Jesus’
Authority
23 Now when He came into the temple, the
chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was
teaching, and said, “By what authority are You doing these things?
And who gave You this authority?”
24 But Jesus answered and said to them, “I
also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will
tell you by what authority I do these things: 25 The
baptism of John—where was it from? From heaven or from men?”
And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “If we
say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Why then did you not
believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From men,’ we fear
the multitude, for all count John as a prophet.” 27 So
they answered Jesus and said, “We do not know.”
And He said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what
authority I do these things.
—Matthew 21:23–27
The
authority figures of the temple challenged Jesus’ authority. We
begin a series of parables and discourses of our Lord with His
enemies which express His anger at their hypocrisy. Three groups
accosted Jesus as He taught in the temple: the chief priests, the
scribes, and the elders of the people. This included the
representatives of the congregation, the exponents of the written and
oral traditions, and the spiritual hierarchy. The question of Jesus’
authority to do “these things” no doubt included the act
of cleansing the temple, His triumphal entry, and His teachings. By
their authority as the Sanhedrin, they could destroy Him; but His
authority could redeem them from sin if they could but believe!
Jesus responded with a counterquestion asking their
perception of the role of John. His messianic role was related
directly to John as the forerunner. With this question He was not
dodging the issue but was setting it in the context of salvation
history. They understood, and discussed how to answer, but being
exposed by either answer, they backed off and said, “We don’t
know.” Jesus had outwitted them, and said, “Neither will I
answer.”
The outline of the passage is simple: (1) the question,
(2) the counterquestion, and (3) the draw! Compare Mark 11:27–33
and Luke 20:1–8. Note that Matthew adds the reference to Jesus’
teaching in the temple, laying claim to the temple for God, having
driven out the programs that perverted its meaning.
The
Parable of the Two Sons
28 “But what do you think? A man had two
sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go, work today in my
vineyard.’ 29 He answered and said, ‘I will not,’
but afterward he regretted it and went. 30 Then he came to
the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, ‘I go,
sir,’ but he did not go. 31 Which of the two did the
will of his father?”
They said to Him, “The first.”
Jesus said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that tax
collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you.
32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him.
32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him.
—Matthew 21:28–32
This
story is an exposure of the failure of the religious leaders, and has
a positive message that the kingdom of God is open to all who are
prepared to enter. It is found only in Matthew. The two sons
illustrate two groups of persons. The first son said he would not go
and work. Afterward he changed his mind and went—illustrative of
the publicans and sinners who, being far from righteous, repented at
John’s preaching. The second son represented the professed
religious people who enthusiastically said they would work, but never
went. The word translated “regretted” in verse 29 is a form of
the word metamelomai which
means “after-care,” not the word metanoia
meaning a deep repentance. It relates to the last part of
verse 32, for the religious leaders saw others changing and entering
the kingdom, but they had no “after-care” to change their
attitude toward John’s ministry.
Persons who have said no can change their minds and do
God’s will. Gordon Allport has said, “One’s intentions for the
future have more power to shape his life than the experiences of the
past.” Persons who say yes but do not obey God’s will have missed
the meaning of the kingdom. Jesus said, “Not every one that saith
unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he
that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21,
kjv). Persons who hear Jesus and follow as disciples, regardless of
their past failures, share the kingdom of God. The judgment is upon
those who say “Yes, yes” intellectually but do not identify (see
Jer. 7).
This is one of ten parables that show God’s mercy for
sinners. The others are the physician (9:12), the two debtors (Luke
7:41–43), the guests at table (22:1–10), the prodigal sons (Luke
15:11–32), the lost sheep (18:12–14), the lost drachma (Luke
15:8–10), the good employer (20:1–15), the Pharisee and publican
(Luke 18:9–14), and the father and child (7:9–11).2
The
Authority of Jesus
(21:23–32)
27
|
|
|
And when He had come into the temple, the chief
priests and the elders of the people came to Him as He was teaching,
and said, “By what authority are You doing these things, and who
gave You this authority?” And Jesus answered and said to them, “I
will ask you one thing too, which if you tell Me, I will also tell
you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John was from
what source, from heaven or from men?” And they began reasoning
among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will
say to us, ‘Then why did you not believe him?’ But if we say,
‘From men,’ we fear the multitude; for they all hold John to be a
prophet.” And answering Jesus, they said, “We do not know.” He
also said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do
these things. But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came
to the first and said, ‘Son, go work today in the vineyard.’ And
he answered and said, ‘I will, sir’; and he did not go. And he
came to the second and said the same thing. But he answered and said,
‘I will not’; yet he afterward regretted it and went. Which of
the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The
latter.”Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you that the
tax-gatherers and harlots will get into the kingdom of God before
you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not
believe him; but the tax-gatherers and harlots did believe him; and
you, seeing this, did not even feel remorse afterward so as to
believe him.” (21:23–32)
Authority is a strong word, denoting power and
privilege. A person with authority exercises control over the lives
and welfare of other people. Society cannot operate without having
some people in positions of authority; the alternative would be
anarchy and chaos. In the family, parents have authority. In school,
teachers and administrators have authority In the community, the
mayor, city council, police, and firemen all have spheres of
authority. And so also in the larger bodies of government.
The conflict in this encounter between Jesus and the
religious leaders was over the issue of authority, specifically
Jesus’ authority, which they questioned and which they feared would
threaten their own positions of authority.
The Confrontation
And
when He had come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of
the people came to Him as He was teaching, and said, “By what
authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this
authority?” (21:23)
It was still Wednesday morning of Passover week. After
Jesus and the disciples had passed the fig tree He cursed the day
before and found it completely withered (vv. 18–22; cf. Mark
11:20–21), He had come with them into the temple.
The group of chief priests and elders may have
included the high priests Caiaphas and Annas, who served concurrently
for several years (Luke 3:2). Because of the seriousness of their
confrontation of Jesus, it is likely that at least the captain of the
Temple, the second highest official, was present. The elders
comprised a wide variety of religious leaders, which definitely
included Pharisees (Matt. 21:45) and scribes (Luke 20:1), and
possibly Sadducees, Herodians, and even some Zealots and Essenes.
Although those groups had many differences from each other and were
constantly disputing among themselves, they found common ground in
opposing Jesus, because He threatened the authority of the entire
religious establishment.
Every false religion has the common denominator of works
righteousness, of salvation by human achievement, and is by nature
offended by and opposed to the gospel of divine accomplishment by God
in Christ. Although the religions of the world are divided by vast
differences in theology and practice, they find common ground against
the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as did the Jewish religionists in
the Temple. They may presume to honor Christ as a prophet, a great
teacher, or even as one among many gods, but they vehemently oppose
the truth that He is the only Savior and that no person can come to
God except through the merits of His sacrifice.
As He had the day before, when He so dramatically
cleansed the Temple, Jesus now took center stage there again and was
teaching as He walked about the courtyard (Mark 11:27). It seems
certain that those whom He had driven out for making His Father’s
house a den of robbers (Matt. 21:13) had not returned, and the entire
spacious Court of the Gentiles was now available for those who came
to worship. Many of them had probably followed Jesus there when they
saw Him come into the city that morning.
We are not told what Jesus was teaching on this
occasion, but He was likely reiterating some of the more important
truths He had taught many times before. We can be sure that whatever
He said was related to His kingdom, the subject with which His
ministry began (Matt. 4:17) and ended (Acts 1:3). In His parallel
account, Luke reports that Jesus was “teaching daily in the temple,
… preaching the gospel” (Luke 19:47; 20:1), which was sometimes
called “the gospel of the kingdom” (Matt. 9:35). Whatever His
specific theme, “all the people were hanging upon His words”
(Luke 19:48).
The primary question the Jewish leaders now had for
Jesus was the same as it had been from the beginning, “By what
authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this
authority?” (cf. John 2:18). By these things, they
probably meant everything Jesus had been teaching and doing, but they
particularly had in mind His abrupt and, in their eyes, utterly
presumptuous cleansing of the Temple the day before. Except for His
similar act at the beginning of His ministry, He had never done
anything that more clearly, forcefully, and publicly devastated the
religious establishment. While it was happening, they were powerless
to stop Him and apparently were even speechless. But now that they
had recovered from the initial shock, they were on the offensive and
were demanding an explanation.
Rabbinical candidates originally had been ordained by a
leading rabbi whom they respected and under whose teaching they
served a kind of apprenticeship. And just as the teachings of the
leading rabbis varied greatly, so did their ordinations. Because of
widespread abuses, and probably also to centralize rabbinical
authority, the Sanhedrin, or high Jewish council, had taken over all
responsibility for ordination.
At his ordination a man was declared to be rabbi, elder,
and judge, and was given corresponding authority to teach, to express
his wisdom, and to make decisions and render verdicts in religious as
well as many civil matters. During the service various discourses and
readings were given and hymns sung. Once ordained, the man had
official recognition as a credentialed teacher of Israel.
Jesus had had no such ordination and therefore had no
such recognition. By what authority, then, the leaders asked,
did He not only teach and preach but even heal the sick, cast out
demons, and raise the dead? Most especially, why had He presumed to
take upon Himself-an untrained, unrecognized, self-appointed
rabbi-the task of casting the merchants and moneychangers out of the
Temple? Although not themselves religious leaders, those men were
operating their businesses under the auspices of the Temple
authorities. “Who gave You … authority to throw them out?”
those authorities asked Jesus.
Although they did not recognize the source and
legitimacy of Jesus’ power, they never questioned that He had it.
That His authority was unprecedentedly powerful was incontestable. No
one had ever healed as many sick people, cast out as many demons, or
raised people from the dead as Jesus had done. The miracles were so
obvious, numerous, and well attested that the religious leaders never
doubted that Jesus performed them, having seen many of them with
their own eyes.
Those leaders knew that power such as Jesus displayed
had to be of supernatural origin, and they knew He claimed it was
from God, whom He repeatedly called His heavenly Father. When He
forgave a paralytic’s sins, some of the scribes present “said to
themselves, ‘This fellow blasphemes.’ ” Knowing what they were
thinking, Jesus accused them of having evil hearts and proceeded to
heal the man’s paralysis in order to show His critics that He, the
Son of Man, had “authority on earth to forgive sins” (Matt.
9:2–6). The crowd of common people who witnessed what He did made
the only sensible response: “They were filled with awe, and
glorified God, who had given such authority to men” (v. 8). But the
scribes refused to accept the obvious. No amount of evidence could
penetrate their confirmed unbelief. And like the Pharisees on an
earlier occasion (Matt. 12:24), the Temple authorities who now
confronted Jesus no doubt preferred to believe that His power came
from Satan rather than God.
The chief priests and elders in the Temple also knew, as
the multitudes often acknowledged in amazement, that Jesus taught
authoritatively, with a clarity, definitiveness, and certainty that
was completely lacking in the pronouncements and interpretations of
the scribes (Matt. 7:29; Mark 1:22). As in many liberal church
circles today, a key qualification for acceptance was lack of
dogmatism, Virtually every doctrine was open to reinterpretation and
revision, and absolutes were shunned as presumptuous. Human wisdom
had long since replaced divine revelation, and Old Testament
Scripture was cited primarily to support their humanly-devised
religious traditions. When Scripture conflicted with tradition,
tradition prevailed (Matt. 16:6). In the minds of most Jewish
religious leaders, there were many authorities but none that was
exclusively authoritative, not even S cripture.
Yet Jesus’ ministry was nothing if not authoritative.
He demonstrated authority to grant those who believe in Him the right
to become children of God (John 1:12). His heavenly Father “gave
Him authority to execute judgment” (5:27) and “authority over all
mankind” to give eternal life to those His Father has given Him
(17:2). He had authority over His own life, “lay it down,” and
over His own resurrection, “to take [His life] up again.”
(10:18).
In all the things He said and did, Jesus never sought
approval or support from the recognized Jewish authorities. He
completely ignored their system for ordaining rabbis and approving
doctrines. He did not ask approval for His teachings, His healings,
or His casting out of demons, and certainly not for His forgiving
sins.
Jesus had both dunamis (power) and exousia
(authority). Dunamis refers to ability, and exousia to
right. Jesus not only had great power but the right to exercise that
power, because both His power and His authority were from His
heavenly Father. “Just as the Father raises the dead and gives them
life,” Jesus said, “even so the Son also gives life to whom He
wishes,” and “just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He
gave to the Son also to have life in Himself” (John 5:21, 26). “For
I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of
Him who sent Me” (6:38; cf. v. 44, 57; 7:16, 28; 8:18, 54).
And because Jesus had the Father’s power and
authority, He sought no human authority, accreditation, ordination,
or credentials. By so doing, He pitted Himself directly against the
Jewish religious system and incurred its unrelenting wrath. Its
leaders were appalled and scandalized that He not only failed to
consult the Sanhedrin and the Temple authorities but had the audacity
to condemn them.
In asking Jesus to identify His authority, those leaders
probably hoped He would say, as He had many times before, that He
worked under the direct power and authority of God, His heavenly
Father. That would give them another opportunity to charge Him with
blasphemy, and perhaps to succeed in putting Him to death for it, as
they had tried to do before without success (John 5:18; 10:31).
The Counter Question
And
Jesus answered and said to them, “I will ask you one thing too,
which if you tell Me, I will also tell you by what authority I do
these things. The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven
or from men?” And they began reasoning among themselves, saying,
“If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Then why did
you not believe him?’ But if we say, ‘From men,’ we fear the
multitude; for they all hold John to be a prophet.” And answering
Jesus, they said, “We do not know.” He also said to them,
“Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”
(21:24–27)
Jesus answered the question of the chief priests
and elders with a query of His own. He was not being evasive and had
no reason to be, having given the answer to their question countless
times before. And if they answered His question now, He would answer
theirs, telling them again by what authority He did these
things.
His question was simple: “The baptism of John was
from what source, from heaven or from men?” Because John the
Baptist had started his ministry first, the religious leaders had
rejected him even before they began to reject Jesus. The baptism
of John referred to His entire ministry, which was characterized
by his baptizing those who repented of their sins (Matt. 3:6).
John was the last prophet of the Old Testament
age and, like Jesus, became popular and admired by the masses. He was
readying the people for the Messiah, and his demeanor and the content
and power of his preaching had made a great impact throughout Israel.
After Herod arrested John for condemning his adulterous marriage to
his brother Philip’s wife, Herodias, the king hesitated for a long
time in putting John to death because the people considered him to be
a prophet (Matt. 14:3–5).
As the chief priests and elders quickly realized, Jesus’
question put them on the horns of a great dilemma. As they began
reasoning among themselves, they saw they would be in trouble for
whichever answer they gave. If they were to say, “From heaven,”
Jesus would then say to them, “Then why did you not believe
him?” It was not simply that they had rejected John himself but
that they had also rejected John’s clear testimony about Jesus,
whom that prophet had openly acclaimed to be “the Lamb of God who
takes away the sin of the world” and the very “Son of God”
(John 1:29, 34). To have accepted John as a prophet from heaven
would have required accepting Jesus as the Messiah; and that they
absolutely would not do.
No amount of testimony from John or evidence from Jesus
Himself would bring them to recognize Him as Messiah. They were
trained to discount or explain away facts as well as scriptural
truths that were not consistent with their humanly-devised religious
beliefs and standards. The man born blind whom Jesus had healed told
his Pharisee inquisitors, “We know that God does not hear sinners;
but if anyone is God-fearing, and does His will, He hears him. Since
the beginning of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the
eyes of a person born blind. If this man were not from God, He could
do nothing” (John 9:31–33). But the Pharisees were unmoved by
those obvious truths. Instead, they lashed out at the man, resentful
of his presumption in trying to teach the teachers of Israel (v. 34).
When unbelief investigates spiritual truth, it is predisposed to
reject it.
As the religious rulers continued to discuss Jesus’
question, they realized that if they answered the opposite way they
would also be in trouble. If they said John’s ministry and message
were from men, they would lose what little credibility they
had with the people and would even incite their ire, because the
multitude still considered John to be a prophet. They
themselves firmly believed that John was not a prophet,
but they did not dare state that belief in public. Their only
recourse, therefore, was to confess with embarrassment, We do not
know.
Consequently Jesus replied, “Neither will I tell
you by what authority I do these things.” As Jesus well knew,
had He given them an answer, they would only have used it against
Him. They were not interested in learning the truth about either John
or Jesus. Their sole purpose was to induce Jesus to again claim
messiahship and divinity so they would have grounds for putting Him
to death for blasphemy (cf. John 5:18; Matt. 22:15).
The religious leaders persisted in rejecting the light
Christ sent them, and He therefore turned it off. He had no more
teaching for the scribes, Pharisees, chief priests, and others whose
self-satisfaction blinded them to the truth of the gospel and their
own need for it. For them there would only be further warning and
condemnation. In a long series of woes, Jesus was about to declare
judgment against them for doing their deeds to be seen of men, for
refusing to enter the kingdom themselves and for hindering others
from entering, for being blind religious guides, for being outwardly
righteous but inwardly wicked, for honoring the ancient prophets in
name but being of the same mind as their forefathers who killed the
prophets, and for being a brood of vipers destined for hell (Matt.
23:5, 13, 16, 27, 30, 33).
When He was on trial before the high priest Caiaphas,
“Jesus kept silent,” refusing to give a single further word of
testimony (Matt. 26:63). And when Pilate asked Him to respond to the
accusations of the chief priests and eiders, Jesus “did not answer
him with regard to even a single charge” (27:14).
When a person steadfastly refuses to hear God’s truth
and to receive His grace, God may choose to withdraw Himself. In face
of the unrelenting wickedness of mankind in Noah’s day, the Lord
declared, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever” (Gen.
6:3). The Lord finally said of unrepentant Ephraim, “Ephraim is
joined to idols; let him alone” (Hos. 4:17), and in relation to
rebellious Judah, “He turned Himself to become their enemy, He
fought against them” (Isa. 63:10).
Even as Jesus approached Jerusalem during His triumphal
entry, He had wept over the city saying, “If you had known in this
day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have
been hidden from your eyes. For the days shall come upon you when
your enemies will throw up a bank before you, and surround you, and
hem you in on every side, and will level you to the ground and your
children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon
another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation”
(Luke 19:41–44). And soon after Jesus’ severe excoriation of the
scribes and Pharisees, He lamented, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who
kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I
wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her
chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Behold, your house is
being left to you desolate! For I say to you, from now on you shall
not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of
the Lord!’ ” (Matt. 23:37–39).
The Characterization
But
what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and
said, ‘Son, go work today in the vineyard.’ And he answered and
said, ‘I will, sir’; and he did not go. And he came to the second
and said the same thing. But he answered and said, ‘I will not’
yet he afterward regretted it and went. Which of the two did the will
of his father?” They said, “The latter.” (21:28–31a)
In this short parable Jesus characterizes two
contrasting responses to the gospel. And once again He gives His
opponents the opportunity to condemn themselves out of thor own
mouths.
In the first instance, the son who was asked to
work … in the vineyard told his father, “I will, sir,”
but he did not go. The implication is that he had never
intended to go and lied to his father to give the false impression of
obedience. The second son at first refused to go, saying, “I
will not,” but he afterward regretted it and went.
When Jesus asked the chief priests and elders, “Which
of the two did the will of his father?” they gave the obvious
answer, “The latter.”
Jesus’ point in this story is that doing is more
important than mere saying. It is, of course, best for a person to
say he will do God’s will and then do it. But it is immeasurably
better to at first refuse His will and then repent and do it than to
hypocritically agree to do it but not. In thin context, the doing of
God’s will relates to acceptance of the gospel, of receiving Jesus
as the Messiah and as Savior and Lord.
The Connectionn
Jesus
said to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax-gatherers and
harlots will get into the kingdom of God before you. For John came to
you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the
tax-gatherers and harlots did believe him; and you, seeing this, did
not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe him” (21:31b-32)
After His opponents gave the only possible answer to His
question, Jesus showed them their connection to the parable.
He informed them that, although their answer to His question was
right, their response to Him and His ministry was wrong and wicked.
Their own words condemned them. They did not correspond to “the
latter” son, who did the father’s will, but to the former, who
did not do it. “They say things, and do not do them,” Jesus said
on later occasion (Matt. 23:3). They claimed to obey God, but their
actions denied that He had any place in their hearts. They claimed to
be longing for the Messiah and lauded His name; but when He came,
they would not have Him.
The Lord therefore said to them, “Truly I say to
you that the tax-gatherers and harlots will get into the kingdom of
God before you.” No rebuke could have cut them deeper or
infuriated them more, because in their eyes, tax-gatherers and
harlots were the scum of society perhaps even worse than
Gentiles. Tax-gatherers not only were merciless extortioners
but were traitors to their own people, Jews who bought franchises
from the Romans to collect taxes from their own people to support the
Roman occupation. Harlots were the epitome of gross
immorality. If any people were totally outside the pale of God’s
mercy, the self-righteous Jewish leaders thought, it was those two
groups.
The men who now stood before Jesus, on the other hand,
were the religious elite, the interpreters of God’s law and the
keepers of God’s Temple. They claimed to give their lives in
obedience to God and lived under the self-serving illusion that,
because of their exalted positions and their many religious works,
they were of all men most pleasing to Him.
Yet Jesus declared to those proud leaders that
tax-gatherers and harlots who chose to disobey God but later
repented would get into the kingdom of God before they would.
Before you does not mean that the unbelieving leaders would
eventually enter the Kingdom, because no unbeliever will ever enter.
Jesus simply used the expression to show God’s reversal of man-made
standards for salvation. The tax-gatherers and harlots were
nearer the kingdom than the chief priests and elders, not
because they were inherently more righteous or acceptable to God, but
because they were more ready to acknowledge their need for God’s
grace than the self-satisfied priests and elders. Jesus’ point was
that claims to religion do not qualify a person to enter the kingdom,
and even gross sin, when repented of, will not keep a person out.
“For John came to you in the way of righteousness,”
Jesus continued, giving the answer to the question His opponents had
earlier refused to answer To say that John came … in the way of
righteousness was to say not only that his ministry was from God
hut that he was a godly man. He was a holy, righteous, virtuous,
Spirit-filled man whom God had sent to prepare the way for His Son,
the Messiah. He preached a righteous message and lived a righteous
life. “Among those born of women,” Jesus had affirmed, “there
has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist” (Matt. 11:11).
“But you did not believe him,” Jesus told
them. The Jewish leaders had been skeptical of John from the
beginning, having sent a group of priests and Levites to question him
(John 1:19–25). And when John “saw many of the Pharisees and
Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, ‘You brood of
vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore
bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that
you can say to yourselves, “We have Abraham for our father”; for
I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children
to Abraham’ ” (Matt. 3:7–9).
“But the tax-gatherers and harlots did believe
him,” Jesus said. Some of the tax-gatherers had been
open to the gospel even in its incomplete form taught by John the
Baptist. As evidence of their sincerity in being baptized for the
repentance of their sins, they asked John, “Teacher, what shall we
do?” (Luke 3:12). Although no specific instance is mentioned in the
gospels, Jesus makes dear that among the multitudes who were baptized
by John there were also some harlots who did believe him
and who, like those tax-gatherers, confessed their sins and were
forgiven (see Matt. 3:5–6).
Concluding His indictment, Jesus said, “And you,
seeing this, did not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe
him.” They did not believe John’s message when they heard it
themselves and did not even believe him when they saw the
transformed lives of the tax-gatherers and harlots who had believed.
In other words, they would not be convicted either by the truth of
the message or its power to transform sinners.
They had been exposed to the full light of the prophet
of God and the even greater light of the Son of God, yet they refused
to be enlightened. They had heard the message of the herald of the
King and the message of the King Himself, yet they would not listen
or believe. They had witnessed the power of John and the power of
Christ, yet they would not be moved.
3The
Authority of Jesus
Matthew 21:23–32
In the previous chapter, we
considered Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree, which, as we saw, was a
prophetic object lesson against hypocrisy and an indication that
God’s wrath is stored up against this serious sin. Today’s
passage and those that follow continue to deal with this theme of
hypocrisy, specifically the hypocrisy of the leading clergy of Jesus’
day. These clergy, of course, were the ones who were chiefly
responsible, humanly speaking, for the rejection and execution of
Jesus.
Matthew begins by writing: Now when He came into the
temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him
as He was teaching, and said, “By what authority are You doing
these things? And who gave You this authority?” (v. 23). Jesus
entered the temple, perhaps immediately after cursing the fig tree,
and began to teach the people. However, the chief priests and the
elders interrupted Him. They apparently did not mean to let this
rustic prophet from Galilee have free access to the temple precincts.
It was only a couple of days earlier at most that they had seen Him
turning over the tables of the money changers and expelling those who
were trafficking in the sale of birds for sacrifice and exploiting
the poor in the process. They could not know what He might do next,
what faults in their leadership and lifestyles He might expose. So,
as a pretense to shut down or disrupt His teaching ministry, they
demanded to see His credentials, to know the source of His authority
to teach the people.
All authority in this world—the authority that parents
have over their children, that employers have over their employees,
that the government has over its citizens, that police officers have
over people, that the dogcatcher has over dogs—is delegated. No one
has authority inherently or intrinsically; it has to be given by
someone else. The only One in all of reality who possesses authority
in and of Himself is God. Whatever authority we have is handed down
in a line that ultimately goes back to Him. The chief priests and the
elders understood that, because they asked Jesus, “Who gave You
this authority?”
Jesus could have said: “Some of you are old enough to
remember that I was here when I was twelve years old, and that you
were astonished by My understanding and My questions. As I explained
to My parents then, I had to be about My Father’s business [Luke
2:41–50]. It is the same even now. The authority by which I do
these things is the authority that comes from the fountain and source
of all authority in the universe—God Himself. He gave Me My
authority.” Of course, that is not what Jesus said.
He also could have said, “All authority has been given
to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18). Likewise, He might
have said, “For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the
Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I
should speak” (John 12:49). But He saved these comments for other
times.
Priests and Elders with a Dilemma
Instead, in a very clever way, He turned the tables on
these men who believed that they had all the authority: But Jesus
answered and said to them, “I also will ask you one thing, which if
you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these
things: The baptism of John—where was it from? From heaven or from
men?” (vv. 24–25a). In other words, Jesus wanted the priests
and the elders to tell Him the source of John’s authority to
baptize—God or men. This question presented the religious
authorities with quite a dilemma: And they reasoned among
themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say to
us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ But if we say, ‘From
men,’ we fear the multitude, for all count John as a prophet”
(vv. 25b–26).
Jesus knew they would not attribute John’s baptism and
his ministry to God. He was a prophet, and no one could be a true
prophet without being called and set apart by the authority of God.
So, heaven was behind John the Baptist’s ministry. But if the
priests and the elders admitted that, the discussion would be over,
because Jesus would remind them that John had pointed to Him and
said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the
world!” (John 1:29b). If the priests and the elders attributed
John’s authority to heaven, they had no basis on which to challenge
the authority of Jesus.
But these religious leaders could not attribute John’s
authority to men, either. Although it is strange to consider, even at
this point in time John may have been more famous than Jesus. John
was recognized as a prophet by nearly every Jew, the first since the
voice of prophecy in Israel had fallen silent four hundred years
before. When John the Baptist came on the scene, it was the most
exciting moment in four centuries. Thus, if the priests and the
elders said that John carried out his ministry on his own authority,
they would be saying he was not a real prophet, and if they said
that, they would have the whole population on their backs.
Notice that when they went aside and began discussing
Jesus’ question among themselves, they did not ask one another:
“Well, what do you think? Do you think John was sent from God?”
Instead, they said to one another: “If we say it was from heaven,
He’ll ask us why we did not believe him. If we say it was from men,
we’ll be in trouble with the people.” There was no debate among
them about the question itself, about which option was the truth,
because they did not care about the truth. They were trying to
discover the expedient answer, the answer that would not hurt their
position in any way.
Finally, they simply gave up: So they answered Jesus
and said, “We do not know” (v. 27a). They realized that they
were facing a lose-lose proposition, and that it would be better for
them to simply profess not to know. When they did, He said to
them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things”
(v. 27b). By showing the priests and elders that He could unmask
their hypocrisy, their lack of concern for the truth, with ease,
Jesus secured the right to teach in His Father’s house. The men who
had been demanding His credentials shut their mouths.
Two Sons with Different Responses
Jesus immediately resumed teaching in the temple,
starting with the parable of the two sons. It seems this parable was
aimed at the same men with whom He had been sparring moments before.
Matthew tells us that He said: But what do you think? A man had
two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go, work today
in my vineyard.’ He answered and said, ‘I will not,’ but
afterward he regretted it and went. Then he came to the second and
said likewise. And he answered and said, ‘I go, sir,’ but he did
not go” (vv. 28–30). Again, the theme in this parable is
hypocrisy. Two sons respond differently to their father’s request,
one saying he would not go but regretting it and going anyway, the
other agreeing to go but failing to do so. The point of the parable
is to show that the religious leaders did not respond properly to
John the Baptist’s ministry.
After setting forth the examples of the two sons, Jesus
asked: “Which of the two did the will of his father?” They
said to Him, “The first” (v. 31a). This was not a trick
question. In fact, the priests and elders had no trouble answering.
They replied that the first son did the will of the father. He said
he was not going to obey his father. He was reluctant to obey his
father. He hesitated to obey his father. But in the end, he did obey
his father. When push came to shove, he was out there working in the
vineyard. By contrast, the second son was very accommodating,
agreeing to go to the vineyard, but as soon as his father’s back
was turned, he went the other way.
When He heard their answer, Jesus said to them,
“Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the
kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of
righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and
harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward
relent and believe him” (vv. 31b–32). What was Jesus saying
here?
The chief priests and the elders were like the son who
said he would go but did not. When the Father required them to go to
the River Jordan and to be baptized, they would not go. That was
beneath their dignity. Why should they have to repent? They were not
willing to publicly acknowledge themselves as sinners. They were
ordained to be the representatives of God, to be His sons working in
His kingdom, but they did not obey Him.
However, tax collectors and harlots in Jerusalem went to
the river and submitted to the baptism of John in repentance. When
they first heard that there was a man who looked and acted like a
prophet out at the river, and he was summoning all the people to come
there and be cleansed from their sin in repentance because the
kingdom of God was coming at any minute, they said no. The tax
collector said: “I’m not going out there. I’m too busy. I’ve
got money to make.” The harlot said: “Are you kidding? You want
me to do something religious? You think I’m going to go out there
and confess that I’m a sinner before the whole world and let this
man baptize me?” But that night, when the tax collector put his
head on the pillow, he said, “I’ve got to do something about my
sin, because my guilt is killing me.” The harlot had no illusions
about her integrity or purity. She said: “I’m drowning in my sin
and in my guilt. Is it possible that someone could make me clean?”
So, the tax collector and the harlot went to the river and were
baptized. Jesus said that it was they who did the right thing. They
submitted to the baptism of John. Therefore, they would go into the
kingdom of God before the priests and elders would ever see it.
It is often said that the church is full of hypocrites.
No, the church is full of sinners. Only people who claim not to be
sinners are hypocrites. I know of no organization other than the
church that requires members to publicly declare themselves to be
sinners before they can join.
There is one more point about this parable that we must
not overlook. No one is ever saved by a profession of faith. Untold
millions of people have gone to evangelistic meetings, and when the
altar call was issued, they got up out of their chairs and went
forward to receive Christ. Or they raised a hand, signed a card, or
said the sinner’s prayer. Then, the next day, they went right back
to wallowing in their sin. No one was ever justified by saying, “I
hereby make a decision to follow Jesus.” Those who are justified,
those who are saved, are the ones who follow Jesus. They do not just
say they are going to do it—they do not just profess faith—they
actually do it because they actually have faith.
How many times have you made a promise to your spouse,
to your children, or to the church that you did not keep? The second
son did that. He said: “Well, father, of course I’ll go. I’ll
be in the vineyard first thing in the morning. You can count on it.”
But when the time came, he did not show up. Are you this kind of
person, one who promises but never keeps his word?
The ideal thing, when the Father asks, “Will you go
into the vineyard,” is to say, “Of course I’ll go into the
vineyard,” and then go. We are God’s people, redeemed by His
mercy and His grace through the blood of His Son. He calls us as His
people to work for Him in His kingdom every day. It is a terrible
thing to say that we are going to serve God in His kingdom but never
get around to doing it.4
No comments:
Post a Comment