Matthew 21:23-32

SECTION 57:

JESUS MEETS CHALLENGES TO HIS AUTHORITY: THREE PARABLES OF WARNING

(Parallels: Mark 11:27 to Mark 12:1; Luke 20:1-8)

TEXT: 21:23-32

A. Jesus-' Authority Challenged

23 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one question, which if ye tell me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or from men?
And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven, he will say unto us, Why then did ye not believe him? 26 But if we shall say, From men; we fear the multitude; for all hold John as a prophet. 27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We know not.

He also said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

B. The Parable of the Two Sons

28 But what think ye? A man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work today in the vineyard. 29 And he answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented himself and went. 30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: but went not. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?

They say, The first.

Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not; but the publicans and harlots believed him: and ye, when ye saw it, did not even repent yourselves afterward, that ye might believe him.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

On what quite reasonable basis could the religious authorities in Israel argue their right to challenge Jesus-' authority to teach and act as He did?

b.

What is the fundamental assumption behind the religious authorities-' challenge, the belief that motivates them personally to fling their challenge before Jesus?

c.

Since Jesus is challenged by the supreme religious authority in Israel, should He not respond respectfully by furnishing what they request, rather than by countering their question with another question? Is this not dodging the issue? If not, what is the real issue?

d.

How does Jesus-' question about the baptism of John really deal with the main issue at stake in this situation?

e.

Do you think Jesus was concerned primarily, or, only, with the act of baptism as practiced by John, or do you think He included more of John's ministry as well? If you believe He intended more than the act of baptism, what else do you think He included? On what basis do you think this?

f.

What is the special moral rightness about Jesus-' refusal to furnish credentials to these religious authorities?

g.

What is so specially sinful about the authorities-' confessed indecision about John the Baptist?

h.

If men are to enter the kingdom of God on the same basis, how is it possible for some (like tax collectors and harlots) to be granted precedence over others (like chief priests and other authorities like them)?

i.

If faith must precede repentance, since one cannot change his mind about what he does not believe, how can Jesus expect the religious authorities, even after witnessing the conversion of publicans and harlots to repent and believe (John)? Why was this order necessary for them?

j. What do you think would have been the reaction of common people who witnessed Jesus-' treatment of the authorities? What would the people be able to see in the answer the authorities gave Jesus concerning His question about John the Baptist?
k.

What is the special value of a well-formed question in dealing with people in an antagonistic situation such as that faced by Jesus here? What may we learn from His use of questions as a method of teaching?

1.

What is the special value of a well-turned story with a decision-demanding question at the end, as illustrated in the parable of the two sons? Where else in the Scriptures do we find other highly effective stories constructed on this same pattern?

m.

How does this episode help us to understand God's basic plan of salvation?

n.

What does this text teach us about the redemption of the Jewish people: i.e. are they to be saved on a personal or on a national basis? Why do you answer as you do? Then, how does the text influence our understanding of the present place of Israel in the plan of God regarding the future.

o.

What does this section reveal about the nature of proof whereby a true prophet is to be tested and distinguished from a false one?

p.

How would you explain the religious leaders-' rejection of John's ministry and message?

q.

How do you account for the religious leaders-' inability to appreciate the conversion of the sinners in Jewish society? Should not the former have rejoiced and glorified God for this remarkable result obtained by John?

s.

In what ways is Jesus-' story of the two sons here similar to His parable of the Prodigal Son and the Self-righteous Elder Brother (Luke 15:11-32)? Note that that story begins exactly as does this one: There was a man who had TWO sons. What similarities and differences are discernible between them?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

On one of those days they arrived again in Jerusalem and He entered the temple courts. While He was walking around there, teaching the people and proclaiming God's word, the chief priests, the theologians and the councilors of the Jewish nation stepped up to Him as He was busy teaching, and demanded, What right do you have to do what you do? Who authorized you to act this way?

And I too have a question for you, just one, replied Jesus. If you tell me the answer, then I will also inform you as to what sort of authority I have for what I do. Tell me about John the Baptist: who sent him to immerse peopleGod or men? Answer me that!
They began discussing it among themselves, arguing, If we answer, -God sent him,-' He can retort, -Then why did you reject his message?-' On the other hand, if we say, -He was acting on human motives,-' we have the people to fear. Everyone will stone us to death, since they are convinced that John was really a prophet of God. So their answer to Jesus was: We do not know who sent him.
In that case, replied Jesus, neither am I going to tell you by what sort of authority I do what I have done. He then began to tell them a series of illustrative stories: What is your opinion about the following story? There was a certain man who had two sons. He approached the first and said, My boy, go work in the vineyard today.-' But the boy answered, -I don-'t want to!-' Afterward, however, he regretted what he had said, and went. The father also went to the second and repeated the same thing to him. This son answered, -Yes, sir!-' but did not go. Now, which of the two actually did what their father wanted?

The authorities answered, The first one.

Right, continued Jesus, and I can tell you this; crooks and prostitutes will get into God's kingdom ahead of you! You see, John came to YOU on a mission of righteousness, but you refused to believe him. However, the crooks and harlots did. And although you saw that, you did not even afterwards feel remorse enough to believe him.

SUMMARY

While Jesus was teaching in the temple, the religious and political authorities challenged His right to act as He was. He silenced them by asking them a question He knew they could not answer without both incriminating themselves for their unbelief in the eyes of the people, and disqualifying themselves to ask for such credentials from Him. If they could not decide about John the Baptist whom all acknowledged to be a genuine prophet of God, on what ground could they be trusted to judge Jesus-' credentials supporting His claim to come from God? Jesus then told the story of the two sons, one finally obedient although at first rebellious, and the other, apparently obedient, but really disobedient. These represent the Jewish hierarchy as only apparently obedient to God, while the more flagrant sinners who do what God wants are really so. Worse still, the hierarchy remained obstinately unmoved by this display of true piety. The Kingdom of God would be open to the flagrant sinners who repented, but closed to the respectable sinners whose moral condition blocked all repentance.

NOTES
I. THE AUTHORITIES ATTACK

Matthew 21:23 And when he entered the temple, He had just come from Bethany (Matthew 21:17, see notes). Into the temple means into the courts surrounding the sanctuary proper, not unlikely on the southeast side near Solomon's porch. (Cf. John 10:23 ff.; Acts 3:11; Acts 5:12.) Mark and Luke capture the setting of the hierarchy's attack which follows: He was surrounded by eager listeners to His doctrine.

The chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him. Both Mark and Luke note that scribes swelled the delegation. Since these three special groups may be distinguished from the whole council (Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66 as opposed to Mark 14:43; Mark 14:53), it would seem that this is a delegation and not the whole Council. However, that each major group is represented here gives added importance to the whole procedure. Even if a formal public resolution in the Sanhedrin to send an investigative committee were entirely outside their recognized mode of procedure (Edersheim, Life, I, 309), the fact that this was a privately organized, informal mission does not weaken its psychological effect. The chief priests were either members of the families of the high priest (cf. Acts 4:6), or priests responsible for special tasks involved in the temple worship. The elders of the people were laymen, representatives of the nation of Israel. The scribes (Luke 20:1) were influential rabbis or theologians. (Cf. Gamaliel, Acts 5:34 ff.) As is clear from Matthew 21:45, this delegation is loaded with representatives from both major religious schools of thought, the Sadducees, in the person of the chief priests, and the Pharisees.

The attack came as He was teaching. The leaders were struggling separately to retain the prestige of their position and influence over the nation, but Jesus kept revealing and denouncing their wickedness. To break His hold on the popular mind (cf. Mark 11:18; Luke 19:47 f.), they unleashed this subtle but dangerous attack while He was surrounded by adoring followers. The approach of these stately dignataries may have been intended to communicate an impressive display of authority as they suddenly materialize (epèstesan, Luke 20:1) in order to achieve the maximum psychological effect of exposing this unblest provincial before the crowd as an illegitimate, self-proclaimed intruder. Since they themselves were afraid of the people (Matthew 21:45 f.), they probably hoped to stigmatize Him publically so as to deprive Him of His popularity and consequent protection. By this approach did they hope to stampede Him into some off-the-cuff rash admission?

By what authority are you doing these things? and who gave you this authority? This question implies three things:

1.

That Jesus had in fact been doing something significant which they must formally investigate in this manner;

2.

that these inquisitors themselves enjoyed the unquestionable right to demand to examine His credentials;

3.

that nothing He had ever said or done indicated to them that God authenticated His mission, message or manners.

These things, although a vague charge, must include not only what they would have termed pseudo-Messianic rabble-rousing, such as the Messianic entry into Jerusalem and His unceremonious temple-cleansing, but also the miracles He had performed in the temple. The clear sight of the recently blind and the normal movement of those who had until but recently been crippled (Matthew 21:14 f.) should answer their question for them, unless they dig up the discredited accusation of collusion with Beelzebul! (Cf. Matthew 12:22-45.) Their most recent objection to Him lay in His defending children who unquestionably attributed to Him titles of Messiahship. (See on Matthew 21:15.) Because the responsibility to judge false prophets and religious frauds was clearly theirs (Sanhedrin Matthew 1:5), their major complaint was His assuming the position of Teacher of the crowds without prior authorization by any of the recognized authorities in Israel. Certainly no priest, whose was the exclusive monopoly over temple affairs, had authorized the temple's cleansing. No recognized theologian had ordained Him to teach there or anywhere. Had some Roman allowed Him a puppet-governor's right to play the part of Messianic King? So, because Jesus was but a common Jew and no priest, they suspected He could claim neither the authority of Church or State for His presuming to assume the management of the temple and exercise royal authority.

But we must not suppose that jealousy for their position was the only motive driving these leaders to demand who He thought He was and who had authorized Him to behave so imperiously. Most certainly involved is their concept of authority. In fact, authority to teach in Judaism was conveyed by the imposition of hands in a formal ceremony of ordination after the accurate communication of traditions. Edersheim (Life, II, 381f.) taught that there was no principle more firmly established by universal consent than that authoritative teaching required previous authorization. This lack of accreditation by the proper rabbis was precisely the point at which Jesus seemed to be most vulnerable (cf. John 7:15). Ironically, the principle of authority to which they must appeal for their own right to lead Israel eventually originated in Scripture. But the same Bible taught that a prophet must receive his authorization directly from God (Deuteronomy 18:15-22) even without any other human recognition! (Cf. Amos 3:3-8; Amos 7:12-15; Galatians 1:1; Galatians 1:12; Galatians 1:16 f.; Galatians 2:6.)

By what authority? means by what kind of (poìs) authority? The fundamental assumption behind this challenge is their absolute certainty that He did not enjoy God's authority, hence His activity must be accounted for on some other basis. (Contrast John 3:2!) These learned rulers might have conceded liberty of opinion to any itinerate rabbi who wanted to express his views publicly, but not to Jesus who subverted their system. His personal holiness and compassion (cf. Matthew 7:15-20), His incisive but notably untraditional teaching of the meaning of God's Word (cf. Matthew 7:29) and His unquestionably true miracles (cf. Deuteronomy 18:21 f.; 2 Corinthians 12:12) and His harmony with other prophetic revelations (cf. Deuteronomy 13:1 ff.; Isaiah 8:20; Jeremiah 26), meant completely nothing to them as credentials! (Study 1 Kings 22:24-28; Jeremiah 20:1-6; chap. 23.)

In the mind of His inquisitors, what alternatives lay open to Jesus? The audacity of His demeanor and that of His followers implied that He claimed royal Messianic authority. Now if He denied it, His followers would abandon Him for disappointing them. If He admitted it, the authorities could turn Him over to the Roman procurator for treason. Again, if He disclaimed all authority, His actions would then lack any rationale, and He would be exposed as a fool or, worse, as an imposter. If He remained mute, they could insinuate that His silence tacitly confessed the falsity of His pretenses. If He tried to claim that God had given Him this miraculous power and this authority to teach, they could twist His answer and charge Him with blasphemy (cf. John 5:17 f.). Thus, their question was not primarily intended to protect the people of God against a potential imposter, but to lead Him into a fatal trap. Normally, their question would be quite understandable and entirely justifiable, because acceptance of what anyone teaches depends on the listener's evaluation of his authority to say what he does. Technically, their formal question is in order. So it is not with the formulation of their challenge that Jesus must quarrel, but with the insincerity He sees in their motivation.

II. JESUS COUNTERATTACKS
John's authority is indicative of mine (21:24-27).

Matthew 21:24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one question which, if ye tell me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. With what unruffled calm and unparalleled presence of mind He reacts! Is this evidence of only supernatural insight, and not also the reflection of careful personal preparation to meet just such a demand? This question had already arisen in Jesus-' ministry (John 2:18; John 6:30; Matthew 12:38; Matthew 16:1). He had already furnished answers that would have satisfied the honest mind. Now He must deal with the other kind.

Although Jesus-' counter-challenge takes the form of a question, He may literally have said to them, And I will ask you for a statement. (erotèso humâs kagò lògon héna;cf. Arndt-Gingrich, 285 §2, article: eperotào and 312 §2, article erotào: to ask for, request taken together with lògon: statement, ibid,, 478, article lògos, §1 gamma. However, Arndt-Gingrich render our text: I will ask you a question. Lenski, Matthew, 828: Lògon héna = -just one matter-' and no more.)

Jesus-' reaction is not artful evasion, since answering one question with another was not unknown among the rabbis. Observe the wisdom of Jesus-' technique evident here:

1.

He who asks a question asks the favor of an answer, and so cannot refuse to concede a favor asked of him without exposing his own unfairness. Thus, the rulers who asked Jesus the courtesy of an answer, could not easily refuse Him the courtesy of an answer to just one question, especially when He clearly declared His willingness to meet their demands immediately thereafter. If they refuse to answer His, when He had asked them one, they cannot then complain of any injustice in His refusal.

2.

He knew that their question presumed their right to ask for His credentials. But their presumption must not go unquestioned, and that publicly. Normally, no one would dare ask publicly recognized officials for those documents that validate their right to question all others. But, precisely because He knew that THESE men perverted righteousness by rejecting God's true messengers, He must show for all to see that these officials were totally unqualified as holy inquisitors, hence had nothing more than a pretended right to grill Him as they were. Yet, by promising them a proper answer to their question, He tacitly admitted their responsibility and consequent authority to challenge all would-be prophets and teachers, and to decide without fear or favor. While it is unquestionably true that we are not automatically obligated to answer everyone's questions merely because he askseither because the answer is not his to know or because the question itself is wrongly framed or otherwise impossible to answernevertheless, Jesus was obligated to furnish prophetic credentials sooner or later.

3.

His was no crude trick or evasive counter question, because, were they correctly to answer His question, they would have a solid basis upon which to appreciate the correct answer to their own. (See on Matthew 21:25.) His, then, is a highly effective way of answering, since He stimulates them to answer their own question for themselves. The key to the main question often lies in the correct answer to a question that must be taken first.

4.

JESUS HAD ALREADY ANSWERED THIS QUESTION BEFORE. How many times must a faithful witness give his testimony before his word is to be accepted as true (cf. Revelation 1:5)? Doubtlessly numerous investigating committees had poured out their reports before the Sanhedrin, quoting verbatim His replies to this same query answered on other occasions. (Cf. Matthew 12, esp. Matthew 12:9-14; Matthew 12:23; Matthew 12:38 ff.; Matthew 16:1-4; John 2:18 ff; John 5:15-47; the special case of the man born blind, John 9:24-34; John 10:24-39.) Jesus cannot be unaware that they are not honestly seeking information, since the chief priests and Pharisees had united the council in the determination to put Jesus to death (John 11:47-53). So, their question is anything but a legitimate, innocent, routine request of credentials.

5.

There is a special, moral rightness that Jesus should refuse to furnish His credential to THESE men. To continue providing evidence of His divine authority, when adequate proof had already been given, is to place in doubt the adequacy of the foregoing proof as if it were somehow inconclusive.

6.

There is real wisdom in a well-formed question when dealing with antagonistic people:

a.

It immediately took the pressure off of Himself, since it demonstrated that He was in control of His own spirit and that He had sufficient presence of mind to meet their potentially devastating question with a reasonable reaction.

b.

It shifted the pressure of His questioners: they became the questioned.

c.

It immediately enlisted all interested bystanders in cooperating together to formulate the proper answer. Each one who answers the question would line up emotionally with those whose answer approximates his own. This very procedure transforms the former threat by reorganizing its components along new, potentially helpful lines.

d.

It turns everyone's attention away from personalities immediately involved in the antagonism and toward resolving the issue. As in our case here, the question must not merely divert the attention from the one attacked, but toward the correct solution of the problem that occasioned the attack.

e.

Such a question may cause the antagonists to think, to be reasonable, to consider. Sometimes it may lead them to see the irrationality of their prejudices.

7.

One decisive question leads people to take a stand. Those who face it honestly, but had simply been confused by their background, might be persuaded to understand their confusion and abandon it. Further, the authorities-' confusion, exposed in this public way, would not go unnoticed by those who had followed their leadership, This, in turn, would stimulate the followers not only to repudiate their blind shepherds, but, having recognized their fallibility, examine God's Word personally.

8.

Prudence. To answer directly that He was the Messiah, God's Son, therefore qualified, would precipitate the final crisis at a time when there was yet much to be taught and done before the last hour. He refused to invite disaster by hurling Himself on the enemy's sword. As the Lamb of God in the midst of wolves, He was as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16 ff.), answering with great caution (cf. Proverbs 15:28).

Whereas Jesus could have worked miracles to prove His right or perhaps cite Bible prophecies to support His claims, this time He adopted neither method of proof. Instead He lay before these schemers an unexpected, but fatal, dilemma:

Matthew 21:25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or from men? Who sent John to immerse peopleGod or men? The baptism of John is metonymy for John's total mission of which his baptism was that act whereby those who accepted his mission from God demonstrated their submission to God. The baptism in itself would have held only a ritual importance for an Israel already accustomed to various washings and proselyte baptisms. (Cf. Edersheim, Life, II, 745-747; I, 273f.; see also Hendriksen, Matthew, 200f.; also Josephus-' warped view, Ant., XVIII, 5, 2.) But because John had so intimately linked it with repentance toward God and personal preparation for the coming Messianic Kingdom of God, there could be no rejecting it without, at the same time, refusing the God who had sent him to call the nation to repentance.

Why bring up the baptism of John? Several reasons account for this:

1.

John's baptism is either an invention of men or required by God. Jesus left His questioners no loop-hole: the question of his baptism is acid-clear, (1) because no Old Testament text had predicted or ordered it, (2) because no Jewish group, especially the Essenes and the community at Qumran, practiced anything precisely identical to it, and (3) because his baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) seemed to undermine the unique program for such forgiveness available through the right sacrifices by levitical priests in the temple.

Not even the Qumran community, with its multitudinous lustrations, thought of their admission of new converts to baptism in the same way John did. (Cf. John Allegrao, The Dead Sea ScrollsA Reappraisal, 2nd ed. 1964, p. 121f.; Jean Danielou, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Primitive Christianity, 1958, p. 23). Josephus (Wars, II, 8, 2-13, esp. 7) says enigmatically, [the proselyte to Essenism] is made a partaker of the waters of purification which may mean initiation into the group or mere access to bathing regularly in the same water in common with the pure. But Essene baptism is more a question of daily washings than initiatory preparation to fellowship in the community. That John's baptism was unique is eloquently evidenced even by Josephus whom some believe to have been an insider to Essenism, since he too describes John as the Baptist. (Cf. his treatment of Essenism and other sects: Ant. XVIII, I, 3-6; Wars II, 8, 2-13; and his Life, 2.)

The issue is this: was John right to introduce this rite?

2.

Jesus, like John, had been sent directly by God, without human authorization from Jerusalem or from anywhere else. Standing outside the institutional structures of standard Judaism, and when challenged specifically on this point, John had claimed to be commissioned directly by God (John 1:33). Since the case of John and Jesus stand on the same footing, let the delegation decide about the former and they shall have their answer about the latter.

3.

As observed before (see notes on Matthew 11:7; Matthew 11:14 f.), the proper answer to the question, Who is Jesus of Nazareth? can be found in the correct answer to the other, Who is John the Baptist? For if it be determined that the latter is a man sent from God (John 1:6; Luke 3:2 f.), and, consequently, his message and immersion as well, then his pointing out Jesus as God's Lamb (John 1:29), the One infinitely greater than John himself (John 1:27; John 1:30), the One who has the Spirit (John 1:32 f.), the Son of God (John 1:34), should furnish the correct estimation of that authority by which Jesus ministered.

4.

The baptism of John was objectively a previous revelation from God. Before Jesus will furnish new revelations of His identity, He must force them to face squarely the earlier ones, since openness to grasp new truth generally depends upon one's faithfulness and fairness in handling the previous truth.

5.

In the mouth of these bigoted critics, the question, Who gave you this authority? means What HUMAN authority? since they presume the answer cannot be God. If so, Jesus-' reply really answers their challenge by saying: John is God's messenger who prepared the way for me, baptized me and pointed me out to the world. In fact, it was at the baptism of John that Jesus was officially anointed to be a Prophet by the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:37 f.) and proclaimed by the Father (John 5:32-36; John 1:29-34).

6.

Last, but not least, this was a question that even the simplest of the common people could AND DID answer to the satisfaction of God, (See notes on Matthew 21:31 f.)

From heaven or from men? From heaven? is a respectful Hebraism meaning From God whose dwelling it is. (See notes on Matthew 23:22.) From heaven or from men? are the only alternatives (cf. Acts 5:38 f.). The best, if not the only, escape from the horns of a dilemma is the formulation of a third alternative. But in this case there can be no third possibility, because, in the nature of the case, there are no other sources of prophetic inspiration. Even diabolic or drug-induced inspiration may be thought of as a subdivision of Jesus-' expression from men, inasmuch as these operate in deceived and deceptive men (cf. 1 Kings 22:22).

Although the leaders-' question had been devious, because of its apparent interest in truth, Jesus-' dilemma is a legitimate one that gets right at the heart of their deepest need and of that of His hearers. Because the rulers had scorned John's baptism and message, the Lord now requires that they openly confess it in the presence of the people they claimed to lead. If they declare themselves incompetent to decide John's case, they thereby disqualify themselves as judges of Jesus, but, even more critically, as master teachers of Israel. Since John had been a figure in Israel of such great religious significance, no one could ignore him without moral consequences. It was the duty of these authorities NOT to hedge or dodge the issue: John must be evaluated and that evaluation must be published.
If they reasoned among themselves, then how did the Evangelists learn the content of their deliberations? Probably the leaders talked in hoarse stage whispers in this on-the-spot consultation. Unless they deliberately retreated for a hasty conference, then it may not have been too difficult for by-standers to tune in on their debate.

If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why then did ye not believe him? Jesus knew that they did not believe John, but, if pushed by their answer to ask this question, He would have meant one of two things by it:

1.

Why did you not believe him in what he said about your sins and need to repent so as to be ready for the coming Kingdom of God?

2.

Why did you not believe him in his open and emphatic testimony to me, given before a priestly delegation from the Pharisees, that I am far greater than himself, even God's Son (John 1:19-34)?

With unerring insight born of calculating self-interest, these shrewd politicians recognized the political ramifications of their dilemma, and either way they are damned. To answer that John's message was really of divine origin but yet unbelieved by these very rulers, would instantly disqualify them as holy inquisitors in the name of God. To be exposed as crass unbelievers in a prophet of God at the very moment they are questioning Jesus-' prerogatives to be just such a prophet, is to be totally disarmed for the task at which they should have been not merely legal experts but highly qualified morally. For anyone to admit that a given message or command is from God, and at the same time not to obey it, is the highest folly and deepest wickedness of which they can be accused.

Matthew 21:26 But if we shall say, From men; we fear the multitude. The broken construction evident in their words is not proof of grammatical blundering on the part of the Gospel writer, but the accurate recording of the mental agitation of the holy inquisitors themselves! Here their true character is unmasked: rather than openly affirm their secret conviction that John was just another back-woods revivalist, but certainly not a prophet of God, rather than expose the decided judgment widely held by their colleagues in the Jewish Senate, they cower before public opinion. Luke (Luke 20:6) quotes them as fearing instant death by stoning at the hands of an aroused populace. From men had been their real choice made many months before, since they had examined John's testimony and had repudiated it (John 1:19 ff.). They considered their rejection perfectly right-minded at that time, because, in their view, John was self-sent. Now, under the psychological pressure of their own making, they hedge, because they cannot state their own true view publicly without political self-damage.

Another evaluation of their silence sees it as an unwitting admission that they recognized John as truly a God-sent prophet, for, it is argued, were they profoundly convinced they were right, there is no mob's fury they would not have braved, risking death to declare their convictions. Good evidence for this thesis are the Jews-' many public demonstrations against Herodian or Roman policies, when they bared their breasts for Herod's vengeance or Roman slaughter, rather than submit meekly to compromise of conscience. (Cf. Josephus, Ant. XIV, 13, 1, 2; XV, 8, 1-4; XVIII, 3, 1; Wars, II, 9.2-4.) This position, however, assumes these politicians would have had more conscience than they did. It also forgets their unwillingness to part with popular support which they desperately needed in their rickety power structure.

We fear the multitude. Their glaring sin was that they did not fear GOD! Who cares if God is offended or dishonored by their deliberate refusal to confess embarrassing truth? In full awareness of their options they lied because of their previous opposition to truth. For them, the main question was not truth, but personal consequences. They could not care less whether or not John were really a prophet. Their prime concern was what answer would most successfully and most immediately defuse the live bomb Jesus had just handed them. Although they claimed to have the interest of true religion at heart, these proud men are actually animated by the dictates of political survival.

The ground of their hesitation was the almost universal conviction that John was a true prophet (cf. Mark 11:32). Although dead at this time, John's influence over people was very much alive and even continued on into the age of the Church. (Acts 18:24 ff; Acts 19:1 ff.; Josephus-' testimony: Ant. XVIII, 5, 2.) Ironically, the common people, whom the authorities despised (John 7:49), actually held truer conclusions than their leaders and expressed greater freedom and conscientiousness in expressing their true belief! Had the authorities maintained their personal integrity and obeyed God as His will was revealed by John, they too could have maintained their position as leaders and would have had no basis for their present uneasiness.

CLUMSY EVASIVENESS

The reverend doctors solemnly entoned, The point about which you ask is not one concerning which we are able to establish a scholarly consensus, which, stripped of its pompous language, translates into Matthew 21:27 We know not. No one in Israel, called upon to give judgment about the ministry of a so-called prophet has the right to opt for this no-decision choice, since God had obligated all Israel to distinguish true prophets from false ones who lead His people into apostasy. (Cf. Deuteronomy 13:1 ff; Deuteronomy 18:9-22.) This shameful abdication of responsibility for a final judgment about John unquestionably ignores their God-given duty to know and decide. Further, it disqualifies them from asking credentials of ANYONE, for they would be as unable to judge the latter as they claimed in John's case.

We know not is a handy reply, because they believe no one on earth can disprove it, since it concerns their hidden thoughts. But a lie it was. They simply have no scruples about lying about their secret opinions. They merely hate the shame, not the sin, of deception. But even this deception is discovered, because the Lord did not react to their verbalized answer, We know not, but to their inward, suppressed answer, We are not going to tell you, by saying, Neither will I tell you.. By so doing, He proved once more how rightly He read their inward thoughts which they feared to reveal. Ferrar's vivid evaluation of the situation (Life, 515) deserves repeating:

To say We do not know, in this instance was a thing utterly alien to their habits, disgraceful to their discernment, a deathblow to their pretensions. It was ignorance in a sphere where ignorance was for them inexcusable. They, the appointed explainers of the Lawthey, the accepted teachers of the peoplethey, the acknowledged monopolizers of Scriptural learning and oral traditionand yet to be compelled, against their real convictions, to say, and that before the multitude, that they could not tell whether a man of immense and sacred influencea man who acknowledged the Scriptures which they explained, and carried into practice the customs which they reverencedwas a divinely inspired messenger or a deluding imposter! Were the lines of demarcation, then, between the inspired prophet (nahî) and the wicked seducer (mesîth) so dubious and indistinct? It was a fearful humiliation, and one which they never either forgot or forgave!

JUSTIFIABLE REFUSAL

Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. Their inability to pursue their question admits that their refusal to answer His questions cancels their own right to a reply from Him. However, although He was absolved from answering directly, as seen in what follows, He did not evade their question, because, in itself, it is a valid question worthy of a good answer. So He answered it parabolically. (See notes on Matthew 21:33 to Matthew 22:14, Matthew 22:41-46.)

I do these things echoes the wording of their question (Matthew 21:23). However, He hereby also confirms that He is actually doing things that mark Him as the most significant spiritual phenomenon of the times. They could not formulate their original question: By what right do you CLAIM to do these things? because it was already painfully evident to them that the miracles, message and manners that characterized His ministry were incontestable facts.

Even though for the moment both Jesus and authorities are silent, their silence is for quite opposite reasons. Because of their cowardice, they CANNOT speak. Because of His justice, He WILL not speak. But the common people who witnessed the scene would have no doubt who had won. On the other hand, Plummer (Matthew, 294) suspects that at last in their own mind, Jesus-' enemies did actually gain headway in this round, since He did not publicly deny all claim to royal authority, in the same way He had been unwilling to hush the crowds (Luke 19:30 f.) and the children (Matthew 21:15 f.) who proclaimed Him their Messianic King. These refusals, when seen as tacit confessions, strengthened their case against Him both with the Romans and the Jewish Supreme Council.

III. DECIDE ON AN OBJECTIVE CASE: TWO SONS (21:28-32)
A. Rank Sinners and Religious Outcasts

Matthew 21:28 But what think ye? Although Jesus had honorably and effectively bested His challengers psychologically, He is not satisfied to let them leave without help. Before they disperse, He presses them for further, possibly life-changing, decisions. What think ye? is His engaging way of eliciting their opinion. He invites them to THINK about a story that apparently has nothing to do either with their frustration and dishonorable failure in the face of His dilemma or with His consequent refusal to submit to their pretended authority. This masterful approach defuses the tension by concentrating their attention on an interesting illustration. (Cf. Matthew 17:25; Matthew 18:12; Matthew 22:42.) The well-turned story has special value especially because of its decision-demanding question at the end. The Scripture records other highly effective illustrations built on his pattern (2 Samuel 12:1-13; 2 Samuel 14:1-24; 1 Kings 20:35-43; cf. Matthew 21:33-45).

A man had two sons. The man represents God; the two sons stand for (1) the sinners, and (2) the hierarchy. The exquisite grace of Jesus pictures both as sons of the same father who tries to engage each son in useful work for Him. But there are only two sons, not three, as if there should have been another son who could both agree with and obey the father. Jesus omitted this concept, because there was simply no one who did that (cf. Romans 3:10-23). Go work today in the vineyard, is the father's invitation to each boy to show himself a true and worthy son. The worthiness is not itself based upon HOW MUCH work each would eventually do, but upon WHETHER each would take up this precious invitation. This is the positive side of our obedience to the Father's will too. When Jesus applied this parable (vv. 31, 32), He identified those who please God and enter His Kingdom by pointing to flagrant sinners who believed His messenger and acted accordingly. Thus, the order to go to work in the vineyard is no mere merit system whereby each can earn so much praise for so much work, but

1.

the practical procedure whereby people complete what the father needs done, and

2.

the practical proof that each is truly the father's child, as he claims.

Matthew 21:29 And he answered and said, I will not. The glaring disobedience the pious thought typical of publicans and harlots is not understated in this son's rude refusal: I don-'t want to! (ou thélo). Such an outrageous reaction springs from a rebellious heart that does not respect the father or fear the consequences. Such open, daring defiance illustrates an ungodliness almost proud of its rebellion.

Although not explicitly part of Jesus-' story, He implies that the father did not instantly disinherit his boy because of this rebelliousness. He graciously left the son time to reconsider, and reconsider he did! This feature is perhaps intended to suggest how really typical of our Father not to want any to perish but all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:4; Matthew 18:10-14). This grace certainly leaves the door open to what follows (cf. Romans 2:4). But afterward he repented himself. Metameletheis might be better rendered: he regretted it, or felt sorry for it. In fact this is not the normal New Testament word for repentance, metanoéo, which involves a change of mind and consequent action. In our text, it is true, the son actually did reverse his previous position by obeying the father, and the Jewish leaders should have done the same. (Cf. Matthew 21:32, metemelèthete.) However, Jesus-' emphasis here is more on the remorse felt about previously bad conduct. A proper sorrow over reprehensible conduct can lead to genuine change (2 Corinthians 7:9-11), although this does not always happen, as in the case of Judas (Matthew 27:3). Metamélomai expresses primarily a change in feeling, not necessarily a change in conduct. This latter is to be discovered from the later actions which are the fruits worthy of repentance (karpòn àxion tês metanoìas, cf. Matthew 3:8) John was really driving for. He went, thus showing himself a worthy child of his father, despite the bad beginnings.

B. Religious Professionals

Matthew 21:30 And he came to the second, to offer this son too the same gracious opportunity to show himself a true son. And he answered and said, I go, sir: the cultured politeness and ready acquiescence of this boy mark a stark contrast with his brother. He very respectfully called his father sir (kùrie)!The suddenness with which he responded is breath-taking and an excellent example for our response everytime God assigns us work to do. However, HIS I go, sir, is but the smooth lie of someone who is too cowardly to rebel against his father's authority openly. Or is it that habitual courteousness that responds well, but, unsupported by conscience, has no serious intention to carry through such glib commitments? How appropriately he symbolized the cultured theologians standing there before Jesus! He went not. Despite his politeness and promises, he completely ignored his commitment to the father. These very religionists did not merely promise to do God's will. They actually convinced themselves that they were doing it! In fact, they could have scraped together scholarly reasons why their investigation of Jesus was the will of God (cf. John 16:2). But that they say and do not would be one of Jesus-' charges against the Pharisees later (Matthew 23:3). This form of godliness of which they were inexplicably proud, proves to be the most effective tool Satan uses to resist the power of real godliness (cf. 2 Timothy 3:5). They supposed that religious forms equaled the power of righteousness and could not discern that the power of righteousness EVIDENT IN THE GREAT CONVERSIONS OF FLAGRANT SINNERS is true religion at its best!

C. The Punch Line

Matthew 21:31 Which of the two did the will of his father? Despite the bad beginnings, who, in the final analysis, actually did what their father wanted? The crucial issue is DOING the will of God, not merely talking about it. This is true religion. (See notes on Matthew 6:10; Matthew 7:21; Matthew 9:13; Matthew 12:50; Matthew 28:20; Psalms 119; Psalms 143:10; John 15:14; Acts 5:29.) God is not so much interested in who said yes or no to Him at first, but who eventually responded in real obedience!

Without being obviously capricious, the authorities had to answer according to the justice of the case, whether they sensed the implications of His story or not. So, they say, the first. Anyone would prefer to deal with people who are better than their wordlike the first son,than with those who break itlike the second. And God Himself vindicates the justice of this choice in just such a case (Ezekiel 18:21-28).

Verily I say unto you.. Since His opponents had taken sides on the moral principle in the story, Jesus now demonstrates how this principle applies to their situation. But perhaps no more shocking news faced these reverend clergymen than this: The publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. If Jesus is right, this has to be bad news for these and anyone else who suppose themselves to possess the best chance to get into God's glorious Messianic Kingdom. In fact, from their point of view, for anyone to state that men and women whom all the pious consider hopelessly wicked, irretrievably damned sinners, shall enjoy precedence to enter into that realm where only the righteous justly deserve welcome, is to subvert all sense of justice and holiness, and irresponsibly to distribute unmerited hope to the undeserving! That is, unless there is a far higher principle of justice that completely vindicates it. And while the scowling dignitaries fume and sputter, Jesus-' explanation is not long in coming (v. 32). He had already intimated this principle earlier: There will be a surprising reversal of common judgments of right and propriety. (See on Matthew 19:30; Matthew 20:16.)

The publicans and harlots serve as the basis of Jesus-' contrast, because they were common examples of shameless disobedience to God in Jewish society.

1.

Publicans, or tax-gatherers, because of the extortion, graft and greed associated with this occupation, were considered classic sinners. (See notes on Matthew 9:9.) Nevertheless, John's preaching brought men like these to repentance (Luke 3:12 f.).

2.

Harlots, or prostitutes, because of their gross sexual immorality (cf. Luke 15:30; 1 Corinthians 6:15 f.), furnished another classical example of conscienceless unfaithfulness mixed with brazen impurity (cf. Revelation 17:1 f.). However, Hebrew history provided the astonishing example of a harlot saved from certain death because of her trusting the God of Israel (Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25; Joshua 2:1-21; Joshua 6:22-25). So, women too, not just men, found the door of the Kingdom open to themand on the same basis. (Cf. Luke 7:36-50; John 4:7 ff; John 11:1 ff; John 12:1 ff.; Galatians 3:28.)

But these are both mentioned not only because of their gross sins, but because they are also examples of discerning people. Even these gross sinners could discern what the leadership pretended not to know: John's baptism is from God and the publicans and the harlots openly confessed it. They proved that it was POSSIBLE TO KNOW.

What went wrong that made the righteous miss the Kingdom and the sinners go flocking right in? The greatest stumbling-block in true religion does not lie in its symbols and dogmas, but in its intolerably austere treatment of human pride. The man of taste and culture cannot imagine himself saying, Nothing in my hand I bring; simply to thy cross I cling. This self-humiliating need for divine helpat least for HIMis nonsense and highly offensive to his sense of moral accomplishment. This very aversion felt by men of taste was notably lacking in those publicans and harlots not so overawed by their own sense of self-importance. In fact, unsurprised that John should verbally blister them for living corrupt lives, nevertheless, they were strangely moved by his exhortations, because he convinced them that God's Kingdom was open to all who repentedeven those whom others would have rejected as hopelessly beyond recall. But the self-righteous, respectable people whose very profession proclaimed their supposed readiness to serve God, failed at the one business they professed to do.

The publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. A surprising turn is given to Jesus-' word when proàgousin is rendered they are leading you, in the sense that they go before, leading the way as they precede those who follow. (Cf. Arndt-Gingrich, 708f.; Rocci, 1556.) Whereas the hierarchy considered itself amply qualified to lead the procession of the righteous into Messiah's Kingdom, Jesus asserts that it is the sinful people who would do the leading! Submission to God's rule is the key to entrance into His Kingdom, regardless of the epoch in which one surrenders throne, scepter and crown of his own life and turns all over to Jesus as Sovereign Lord. Anyone who submitted to God's will preached by Johneven if these all died before Pentecostshowed the spirit of obedience God seeks. TO DO WHAT GOD DESIRES IS TO UNDERSTAND THE KINGDOM, and those who act like loyal subjects are IN THE KINDGOM. They willingly submit to whatever the King decrees, and they do it as soon as His will is made clear to them. John the Baptist has made it real for the publicans and the harlots like it had never been brought home to them before. However, if Jesus is referring strictly to the Church as the Kingdom (cf. notes on Matthew 11:11 ff.), He is indicating the direction evident in the lives of John's converts and the result they would soon obtain because of their present mind-set.

THE WICKEDNESS OF UNBELIEF EXPOSED

Because this affirmation is so explosive, Jesus had better have some good reasons for it! Who could know for sure who has precedence in God's Kingdom? And who can prove on what basis he knows that much? However, for Jesus, the matter is cut and dried: Matthew 21:32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness. It is because this fact is true that Jesus is able to affirm the precedence enjoyed by the sinners as opposed to the leaders, i.e. they precede you into God's kingdom, a fact we know because John came to you in the way of righteousness and they believed him and you did not. Herein lies proof that John's ministry was from God: judge him by his fruits (Matthew 7:15-20). Even if you (falsely) claim not to know the source of John's inspiration, you MIGHT yet decide on the fruit of his work. While he did no miracle (John 10:41), the direction and results of his teaching coupled with his own personal example should tell you something meaningful about him:

1.

HIS CHARACTER: John himself walked in the way of righteousness, a life of obedience to God's will. Can you find fault with that? The grosser sinners, usually keenest to discern pretense in the sanctimonious, detected nothing insincere about John's unvarying seriousness about righteousness. They found his piety convincing, genuine. Does not the fruit of righteousness evident in his own life give credence to his prophetic missions?

2.

HIS MINISTRY ITSELF: Was John's doctrine of repentance and righteousness strange and new? Was it not rather that old, familiar, prophetic challenge to deeds, not words, and to real piety, not promises, characteristic of all Old Testament religion? Did he not teach you to fast, give alms and pray? (Luke 3:10-14; Luke 11:1; Matthew 9:14 f.) The high irony, then, is that when someone else came preaching the highest ideals of Jewish religion, its own leaders could not recognize it as from God, but haughtily spurned its lofty, spiritual demands (Luke 3:10-14)!

3.

HIS SUCCESS: The world's worst sinners, by your definition, were turning to God under his preaching! His marvelous success among the worst of people should indicate the Lord's blessing and approval of his efforts. (Cf. Paul's labors among similarly wicked Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Corinthians 9:1-2!) John brought people closer to repentance and to God than they had ever been, and yet the leadership of the nation could not discern in this any evidence of God's authorization?!

NOTE: Whereas this pragmatic test is not valid when considered alone, because temporary successes cannot guarantee final success with God, yet taken in context with the other tests mentioned, it becomes striking proof of John's validity. After all, had not the religious leaders tried without success to bring these very people to God, and had not they miserably failed? Now that it is well-known that John brought these very sinners to repentance, should not this prove SOMETHING about the validity of his approach? Still, numerical success alone is not a final test of rightness. Remember Noah! (1 Peter 3:20)

John came to YOU: his mission had not excluded the Jewish rulers merely because his following came largely, if not exclusively, from the common people of the working class. And ye believed him not. It is significant that NOT ONE rabbi questioning Jesus raised his voice in protest. To the man they had all turned John down!

But the publicans and the harlots believed him, and although coming from a life of flagrant, open rebellion against God, moved by remorse for sin, they justified God's righteous judgment against their sins (Luke 7:29 f.). They yielded to His claims on their lives, surrendered their sins, committed themselves to a life of obedience and moved right onto the way of righteousness.

And ye, when ye saw it, did not even repent yourselves afterward. What, according to Jesus, should they have discerned in John's conversions, to be convinced to yield themselves too? If, by the hierarchy's own definitions, the publicans and harlots were the most hardened sinners and farthest from conversion to God and righteousness, and if John is actually drawing them into heart-felt repentance, surely the hand of God Himself must be upon this ministry! Out of this conclusion come some others:

1.

The hierarchy should have clearly supported and encouraged the labors of the wilderness preacher.

2.

Each member of the religious community should have personally and humbly submitted to his teaching.

3.

And, if in the ministry of John they could thus discern God's direction and authority, they should have taken seriously what he said about Jesus as Messiah.

Ironically, they had simply written it all off as mere religious fervor and froth, suitable perhaps for the truly sinful, but not a matter of concern for the righteous, i.e. for themselves.

Afterward, when there was ample time for serious reflection upon the amazing changes produced in the lives of formerly hardened sinners, afterward, in the quiet of theological reflection with abundant opportunity to re-examine the theological ramifications of John's position in the light of his results, you still did not feel sorry enough about your previous rejection to begin believing him. There was much in the leaders-' life and theology that kept them from gladly joining the ranks of John's disciples:

1.

Pride of position: they felt no need to regret their choice, as they were already righteous enough to enjoy the approval of God.

2.

They suspected what they could not control. John had not been authorized by them, hence, however successful, they must regard him with suspicion.

3.

John was stubbornly determined to help those whom the leadership despised and ignored as incorrigible and unworthy of further effort.

You did not repent so that you could believe him (oudè metemelèthete hùsteron toû pisteûsai autô). Note the order: repentance, or better, regret must precede faith in their case. They could not believe, because they were reluctant to regret their former choice, consequently they hardened themselves in their error. Until a radical change of sentiment occurred, until they repudiated their original blindness, psychologically they would never bring themselves to believe John. In their state of heart, belief could never occur, Totally unlike the first son (Matthew 21:29), they felt no heartache, no grief or sorrow at having disappointed their Father and God. What moral perversity it must take to mingle among the participants in the nation's greatest moral revival and remain totally unaffected by it, and worse, publicly disclaim all ability to discern its origin in God! What incontrovertible deafness not to be able to hear the familiar voice of the God of Israel in the accents of His wilderness preacher!

And yet there is no indication in Jesus-' words that the gates of the Kingdom had been shut, or that these often unscrupulous religionists could not even yet reverse themselves. By not affirming, But for you it is too late, He implies that there is yet time to repent. This same conclusion is assured by Jesus-' use of the present tense; The publicans and harlots are going ahead of you. Even if others had preceded the hierarchy, these could still follow their leadif they really desired to do the Father's will.

Matthew Henry (V. 306) is correct to see that Jesus-' parable has far wider application than Jesus gave it that day, precisely because of the principles involved: The Gentiles were sometimes disobedient, had been long so, children of disobedience, like the elder son (Titus 3:3 f.), yet, when the gospel was preached to them, they became obedient to the faith; whereas the Jews who said, I go, sir, promised fair (Exodus 24:7; Joshua 24:24); yet went not.. However, Jesus-' illustration does not refer directly and primarily to the Jew-Gentile question, but to those two groups of Judaism, the best and the worst.

This text has far-reaching ramifications for evangelism and eschatology too. How can anyone, contrary to this text, affirm that prior to the Lord's return all Israel will somehow sweep into the Kingdom of Christ by mass conversion? If, in the day of John and Jesus, Israel divided itself into two categories: believers and unbelievers, what could unite them but common trust in God's Christ without which it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6)? As long as modern Israel remains closed to open evangelism, what solid hope is there for their end-times, sweeping conversion? They must be led to repentance as anyone else who claims inability to believe.

FACT QUESTIONS

1.

According to Mark, where had Jesus been with His disciples when they arrived in the temple?

2.

Who were the chief priests and elders? What is the significance of their coming to ask the question posed in our text?

3.

In what activity was Jesus engaged when the authorities approached Him?

4.

Furnish other incidents in Scripture where similar requests for credential were made (a) of Jesus and (b) of other God-sent prophets and apostles.

5.

How did Jesus respond to the hierarchy's challenge to His authority?

6.

Explain the importance of Jesus-' question concerning John the Baptist and the origin of his baptism. What is meant by from heaven and from men? On what basis should anyone in Israelits leadership especiallyhave been able to decide that John the Baptist was a true prophet?

7.

How did the authorities react to the dilemma involved in Jesus-' question about John's baptism? That is, what was the gist of their deliberations?

8.

What was the final answer the hierarchy gave to Jesus-' dilemma? Why did they give this particular answer?

9.

What was Jesus-' final answer to the authorities-' challenge of His authority? Why did He answer as He did?

10.

What story did Jesus tell to illustrate the moral situation in Israel represented by these religious authorities as opposed to others in Israel?

11.

In what way were the two sons in Jesus-' story precisely alike?

12.

What fundamental difference distinguished the two sons?

13.

Who or what is represented by (a) the father? (b) by each boy?

14.

What is the crucial question Jesus asked to underline the fundamental lesson of His story?

15.

Who or what in Jewish society were the tax collectors and the harlots?

16.

In this text what does it mean to go into the kingdom of God?

17.

On what basis does Jesus assert that the flagrant sinners would enjoy precedence over the religious leaders?

18.

What is the way of righteousness wherein John had come to Israel? How does Jesus-' affirmation state the divine source of John's authority?

19.

When did the religious leaders see the conversions of publicans and harlots, which should have convinced them to submit themselves too?

20.

What evidences of Jesus-' divine majesty stand out in this incident?