” (Matthew 21:27). An answer in which, therefore—so we see finally—they completely answered themselves. “How can the question you ask be discussed at all unless this necessary preliminary to it has been considered at least? How can you learn about Me if you are thus ignorant about him? How can you possibly know what you profess to want to know, in such circumstance as yours?” Thus it was, in effect, that the Saviour covered them with shame for having asked their question at all!

II. The second question went deeper than this.—In it the Saviour not only silenced His adversaries; He convicted them too. He aims at this result, in the first place, by putting a case. After a method not unusual with Him, He sets forth a parable touching the matter in hand. A certain man with two sons commanded them both to go and work in his vineyard (Matthew 21:28). One refused at first, but afterwards went. The other consented at first, but that was all. Obedient in word, this son was wholly disobedient in work (Matthew 21:29). Which did they think, of two such sons, should be looked upon as obedient? (Matthew 21:31). They answered—they could but answer—that it was the one spoken of first, he that “afterwards repented and went.” The Saviour reaches the result He aimed at, in the next place, by explaining this parable and applying its moral. The message of God to His people through the ministry of the Baptist was the “command” of this parable. The “priests and elders” who had gone out with others to hear the teaching of John, and could not but own that he had come “in the way of righteousness” (Matthew 21:32) and yet had refused to do as he taught, were like the “second son” in the parable. The “publicans and harlots” who had believed in him, though notoriously impenitent and disobedient at first, were like the “first son” in the parable. It followed, therefore, that what these priests and elders had said of the “first son” was true about these. Of the two sets, they would go first into the kingdom of God. It followed, also, that what these same men had implied of the second son was true of themselves. They had never really done the will of their Father. They had not dealt faithfully with the requirements of His kingdom as coming through John. More than this, they had seen others repenting and going in; yet had never done so themselves. They were, therefore, all of them, outside of it still (Matthew 21:32).

Besides the wonderful wisdom and dialectical skill of the Saviour, we see in this passage:—

1. How great is the danger of hypocrisy!—These men had dealt treacherously with the light that they had. Even notorious sinners in the end are in less darkness than they. (Cf. John 5:46; Luke 16:31; Matthew 6:23.)

2. How greater yet is the mercy of Christ!—Even of such He does not speak so as to bid them despair. If others are spoken of as going in “before” them, it is not said of them that they go in alone (Matthew 21:32).

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Matthew 21:24. Christ and the cavillers.—

1. When cavillers come to tempt us and to take advantage of our speeches, we ought to be circumspect, that neither the truth be damnified by us, nor our adversaries get advantage against us. Therefore here Christ asketh a question instead of giving an answer.
2. The Lord can catch the crafty in their craftiness, and can decipher the folly of them who seek to cloak wickedness under colours, for this question both answered the former, and convinced the adversaries of wilful wickedness, for they knew John’s calling and doctrine to be Divine, and that John bare witness unto Christ, and so they behoved to know Christ to be the Messiah; therefore, pertinently doth He ask, John’s baptism, whence was it?
3. Callings unto the holy ministry must either be from God, and so they are lawful, or from men only, and so they are unlawful.
4. The Sacraments, and all religious service and worship, must have the same authority with the doctrine, to wit, Divine; for the question is moved about John’s baptism instead of John’s doctrine, or John’s commission or calling.

5. Men of corrupt minds do seek, not the verity but the victory in dispute; they do not look what is true or false, right or wrong, but what is most for their own corrupt ends and purpose, as the reasoning of these men doth show; for the verity which they knew of John they will not confess for shame, nor dare they flatly deny it, for fear the people should fall on them.
6. Whosoever confess a doctrine to be from heaven, and yet do not believe it, are inexcusable, and condemned by their conscience; for, say they, “If we say from heaven, He will say, Why,” etc.?—David Dickson.

Matthew 21:27. Evading the truth.—

1. The Lord’s enemies at last are confounded and put to silence. “We cannot tell,” say they.
2. One sin ensnareth and draweth a man into another sin, for they refuse to tell the truth, and in refusing they fall into a lie, saying, “We cannot tell.”
3. Such as captivate the knowledge they have, and make no use of it, are justly deprived of what further knowledge they pretend to seek, for “Neither will I tell you” is Christ’s last answer to such.—David Dickson.

Matthew 21:28. The two sons.—I. The two distinct and opposite answers.—

1. That of the first son, “I will not,” was evil, and only evil. It is of first-rate practical importance to make this plain and prominent. Looking to the son in the story, we see clearly that the answer was outrageously wicked: it was an evil word flowing from its native spring in an evil heart. Looking next to the class of persons whom that son represents, we find they are the openly and daringly ungodly of every rank in every age. They neither fear God nor pretend to fear Him. At this point, among certain classes, a subtle temptation insinuates itself. In certain circumstances ungodly men take credit for the distinct avowal of their ungodliness, and count on it as a merit. The frank confession that they are not good seems to serve some men as a substitute for goodness. What comfort will it afford to the lost to reflect that they went openly to perdition, in broad daylight, before all men, and did not skulk through byways under pretence that they were going to heaven?
2. The answer of the other son was evil, too, if you look, not to its body, but to its spirit. His smooth language was a lie; and his subsequent conduct showed, not that he had changed his mind when his father was out of sight, but that he concealed it while his father was present. The expression of the lips was like a glittering ripple caused by a fitful breeze, running upward on the surface of the river, while the whole volume of its water rolls, notwithstanding, the other way. Thus is even the worship of hypocrites worthless. “Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord,” etc. Thus, at first, both these sons were in a false and unsafe position. Their characters were not the same—were not similar; they differed in thought and word; but the difference, in as far as their answers were concerned, indicated only varieties of sin. Legion is the name of the spirits that possess and pollute the fallen; but all the legion do not dwell in every man. At the time when the father uttered his command, the character of the first son was bold, unblushing rebellion; the character of the second was cowardly, false pretence.

II. The two distinct and opposite acts.—

1. The first, after flinging a blunt refusal in his father’s face, repented of his sin. The turning-point is here. His heart was first turned and then his history. The grieved father would weep for joy, as he looked up the precipitous hill-side on which the terraced vineyard hung, and saw there the head and hands of his son glancing quickly from place to place among the vine plants. Thus there is joy in heaven—deep in the heart of heaven’s Lord—over one sinner that repenteth. Among the vines that day work was worship; the resulting act of obedience—fruit of repentance in the soul, was an offering of a sweet-smelling savour unto God.
2. The other son promptly promised, but failed to perform. The first was changed from bad to good, but the second was not changed from good to bad. No change took place in this case, and none is recorded. This son represents, in the first instance, those Pharisees who were then and there compassing the death of Jesus. They ostentatiously professed that they were doing God service; yet they were spreading a net for the feet of the innocent, and preparing to shed His blood. It is meant that in this glass all the self-righteous to the end of the world should see themselves; their profession is fair, but their life is for self, and not for God.—W. Arnot, D.D.

Matthew 21:28. The last first.—

1. Men will more readily acknowledge their fault in another man’s person than in their own; therefore doth Christ draw forth these men’s judgment by a parable.
2. He will have the conscience of the wicked subscribing to the righteousness of God’s judgment against themselves, as will appear by “What think ye?” compared with their answer.
3. The most odious and despised sinners, repenting and believing in Jesus, do find grace and place both in the church and in heaven above; but such as confide in their own righteousness are debarred, for “harlots,” saith Christ, “go into the kingdom of heaven before you.”—David Dickson.

Matthew 21:28. Cultivating the Lord’s vineyard.—I. Our Heavenly Father calls us to work for Him.—We may take the Lord’s vineyard to represent:

1. Our own natures.

2. Our own households.

3. The Christian church. 4. The whole earth.

II. Our Heavenly Father calls us to work for Him as sons.—As recognising the filial relation and breathing the filial spirit—i.e. working cheerfully, prayerfully, hopefully.

III. Our Heavenly Father calls us to work for Him at once, “to-day.”—John Morgan.

“I will,” and “I won’t,”—a story of two brothers (For children).—We do not know the names of these two brothers, so we will call them “I WILL” and “I WON’T.” They evidently lived with their father, who owned a vineyard.

I. Two brothers very much unlike.—I think “I will” was the elder of the two, and in some versions of the story he is put first. He was a very promising young man; indeed, he was all promise, as we shall see, and little performance. He found it so much easier to say “Yes” than “No,” that he often said “Yes” when he did not mean it. Brothers are often unlike each other. Instance Jacob and Esau, Moses and Aaron, Peter and Andrew, James and John. No need for brothers to be exactly alike. Nature is full of variety and character is full of variety. Tastes, habits, acquirements, all make us different, even as our faces are different.

II. A reasonable request.—

1. Their father asked them kindly. “Son, go work in my vineyard.” Not “slave,” not “servant,” not even “go,” but “son.”

2. He asked what each had the power to perform.—“Go work.” Idleness is a disgrace. Work is pleasant, manly, profitable, honourable.

3. His request involved no hardship.—Did not say, “Go work in my coal mine,” but “work in my vineyard.”

4. It was a rightful request.—He was their father.

III. The two answers.—“I WON’T” at once refused. He was a hasty boy; did not think about it; made up his mind in a moment. He was blunt. He had no right to have spoken so curtly to a father. His answer would grieve his father. “I WILL” promised at once. He also was hasty. It was not the promptness of a grateful and ready mind, but the utterance of a glib tongue. It was insincere. He said what he did not mean. Words and intentions should go together. He was thoughtless. As soon as his father was out of sight he forgot his promise, and went on with his pastime.

IV. A youth who changed his mind.—It is said the boy who changes his mind proves that he has a mind to change; but he must beware of fickleness. “He repented.”

1. His repentance did not come immediately.—It was “afterwards he repented.”

2. His repentance implies that he was sorry.—There was a true heart under a rough exterior. “Some men seem to imagine they will be forgiven for being sinners because they have never pretended to be saints; but is a man less the enemy of God because he is outspoken?”

3. His repentance was immediately followed by work.—It is very easy to express regret—to say we are sorry; but this boy “went and did the will of his father.”

V. Which brother are we like?—

1. Do not be too ready to say, “I will;” mean it first and then say it.
2. Cultivate courtesy, and before refusing a reasonable request be sure that you have good reasons for refusing.
3. Look upon this little parable as a picture of our Heavenly Father’s, call. To every son He says, “Go work in My vineyard,” and He says, Do it “to-day.” Is my name “I will,” or “I won’t?”—Preparation.

The temptations of work.—Work has its temptations, more subtle than the temptations of idleness. There are two great formulas: the formula of the world and the formula of Christ. The formula of the world is: Not you, but yours; not what you are, but what you do, is the thing sought for. The formula of Christ is: Not yours, but you; your life is greater in God’s sight than your life-work. The formula of the world finds its practical and its powerful ally in the temptations of work. The formula of Christ means the protection and the development of your spiritual life. The temptations of work, what are they?

I. To self-deception.—The more you love your work, and the greater your success in your work, the more are you exposed to the temptation of self-deception. If you love your work the performance of it gives you pleasure and satisfaction, and weaves into your thought the subtle idea that work is the ultimate thing, and that success in work means completeness. What you do becomes more to you than what you are, and every time you do well, and the world tells you you do well, that illusive sense of ultimateness gains power over you, and your life-work overtops your life.

II. To unspirituality.—It grows out of the first. We are not promised that the Spirit of God shall dwell in our work, except in so far as He first dwells in our life. When ambition, the appetite for power, or when activity, the appetite for work, becomes the ruling idea of existence, when we live for effect, or when we attempt to find ultimateness in being busy, it is amazing to see how a wall seems built up between our life and our work; and how the nobleness, even the spirituality, of our calling communicates no blessing to our neglected and depleted spiritual life. Do you ask me, “What is the proper food of the spiritual life?” I answer by naming a trinity of truths, upon which, if you feed day by day, you will ever keep greater and holier than your life-work; great and holy as, for some of you, that life-work may be. Christ’s work for you, Christ’s presence in you, Christ’s purpose through you.—Charles Cuthbert Hall.

Work.—Observe:—

I. The command.—“Go.” Some Christians would always be with Christ. They love emotion—contemplation; like Mary they would never move from His feet. To such He says, Go; you must tear yourself away from the ideal of religion to the practical. The society of your Master is to come after.

II. The labour.—“Work.” Religion is toil. Toil in self culture. Toil in converting souls. Toil in perfecting and carrying out God’s plans.

III. The time.—“To-day.” Divine things admit no delay.

IV. The place.—“In My vineyard.” It is all God’s vineyard. Though the world is reeking with sin, though the soul is fouled with sin, though Satan is riding roughshod over fallen creation, it is all God’s. Consider:

1. How vast the sphere of duty.
2. How great the requirements of service.
3. How intense the responsibility.
4. How great the privilege.
5. How sure the reward.—Anon.

Matthew 21:29. Wisdom of complying with the gospel-call.—

I. What is the work to which the gospel calls, and with which sinners will not comply? It is the work of practical godliness. It is a large work, as extensive as the commandment, which is exceeding broad.

II. Why is it that sinners will not comply with this work?—

1. Because it is the work, to which of all works, their hearts are most averse (Romans 8:7).

2. Because of the prevailing love of carnal ease. Fighting, running, praying, striving, wrestling, taking heavenly violence and the like, they cannot away with.

3. Because Satan furnishes them with work (John 8:44). They are busy doing nothing, or hatching the cockactrice’s egg; doing worse than nothing, they have much to do having the desires of the flesh and mind to fulfil.

III. Why this reason should be retracted?—

1. Because this refusal is against the respect and duty which you owe to Him who calls you to the work (Malachi 1:6).

2. Because this refusal is full of the basest ingratitude.
3. It is the most foolish and unreasonable refusal that can be; and if the sinner were not out of himself, he could not be capable of it.
4. You are ruined if you stand to your refusal.—Anon.

Matthew 21:31. The application of the parable.—The application of the parable to those to whom our Lord was speaking could not be misunderstood.

I. The first son, the man who at first said he would not go, but afterwards repented and went, was the representative of the publicans and harlots.—They had lived in open sin, and were not surprised that men should denounce them as hopelessly corrupt. But John’s preaching went to their hearts, because he assured them, that even for them there was an open gate into the kingdom of God.

II. The priests and elders.—The men who represented all that was respectable and religious in the country, were depicted in the second son who promptly said he would go and work for his father, but did not do so. These priests and elders spent their time in professing to be God’s people. Their day was filled with religious services. They had no secular business at all; they were identified with religion; their whole life was a proclamation that they were God’s servants, and a profession of their willingness to obey. And yet they failed to do the one thing they were there to do. They heard John’s teaching, they knew it was the voice of God, but they refused to prepare their hearts and understandings, as he taught them, that they might recognise Christ. Their whole profession collapsed like a burst bubble; they were proved to be shams, to be dealing in mere words with no idea of realities.—M. Dods, D.D.

Matthew 21:31. Grace manifested in flagrant sinners.—The manner of working grace in profane persons, and great sinners, for the most part is this: they see two things:—

I. Their own misery.—They ascend to a sight of their misery by these steps.

1. They see their own sins, which they have committed against God.
2. They see the severity of that law which they have transgressed, and of that Lord, whom they have offended, into whose hands it is a fearful thing to fall.
3. They tremble and fear by reason of the righteous judgments of God.
4. They grieve and mourn that by their sins they have roused a sleeping lion, and incensed and stirred up against them so potent a foe.
5. They confess and acknowledge that they are unworthy to come unto God, or to receive mercy from Him.

II. God’s mercy.—They attain unto the sight thereof by these degrees.

1. They see the promises of the gospel and the condition of repentance expressed in the gospel.
2. They come humbly to Christ.
3. They accept of the conditions which the gospel requires.
4. They come unto the holy Eucharist, as a symbol and confirmation of all these.—Richard Ward.

Matthew 21:32. Reason for condemnation.—

1. The more blameless and holy the preacher of repentance and righteousness by Christ be found, the greater is the sin of those who do not receive the message, for so Christ aggravateth these men’s sins saying, “John came in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not.”
2. Albeit self-conceited, righteous people do not believe the doctrine of righteousness by Christ, yet God will manifest the power of His truth in the conversion of despised sinners; for “the harlots believed John” albeit the Pharisees did not.
3. The sight and example of other folks believing and repenting in Christ, if it do not move us unto acknowledging our sins also and flying unto Christ, it shall stand as a witness against us, to aggravate our sin and condemnation; therefore, saith He, “And ye, when ye had seen it, ye repented not.”
4. Remorse for not believing God’s word in His servant’s mouth, in time bygone, is a special spur and preparative to believe it the more solidly for time to come; therefore saith He, “Ye repented not, that ye might believe him,” that is, “When you saw that the publicans had outstripped you in the way of righteousness by believing John’s testimony of Me, ye did not lament your unbelief, that you might give him so much the more credit for time to come, and so recover your loss by faith in Me.”—David Dickson.