Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 21:23

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 21:23” utilice nuestra app.

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?

23 27. The Authority of Christ is questioned

Mar 11:27-33; Luk 20:1-8.

23. By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? ] The second question is not a mere repetition of the first, Jesus is asked (1) what kind of authority He possesses human or divine? (2) By whose agency this authority was bestowed? No one had a right to teach unless “authority” had been conferred upon him by the scribes.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 23. By what authority doest thou these things?] The things which the chief priests allude to, were his receiving the acclamations of the people as the promised Messiah, his casting the traders out of the temple, and his teaching the people publicly in it.

Who gave thee this authority?] Not them: for, like many of their successors, they were neither teachers nor cleansers; though they had the name and the profits of the place.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Mark hath before this, Mar 11:18, And the scribes and chief priests heard it, that is, his turning the buyers and sellers out, and overturning the tables of the money changers, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people were astonished at his doctrine. Then he saith, Mat 22:27,28, And they come again, to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, and say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? Luke saith, Luk 19:47,48; And he taught daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy him, and could not find what they might do: for all the people were very attentive to hear him. It is plain that our Saviour went every night to Bethany, and returned to Jerusalem every morning, and daily preached in the temple. And Luke saith, the people were very attentive to hear him; in the Greek it is, hung upon him, hearing him. They were also much affected with the miracles which they had seen him working. So as the scribes and the elders feared him, saith Mark. This possibly might be one reason why they made no opposition to our Saviour, driving the buyers and sellers out of the temple, viz. for fear of the people; for we must remember they were a conquered, tributary people, and traded the jurisdiction of the Romans, under whom, though they had a liberty for the exercise of their own religion, yet they had not such a power as before; it was not lawful for them to put any to death, Joh 18:31. And for the preserving of their own liberty, they were obliged to take heed of causing any tumults for matters concerning their religion. So as what they did of this nature they did by craft, rather than plainly and openly attempting it, Mar 14:1. It is likely they might have some previous secret counsels what method to take, mentioned both by Mark and Luke. The method, it seems, which they agreed upon, was first to send to him, to know by what authority he did those things, and who gave him such authority. This is mentioned both by Matthew and Mark. They sent such a message to John, Joh 1:19-21. They had often questioned him about his doctrine, and had gone by the worst, he justifying his doctrine to their faces. For the truth of his miracles, it was so evident that they could not question that; They therefore now only question his authority to preach. The question was captious enough, for if he had said, By a Divine authority, they would probably have accused him of blasphemy. For a human authority, they knew he had none, according to their rules for order, for they came from the court that should have given them such authority. Our Saviour well enough understanding their design, gives them, who would not understand his Divine mission by his miraculous operations, a wary answer.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

23. By what authority doest thouthese things!referring particularly to the expulsion of thebuyers and sellers from the temple,

and who gave thee thisauthority?

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And when he was come into the temple,…. The day following the cursing the fig tree: for the withering of it, and the notice the disciples took of it, and our Lord’s discourse with them about it, were not in one and the same day, as is clear from the account the Evangelist Mark gives; but on the morning that Christ had conversed with his apostles by the way from Bethany to Jerusalem, concerning the strength of faith in prayer, and the success of it; when they were come into the city, and to the temple, whither he directly went, and entered upon his work of preaching to the people,

the chief priests and elders of the people came unto him. The “chief priests” were not the high priest, and his “sagan”, or deputy, but the principal of the priesthood, who were chosen from the rest of their brethren, to sit in the sanhedrim; and “the elders of the people” were the laity that were chosen from among the people, to be members of the same grand council: in this sense the Jewish writers interpret the word “elders”, in De 21:2 “thy elders, and thy judges”; that is,

“thy elders, who are thy judges: it is a tradition, R. Eliezer ben Jacob says, : , “thine eiders; this is the great sanhedrim” a.”

The other Evangelists Mark and Luke add to these, Scribes, who also were a part of this great assembly; so that the principal members of it, if not the whole sanhedrim, came in a body together, if possible, by their presence and authority, to daunt Christ, discourage his ministry, bring it into contempt with the people, and stop his proceedings and success. And this they did

as he was teaching; the people, that is, preaching the Gospel to them, as Luke explains it: he was instructing them in the things relating to himself, and his kingdom, dispensing the mysteries of his grace, the doctrines of regeneration, justification, and salvation. Mark says, it was “as he was walking in the temple”: and at the same time teaching the people, who flocked about him in like manner, as the Peripatetic philosophers taught their scholars walking: whence they had their name.

And said, by what authority dost thou these things? that is, drive out the buyers and sellers out of the temple, which greatly provoked them, their own gain and interest being concerned therein; and perform these miracles of restoring sight to the blind, and causing the lame to walk; which he had very lately wrought in the temple; and particularly preach these doctrines, the work in which he was then engaged:

and who gave thee this authority? They do not object to his doctrines, or dispute whether they were true or false; nor examine his miracles, whether they were of God, or of the devil: in these points they might fear he would be able to put them to silence and confusion, of which some of them had had an experience before; but they proceed in another way, in which they might hope for success, and attack him about his commission and authority under which he acted, whether he pretended to derive his authority from God, or from men: by this they designed to ensnare him and hoped they should gain their point, let him answer in what form he would. Should he say that God gave him the authority to do these things, they would charge him with enthusiasm and blasphemy, urging, that it was wickedness and presumption any man to pretend to be sent immediately from God; since the order of the priesthood, and of teaching was fixed, and none were to take upon them the office of a priest, or of a teacher of the people, but by their appointment; or none were called and sent, but through them, or by their means: and if he should say, that he had his authority from men, they would confront him, and absolutely deny that he had any from them, who only had the power of giving men an authority of preaching in the temple; wherefore he must be an usurper of this office, and a turbulent, seditious person, that sought to destroy all order, civil and ecclesiastical.

a T. Hieros Sota, fol. 23. 3. Jarchi in Deut. xxi. 2.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Christ Questioned as to His Authority.

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 thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? 26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. 27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

Our Lord Jesus (like St. Paul after him) preached his gospel with much contention; his first appearance was in a dispute with the doctors in the temple, when he was twelve years old; and here, just before he died, we have him engaged in controversy. In this sense, he was like Jeremiah, a man of contention; not striving, but striven with. The great contenders with him, were, the chief priests and the elders, the judges of two distinct courts: the chief priests presided in the ecclesiastical court, in all matters of the Lord, as they are called; the elders of the people were judges of the civil courts, in temporal matters. See an idea of both, 2Ch 19:5; 2Ch 19:8; 2Ch 19:11. These joined to attack Christ thinking they should find or make him obnoxious either to the one or to the other. See how woefully degenerate that generation was, when the governors both in church and state, who should have been the great promoters of the Messiah’s kingdom, were the great opposers of it! Here we have them disturbing him when he was preaching, v. 23. They would neither receive his instructions themselves, nor let others receive them. Observe,

I. As soon as he came into Jerusalem, he went to the temple, though he had been affronted there the day before, was there in the midst of enemies and in the mouth of danger; yet thither he went, for there he had a fairer opportunity of doing good to souls than any where else in Jerusalem. Though he came hungry to the city, and was disappointed of a breakfast at the barren fig-tree, yet, for aught that appears, he went straight to the temple, as one that esteemed the words of God’s mouth, the preaching of them, more than his necessary food.

II. In the temple he was teaching; he had called it a house of prayer (v. 13), and here we have him preaching there. Note, In the solemn assemblies of Christians, praying and preaching must go together, and neither must encroach upon, or jostle out, the other. To make up communion with God, we must not only speak to him in prayer, but hear what he has to say to us by his word; ministers must give themselves both to the word and to prayer, Acts vi. 4. Now that Christ taught in the temple, that scripture was fulfilled (Isa. ii. 3), Let us go up to the house of the Lord, and he will teach us his ways. The priests of old often taught there the good knowledge of the Lord; but they never had such a teacher as this.

III. When Christ was teaching the people, the priests and elders came upon him, and challenged him to produce his orders; the hand of Satan was in this, to hinder him in his work. Note, It cannot but be a trouble to a faithful minister, to be taken off, or diverted from, plain and practical preaching, by an unavoidable necessity of engaging in controversies, yet good was brought out of this evil, for hereby occasion was given to Christ to dispel the objections that were advanced against him, to the greater satisfaction of his followers; and, while his adversaries thought by their power to have silenced him, he by his wisdom silenced them.

Now, in this dispute with them, we may observe,

1. How he was assaulted by their insolent demand; By what authority doest thou these things, and who gave thee this authority? Had they duly considered his miracles, and the power by which he wrought them, they needed not to have asked this question; but they must have something to say for the shelter of an obstinate infidelity. “Thou ridest in triumph into Jerusalem, receivest the hosannas of the people, controllest in the temple, drivest out such as had license to be there, from the rulers of the temple, and paid them rent; thou are here preaching a new doctrine; whence hadst thou a commission to do all this? Was it from Csar, or from the high priest, or from God? Produce thy warrant, thy credentials. Dost not thou take too much upon thee?” Note, It is good for all that take upon them to act with authority, to put this question to themselves, “Who gave us that authority?” For, unless a man be clear in his own conscience concerning that, he cannot act with any comfort or hope of success. They who run before their warrant, run without their blessing, Jer 23:21; Jer 23:22.

Christ had often said it, and proved it beyond contradiction, and Nicodemus, a master in Israel, had owned it, that he was a teacher sent of God (John iii. 2); yet, at this time of day, when that point had been so fully cleared and settled, they come to him with this question. (1.) In the ostentation of their own power, as chief priests and elders, which they thought authorized them to call him to an account in this manner. How haughtily do they ask, Who gave thee this authority? Intimating that he could have no authority, because he had none from them, 1Ki 22:24; Jer 20:1. Note, It is common for the greatest abusers of their power to be the most rigorous assertors of it, and to take a pride and pleasure in any thing that looks like the exercise of it. (2.) It was to ensnare and entangle him. Should he refuse to answer this question, they would enter judgment against him upon Nihil dicit–He says nothing; would condemn him as standing mute; and would insinuate to the people, that his silence was a tacit confessing of himself to be a usurper: should he plead an authority from God, they would, as formerly, demand a sign from heaven, or make his defence his offence, and accuse him of blasphemy for it.

2. How he answered this demand with another, which would help them to answer it themselves (Mat 21:24; Mat 21:25); I also will ask you one thing. He declined giving them a direct answer, lest they should take advantage against him; but answers them with a question. Those that are as sheep in the midst of wolves, have need to be wise as serpents: the heart of the wise studieth to answer. We must give a reason of the hope that is in us, not only with meekness, but with fear (1 Pet. iii. 15), with prudent caution, lest truth be damaged, or ourselves endangered.

Now this question is concerning John’s baptism, here put for his whole ministry, preaching as well as baptizing; “Was this from heaven, or of men? One of the two it must be; either what he did was of his own head, or he was sent of God to do it.” Gamaliel’s argument turned upon this hinge (Act 5:38; Act 5:39); either this counsel is of men or of God. Though that which is manifestly bad cannot be of God, yet that which is seemingly good may be of men, nay of Satan, when he transforms himself into an angel of light. This question was not at all shuffling, to evade theirs; but,

(1.) If they answered this question, it would answer theirs: should they say, against their consciences, that John’s baptism was of men, yet it would be easy to answer, John did no miracle (John x. 41), Christ did many; but should they say, as they could not but own, that John’s baptism was from heaven (which was supposed in the questions sent him, John i. 21, Art thou Elias, or that prophet?) then their demand was answered, for he bare testimony to Christ. Note, Truths appear in the clearest light when they are taken in their due order; the resolving of the previous questions will be a key to the main question.

(2.) If they refused to answer it, that would be a good reason why he should not offer proofs of his authority to men that were obstinately prejudiced against the strongest conviction; it was but to cast pearls before swine. Thus he taketh the wise in their own craftiness (1 Cor. iii. 19); and those that would not be convinced of the plainest truths, shall be convicted of the vilest malice, against John first, then against Christ, and in both against God.

3. How they were hereby baffled and run aground; they knew the truth, but would not own it, and so were taken in the snare they laid for our Lord Jesus. Observe,

(1.) How they reasoned with themselves, not concerning the merits of the cause, what proofs there were of the divine original of John’s baptism; no, their care was, how to make their part good against Christ. Two things they considered and consulted, in this reasoning with themselves–their credit, and their safety; the same things which they principally aim at, who seek their own things.

[1.] They consider their own credit, which they would endanger if they should own John’s baptism to be of God; for then Christ would ask them, before all the people. Why did ye not believe him? And to acknowledge that a doctrine is from God, and yet not to receive and entertain it, is the greatest absurdity and iniquity that a man can be charged with. Many that will not be kept by the fear of sin from neglecting and opposing that which they know to be true and good are kept by the fear of shame from owning that to be true and good which they neglect and oppose. Thus they reject the counsel of God against themselves, in not submitting to John’s baptism, and are left without excuse.

[2.] They consider their own safety, that they would expose themselves to the resentments of the people, if they should say that John’s baptism was of men; We fear the people, for all hold John as a prophet. It seems, then, First, That the people had truer sentiments of John than the chief priests and the elders had, or, at least, were more free and faithful in declaring their sentiments. This people, of whom they said in their pride that they knew not the law, and were cursed (John vii. 49), it seems, knew the gospel, and were blessed. Secondly, That the chief priests and elders stood in awe of the common people, which is an evidence that things were in disorder among them, and that mutual jealousies were at a great height; that the government was become obnoxious to the hatred and scorn of the people, and the scripture was fulfilled, I have made you contemptible and base,Mal 2:8; Mal 2:9. If they had kept their integrity, and done their duty, they had kept up their authority, and needed not to fear the people. We find sometimes that the people feared them, and it served them for a reason why they did not confess Christ, Joh 9:22; Joh 12:42. Note, Those could not but fear the people, who studied only how to make the people fear them. Thirdly, That it is usually the temper even of common people to be zealous for the honour of that which they account sacred and divine. If they account John as a prophet, they will not endure that it should be said, His baptism was of men; hence the hottest contests have been about holy things. Fourthly, That the chief priests and elders were kept from an open denial of the truth, even against the conviction of their own minds, not by the fear of God, but purely by the fear of the people; as the fear of man may bring good people into a snare (Prov. xxix. 25), so sometimes it may keep bad people from being overmuch wicked, lest they should die before their time, Eccl. vii. 17. Many bad people would be much worse than they are, if they durst.

(2.) How they replied to our Saviour, and so dropped the question. They fairly confessed We cannot tell; that is, “We will not;” ouk oi damen—We never knew. The more shame for them, while they pretended to be leaders of the people, and by their office were obliged to take cognizance of such things; when they would not confess their knowledge, they were constrained to confess their ignorance. And observe, by the way, when they said, We cannot tell, they told a lie, for they knew that John’s baptism was of God. Note, There are many who are more afraid of the shame of lying than of the sin, and therefore scruple not to speak that which they know to be false concerning their own thoughts and apprehensions, their affections and intentions, or their remembering or forgetting of things, because in those things they know nobody can disprove them.

Thus Christ avoided the snare they laid for him, and justified himself in refusing to gratify them; Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. If they be so wicked and base as either not to believe, or not to confess, that the baptism of John was from heaven (though it obliged to repentance, that great duty, and sealed the kingdom of God at hand, that great promise), they were not fit to be discoursed with concerning Christ’s authority; for men of such a disposition could not be convinced of the truth, nay, they could not but be provoked by it, and therefore he that is thus ignorant, let him be ignorant still. Note, Those that imprison the truths they know, in unrighteousness (either by not professing them, or by not practising according to them), are justly denied the further truths they enquire after, Rom 1:18; Rom 1:19. Take away the talent from him that buried it; those that will not see, shall not see.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Mat 21:23

. By what authority doest thou these things. As the other schemes and open attempts to attack Christ had not succeeded, the priests and scribes now attempt, by indirect methods, if they may possibly cause him to desist from the practice of teaching. They do not debate with him as to the doctrine itself, whether it was true or not—for already had they often enough attacked him in vain on that question—but they raise a dispute as to his calling and commission. And, indeed, there were plausible grounds; for since a man ought not, of his own accord, to intermeddle either with the honor of priesthood, or with the prophetical office, but ought to wait for the calling of God, much less would any man be at liberty to claim for himself the title of Messiah, unless it were evident that he had been chosen by God; for he must have been appointed, not only by the voice of God, but likewise by an oath, as it is written, (Psa 110:4; Heb 7:21.)

But when the divine majesty of Christ had been attested by so many miracles, they act maliciously and wickedly in inquiring whence he came, as if they had been ignorant of all that he had done. For what could be more unreasonable than that., after seeing the hand of God openly displayed in curing the lame and blind, they should doubt if he were a private individual who had rashly assumed this authority? Besides, more than enough of evidence had been already laid before them., that Christ was sent from heaven., so that nothing was farther from their wish than to approve of the performances of Christ, after having learned that God was the Author of them. They therefore insist on this., that he is not a lawful minister of God, because he had not been chosen by their votes, as if the power had dwelt solely with them. But though they had been the lawful guardians of the Church, still it was monstrous to rise up against God. We now understand why Christ did not make a direct reply to them. It was because they wickedly and shamelessly interrogated him about a matter which was well known.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL NOTES

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

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

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

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

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mat. 21:23-32

A twofold answer.The question asked in Mat. 21:23 was very natural in its way. Although the Saviour had hitherto done nothing of a strictly punitive kind, He had acted recently with a degree of authority previously unusual with Him (see Mat. 21:1-17). Naturally, therefore, those who sat in the seat of authority (Mat. 23:2) were stirred up by such doings; and naturally, therefore, came to inquire into their nature and source (Mat. 21:23). They were almost bound, indeedfrom their point of viewto do something of the kind. The Saviour answers, first, by asking another question in turn; and, secondly, when that was not answered, by asking another one yet.

I. The first question had to do with the mission and ministry of John the Baptist.Connected with this we see, first, a most legitimate challenge. Next to the appearance of the Saviour Himself, the appearance of John, as a spiritual phenomenon, had been the most important one of the day. In a manner unknown for centuries past, it had agitated the faith of the day; and had afterwards left behind it an impression of the deepest and widest description (see Mat. 21:26; Mat. 3:5-6; Act. 19:3). Also, it had been connected intimately with the Person and work of the Saviour Himself. John may almost be said, in fact, to have effaced himself in pointing to Jesus (Mat. 3:11-12; Joh. 1:19-27; Joh. 1:29, etc.). It was only to be expected, therefore, that professed teachers in religion (Joh. 3:10), such as these questioners of the Saviour, should have made up their minds about John; and only right, therefore, that they should be asked about him by the Man whom they questioned. John the Baptist continually pointed to Me. Tell Me, therefore, if you wish to know about Me, what you say about him. In anwer to this challenge we see, next, a pitiful evasion. That apparently simple question was not so simple as it looked from their point of view. If they said in reply what was certainly true, viz., that the mission of John was from above, they feared the Saviour. He would say at once as in Mat. 21:25; and so would expose them before all as the false guides that they were. If they said what was false and declared it to be only of men, they feared the people, who would then listen to them no more. So all they could think of wasin a most clumsy mannerto try and leave the question alone. The point asked about is not one on which we can give an opinion (Mat. 21:27). An answer in which, thereforeso we see finallythey completely answered themselves. How can the question you ask be discussed at all unless this necessary preliminary to it has been considered at least? How can you learn about Me if you are thus ignorant about him? How can you possibly know what you profess to want to know, in such circumstance as yours? Thus it was, in effect, that the Saviour covered them with shame for having asked their question at all!

II. The second question went deeper than this.In it the Saviour not only silenced His adversaries; He convicted them too. He aims at this result, in the first place, by putting a case. After a method not unusual with Him, He sets forth a parable touching the matter in hand. A certain man with two sons commanded them both to go and work in his vineyard (Mat. 21:28). One refused at first, but afterwards went. The other consented at first, but that was all. Obedient in word, this son was wholly disobedient in work (Mat. 21:29-30). Which did they think, of two such sons, should be looked upon as obedient? (Mat. 21:31). They answeredthey could but answerthat it was the one spoken of first, he that afterwards repented and went. The Saviour reaches the result He aimed at, in the next place, by explaining this parable and applying its moral. The message of God to His people through the ministry of the Baptist was the command of this parable. The priests and elders who had gone out with others to hear the teaching of John, and could not but own that he had come in the way of righteousness (Mat. 21:32) and yet had refused to do as he taught, were like the second son in the parable. The publicans and harlots who had believed in him, though notoriously impenitent and disobedient at first, were like the first son in the parable. It followed, therefore, that what these priests and elders had said of the first son was true about these. Of the two sets, they would go first into the kingdom of God. It followed, also, that what these same men had implied of the second son was true of themselves. They had never really done the will of their Father. They had not dealt faithfully with the requirements of His kingdom as coming through John. More than this, they had seen others repenting and going in; yet had never done so themselves. They were, therefore, all of them, outside of it still (Mat. 21:32).

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

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

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

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat. 21:24-26. Christ and the cavillers.

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

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

Mat. 21:27. Evading the truth.

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

Mat. 21:28-32. The two sons.I. The two distinct and opposite answers.

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

II. The two distinct and opposite acts.

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

Mat. 21:28-31. The last first.

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

Mat. 21:28. Cultivating the Lords vineyard.I. Our Heavenly Father calls us to work for Him.We may take the Lords vineyard to represent:

1. Our own natures.

2. Our own households.

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

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

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

I will, and I wont,a story of two brothers (For children).We do not know the names of these two brothers, so we will call them I WILL and I WONT. They evidently lived with their father, who owned a vineyard.

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

II. A reasonable request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. Which brother are we like?

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

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

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

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

Work.Observe:

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

II. The labour.Work. Religion is toil. Toil in self culture. Toil in converting souls. Toil in perfecting and carrying out Gods plans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Why this reason should be retracted?

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

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

Mat. 21:31-32. The application of the parable.The application of the parable to those to whom our Lord was speaking could not be misunderstood.

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

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

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

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

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

II. Gods mercy.They attain unto the sight thereof by these degrees.

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

Mat. 21:32. Reason for condemnation.

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

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

SECTION 57:

JESUS MEETS CHALLENGES TO HIS AUTHORITY: THREE PARABLES OF WARNING

(Parallels: Mar. 11:27 to Mar. 12:1; Luk. 20:1-8)

TEXT: 21:2332

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

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?

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

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?

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

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 Johns 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?

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

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

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)?

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?

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?

How does this episode help us to understand Gods basic plan of salvation?

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.

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

How would you explain the religious leaders rejection of Johns ministry and message?

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?

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 (Luk. 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 Gods 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 dont 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 Gods 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

Mat. 21:23 And when he entered the temple, He had just come from Bethany (Mat. 21:17, see notes). Into the temple means into the courts surrounding the sanctuary proper, not unlikely on the southeast side near Solomons porch. (Cf. Joh. 10:23 ff.; Act. 3:11; Act. 5:12.) Mark and Luke capture the setting of the hierarchys 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 (Mar. 15:1; Luk. 22:66 as opposed to Mar. 14:43; Mar. 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. Act. 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 (Luk. 20:1) were influential rabbis or theologians. (Cf. Gamaliel, Act. 5:34 ff.) As is clear from Mat. 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. Mar. 11:18; Luk. 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 (epstesan, Luk. 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 (Mat. 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:

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

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

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 (Mat. 21:14 f.) should answer their question for them, unless they dig up the discredited accusation of collusion with Beelzebul! (Cf. Mat. 12:22-45.) Their most recent objection to Him lay in His defending children who unquestionably attributed to Him titles of Messiahship. (See on Mat. 21:15.) Because the responsibility to judge false prophets and religious frauds was clearly theirs (Sanhedrin Mat. 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 temples cleansing. No recognized theologian had ordained Him to teach there or anywhere. Had some Roman allowed Him a puppet-governors 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. Joh. 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 (Deu. 18:15-22) even without any other human recognition! (Cf. Amo. 3:3-8; Amo. 7:12-15; Gal. 1:1; Gal. 1:12; Gal. 1:16 f.; Gal. 2:6.)

By what authority? means by what kind of (pos) authority? The fundamental assumption behind this challenge is their absolute certainty that He did not enjoy Gods authority, hence His activity must be accounted for on some other basis. (Contrast Joh. 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. Mat. 7:15-20), His incisive but notably untraditional teaching of the meaning of Gods Word (cf. Mat. 7:29) and His unquestionably true miracles (cf. Deu. 18:21 f.; 2Co. 12:12) and His harmony with other prophetic revelations (cf. Deu. 13:1 ff.; Isa. 8:20; Jeremiah 26), meant completely nothing to them as credentials! (Study 1Ki. 22:24-28; Jer. 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. Joh. 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 listeners 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
Johns authority is indicative of mine (21:2427).

Mat. 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 (Joh. 2:18; Joh. 6:30; Mat. 12:38; Mat. 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. (erotso hums kag lgon hna; cf. Arndt-Gingrich, 285 2, article: eperoto and 312 2, article eroto: to ask for, request taken together with lgon: statement, ibid,, 478, article lgos, 1 gamma. However, Arndt-Gingrich render our text: I will ask you a question. Lenski, Matthew, 828: Lgon hna = 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:

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.

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 Gods 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 everyones 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.

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 Mat. 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.

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. Rev. 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. Mat. 12:9-14; Mat. 12:23; Mat. 12:38 ff.; Mat. 16:1-4; Joh. 2:18 ff; Joh. 5:15-47; the special case of the man born blind, Joh. 9:24-34; Joh. 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 (Joh. 11:47-53). So, their question is anything but a legitimate, innocent, routine request of credentials.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

It turns everyones 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.

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.

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 Gods Word personally.

Prudence. To answer directly that He was the Messiah, Gods 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 enemys sword. As the Lamb of God in the midst of wolves, He was as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves (Mat. 10:16 ff.), answering with great caution (cf. Pro. 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:

Mat. 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 Johns 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, 745747; 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:

Johns 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 (Mar. 1:4; Luk. 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, 213, 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 Johns 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, 36; Wars II, 8, 213; and his Life, 2.)

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

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 (Joh. 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.

As observed before (see notes on Mat. 11:7; Mat. 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 (Joh. 1:6; Luk. 3:2 f.), and, consequently, his message and immersion as well, then his pointing out Jesus as Gods Lamb (Joh. 1:29), the One infinitely greater than John himself (Joh. 1:27; Joh. 1:30), the One who has the Spirit (Joh. 1:32 f.), the Son of God (Joh. 1:34), should furnish the correct estimation of that authority by which Jesus ministered.

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 ones faithfulness and fairness in handling the previous truth.

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 Gods 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 (Act. 10:37 f.) and proclaimed by the Father (Joh. 5:32-36; Joh. 1:29-34).

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 Mat. 21:31 f.)

From heaven or from men? From heaven? is a respectful Hebraism meaning From God whose dwelling it is. (See notes on Mat. 23:22.) From heaven or from men? are the only alternatives (cf. Act. 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. 1Ki. 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 Johns 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 Johns 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:

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?

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 Gods Son (Joh. 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 Johns 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.

Mat. 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 (Luk. 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 Johns testimony and had repudiated it (Joh. 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 mobs 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 Herods vengeance or Roman slaughter, rather than submit meekly to compromise of conscience. (Cf. Josephus, Ant. XIV, 13, 1, 2; XV, 8, 14; XVIII, 3, 1; Wars, II, 9.24.) 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. Mar. 11:32). Although dead at this time, Johns influence over people was very much alive and even continued on into the age of the Church. (Act. 18:24 ff; Act. 19:1 ff.; Josephus testimony: Ant. XVIII, 5, 2.) Ironically, the common people, whom the authorities despised (Joh. 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 Mat. 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. Deu. 13:1 ff; Deu. 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 Johns 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. Ferrars 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 (nah) and the wicked seducer (mesth) 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 Mat. 21:33 to Mat. 22:14, Mat. 22:41-46.)

I do these things echoes the wording of their question (Mat. 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 (Luk. 19:30 f.) and the children (Mat. 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 (21:2832)
A. Rank Sinners and Religious Outcasts

Mat. 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. Mat. 17:25; Mat. 18:12; Mat. 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 (2Sa. 12:1-13; 2Sa. 14:1-24; 1Ki. 20:35-43; cf. Mat. 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. Rom. 3:10-23). Go work today in the vineyard, is the fathers 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 Fathers 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

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

the practical proof that each is truly the fathers child, as he claims.

Mat. 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 sons rude refusal: I dont want to! (ou thlo). 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 (2Pe. 3:9; 1Ti. 2:4; Mat. 18:10-14). This grace certainly leaves the door open to what follows (cf. Rom. 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, metanoo, 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. Mat. 21:32, metemelthete.) 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 (2Co. 7:9-11), although this does not always happen, as in the case of Judas (Mat. 27:3). Metamlomai 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 (karpn xion ts metanoas, cf. Mat. 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

Mat. 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 (krie)! 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 fathers 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 Gods 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. Joh. 16:2). But that they say and do not would be one of Jesus charges against the Pharisees later (Mat. 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. 2Ti. 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

Mat. 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 Mat. 6:10; Mat. 7:21; Mat. 9:13; Mat. 12:50; Mat. 28:20; Psalms 119; Psa. 143:10; Joh. 15:14; Act. 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 (Eze. 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 Gods 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 Mat. 19:30; Mat. 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.

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

Harlots, or prostitutes, because of their gross sexual immorality (cf. Luk. 15:30; 1Co. 6:15 f.), furnished another classical example of conscienceless unfaithfulness mixed with brazen impurity (cf. Rev. 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 (Heb. 11:31; Jas. 2:25; Jos. 2:1-21; Jos. 6:22-25). So, women too, not just men, found the door of the Kingdom open to themand on the same basis. (Cf. Luk. 7:36-50; Joh. 4:7 ff; Joh. 11:1 ff; Joh. 12:1 ff.; Gal. 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: Johns 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 Gods 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 progousin 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 Messiahs Kingdom, Jesus asserts that it is the sinful people who would do the leading! Submission to Gods 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 Gods 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 Mat. 11:11 ff.), He is indicating the direction evident in the lives of Johns 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 Gods Kingdom? And who can prove on what basis he knows that much? However, for Jesus, the matter is cut and dried: Mat. 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 Gods 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 Johns ministry was from God: judge him by his fruits (Mat. 7:15-20). Even if you (falsely) claim not to know the source of Johns inspiration, you MIGHT yet decide on the fruit of his work. While he did no miracle (Joh. 10:41), the direction and results of his teaching coupled with his own personal example should tell you something meaningful about him:

HIS CHARACTER: John himself walked in the way of righteousness, a life of obedience to Gods will. Can you find fault with that? The grosser sinners, usually keenest to discern pretense in the sanctimonious, detected nothing insincere about Johns 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?

HIS MINISTRY ITSELF: Was Johns 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? (Luk. 3:10-14; Luk. 11:1; Mat. 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 (Luk. 3:10-14)!

HIS SUCCESS: The worlds worst sinners, by your definition, were turning to God under his preaching! His marvelous success among the worst of people should indicate the Lords blessing and approval of his efforts. (Cf. Pauls labors among similarly wicked Corinthians, 1Co. 6:9-11; 1Co. 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 Gods 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 Johns 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! (1Pe. 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 Gods righteous judgment against their sins (Luk. 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 Johns conversions, to be convinced to yield themselves too? If, by the hierarchys 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:

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

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

And, if in the ministry of John they could thus discern Gods 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 Johns 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 Johns disciples:

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

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

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 (oud metemelthete hsteron to pistesai aut). 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 (Mat. 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 nations 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 Fathers 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 (Tit. 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 (Exo. 24:7; Jos. 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 Lords 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 Gods Christ without which it is impossible to please God (Heb. 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

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

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

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

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

How did Jesus respond to the hierarchys challenge to His authority?

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?

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

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

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 Johns 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?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(23) The chief priests and the elders.St. Matthew and St. Luke add the scribes, thus including representatives of the three constituent elements of the Sanhedrin. The character of the teaching is further specified by St. Luke, as He was preaching the gospelproclaiming, i.e., the good news of the kingdom, the forgiveness of sins, and the law of righteousness.

By what authority . . .?The right to take the place of an instructor was, as a rule, conferred by the scribes, or their chief representative, on one who had studied at the feet of some great teacher, and been solemnly admitted (the delivery of a key, as the symbol of the right to interpret, being the outward token) to that office. The question implied that those who asked it knew that the Prophet of Nazareth had not been so admitted. The second question gave point to the first. Could He name the Rabbi who had trained Him, or authorised Him to teach?

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

114. JESUS’S DISCOURSE WITH THE CHIEF PRIESTS IN THE TEMPLE, Mat 21:23 to Mat 22:14 .

CHRIST’S ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF HIS AUTHORITY, Mat 21:23-27.

23. Into the temple Our Lord persists calmly in the work of teaching, while he knows that danger besets him, and that death is close at hand.

By what authority doest thou these things? They ask this question, not because they do not know, but because they will not acknowledge. Jesus therefore proceeds to show them that they knew, and so compel them to the necessity of exposing their unwillingness to confess.

It was the province of the Sanhedrim to give authority to teachers in the temple, an authority which Jesus had never received.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And when he was 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 do you do these things? And who gave you this authority?” ’

Matthew here omits mention of the Scribes. As we saw at the beginning of this section that was because He was trying to present a picture of the variety of the opposition without too much repetition. Possibly the Scribal representation was minimal. But here Matthew’s emphasis is on the civic authorities. While present the Scribes were seen as secondary. In Jerusalem these were the two ruling groups who held civic authority, the chief priests, and the lay princes and aristocracy. Thus this was an official deputation, and they were questioning His right to preach in the Temple and to behave as He was doing. Their questions were twofold, firstly as to the central source of His authority, did He claim that it came from God? And secondly as to who had authorised Him to act with that authority. For if He claimed that His authority came from God He had then to be able to produce sufficiently reputable authorities to back up His claim. Who then were His authorities? Let Him name them. They hoped by this to bring Him to a standstill so that they could then forbid Him to preach.

‘These things’ probably included His triumphal ride into Jerusalem, His actions in purifying the Temple, His preaching in the Temple (which was their preserve), His healing of the lame and the blind in the Temple, and His allowing Himself to be hailed as the Son of David. It was apparent from these that He was claiming great authority. Who then was there who would back up His authority? There was nothing outwardly wrong with their action. They were responsible for what happened in the Temple. What was at fault was their attitude.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Is Questioned About His Authority (21:23-27).

The idea that the leadership of Israel were in fact only a sham is now emphasised in this incident. In it the leaders of the people, the religious authorities of the Temple (the chief priests) and the lay authorities of Jerusalem (the elders of the people), challenge Him about His authority, and as a result He demonstrates that they are not really suitable people to decide about such things, because their hearts are hardened and they are not willing to respond to the truth.

We must see this as at least a semi-official approach from the Sanhedrin, the Jewish governing body, for these people, along with the Scribes (included by Mark), were constituent parts of the Sanhedrin. They had seemingly been waiting for His next visit to the Temple, and approached Him as soon as He began teaching. We should note that He was there to pray and to teach, as the Scribes also did (Luk 2:46). He made no attempt to hide Himself, for His challenge was now open and bold. So they came to Him with the deliberate purpose of showing Him up before all the people, for they knew that it would be necessary to get at least the tacit support of the people for what they wanted to do to Him. Thus their first aim was to demonstrate to the crowds that he had no demonstrable authority.

Their question seemed reasonable. All knew that it was their responsibility to check the credentials of any who claimed religious authority, and that they were also responsible for public order, especially in the Temple, and that He had after all caused some disarray and had challenged that authority, even if He had done it as a prophet. So there could be no criticism of their checking up on Him. But it was the way in which it was done that proved that it was not genuine. They had had plenty of opportunity for questioning Him and weighing Him up beforehand, had they really wished to do so, and they could easily have spoken with Him in private. However, their aim was not to discover truth, but to openly confront and denounce Him, and the way in which Jesus dealt with them demonstrated that He in fact saw their challenge at this point as hostile, and not neutral.

That their approach was over more than just His actions in the Temple comes out in the strength of the deputation. His act in the Temple could have been dealt with discreetly by the Temple police, and with a warning. It was His whole activity that was in question and the challenges that He was thus making.

The approach was high handed and officious. ‘By what authority — who gave you this authority?’ Their first hope was that He would have no answer and be caught unprepared. Then the people would see by His hesitation that He was a charlatan. Alternately they were hoping to make Him declare Himself, and say something ‘foolish’, possibly even something that could be portrayed as blasphemous, and whatever He said they would then be able to use against Him. They could then accuse Him of self-exaltation, or worse, of being a false prophet, a Messianic claimant or a rebel. The question was, what was He claiming Himself to be? Was He claiming to be a prophet? Was He claiming to be the Messiah? Was He claiming to be the coming Elijah? And if He was not claiming to be anyone important how could He claim to have God’s personal authority for doing what He was doing? Compare Mat 6:15; Joh 1:19-25. Had He responded as they expected by claiming to be acting in God’s Name with no one to back up His position they would then be able to demand from Him a sign from Heaven, their favourite response to any such claims (compare Mat 16:1).

Analysis.

a And when he was 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 do you do these things? And who gave you this authority?” (Mat 21:23).’

b And Jesus answered and said to them, “I also will ask you one question, which if you tell me, I will similarly tell you by what authority I do these things” (Mat 21:24).

c “The baptism of John, from where was its origin? From heaven or from men?” (Mat 21:25 a).

d And they reasoned with themselves, saying (Mat 21:25 b).

c “If we shall say, ‘From Heaven’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him? But if we shall say, ‘From men’, we fear the crowd, for all hold John as a prophet” (Mat 21:25-26).

b And they answered Jesus, and said, “We do not know” (Mat 21:27 a).

a He also said to them, “Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things” (Mat 21:27 b).

Note that in ‘a’ they ask Him about His authority, and in the parallel He refuses to give His authority. In ‘b’ He challenges them with a question, and in the parallel they admit that they do not know the answer. In ‘c’ He asks whether he origin of John’s baptism was from Heaven or of men, and in the parallel they debate the two possibilities. Centrally in ‘d’ they reason with themselves.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Authority of Jesus’ Testimony Challenged ( Mar 11:27-33 , Luk 20:1-8 ) In Mat 21:23 Jesus’ authority is questioned and challenged by the Jewish leaders. He has healed a blind man on His way to Jerusalem demonstrating His authority over sickness and sin (Mat 20:29-34). He has entered Jerusalem with the authority of a king (Mat 21:1-11). He then cleanses the Temple with the authority of a high priest (Mat 21:12-17). He curses a fig tree with the authority over creation (Mat 20:18-22). When confronted by the Jewish leaders, Jesus refers to the authority of John the Baptist and that of God the Father as the reason He had the right to teach in the Temple.

Jesus’ Authority is Questioned by the Jews When we walk in the fullness of our authority as children of the Kingdom of Heaven, the world will challenge our authority. Thus, Mat 21:23 to Mat 23:39 records some of Jesus’ most challenging times when the Jews begin to question His authority as the Son of God. The Jews first questioned His authority to cleanse the Temple. Then they attempted to find fault by asking him a number of clever questions.

Mat 21:23 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?

Mat 21:23 Comments In Mat 21:23 is not confronted by the scribes and Pharisees, but by the leaders of the Temple, those who exercised daily care over the Temple. These were the leaders that held the highest authority among the Jewish population after the Roman governor. Thus, they felt that they had authority to allow or remove over those who taught within the Temple compound.

Mat 21:24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.

Mat 21:24 Comments Jesus understood the authority these chief priests and elders had over the Temple compound. He did not reply that His authority exceeded their authority; instead, He honored it. However, Jesus brings in the authority of John the Baptist’s testimony of Jesus as the Messiah as a way of confounding these leaders.

Mat 21:27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

Mat 21:27 Comments Because the Jewish leaders could not challenge Jesus’ authority, they had to relinquish His right to teach in the Temple, a compound which they managed and controlled.

Mat 21:28 to Mat 22:14 Three Testimonies on the Authority of John the Baptist In Mat 21:28 to Mat 22:14 Jesus gives the Jewish leaders two testimonies as to how John the Baptist’s testimony held divine authority. The first testimony is the evidence of the repentance of sinners (Mat 21:31-32), and the second is the testimony of the fulfillment of Scripture (Mat 21:42-44). The third parable testifies to the fact that many refuse to heed the message of those whom God has sent (Mat 22:1-14). Jesus uses three parables to give clarity and understanding to these testimonies.

Here is a proposed outline:

1. The Parable of the Two Sons Mat 21:28-32

2. The Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers Mat 21:33-46

3. The Parable of the Wedding Feast Mat 22:1-14

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Testimony of John the Baptist and God the Father Regarding Man’s Inheritance of Eternal Life Mat 21:23 to Mat 22:40 emphasizes the testimonies of John the Baptist (Mat 21:28 to Mat 22:14) and God the Father (Mat 22:15-40) regarding man’s inheritance of eternal life. Their testimonies call the Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus will support the authority of John the Baptist’s testimony with three parables, and He will support the authority of God the Father by responding to three questions from the Jews. The intensity of confrontation by Jewish leaders has progressively increased throughout the Gospel of Matthew, reaching its peak in this passage of Scripture prior to Jesus’ arrest and passion.

Here is a proposed outline:

1. The Authority of Jesus’ Testimony Challenged Mat 21:23-27

2. Three Testimonies on the Authority of John the Baptist Mat 21:28 to Mat 22:14

3. 3Testimonies on the Authority of God the Father Mat 22:15-40

4. Jesus Testifies of His Own Deity Mat 21:41-46

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Authority of Christ.

The question of the elders:

v. 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?

The members of the Jewish Sanhedrin, the Great Council of the Jewish Church, were ever jealous of their rights and suspicious of any one that dared to think and act for himself. The point of their question was: If you claim the authority to purge the Temple, if you openly teach and heal in the Temple, give us an account of your prophetic character, prove that you have a prophet’s mission from God. It was a foolish resentment, one which incidentally laid bare the blindness of the rulers. For Jesus had given countless examples of His prophetic power, both by miracles and by such authoritative preaching as no other teacher in Israel possessed. Their demand is twofold: Give us evidence that you actually possess this authority; then satisfy us also as to the source of the authority you are using. They wanted Him to render an account for whatever acts He had done in His official ministry.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 21:23-26. And, when he was come, &c. The rulers, much alarmed at the proceedings of Jesus, were very desirous of putting him to death; but they wished to do it under the pretext of law. See Mat 21:46 and Mar 11:18. In consequence of their intentions to do so, the chief priests, scribes and elders, that is to say, some of the first men of the nation, came by appointment of the Sanhedrim to Jesus, as he was teaching in the temple, and before all the people put two questions to him. The first was, concerning the nature of the authority by which he acted, whether as a prophet, a priest, or a king. The second question was, that if he claimed the authority of any, or all these characters, they desired to know whence he derived it, Mat 21:23. Jesus, that he might at once reprove the impropriety of the question in those circumstances, and, in fact, return an unexceptionable, though oblique answer to it, said to them in reply, I also will ask, &c. Mat 21:24-25. This question reduced the priests to an inextricable dilemma. They considered on the one hand, that if they should acknowledge John’s mission to be from God, it would oblige them to acknowledge Christ’s authority; John having more than once borne testimony to him as the Messiah. On the other hand, if they denied John’s authority, they did not know but the people who stood round them listening to Jesus might stone them, for they generally believed John to have been a prophet: many of them had submitted to his baptism, and his reputation by no means ended with his life; not a few then holding him in high esteem, both on Christ’s account and his own. See Luk 20:6 and the note on ch. Mat 14:10. Wherefore, as matters stood, they judged it safest to answer, that they could not tell whence John’s baptism was. By returning this answer, the priests left Jesus at liberty to decline giving the Sanhedrim that satisfaction which they were demanding. That court whose prerogative it was to judge of prophets, required our Lord to make good his pretensions to the character that he assumed: but by the question which he put, he obliged them to confess, that they had not been able to pass any judgment upon John the Baptist, notwithstanding he claimed the character of a messenger from God, and they had sent to examine his pretensions: this, in effect, was to acknowledge themselves incapable of judging of any prophet whatever. “Ye are come,” said he, “to inquire into the proofs of my mission. I agree to submit myself to your examination, on condition that you will tell me what your determination was concerning John. Was he a true, or a false prophet? You say, you cannot tell. If then you are not able to form a judgment concerning John, how can you take upon you to judge of me?” In this light our Lord’s question, in answer to theirs, appears to have been formed with the greatest wisdom and address; because whether the priests replied in the affirmative or negative, or gave no reply at all, they absolutely condemned themselves. See Macknight, Grotius, Calmet.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 21:23 . Comp. Mar 11:27 ff.; Luk 20:1 ff.

] while He was engaged in teaching.

] in virtue of what kind of authority . Comp. Act 4:7 . The second question is intended to apply to Him who has given the authority; the first is general, and has reference to the nature of the authority (whether it be divine or human).

] these things , cannot point merely to the cleansing of the temple (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus), which is too remote for such special reference. As little can the teaching by itself be intended (Grotius, Bengel), that being a matter in connection with the ministry of Jesus about which the Sanhedrim was comparatively unconcerned, and for which He did not need a higher authority. We should rather say that, in their , the questioners mean to include all that up till that moment Jesus had done and was still doing in Jerusalem, and therefore refer to the triumphal entry, the cleansing of the temple, the miraculous healing and the teaching in the temple, all which, taken together, seemed to betoken the Messianic pretender. Comp. de Wette, Bleek, Weizscker, p. 532; Keim, III. p. 112. The members of the Sanhedrim hoped either to hear Him acknowledge that the was divine , or presumptuously assert that it was self-derived , so that in either case they might have something on which to found judicial proceedings against Him. They seem to have been a provisional deputation of the Sanhedrim appointed to discover a pretext for excommunicating Him. Comp. Joh 1:19 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

SIXTH SECTION
THE ASSAULTS OF THE EXTERNAL THEOCRACY UPON THE ROYAL LORD IN HIS TEMPLE

Mat 21:23 to Mat 22:46

The symbolical transaction of the fig-tree begins to unfold itself in spiritual judgments upon the Jews in al. their authorities. The second day of the stay of the Messiah in the temple is come, the Tuesday of Passion-week; or the third, if we include the day of the entry. It was the great day of contest after the day of peace: a day on which Jesus endured victoriously the hostile attacks of the authorities in the temple, in which He silences and puts to confusion their several bands, one after another; and then, after His great judicial discourse ( Matthew 23), in view of their obduracy and in prospect of their violence, voluntarily leaves the temple. The first assault was made by the high priests and elders: it is disguised under the forms of official authority. Jesus confronts them, and discloses their true position by three parables, Mat 21:23 to Mat 22:14.The second attack was an attack of cunning, led on by Pharisees and Herodians: they ironically assume that He has Messianic authority, in order that they may politically entangle Him ( Mat 21:15-22). Then follow the Sadducees with their attack. They seek, by their alternative, to involve Him in Sadducean or antinomian assertions ( Mat 21:23-33). Hereupon, the Pharisees make their last desperate assault, with a tempting and fundamentally threatening question of the law; and are reduced to pronounce their own discomfiture by His counter-question touching the divine dignity of the Messiah, according to Psalms 110(Then follows the judicial discourse of Matthew 23; and finally the departure from the temple.)

A. The Attack of the High Priests and Elders, and the Victory of the lord.

Mat 21:23-27

(Mar 11:27 to Mar 12:12; Luk 20:1-19; Luk 22:1-14.The Gospel for the 20th Sunday after Trinity.)

23And when he was come into the temple, the chief [high] 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? 24And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing [one word, ], which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with [among]38 themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why [then, ] did ye not then believe him? 26But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people [multitude, ]; for all hold John as a prophet. 27And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell [We do not know, ]. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

Transition to the Offensive.First Parable: The Parable of the Two Sons (the hypocritical unbelief)

Mat 21:28-32

28But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my [the]39 vineyard. 29He answered and said, I will not; but afterward he repented, and went. 30And he came to the second [other],40 and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go [I will, ],41 sir; and went not. 31Whether of them twain [Which of the two, ] did the will of his father [the fathers will, ]? They say unto him, The first.42 Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. 32For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not; but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not43 afterward, that ye might believe him.

Second Parable: The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (the murder of Christ, and the judgment)

Mat 21:33-46

33Hear another parable: There was a certain44 householder, which [who] planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about [put a hedge around it, ], and digged [dug] a winepress in it, and built a [watch ] tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far [another] country:45 34And when the time of the fruit [the fruit-season]46 drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it [to receive his fruits].47 35And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another [and one they beat, and another they killed, and another they stoned].48 36Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on [have]49 his inheritance. 39And they caught [took, ] him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.50

40When the lord therefore [When therefore the lord, ] of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked [miserable] men [or: he will wretchedly destroy those wretches],51 and will let out his [the] vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall [who will] render him the fruits in their seasons. 42Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lords doing [from the Lord, ], and it is marvellous [wonderful ] in our eyes (Psa 118:22)? 43Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall [will] be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.52

45And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. 46But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared53 the multitude [multitudes, ], because they took him for a prophet [held him as a prophet, ].54

Third Parable: The Marriage of the Kings Son (the judgment of the rejection of Israel and the new theocracy of the kingdom of heaven).

Mat 22:1-14

1And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by [in, ] parables, and said, 2The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which [who] made a marriage for 3his son, And [he] sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. 4Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which [that] are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner [ , early meal, midday-meal]: my oxen and my [the] fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. 5But they made light of it, and went their ways [went away, ], one to his farm, another to his merchandise: 6And the remnant [But the rest, ] took [laid hold of, ] his servants, and entreated them spitefully [ill-treated, ], and slew them. 7But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. 8Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which [that] were bidden were not worthy. 9Go ye therefore into the highways [thoroughfares, ],55 and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. 10So those servants went out into the highways [], and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good. and the wedding was furnished with guests. 11And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which [who] had not on a wedding garment: 12And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless [put to silence, ]. 13Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and56 cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 14For many are called, but few are chosen.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Mat 21:23. As He was teaching.At first the members of the Sanhedrin, with the high priest himself at their head, confronted the Lord with an official and formal inquiry. Their action was passionately prepared; for, no sooner had Jesus repaired again to the temple, than they were on the spot. Their inquiry was hostile in its design; His opponents would oppress Him at once by their authority; and therefore they interrupted Him even in the midst of His teaching. But the form of their inquiry was official, and according to theocratical rule: the Jewish rulers had the right to demand of a man who exercised prophetic functions the warranty of His prophetical character. But, as Jesus had already abundantly authenticated Himself by various miracles, their seemingly justifiable act was only a shameless avowal of unbelief. It was no other than the highest rebellion in the disguise of strict legality.

The high priests and the elders.That is, the Sanhedrin in its official authority. Hence Luke and Mark add the scribes also; for these belonged in a wider sense to the presbytery. The high priests: the plural is explained by the then existing relations of the high-priesthood. The high priest was supposed legally to enjoy his function during life (see Winer, art. Hohepriester); and before the exile we read of only one deposition (1Ki 2:27). But since the time of the Syrian domination the office had often changed hands under foreign influence; it was often a football of religious and political parties, and sometimes even of the mob. This change was especially frequent under the Roman government. Thus Annas (Ananus) became high priest seven years after the birth of Christ (ra Dion.); seven years ater Ishmael, at the command of the Roman procurator (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 2, 2); afterward Eleazar, son of Annas; a year later, one Simon; and after another year, Joseph Caiaphas, a son-in-law of Annas. Thus Caiaphas was now the official high priest; but, in consistency with Jewish feelings, we may assume that Annas was honored in connection with him as the properly legitimate high priest. This estimation might be further disguised by the fact of his being at the same time the , or vicar of the high priest (Lightfoot); or, if he was the , president of the Sanhedrin (Wieseler). Compare, however, Winer, sub Synedrium. That, in fact, high respect was paid to him, is proved by the circumstance that Jesus was taken to him first for a private examination (Joh 18:13). And thus he here appears to have come forward with the rest, in his relation of colleague to the official high priest. Moreover, the heads of the twenty-four classes of the priests might be included under this name. Probably the whole was the result of a very formal and solemn ordinance of the Council, at whoso head stood the high priests.

By what authority?(Comp. Act 4:7.) The two questions are not strictly the same. The first demanded His own authority, or what was the prophetic title which He assumed; the second demanded the authority from which He derived His own, and which authenticated Him. It therefore seems to have intimated that their authorization was denied to Him. Doubtless their aim was to extort from Him thus early that same declaration which they afterward ( Matthew 26) construed into a criminal charge.

Doest Thou these things? .Grotius, Bengel, and others refer the to His teaching: Meyer, on the contrary, to the cleansing the temple and the healing, Mat 21:14. Better, de Wette: The whole of the work of Jesus in the temple up to this time. As they would not acknowledge the acts of Jesus, the definite word is chosen with design.

Mat 21:24-25. I also will ask you.The counter-question is once more a testimony to the heavenly supremacy of Christs wisdom as a teacher. They had presented this inquiry under the pretext of theocratical rule; and, in the true spirit of this theocratical rule, He put to them His counter-question: The baptism of John, was it from heaven? that is, Did John act as a true prophet under divine authority? The antithesis, or of men, signifies his having come by his own arbitrary boldness, undertaking an enthusiastic work, supported by the party spirit of like-minded confederates. As the opposite of divine authority of the true prophet, the words still more definitely describe the character of the false prophet. Now if the Sanhedrin declared for the latter part of the alternative, they would not only come into collision with the faith of the people, but they would condemn themselves as having proved false to the theocracy, as the administrators of its laws. If, on the other hand, they acknowledged the divine mission of John, they must also acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah; for John had declared himself to be the forerunner of the Messiah, and he had moreover directed the people to Jesus as the Messiah. Indeed, the silent secret is here hinted at, that he had directed themselvesthe Sanhedrinto Jesus as the Messiah (see Matthew 4).

Mat 21:25. They deliberated among themselves.Their pondering must issue in a formal answer; and, as they must give a common answer, a common consultation and deliberate calculation was previously necessary: hence , among themselves; which also appears in the . (See Mat 16:7.)Why then did ye not believe him?that is, his testimony concerning the Messiah.

Mat 21:26. We fear the multitude.We have the crowds () to dread. Meyer assumes here an aposiopesis, which (Luk 20:6) interprets: All the people will stone us. But the expression intimates the same in a more indefinite way. The is scornful: the mob, as in Joh 7:49.

[The intelligence of this official consultation, which is related almost verbatim by the Synoptists, may have been originally derived from Nicodemus, who belonged to the Sanhedrin.P. S.]

Mat 21:27. We do not know.This reminds us of the hierarchical decision, mandatum de supersedendo, which is so frequent in papal history; e.g., in the conflict between Reuchlin and the Dominicans (see Ranle: Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation vol. i. p. 281). They were caught in a rough alternative, and could extricate themselves only by a step of desperation. The Sanhedrin were under the necessity, in the temple and in the hearing of all the people, to utter a confession of ignorance, and. that of hypocritical ignorance. If they were not already enemies of Jesus to the death, this would make them so. This declaration made them, in the eyes of Jesus, cease to be a truly legitimate and divinely authorized Sanhedrin; after this, they were to Him only as usurpers. Hence His reply, Neither tell I you. [The is an answer not to their words: , but to their inward thoughts: .]

Mat 21:28. But what think ye?Now there is a transition to the offensive. First Parable.Jesus had already by His counter-question obliged His enemies to by bare their ignorance, or their unbelief. He now constrains them, in the first parable, to declare heir own great; and, in the second, to declare their own punishment; and, as they had now decided to put Him to death, He describes to them, in the third parable, the consequences of their great violation of the covenant and ingratitudethe destruction of their ancient priesthood, and the triumphant establishment of His new kingdom of heaven among the Gentiles. The first parable is found only in Matthew.57

Mat 21:30. I will, sir, .Not merely, yes, but an elliptical expression of devoted willingness, like the Hebrew (Grotius). De Wette: It always refers to the previous verb: thus, or must be supplied. But the emphasis of the answer with I is to be regarded as intimating a contrast to the refusing son.

Mat 21:31. The publicans and the harlots.Thus, those who were excommunicated from the Jewish Church: the last word specializes the usual expression, sinners. They are represented by the first son. Their earlier relation to the requirements of the law and the prophets was a virtual no, which often in the expression of unbelief had become an actual and literal no. But, since the coming of the Baptist, they had repented. The contrast to them is the Sanhedrin in the second son. By their doctrine and hypocritical piety they had exhibited themselves as the obedient ones, yet with a boastful I will, sir, and with a contemptuous look upon the disobedient son. But they were the disobedient in relation to the Baptist and the Christ; they would not be influenced even by the example of the publicans repentance.

Go before you, .Here intransitive: not of a future, but of a present entering into the kingdom of God. But the following of the others is not intimated; rather the reverse. [According to Trench, on the contrary, the words imply that the door of hope was not yet shut upon the Pharisees by an irreversible doom, and that they might still follow, if they would. So also Alford and Nast. Comp. Joh 12:35; and Christs prayer on the cross, Luk 23:34.P. S.]

Mat 21:32. In the way of righteousness, .Meyer: As a thoroughly righteous and upright man. It is not the preaching of righteousness which is meant. De Wette: For he preached righteousness. That often means doctrine, as a standard of practical righteousness, is a settled point (comp. Mat 22:16; Act 13:10, etc.). But here we must understand the way of righteousness in reference to the words of Christ in Joh 14:6 : I am the way. John came ( of teachers arising, Mat 11:18) as the forerunner of the Messiah, pointing to Him, the way of righteousness. The here is analogous to the , Mat 11:19.

Repented not. here expresses the coming to a change of mind and purpose, and not merely to meditate something better; yet repent is rather too strong a translation, and corresponds to . Comp. Mat 27:3; 2Co 7:8.

Mat 21:33. Hear another parable.[As if to say: I have not done with you yet; I have still another word of warning and rebuke. Trench.] This second parable does not merely predict the future punishment of the enemies of the Messiah; it more definitely specifies the nature of their guilt, in its last and near approaching consummation, the murder of Christ.

Planted a vineyard.The theocracy under the similitude of a vineyard: see Isa 5:1-7; Isa 3:14; Son 2:15. Israel the vine: Jer 2:21. Christ the vine: Joh 15:1. [A vineyard was regarded as the most valuable plantation, which yielded the largest harvest, but required also the most constant labor and care. Cato says: Nulla possessio pretiosior, nulla majorem operam requirit.P. S.]

A wine-press, .Properly the trough which was buried in the ground; the wine-press proper stood above, and the juice flowed through a grated opening into it. But the press and the trough were also together called .

[The digging, of course, can only refer properly to the receptacle for the juice in the rock or ground to keep it cool (Mark has for it =lacus vinarius); but =torcular, sometimes means the whole structure for treading the grapes and receiving the expressed juice. Dr. Hackett (Illustrations of Scripture, p. 157, 8th ed.), as quoted by Dr. Conant in loc., gives the following description of it: A hollow place, usually a rock, is scooped out, considerably deeper at one end than the other. The grapes are put into this trough, and two or more persons, with naked feet and legs, get into it, where they jump up and down, crushing the fruit. The juice flows into the lower part of the excavation. The place for treading out the grapes is sometimes dug in the ground, lined probably with a coating of stone or brick. The expression in Mat 21:38 may allude to such an excavation.P. S.]

Tower.Watch-tower; generally built in vineyards [not so much for recreation as for the watchmen who guarded the fruits against thieves].

Let it out to husbandmen, .De Wette: For a part of the fruits, Meyer: For money, as the lord himself received the fruits, Mat 21:34; Mat 21:41. But in Luk 20:10 we have , and hence de Wette must be right. If the had been used of money (it must be distinguished, even then, from the of the laborers, Mat 20:1; Mat 20:7), the lord would have required of these husbandmen, not the fruits, but the rent. Meyer himself favors this explanation, when he makes refer, not to the fruits of the vineyard, but to the fruits belonging to the lord.

Mat 21:35. Stoned another.Meyer: According to Mat 23:37; Joh 8:5; Act 7:58, etc., this is related to killing as its climax, as species atrox (Bengel) of killing. But in the parallel of Mark, where is sufficiently authenticated, we must understand it, that the servant was saluted from afar with stones. The climax is there, but of another kind: they did not let the third messenger come near them, but drove him away with stones. It must be remembered, that stoning is used here as part of the parable, not in the sense of the Jewish law.

[ Mat 21:37. But last of all he sent unto them his son, etc.It has been frequently observed by ancient and modern commentators, that the only and well-beloved Son of God is here distinctly marked out as far above the prophets in dignity and rank, the sending of whom is the last and crowning effort of divine mercy, and the rejection of whom fills up the measure of human sin and guilt. Compare here the more expressive language of Mar 12:6 : Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, they will reverence my son. The expression of the hope, that the husbandmen will reverence the son, implies, of course, no ignorance, but the sincere will of God, that all should be saved; and the fact of mans freedom and responsibility which is perfectly consistent with Divine foreknowledge and foreordination, although we may not be able in this world to see the connection and to explain the mystery.P. S.]

Mat 21:38. Let us have his inheritance, .The reading (seize), and the parallel in Mar 12:7, contain the true explanation. That of Meyer, And let us hold fast, not be driven out (as if they did not mention the result, but their further design, what they would do after the killing of the son), gives no good sense. Till then, they regarded themselves as hired laborers; after killing the heir, they usurp the possession.

Mat 21:39. They cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.Marks inversion of the order exhibits the act in a more passionate and dramatic manner; but it loses a typical feature. For, the sequence in Matthew (and Luke) bears with it an undoubted allusion to the excommunication which preceded death. Chrysostom, Olshausen, and others refer the casting out to the crucifixion outside of Jerusalem; and they are so far right, as this was the consequence of the sentence and curse which rested on Jesus, Heb 13:12.

Mat 21:33-39. The Meaning of the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen.The vineyard is the theocratical kingdom of God, especially58 in its Old Testament form. The hedge is the divine order of restriction and mark of membership: in the Old Testament, circumcision; in the New Testament, the power of the keys, and baptism with confession (Chrysostom and others: the law59). The wine-press is the altar in the widest sense (Chrysostom and others: the altar; in the New Testament also, the Lords Supper60). The tower is the theocratical protection; or also the New Testament office of watchman ideally viewed (Chrysostom: the temple). We must hold fast the fundamental traits of the Mosaic law; yet so as to include the New Testament fulfilment, for the vineyard passes over in the New Covenant to other laborers. The departure of the proprietor. Bengel: tempus divin taciturni tatis, ubi homines agunt pro arbitrio. But against this speaks the fact, that the time of the prophets is described, and their mission is combined in one with the mission of Christ. It is rather the period of the natural human development of the kingdom of God from the date of its divine institution. The laborers, or husbandmen, are the official leaders of the theocracy, especially the priests, elders, and scribes. The servants are the prophets sent by God. For their maltreatment, see the flight of Elijah, the histories of Jeremiah and Zechariah (2Ch 24:20), the tradition concerning Isaiah. The son is the Messiah. The attempt of the laborers to gain the inheritance for themselves, is the ambition of the Jewish rulers. The coming of the lord is the judgment of retribution.

Mat 21:40. When therefore the lord of the vineyard cometh.His enemies are constrained to explain the parable for themselves. But, inasmuch as their solution was a necessary consequence of their whole position, Mark and Luke represent Jesus as Himself drawing the conclusion. But they also put first the question, What will the lord of the vineyard do? Each representation is in harmony with the connection of each Gospel; but that of Matthew seems the original one. Meyer supposes that the Sanhedrin daringly gave their decision, although they felt that the parable referred to them; and in favor of this is the , Luk 20:16. On this assumption, their apparent sincerity was only hypocrisy; and they thereby declared that the parable did not apply to them.

Mat 21:41. He will miserably destroy those miserable men.Meyer, well: As miserable ones will He miserably destroy them. See his examples of the same phraseology. It signifies the theocratical judgments upon Israel, appearing in the destruction of Jerusalem; which Meyer, with his wonted misunderstanding of the advent, denies. The Parousia of Christ is consummated in His last coming, but is not one with it. It begins in principle with the resurrection (Joh 16:16); continues as a power through the New Testament period (Joh 14:3; Joh 14:19); and is consummated in the stricter sense in the final advent (1Co 15:23; Mat 25:31; 2 Thessalonians 2 etc.).

To other husbandmen.The passing over of the kingdom of God to the Gentiles. The significance of this feature of the parable was not, probably, clearly seen by the Council. Remarkable is the praise which they finally lavish upon the new laborers. The meaning is, that the Lord will always know how to seek and to find faithful laborers in His work.

Mat 21:42. And Jesus said unto them.A parabolical word follows from the Old Testament, which gives its edge to the preceding parable; showing the Sanhedrin from the ancient Scriptures that most assuredly the parable suited them. The passage which the Lord brings to their remembrance is that of Psa 118:22 [the same Psalm of triumph from which the people had taken their Hosannas], quoted from the Septuagint. According to Ewald, this Psalm was sung at the first Feast of Tabernacles after the return from captivity. This much is certain, that it primarily pointed, in its historical sense, to the pious, mystical kernel of the people, as exalted above all the attempts of the heathen to destroy them. According to Zec 3:8-9; Zec 4:7, Zerubbabel was probably the person; but Zerubbabel was a type of the Messiah; therefore the passage was a typical prophecy of Christ, as the Rabbins always acknowledged. But as the stone is described as one rejected by the builders, this could hardly be said of the Gentiles, and must refer to the Jewish builders themselves, the priests and rulers, who first despised the stone and then rejected it. We have then here something that passes beyond historical type, and which makes the parable a striking prophecy of the conduct of the Sanhedrin toward Christ. And if the cornerstone, the stone which bears up the theocratical edifice, is distinguished from that building, it cannot signify all Israel, but the theocratical offspring of David, who is the definite type of the Messiah. Since the cornerstone, or head of the corner ( ) binds together the two walls, Ammonius and Cyril found in this image the union of Jews and Gentiles in Christ.61 But the idea here prominent is this, that the despised and rejected stone becomes the corner-stone of the theocracy. [Compare for a similar application of this Psalm in Act 4:11; 1Pe 2:1.]

Mat 21:43. Therefore I say unto you.De Wette: Therefore, because ye have rejected the comer-stone. Better: Because the word concerning the corner-stone shows that the parable spoken expressly suits you, the word also concerning the vineyard being given to others suits you also; the kingdom will be taken from you, etc. For this also speaks the expression: given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

To a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.The New Testament people of God, with emphasis upon the new and heterogeneous element, the Gentiles. Meyer: The .

Mat 21:44. Whosoever shall fall upon this stone, etc.The privative and negative punishment of the wicked laborers is followed by their positive punishment. Thus we have here an explanation of the words: He will miserably destroy these miserable men, connected with the figure of the stone, which now approves its rocky nature, that fitted it to be the corner-stone. Thus Christ also demonstrates that He is the Judge. The positive and punitive judgment has again its two sides. The stone falls on none who have not first fallen on it: that is, only the unbelievers, who have rejected Christ, will be by Him condemned and rejected. But it is a double form of punishment which is expressed by this antithesis. He who falls upon Christ, the corner-stone, or who runs against and falls over it, making Him a spiritual offence and stumbling-block, (Isa 8:14; comp. 1Pe 2:8), will be bruised. This is death through dismemberment of the body: spiritual death, reprobation, and demolition of Israel, or of the individual unbeliever. This is the judgment which falls upon the active enemy of the passive Christ, as subject. But he will also be the passive object of the punishment of the glorified and governing Christ. But on whomsoever it shall tall.He against whom Christ comes in judgmentaccording to the figure of the stone, Dan 2:34-35will He grind to powder, ; Vulgate:62 conterat; Luther: zermalmen, to crush, to pulverize. Meyer maintains that the Greek verb can only mean, shall winnow him, throw him off as chaff. But this does not suit the effect of a falling stone. The expression is chosen with reference to the mysterious stone in Daniel, which grinds to powder the image of the monarchies; that is, to Christ, who unfolds His life in the kingdom of God, and grinds the kingdoms of the world to powder. This is the actual and most proper result of His historical judgment: perfect dissolution of organization, dissipation of its elements even to apparent annihilation. The threatening here refers primarily to the Jewish hierarchy and the destruction of Jerusalem; but the unbelieving individual will also be ground to powder at last, the glory of his life will be dissipated, he will be reduced to his elements, and driven to the verge of annihilation.

Mat 21:46. They sought to lay hands on Him.They had already fixed the decree to kill Him. But their exasperation at the condemning import of the parables might have urged them at once to carry out their resolution, had not their dread of the people prevented them.

Mat 22:1. And Jesus answered.The third parable: the Marriage of the Kings Song of Solomon 1 The judgment upon Jerusalem and the Jews, and the new theocracy of the kingdom of heaven.The Lords further words are introduced as an answer, because they refer to the schemes of His enemies to seize Him.

In parables.Plural of the category.

Mat 22:2. Made a marriage for his son.This parable is related, in its fundamental idea that the kingdom of heaven is a festive meal, to that of Luk 14:16-24. But there is an essential difference between them. The festive supper of a host is here expanded into a wedding supper which a king made for his son. In Luke the whole parable is so ordered as to depict the infinite goodness and grace of the Lord: hence the scornful guests are at once passed by, and the parable turns to those newly invited out of the streets and lanes. But in Matthew the judgment is the standpoint from which the whole is viewed. Hence not only is the judgment upon the first neglecters of the invitation depicted, but further judgment is extended to the guests who actually came. The practical scope of these parables has been altogether overlooked by those who have maintained that the former was the original parable, and that evangelical tradition pieced together in this one many separate fragments. (De Wette, Strauss, Schnecken-burger, and others.)2 Evangelical parables are not works of art in this sense. Their fundamental ideas may be viewed from different points of view, and differently developed accordingly. So here, when the Lord shows what judgments will fall upon the various kinds of contempt poured on the marriage supper of the kingdom of God. The Jews had long been wont to think of the festival of the consummated kingdom of heaven under the figure of a feast. The paschal meal, doubtless, gave them the type of it; while all the heathen festivals and sacrificial feasts rested upon the same common foundation. Comp. Exo 24:11; Psa 23:5; Isa 25:6. This feast of the kingdom of heaven is an image of the blessedness and fellowship of the life of faith, and assumes a threefold form: 1. It is a feast in the future world, Luk 16:22; Luke 2. it is the future feast at the visible advent of the Messiah, Luk 14:15; Mat 25:1; Matthew 3. it is the present, spiritual feast which begins at once with the life of faith, Psalms 23; the parables, Luk 14:17, and in this section. The Jewish rabbinical mythology exhibited the feast at the end of the world, at the advent of the Messiah, with all sensuous characteristics, and in colossal figures. The change of the simple feast into a marriage supper rested upon the Old Testament representation of the covenant between Jehovah and Israel by the figure of the marriage state: Isa 54:5; Eze 16:4; Matthew 23; Hos 2:19-20; compare the Canticles. In the New Testament development of this figure, we must, of course, regard the Messiah as the Bridegroom, for whom the Father prepared the marriage with the Church: Eph 5:25; Revelation 21 Calovius and many others have interpreted the wedding as the union of the divine and human natures in Christ.3 And indeed, this union forms the ideal foundation and real root of the actual union and communion between Christ and His Church, which was typically foreshadowed by the union of Jehovah with Israel. Believers are here represented as guests; but this does not militate against the reference to Christs relations with His Church, because the ideal Church in its totality must be regarded as the bride, and the individual Christians as guests. But certainly the bond of connection between Christ and His Church has its root in His assumption of His humanity by the assumption of His human nature. The expression then is not to be generalized, and translated feast. Michaelis, Fischer, Kuinoel, Paulus, and others have thought that only a feast in celebration of the receiving of the kingdom is meant. But the Messiah is the Bridegroom ( Mat 25:1), whose betrothal is the establishment of His kingdom (comp. on Eph 5:27). Meyer.4

Mat 22:3. To call them that were bidden.An Oriental custom. The first invitation was an invitation to the feast generally; the second, to the beginning of the feast itself.

Mat 22:4. Behold. my dinner, .The introductory meal, which opened the series of wedding feasts; an early meal toward midday, not the same as the .5

Mat 22:5-6. But they made light of it but the rest.How is this difficult clause to be construed? As the words stand, a division into two parts is suggested, the first part being again subdivided into two:1. But they made light of it, and went away: a. some to their fields; b. some to their merchandize. 2. But the rest, etc.So Meyer, after de Wette: refers only to those who went away; for the remainder, Mat 22:6, acted in direct hostility (). But the contempt which is expressed by is the general term for the enmity which embraced them all in one guilt; and, accordingly, they are all together condemned afterward as . Fritzsche therefore is right in assuming an inexactness in the phrase, which should have been: . and ; as the Vulgate has it: Illi autem neglexerunt, el abierunt, etc. Yet the found wanting before is contained in the following , . Thus, 1. , ; 2. . The is the hostile unbelief which is common to all. This expresses itself in two ways: a. In the indifferent worldliness: they think nothing of their king, and devote themselves to their own private affairs, b. In fanatical spirituality, which makes the positive persecution of the servants (prophets) an official business. This is a striking picture of the miserable contrast of false worldliness and spirituality in the hierarchical communion.6 Fundamentally, however, the contrast is only a reciprocal influence; and both dwell together in only one city of murderers, which was doomed to burning.

Mat 22:9. Out into the highways.Not the places where the streets of the city meet (Kypke, Kuinoel, and others); for the city is assumed to be burned, Mat 22:7; but the outlets of country roads (Fritzsche, Meyer).7 At this point our parable goes beyond that of Luk 14:16. There, the streets and lanes of the city are mentioned, where the maimed and the poor gathered together (the halt, the lame, the blind: publicans and sinners within the theocracy). Here, the commission is to go far beyond the doomed city, out into the high roads of the world: all, both bad and good, the heathen simply, are invited; both those who were looking for light, and the common people of heathenism generally.

Mat 22:10. Both had and good.Bengel: locutio quasi adverbialis. Meyer: They acted as if they would make no difference, whether the persons were morally good or bad, provided only they accepted the invitation; the distinction between them must be made by the king at a later period, and not by them. But in this interpretation, first, the distinction between the wicked and the good in the heathen world (Acts 10; Romans 2) is improperly done away with; and, secondly, it is not proper to confound the difference between the good and the bad among the invited, with the difference between the guests who had, and those who had not, the wedding-garment. The plan of salvation shines clearly through the whole; and that does not look at the previous life, but at faith or unbelief toward the gospel. The words: they gathered together, imply that they accepted the invitation with joy.

The wedding was furnished with guests.With the filling of the wedding-chamber the wedding feast was consummated. The contemners of the feast could not do away with or invalidate it: it came to its full consummation.

Mat 22:11. To see the guests.At the thought of a calling of the Gentiles to the Messianic salvation the Pharisaic legality revolted with horror, as opening the gate to antinomianism and anarchy. Christ meets this aversion of the hierarchy with the doctrine that righteousness and judgment would pervade, though in higher and nobler forms, even the new economy of grace. And the idea of judgment is predominant throughout the whole parable. The higher forms of the spiritual law: 1. The guests are examined by the king; 2. the sign of worthiness is the wedding-garment; 3. the punishment is a personal and rigorous exclusion.

Not having a wedding-garment, .Here, not merely a garment suitable for a wedding feast (de Wette), but specifically a wedding-garment. 1. Michaelis, Olshausen, and others interpret: The guests of kings were in the East presented with festal garments, or caftans, according to Harmar (Observations on the East, ii. 17) and others. This custom is assumed in the parable; and the figure is appropriate, the more so as saving righteousness, faith, and the Holy Spirit are likewise the gifts of God. But Fritzsche, Meyer, and de Wette object to this view. De Wette remarks that such a custom cannot be sufficiently proved (Meyer: Not even by Gen 45:22; Jdg 14:12; 2Ki 5:22; 2Ki 10:22; Est 6:8; Est 8:15); and that there could be no reason why an invited guest should despise the festive garment. 2. They therefore suggest another explanation: That the guests were bound to come with festal clothing, was an obvious and customary propriety that needed no enforcement. Moral was thereby symbolized, which men, after the call to the kingdom of the Messiah, should obtain for themselves through the . So Meyer; without, however, giving any more precise explanation of this moral .8 De Wette: The view here obtains, that the spirit which is appropriate to the kingdom of God depends upon man himself. But where could guests get these garments in the urgency of the feast, especially as they were men of all kinds (according to Lukes parable, probably many of them beggars)? The passages quoted by Meyer show at least that the custom of furnishing the guests with festive garments on such occasions was very ancient in the East.9 Andthe man might have excused himself by his poverty, If it were not assumed that every one might have received his wedding garment. However, we must not lay any more stress upon the idea that the garment was presented, than upon the notion that every one must provide it for himself. There is no feature in the parable which specially points to the one or the other of these assumptions. The stress lies upon this, that every one must be found at the wedding in a wedding garment, and that he must therefore have previously taken pains in the matter. The question, how that trouble was to be taken, and how the garment was to be obtained, is designedly avoided, because another point of view is here the more important. If the guest had not taken any pains about the wedding-garment, he showed positive disrespect to the inviting lord, and a contempt for his feast, or Antinomianism. The free gift of righteousness as such cannot here be meant; as that consists in the invitation to the supper and the participation of the feast. Nor is faith as such intended; for that takes place at the acceptance of the invitation itself. Therefore, the wedding garment is the exhibition of character, or appearance, corresponding to the invitation and the feast: that is, discipline of spirit, an earnest Christian life.10The first historical figure in which this guest comes before us in the apostolical history, is that of the Antinomians, who are depicted in the Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude, and the Nicolaitanes of the Apocalypse. If it is still thought necessary to supply the deficient point (which, however, tends to weaken the main impression), we may say that the wedding garment was at once freely given and obtained by personal effort. It was given as free grace; yet it was to be obtained in the ante chamber by earnest effort and prayer. The chief point is, that it was obtained by diligent anxiety, springing from a right appreciatior of the dignity of the feast.

Mat 22:13. Bind him hand and foot.An appropriate punishment of lawlessness. It had not for its object merely to keep him fast in his place of punishment, but also to carry him there securely; for, at he was a desperately bold intruder, he could not otherwise be driven out and carried away. The binding is the hard political restraint which follow on lawlessness. It is the business, not of the guest of the church, but of the servants of the King.Outer darknessComp. Mat 8:12. It may be worthy of notice, that the Antinomians are cast out into the same place of punishment with the traditionalists and legalists. This points to an internal connection between the two extremes.

There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.See above. There is no sufficient reason for separating these words from the parable, as Meyer does, and making them explanatory words of Christ.

Mat 22:14. For many are called.If we take these words as simply the Lords explanation, they refer not only to the punishment of the one guest, who had not on the wedding-garment, but to those also who had been earlier invited; and thus the antithesis of the many and few is better established and illustrated. Comp. Mat 20:16. Called and chosen signify here not merely a difference, but an antithesis. Both in the old and in the new economy there is a rigorous separation made between the worthy and unworthy, and on that this antithesis is founded. We must not, therefore, understand the word here in its common doctrinal meaning; it is no more than the historical call or invitation, and the called are simply the individual members of the theocracy, and of the Christian Church. And so, further, the idea of election here is not the usual dogmatic conception of an eternal decree, but that final election in the judgment which, however, points back to the first election. De Wette goes no further, in his exposition, than the definite sentence of the Judge upon the worthiness and unworthiness of men. Meyer interprets it of the eternal decree by which God appointed those to enter into the kingdom of the Messiah who would appropriate His righteousness, Mat 25:34 (essentially the Arminian view). Perhaps it is better to go no further here also than the historical illustration. Many are called; few, as actual guests, have escaped as elect ones the two crises of judgment. Probably the expression rests upon some proverbial saying, such as, Many guests, few elect ones. The Scripture doctrine of election is the basis of the saying; but it is an election which is here viewed in all its developments and processes down to the judgment day.

Mat 22:1-14. The Meaning of the Parable of the Marriage of the Kings Son. It speaks everywhere for itself. God is the King, and the wedding of His Son is the feast of the Messiahs kingdom. The invited, who have a second invitation, are the Jews. The second invitation came through John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. The city burnt is Jerusalem. The second sending of the servants is the mission of the Apostles. The highways are the heathen world. Good and bad are the whole body of heathen, receiving a common and unlimited proclamation of the gospel. The other traitsthe general acceptance, etc.have been already sufficiently explained. Lampe understood by the wedding garment Christ Himself: we regard it as the moral excellence of the Christian character. Judas has been discerned in the man without the garment (, Mat 26:50); but the connection shows that this man is the collective Antinomianism of the New Testament economy.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. See the foregoing Exegetical Notes.

2. His enemies would oppress and destroy the Lord through the might of their theocratic hierarchical authority. But He constrained them, by the Might of His wisdom, to pronounce before the people in the temple the sentence of their own deposition and degradation. By the question concerning the origin of Johns baptism He accomplished three things: 1. He constrained them to make manifest how much they differed from the belief of the people in the prophetic mission of the Baptist. 2. He brought home to their minds their own guilt, in having rejected the Baptists express authentication of His claims as the Messiah. 3. He rendered it necessary that they should pronounce their own sentence upon themselves as utterly incompetent to discharge the duties of their office. Thus the defensive was turned already into the offensive. But the special attack upon them, to which He now passes on, unfolds their guilt and its punishment in perfect gradation; and here again they are obliged to pronounce sentence upon themselves. Despisers of John, the prophet of repentance, worse than the publicans and harlots ! this is the first sentence. That of the second isUnfaithful stewards of the Lords vineyard, murderers of the Messiah, condemned, deprived of their office, degraded, and forced to make way for strangers better than themselves!this is the second sentence. Being with the whole people insane despisers of God and His salvation, and in all their acts rebels against Him, their city is to be burned, while they themselves are to be destroyed and to give place to the Gentiles!this is the third sentence, which the Lord Himself utters in an allegorical prophecy. In all these mark the gradation of their guilt. In the first parable they are, by their I will, sir, condemned, as well as by the repentance of the publicans and harlots. In the second parable they are condemned by the favorable terms on which the vineyard is let to them, by the long forbearance of the Proprietor, by the bold generosity with which He at last committed to them His Son. In the third parable, by the dignified invitation of their King to the wedding of His Son, as if they were friends, while at the same time they are subjects, and might be commanded; by the repetition of the call, and the anxious, almost supplicating, manner in which the preparations are spoken of, and the probable embarrassment caused by their absence; but, most of all, by the emptiness of their excuses, and the stupid malignity of their vengeance upon the messengers who invited them.

3. The appendix in the second parable perfects Its application to the Council; but at the same time unfolds the two sides of the judgment which falls upon the builders who rejected the corner stone. The corner stone of Psalms 118., which the builders rejection, thus securing their own rejection, is made here, on the one hand, a figure of Isaiahs suffering Messiah (the stone of stumbling in Israels way, Isa 8:14-15), by the contemptuous rejection of whom the enemies of the Messiah pronounced their own spiritual condemnation; and, on the other hand it is made a figure of Daniels glorified Messiah (the rock which descended from the highest mountain of the earth into the valley), who in the judgments of history annihilated His enemies. But the second part of the third parable is a justification of the hint, that the kingdom of God pastes over to the Gentiles. Hence it is shown that law, justice, and judgment are to rule in the new economy, although in another and a higher form.

4. The marriage of the Son.The call to the kingdom of God is a call to the highest honor, the highest joy, and the highest festivity. The inviting king is God; the bridegroom is Christ; the bride (not here appearing) the Church. The fact that the invited who accept the invitation belong to the body, which is the bride, comes not into view in the parable. Believers individually are the guests; believers collectively are the bride. The guests are the subjects of the king: He might constrain them as servants to do the work of servants, but He invites them as guests and friends to partake of His honors and joys, and invites them even with urgency. The motives of honor, love, duty, here all cooperate in their influence. And this makes the conduct of the first invited all the more unnatural and damnable.
5. It does seem strange that the invited guests ill treat and kill the messengers, who invite them to make their appearance; but what if this senseless conduct in the parable were designed to point to the equal folly of those who are now acting in the same senseless way with regard to Gods messages !Weisse (2. p. 113).
6. At the end of this section, the theocratical authority of Christ has taken the place of the old and forfeited authority. The Sanhedrin had now only the form of authority remaining with it. Essentially it was displaced by Christ.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

I. The Whole Section.The spiritual and real reckoning between Christ and the Sanhedrin points to the future open and historical reckoning.The full development of the fall of Israel. 1. Their sin: (a) Disobedience under the guise of piety; (b) persecution of the prophets; (c) the murder of Christ; (d) contempt of God, and self exclusion from the gospel feast, 2. Their judgment: (a) Put to shame by publicans and harlots and Gentiles; (b) degradation from their dignity and historical vocation; (c) loss of their land; (d) burning of their city; (e) and total downfall of all their glory.Mark the fate of every hierarchical dominion which, like that of the Jews, withstands the Lord.

2. The Question of the Sanhedrin; Christ counter question, Mat 21:23-32.Christ is the spiritual avenger of the Baptists blood in the temple.The Lord in his House obliged to defend His rights; outraged by servants, and treated by them as a usurper.Christ the conqueror of all hierarchical spirits in the temple of God. The supreme authority of the Lord robs all other authority here of its power.The silencing of the Council: their silence was a sign of their desperation and of their hardening.Connection of false prudence and fear: 1. false prudence begets fear; 2. fear begets false prudence Before the Lord in His holy temple must all the world keep silence.

3. The Parable of the Two Unequal Sons.The open, and the false character.The penitent sinner held up by the Lord to put to shame the hypocrite.The Lords sermon of repentance in the temple.

4. The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, Mat 21:33-41.The fearful wickedness of Gods laborers, who would turn His vineyard into a private possession 1. The sources of this conduct: Misunderstanding of the Lords external absence, of His longsuffering and tenderness; selfishness, worldliness, ambition, evil company. 2. The form of its manifestation: Denial of the fruits; contempt of the messengers; renunciation of the Lord; conspiracy against the Heir. 3. The issue of this conduct: Displacement from their vocation; loss of the vineyard; and terrible ruin.The ruinous delusion of the servants of Christ who turn an office of service into an office of rule.The ordinary offices in the Church are lost, when they fail to recognize the Lords extraordinary messengers.The murder of Christ in the vineyard of His Father; Joh 3:16 : So God loved the world, etc.The history of the hardening of Israel an eternal warning to the Church.They knew the Son and they knew Him not (Luk 23:34; Act 3:17); their blindness was a self inflicted obscuration of their minds.In Christs end the guilt of the whole world is summed up.How He made His enemies pronounce their own doom.

5. Christ The Stone Rejected by the Builders, Which became the Head of the Corner, Mat 21:42-46.As the Old Testament foretold the degeneracy of His officers, so did also the New.Christ the rock: 1. The stone which the builders rejected, and who was made the corner stone (Psalms 118.); 2. the stone in the way, a stumbling block and a stone to rest upon (Isaiah 8.); 3. the rock which, hewn out, rolled down from the everlasting hills (Daniel 2.).How unbelief turns the warning of ruin into a new and ruinous snare.How the fear of the peoples faith restrained the enemies of the Lord in their assaults.The embarrassment and impotence of the Jewish Council: 1. Pressed within by the spiritual words of the Lord; 2. pressed without by the peoples temper.The malignity of unbelief reaches its climax in the feeling of its own impotence.

6. The Marriage of the Kings Son. The old Scripture lesson for the twentieth Sunday after Trinity. Mat 22:1-14.The kingdom of heaven a wedding feast, which God has prepared for His SonAll preaching of the gospel is an invitation to this wedding.Two kinds of guilt in dealing with the invitation: 1. Contempt of the invitation: dishonoring (a) the King, (b) the Kings Son, (c) the inviting messengers. 2. Contempt of the feast itself: (a) dishonoring the blessedness of the feast in gross carnality and service of the world; (b) dishonoring the holiness and consecration of the feast, in preferring the beggarly fellowships of the world.The guilt of remaining away, and the guilt of appearing ill (without the wedding garment).The difference and the common glory of the Old and New Covenants. 1. The difference: the Old Testament is the invitation to the feast; the New Testament is the feast itself. 2. The common glory: grace runs through the whole of the Old Covenant as well as the New; and the spirit of judgment and justice runs through the New Covenant as well as the Old the guests are examined.The best thing in our earth life is, that in it we are invited to the feast of the salvation of God.The true and proper loss of life in life is the despising the invitation to Gods great least.How God in His mercy condescends to represent Himself as an embarrassed host, who fears for the dishonoring of His feast, and prays us to come.All Gods martyrs are persecuted messengers of invitation.How it can come to pass that unbelief should rise in rebellion against the invitation to the free gift of blessedness.Indifference which undervalues salvation in the midst of earthly cares, and fanaticism which persecutes the heralds of the gospel, are fundamentally one and the same self seeking worldliness, though assuming different forms.All Gods judgments are the counterparts or antitheses of slighted feasts and invitations.The Lords armies, which He sends out for retribution (Romans, etc.); or, heaven and earth must contend for the honor of the Lord and His Son.All the endless confusion of the course of this world must subserve the one clear end of God.The passing over of the kingdom of heaven from the first invited to the new guests.The ingratitude of those who would not come cannot invalidate the feast: the wedding is fully furnished and crowded nevertheless.In the Church of the gospel the law is born again.Friend, how earnest thou in hither ? or, lawlessness (Antinomianism) in the Church, and its judgment.Holy discipline of the Church of Christ, the rule of Christ in the midst of it.The eternal consecration of the eternal feast of Christ.Outer darkness; or, the punishment of the servants of mens precepts, and the scorners of the law, the same.Many are called, etc., or the difference between the external and the internal Church: (a) called, elect; (b) many, few; (c) remaining without, new and different guests.

Selections from other Homiletical Commentaries

1. The Question and the Counter QuestionStarke:From Zeisius: The anti christian spirit arrogates to itself all power in the Church, and will lord it over all things (2Th 2:4).Spiritual councils, synods, and consistories, not only may err, but have erred, and err to this day; so that we must not obey them further than they conform to the word of God.Most necessary it is to use prudence in dealing with the enemies of the truth.Sometimes the cunning of the enemy can be met and unmasked by a little counter question.

Gerlach:The mysterious answer which Jesus had given them the first time (John 2.) had remained dark to their minds.Christs counter question was by no means a mere evidence of His prudence, or an evasive reply; but He opens up to His enemies the way to acknowledge His Messiahship, for if they believed in John, they must receive his testimony concerning Jesus as the Messiah.

2. The Two Sons.Starke:Two sorts of men: manifest sinners, and hypocrites.Quesnel: What would have been to man, in a state of innocence, pleasure, is now hard work on account of sin.Cramer: To sin is human, but to continue in sin is devilish.We must never give up all hope of the vilest sinner.Behold, Jesus receiveth the vilest sinners, publicans and harlots!Hedinger: Hypocrites promise much and keep little.Obstinate persons are hard to convert.Good examples of penitents should draw sinners to follow them.

Heubner:The first application is to the persons named in Mat 22:31; the second, to the Jews and Gentiles. But the parable is for all men generally.Those that are converted late often become more acceptable to God than those who are relapsing from early zeal.The summoning Go work is for every man.True improvement comes from action, not from wishing and promising.

3. The Wicked Husbandmen.Starke:From Quesnel: Ministers of the divine word must regard their flocks as a vineyard of the Lord.The rulers of the Church are often its greatest persecutors, and most responsible for its corruptions.The Son of God is heir of all things: whosoever rejects Him here has no part in the heavenly inheritance.Those who cast Jesus out of their hearts, cast Him also out of the vineyard which He purchased with His blood.Zeisius: The wicked are very often made unconsciously to bear witness against themselves.The time of retribution will come.

Gerlach:The number of the prophets increased in the later ages of the Israelitish people; so also, the longer the Church lives, the further the individual advances, the more abundant are the tokens of Gods grace.He sent his son (Mat 21:37, comp. Heb 1:2). Important passage, showing how Christ essentially distinguished Himself from all the former messengers of God, by His own peculiar relation to His heavenly Father.The husbandmen know the son: thus Christ declares that His enemies knew who He was, or at least that they were guilty of their own ignorance. He tells them also why they watched for His life: because they feared He would lake from them their usurped authority.Human nature, in rebellion against Christ, has a right instinct, that if it could overcome Him, it would overcome all opposition.

Heubner:The high priests acted as the agents or representatives of the evil spirit, the prince of this world. If Jesus could be destroyed, all would be won for Satan.The Church of Christ often the stage of most frightful cruelty.Gods judgments become more and more severe.The Jewish people a monument of divine mercy and justice.

4. The Corner Stone.Starke:From Canstein: The corner stone of the Church is Christ: 1Co 3:11; Eph 2:20; 1Pe 2:6-8.The Saviour falls on no one as a judgment, who has not already by unbelief stumbled at Him.So blind are the ungodly, that they fear men, while they have no fear of God.

Heubner:The Old Testament bad foretold the rejection of the Son of God; the New Testament foretells to us the apostasy from Christianity,11 for the warning and confirmation of believers.Jesus honored the Scripture, and every where saw in it the counsel of God indicated. Ought not this to inspire the Christian with reverence for the Old TestamentWhat wise one of this world, what human reason, would have conceived, under the cross, that this man, hanging suspended between two malefactors, and despised by all, would one day receive the worship of the whole world ?This is the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes.Vain are all attempts and devices to suppress the truth, or thwart the counsel of God.It is madness to rush against the rock: it is for us only to rest and build on.The doom of the despisers of Gods grace.

5. The Wedding Feast, Mat 22:1-14.Starke:The blind world often regards the good messengers, who invite them to a heavenly feast, as their enemies.God is great, not only in His love, but also in His anger.Cramer: Joyful word: All things are ready ! Alarming word: Thou art not ready!Osiander: Let all take care that they do not slight the gospel, that God may not take away His word (and give it to others).Quesnel: It the work of salvation there is no respect of persons.Cramer: In heaven there are only good, in hell only wicked; but in the militant Church there are tares and wheat together (Gregor. M. Homil. 38).He was speechless: Job 9:3; Psa 130:3.Zeisius: The small number of the elect should make no Christian despond, or weaken his hope of salvation; but only cause him to rub all sleep out of his eyes.Not external communion with the Church, but divine election through faith, saves us.

Gerlach: The wedding feast of the Son of God with mankind, when Ho assumed our flesh.The highways, the places where men most congregate.

Heubner:My dinner. God has made all provision for our salvation, and that in the most abundant manner.The climax: 1. Seize, hold fast and imprison, those to whom all houses and hearts should be opened; 2. Scorn, despise in word and act, those to whom men are bound to show the greatest respect and love; 3. Kill, those for whom the longest life should be desired.Christianity is offered to us without merit.The wisdom of God knows even how to derive good from evil.The Jews contempt for the gospel sent it over to the Gentiles.All without distinction are invited.Different receptions of the invitation to the kingdom of heaven.The goodness and earnestness of the call of mercy.

Hofacker:The righteous judgment of God upon those who obey not the gospel.Reinhard:The predominant spirit of every age furnishes its own pretexts for repelling the appeals of the gospelJ. J. Rambach:The vain hope of false Christians.

[Comp. also Matthew Henry, on the parable of the Marriage Feast, on which he is quite full and rich for practical purposes.P. S.]

Footnotes:

[1][So It is called in the headings of the English Bible, to distinguish it from the parable of the Great Supper in Luk 14:16-24. Sometimes it is called less appropriately the parable of the Wedding Garment, which after all is only an episode in it.P. S.]

[2][Even Theophylact, Calvin, and Maldonatus maintain the Identity of the two parables; while Olshausen, Stier, Nast. Alford. Trench, and Owen agree with Lange in keeping their distinct Comp. the apt remarks of Trench on the difference and against Strauss, p. 208 sqq.P. S.]

[3][The Edinb. trsl. here again reverses the sense of the original by adding: but we have no Scripture warranty for this, and then omitting the following sentence altogether. A translator has no right to change the views of his author, unless he state that he has done so.P. S.]

[4][Falsely credited to Lisco in the Edinb. trsl. with the omission of all the names representing this view.P. S.]

[5][The Edinb. trsl., which usually retains the language of the Authorized Version, even whore Dr. Langes version and comments require an alteration, falsely gives the text in this case: My supper is Ready, and thereby contradicts both the English Version and Dr. Langes comment. The term: , from , early, means properly an early meal, but generally a late breakfast, lunch, prandium, taken about midday, comp. Joseph. Antiq. v. 4, 2 (while the early breakfast, taken at sunrise, was called ), and is uniformly rendered dinner In the E. V. (Mat 22:4; Luk 11:38; Luk 14:12): was the principal meal taken early In the evening, after the work and heat of the day, as now in large cities, and is always rendered supper (Mar 6:21; Luk 14:12; Luk 14:16-17; Luk 14:24; Joh 12:2; Joh 13:2; Joh 13:4; Joh 21:20; 2Co 11:20. the Lords supper; Rev 19:9, the marriage supper of the Lamb), except In three passages, where it Is rendered feast (Mat 23:6; Mar 12:39; Luk 20:46). The corresponding verbs are translated: to dine and to sup. Some have proposed to translate , breakfast, and , dinner. But it would sound very strange to the English ear accustomed to the admirable idiom of his good Anglo-Saxon Bible to hear of the Lords dinner, and the marriage dinner of the Lamb. In such cases the common sense and traditional reverence of English Christendom would tolerate no alteration. In our passage the is the beginning of the marriage feasts, which culminate in the marriage supper of the lamb, Rev 19:9.P. S]

[6][In German: in dem hierarchischen, Gemeinwesen, which the Edinb. edition has rendered: ecclesiastical nature!]

[7][Alford and Trench refer to the city, i.e., not the city of the murderers (Jerusalem), but the city in which the marriage was supposed to be celebrated. Trench, p. Matt 220: We must not permit our English highways to suggest places in the country as distinguished from the town; the image throughout is of a city, in which the rich and great and noble, those naturally pointed out as a kings guests, refuse his banquet whereupon the poor of the same city are brought in to share it.P. S.]

[8][In the fourth edition of his Commentary, Meyer adds: This was tube obtained gratuitously by faith for the sake of the death of Christ: but the knowledge of this doctrine was reserved to the later development of the Christian faith. Similarly Alford: The garment is to imputed and inherent [?] righteousness of the Lord Jesus, put on symbolically in Baptism (Gal 3:27), and really by a true and living faith (Gal 3:26),without which none can appear before God in His kingdom of glory;Heb 12:14; Php 3:7-8; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10; Rom 13:14 :which truth could not he put forward here, but at its subsequent manifestation threw its great light over this and other such simllitudes and expressions.P. S.]

[9][Compare a so what Trench address from modern travellers and modern customs in the East, which are likely to date from very ancient times, p. 225. Horace tells of Lucullus (Epist. 1:6, 40) that he had not less than five thousand mantles in his wardrobe. Chardin says of the king of Persia that he Rave away an infinite number of dresses (Voyage en perse, vol. 3. p. 230). Owen, like Lange, urges the obvious impossibility that the guests, especially the poor ones, could provide themselves with costly garments In so short a time, unless they wore ready in the kings palace. It must be remembered. he says, that these guests were Invited and brought In from the very highways. along which they were passing for pleasure or business, and It is very unreasonable to suppose that they were, or could be, provided, at so short a time, with appropriate dresses. Many of them wore doubtless too poor to meet the expense of such a garment, had lime been given them to procure one. On the other hand, we have abundant evidence, that kings were provided with extensive wardrobes, from which each invited guest was furnished with a suitable garment.P. S.]

[10][The Fathers, the Roman Catholic and some Protestant commentators, understand the wedding garment to mean charity or holiness; most of the older Protestant commentators, faith; John Gerhard, Olshausen, Trench, Brown, and others, combine the two in the conception of Christ, or righteousness, both in its root of faith and its flower of charity, or faith as the Investing power, charity as the invested robe, in putting on Christ (Gal 3:27). Comp. Isa 61:10 : I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for He hath clothed me with the garment of salvation, He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself if with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with jewels. Trench explains It of righteousness In its largest sense, the whole adornment of the new and spiritual man, Including the faith without which it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6), and the holiness without which no man shall see Him (Heb 12:14), or like this guest, only see Him to perish at His presence: it is at once the faith which Is the root of all graces, the mother of all virtues, and likewise those graces and those virtues themselves. A singular curiosity In modern exegetical the interpretation of Wordsworth, who soberly refers the wedding garment to baptism as the germ of all the means of spiritual grace, and applies the rebuking , friend, especially to the Quakers or Friends, because they reject the visible signs and means of spiritual grace, provided for and prescribed to all by the Great King! The white baptismal garment. In the ancient church must serve as an illustration in the absence of proof.P. S.]

[11][In German: den Abfall vom Christenthum, from Christianity, nut of chritstendom, as the Edinb. trsl. has it, which would require la German: den Abfall deb Christenheit.P. S.]

[38] Mat 21:25. . Lachmann and Tischendorf [not in the ed. of 1859] read: , after B., L., Z., etc. The latter reading is preferable, since the sanhedrists had to consult among themselves before giving a general answer.

[39] Mat 21:28. is omitted in many MSS. [So also in Cod. Sinait. and in the critical editions of Lachmann Tischen-dorf, Tregelles, and Alford.P. S.]

[40] Mat 21:30.[ is the correct reading, sustained by the best authorities, including Cod. Sinait., instead of the Recepta: , which after appears as a gloss. Dr. Lange, however, retains with Lachmann (who follows the Vatican Cod.), and makes no mention of the other reading.P. S.]

[41] Mat 21:30.[, , is, of course, elliptical, to which , or , or must be supplied. The various readings: , , , , and others, are to be traced to the desire of amending an apparently incomplete phrase.P. S.]

[42] Mat 21:31.Lect. rec.: . [So also Tischendorf and Alford.] Lachmann [and Tregelles] after B., D.: ; still others: novissimus, This reading is connected with the reversion of the answers it Mat 21:29-30, but the sense remains the same. Comp. for different views Meyer. [Comp. also the note of Conant in favor of , i.e., the later, the tardier one, he who was behind the other in his compliance; which is descriptive, while merely identifies. The reversion of the order in some authorities may be easily accounted for by the error of a transcriber who thought that the parable must refer to the successive calling of Jews and Gentiles (as Origen, Chrysostom, and Jerome do), while it applies to two classes in the same nation.P. S.]

[43] Mat 21:32.Cod. B., al., Lachmann, [and Alford]: [for which Is retained by Tischendorf in the edition of 1889P. S.]

[44] Mat 21:33.[Lit: There was a man, a householder, , Lange: Es war sin Mensch, ein Gutsherr. All the critical editions omit (certain) after .P. S.]

[45] Mat 21:33.[ means: he went abroad (Lange: er zog ber Land), without reference to distance, as is implied in the far of the E. V.P. S.]

[46] Mat 21:34.[ , as distinct from .P. S.]

[47] Mat 21:37[ : , like the previous one after , referring to the householder as the subject of the sentence, and not to the vineyard, as in the E. V. See Meyer and Conant in loc.P. S.]

[48] Mat 21:37.[So Luther, Lange, and Conant, according to the emphatic form of the original: , …P. S.]

[49] Mat 21:38.[The critical authorities, including Cod. Sinait., and editions read: for , which eems to be a gloss.P. S.]

[50] Mat 21:39.Cod. D., al., in reverse order: they slew him and cast him out of the vineyard. A correction in keeping with a passionate proceeding. The order of the Recepta is better. The expulsion from the vineyard before the murder signifies the priestly excommunication and rejection which preceded the crucifixion.

[51] Mat 21:41.[ (=pessimos pessime) , a classic phrase of the purest Greek (petita ea purissimo sermone Grco, as Grotius observes). The paronomasia brings out the agreement of the deed and the punishment In German: er wird die Elenden elendiglich umbringen (Meyer); schlimm wird er die Schlimmen umbringen (Lange); ubel wird er die Ueblen (better: Uebelthter) vernichten (Ewald). In English we have no equivalent phrase. The rendering of the Authorized Version is as good as any I have seen. Dr. Conant retains it. Dr. Geo. Campbell (The Four Gospels, etc.) renders: he will put those wretches to a wretched death, which I have slightly altered in the text. The Rheims Version has: the naughty men he will bring to naught, after the Vulgate: Malos male perdet.P. S.]

[52] Mat 21:44.Omitted by Tischendorf without sufficient authority. [Meyer defends the words, and accounts for the omission by an overnight of a transcriber who passed from , at the close of Mat 21:43, at once to , at the close of Mat 21:44. Lachmann retains the verse, but in brackets.P. S.]

[53]Ver, 46.[Better: And they sought but they feared, , as in Mat 14:5, where the E. V. renders: And when he would hare put him to death, he feared the multitude.]

[54] Mat 21:46.[As in Mat 21:26, or: they counted him as a prophet, as the E. V. renders the same phrase in Mat 14:5.P. S.]

[55]Ch. 22 Mat 21:9.[, transitus and exitus (Durchgang and Ausgang, Passow), a way through and out, a crossing, fork of the roads, where many resort or pass; here a common outlet of the ways ( ) that lead into it, a thoroughfare. Lange translates it: Scheidewege, and , Strasen.P. S.]

[56] Mat 21:13.[The words: , take him away and, are omitted by Lachmann, Tregelles, Alford, and Lange in his Version (who, however, translates ), but retained by Tischendorf in the edition of 1859. See Tischendorf and Alford, Crit. apparatus.P. S.]

[57][Trench (50:100 p. 185) remarks on these three parables that notwithstanding their severe and threatening aspect, they are not words of defiance, but of earnest tenderest love, spoken with the intention of turning them, if possible, from their purpose, of saving them from the fearful outrage against His person which they were about to commit, and. of winning them also for the kingdom of God. The parable of the Two Sons is rather retrospective, while the two that follow, are prophetic also.P. S.]

[58][Not: that is, as the Edinb. transistor (Rev. Mr. Pops) has it, evidently mistaking the German namentlich for nmlich, and thereby confining the vineyard to the Jewish church, when Lange expressly means to apply it to the Christian church also, as the connection clearly shows. Such errors are very frequent In this translation, especially in. the few preceding and all the subsequent chapters.P. S.]

[59][So also Trench who refers the hedge to the law which Paul calls the middle wall of partition between the Jew and the Gentile (Eph 2:14), and which was a hedge both of separation from, and defence against, Gentile abominations and hostile foreign influence. He refers It at the same time to the geographical isolation of Palestine.P. S.]

[60][Irenus, Hilary, Ambrose, and others, take the winepress to be a symbol of the prophetic Institution.P. S.]

[61][So also Origen. Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Theophylact. and among modern commentators, Alford, Trench, and Wordsworth. See Eph 2:20-22.P. S.]

[62][The original substitutes the Greek Septuagint (which ought to be connected with the preceding ) for the Latin Vulgate,an obvious oversight (doubtless of the printer, who may have omitted Vulgate), which the Edinb. translator, as usual, faithfully and thoughtlessly copies.P. S.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

“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 thing, which if ye tell me, I in likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. (25) The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? (26) But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. (27) And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. (28) But what think ye? A certain 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 repented, and went. (30) And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. (31) Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, 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 the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him. (33) Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: (34) And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. (35) And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. (36) Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. (37) But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. (38) But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. (39) And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. (40) When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? (41) They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. (42) Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? (43) Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. (44) And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. (45) And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. (46) But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.”

The whole of our Lord’s discourse and reasoning is so plain, and self-evident, that I do not conceive it can be, in the smallest measure, necessary to enlarge upon it. I only detain the Reader, therefore, to remark upon the whole of what is here contained, that from our Lord’s giving the preference to publicans and harlots, to that of self-righteous Scribes and Pharisees, we may safely conclude that nothing was more offensive to the Lord of life and glory, than a frame of mind which, of all others, is more immediately levelled against the leading doctrines of his gospel. Oh! for grace to be always aware of the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees, which the Son of God himself declares to be hypocrisy. Luk 12:1 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 79

Prayer

Almighty God, thou dost see all things at once: there is nothing hidden from thine eyes: our hearts give up their secrets to thee as thou dost look upon us. All things are naked and open unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Thou art not searching for our faults, thou art looking for the return of our hearts to their harmony with thyself. Thy look has no fire of destruction in it, but is filled with the tears of tenderness, and often brightened by the expectation of loving hope. We have come to thine house to-day it is a step in the upward road, may we take the next, and all the rest following, and by steadfast perseverance be brought at last into the great eternal life.

We have come with hymns in our hearts and upon our lips because of thy care and love, thy pity and protection, and because our lives have been lived in thy goodness and have been held up by both thine hands, so that until this hour we have not fallen into the great darkness. We come to thee as the God of the Jew and of the Gentile, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and the Father of them that know thee not, and the Redeemer of the ends of the earth. We know thee by Jesus Christ thy Son: he spoke to us concerning thee, he called thee Father, he spake of thy love, he told us that he himself came to express it in daily humiliation, in the revelation of eternal truth, in living, in dying, in sacrifice, in resurrection, and in priesthood, so that we come to thee by the living way and the only path, and we find access to “thy throne of grace because of thy Son who died and rose again for us.

Thou hast led us by a way that we knew not, and by paths we had not known or understood. Thou hast found for us bread in the wilderness and water in desert places. From our youth upward thou hast been our security, a Light that none could extinguish and a Defence that none could violate. We live and move and have our being in the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. We bless thee that through innumerable faults and sins, through manifold infirmities and transgressions, thou dost still lead the struggling soul onward towards complete sonship and final deliverance from the power of sin. Thou art mindful of us in the darkness as well as in the light. When the devil falls upon us with all his power, thou dost not permit him to deal upon us the fatal stroke. We are living to praise thee: our days are a continuance of thy favour, and before our eyes thou hast held forth the enchantment of a heavenly prospect. Wherein thou hast left us for a moment, gather us with everlasting kindness, Return, O Lord, to the many thousands of Israel; come back again, thou whose absence is an infinite loss, and fill with light the space thou hast thyself created.

We can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth us. We love his name, we are bound to his cross, his life is our hope, his death our sacrifice. He is to us the First and the Last, who was and is and is to come, Head over all, pre-eminent in Heaven, reigning over the universe as over a very little thing. Fill us with the fulness of his grace, inspire us with a sacred ambition to penetrate still more deeply into the tender mysteries of his truth, and may the sweet gospel of his cross be our consolation in every hour of life, and our hope and our triumph in the hour and article of death.

We give ourselves to thee again, and we pray for one another in all tender words, that according to each man’s pain and need, some gift may be given from above. Send none away unblest, put in every man’s heart a new hope, inspire every soul with unusual gladness, may thy Holy Spirit be the light of our understanding, the fire of our love and the inspiration of our will and purpose. Sanctify all affliction, infirmity, pain, trouble, and all the manifold discipline of this weary life. May we be the stronger for our weakness, may the hours we spend in darkness give us greater appreciation of thy light. Be with our friends who are with us from a distance. Be with the stranger within our gates, may he find that this is none other than his Father’s house. Take away from him all sense of solitude, loneliness, and want of friendship, and seizing the idea of the universality of thy church, may he, by the power of sympathy and the divination of love, find in this house the fellowship of the saints.

Be with those who have gone away from us for a time, who are on the great sea, who are in far away lands, who think of us now and mentally unite their hymns with ours. The Lord’s benediction make the sea quiet, and the Lord’s smile make foreign lands as beautiful as home. Be with all little children: water thou the tender plants in thy garden, visit every nursery and speak some little word to little hearers, and be all through the house, in its uppermost places and in its lowest tenements, and from the highest to the lowest may there be a spirit of godly content and willing submission to thy purpose, and glad expectation of ultimate deliverance and coronation.

Speak with special graciousness to our sick ones, who can scarcely bear upon their cheek the breath of human love. Thou knowest the way to the sinking heart, thou canst speak to the closing ear; whilst life endures thy hold upon it is certain, and even when it passes away from our appeal, it stands but the freer and gladder in the inner light. Comfort those that mourn, may they be the richer for their tears, the stronger for their infirmities, and out of the buffeting of the wind, may they bring some solid and lasting strength.

This our prayer we pray in the one name, the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom we took and with wicked hands hanged upon a tree, and slew. Amen.

Mat 21:23-46

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 (always conferred by the scribes) dost thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?

24. And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.

25. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say. From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?

26. But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.

27. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell (a virtual abdication of their office). And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

28. But what think ye? A certain 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 afterwards he repented, and went.

30. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.

31. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, 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 the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward (did not even repent afterward), that ye might believe him.

33. Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

34. And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

35. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

36. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

37. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.

38. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance,

39. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

40. When the lord thereof of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

41. They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked (miserable) men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

42. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures ( Psa 118:22 ), The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

44. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken ( Isa 8:14-15 ): but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

45. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

46. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

The Application of Parables

Observe that the chief priests and the elders of the people came to Jesus as he was teaching. They interfered with his work, and punctuated that work with a question with which they intended to destroy the effect of the doctrine. It is so that our best work is often interrupted and vilely punctuated by those who wish to hinder its deepest and most holy success. An ancient writer has told us that the wolf does not fly at a painted sheep. The wolf understands his purpose, though it be cruel, much better. So the Scribes and Pharisees and the elders of the people did not fly at a Christ who was doing nothing they laid wait for him, and according to their own estimate of their opportunity did they summon their savage energy to work out its malign purpose. But when otherwise or otherwhere could they have come upon him at all? He was always working, he was always teaching, he did but lift up his head for one moment, and then his face glowed as if he had been looking into a furnace when he said, “Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” so that if evil-minded men had to come upon him at all, with any purpose of interrupting or destroying his work, they must of necessity come upon him in the intensity of a toil that seemed never to avail itself of relaxation.

How will he answer those men? First he will hear what they have to say to him. What is their question? The same question they have always been asking. They have but one question to ask who come thus to Christ. They may indeed devise for it a thousandfold variety of words, but centrally and substantially there is but one question which the enemy can ask for Christ “Who art thou, or by what authority dost thou work, or who gave thee this authority, or who is thy Father, or whence dost thou come?” He was the mystery of his time: he is the mystery of all time. He is there, and yet he seems to have no right to be there: his credentials are not written in official ink, or signed by the official hand, and yet there he stands, speaking revelations, working miracles, his smile a heaven, his frown a judgment, and people round about him in great thick files, asking who is he, whence came he, by what authority, quo warranto , who is this Man, and why does he speak these great thunder-blasts of judgment, or utter these quiet benedictions of light?

Observe how narrow is the question put to Christ. It is a question about authority. Men who ask narrow questions can never be in earnest upon great subjects. I venture thus to condense into one sentence what I might speak to you in words of many volumes. Coming to the Bible, coming to Christ, with any little, narrow, pedantic question, you never can grapple with the magnificent occasion or extract from the Book or the Man the vital secret.

Jesus will answer you according to your question. You yourself determine the speech of the Son of God; whenever you are prepared to begin he will begin with you. How he can tantalise, how he can test the inquirer, how he can spoil the spoiler, how he can hold up to suppressed ridicule the man who would come to him with taunting questions! If you have received no great broad gleaming answer of love and redemption from the Bible, it is because you have come to it with some little narrow question. Ask if the Book will submit itself to some theory of inspiration, and it may possibly mock you. Say to the Book, “I have a theory by which I would test thee,” and the Book will be dumb with silence you cannot break. But come frankly, with the nakedness of absolute moral destitution, without excuse or plea or self-defence, and knock with bruised fingers upon the door of your Father’s house, and angels will open it, and all the store of the house will be yours, and your very hunger will be turned into the supreme blessing of your life. Ye have not because ye ask not, or because ye ask amiss. Had these men of the text set themselves down like so many docile children saying, “O Peasant of Galilee, Man of Nazareth, Mystery of the time, yet gentle, wise, true, beneficent, tell us what is in thine heart,” he would have answered them as he answered Nicodemus. Nicodemus came to him in the dark, and Christ showed him all the wealth of the stars, and made the heaven so bright that it was no longer a nocturnal interview, but a conversation held in a light above the brightness of the sun. You would have more revelation if you had treated the Bible properly: you would have ampler entrance into the upper courts if you had gone to God with some bold prayer of penitence and high inspiration of expectant and contrite love.

Let us see how far Jesus Christ is true to the development through which we have watched him in all these studies. How will he answer men now? His teaching was always determined by the time and circumstances surrounding him. Look how true he is to himself. He is still going to make parables, but the parables represent him in a new light. When we studied the thirteenth chapter of this gospel, we thought we had passed through the picture-gallery of the church, and seen all its most beauteous representations of light and shade and hue and tone. We were charmed with the infinite suggestiveness and fertility of the Man’s invention and power of utterance. So when we closed the thirteenth chapter, we were as men who descended from a great gallery of divinely painted pictures, and behold in this very twenty-first chapter we have parables again. But observe how the Speaker of them has changed. In these parables you catch the tone of judgment : here prejudicial parables as well as parables illustrative of great historical and moral truth. Never can you catch this Man off his guard; his word is always true to his feeling. Nearer the cross now than ever he was before, his word is accentuated by sharper emphasis, and through all the beauty of his parable there gleams some forelight of the great judgment fire.

In these facts find the proof of the Lord’s deity. In such subtle consistency as this find at least the beginning of an argument which will land you in the conviction that, whilst never man spake like this Man, the unusualness of his speech came out of the unusualness of his nature. He was the Son of God, the only Revealer of the Father, his companion through all eternity, the Angel of the Covenant in one age, the Wisdom of another, the Coming One of all time God the Son.

Observe how he speaks to these men judicially, and how all the while he proceeds along the safe and obvious basis of reason and justice. These two parables, as well as the answer about John, are illustrations of the rational justice upon which God’s kingdom amongst men is based. “A certain 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 repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, the first!” He put a case before them which was apparently not religious. Here we find our right and title oftentimes, to occupy secular or outside ground, in illustrating and defending the gospel of Christ. In such parables as these, we find the range of the great Teacher’s tether. He is not bound within a few inches: he may take his stand on the uttermost point of the horizon, and finding an admission there he may apply it to the whole course and tenor of human life within the ample circle, until it creates a judgment-seat before which to try the sons of men.

Here is hope for some of us. The narrow technical mind can never repent. This comes out of the very necessity of the case. Narrowness and technicality never can get into the region of emotion. Find a man who is a stickler for a form of words, merely because it is venerable, and you find a man who is incapable of enthusiasm, and incapability of enthusiasm is only another form of the solemn truth that some men are incapable of repentance. Beware how you become the slaves of merely literal forms and special places and peculiar ceremonies: do not become men of the letter, after this narrow sense of the term. Here you find men who are anxious about mere authority they never can be other than purists and pedants. You may be correct and yet incorrect at the same time. You may be right and may be wrong in the very same breath. If a man should say that the earth stands still, he is right within given limits, and yet he totally misrepresents the condition of the earth when he puts it before his mind, and before the observation of others as a stationary body. Consider it well: the earth stands still and I can build upon it. So far you are literally correct, and yet it is not correct to represent the earth as standing still for one solitary moment. So a man may be a purist and a pedant in the letter, and may know nothing about the infinite beauty and suggestiveness and redeemingness of the inner gospel of Christ.

Do not look at the literal authority, look at the things that are done, and if the things are done, acknowledge them, and do not say that you pay more respect to the authority than to the accomplishment of the fact. If a man is converted in his inner thinking, in his moral purpose, in the whole set and tone of his mind, I will not inquire into the authority of the man through whose instrumentality that grand fact was accomplished. He may have the right to say to me in all justice, “Believe me for the work’s sake.” That was Jesus Christ’s own appeal. When a man comes before you with nothing but authority, and no issues follow to attest and complete it, then set light by what he terms his credentials.

Now these men were men of authority, the victims of tradition, the creatures of conventionality, and therefore it was impossible for them ever to change their minds. Take care how you join that company: you will be clever but not great, you will have skill within a limited scope, but to your ability there will be no range, no mystery of distance, no suggestiveness of perspective you will be simply strategic, clever, skilful, acrobatic, but wanting in the infinite genius that lays hold of God at unexpected places, and finds tabernacles for Him where others had suspected but the wastes of the wilderness.

On the other hand the impulsive man is always repenting. He said at first, “I will not.” That was impulsive. I knew by the very urgency of his tone that he was a better man than he represented himself to be. If he had uttered that sentence slowly but with deliberate, lingering emphasis, I should have had but little confidence in his change but no sooner was the proposition made to him that he should go and work in the vineyard, than flashingly, with the instancy of lightning, he said, “I will not.” I knew by his tone that he would go! There are some men that misrepresent themselves that cannot be understood as to their furthest and deepest meaning. Have faith in some kinds of bad men. Have no faith in some kinds of so-called good men. Understand the character in its inner essence and substance, and then, though there be a thousand infirmities and manifold positive sins, as in the case of Abraham and David and Peter, and all the great princes and leaders of the Church, there will be such an ultimate attestation that the divine seed was in the heart as no true witness can dispute or contravene.

Do I speak to any man who has wildly told God that he would not be good? I have faith in that man. Let us cheer him: I like him in many aspects of his character: he did not mean the rudeness or the violence or the blasphemy he will think better of it and come to better terms. Do I speak to some who are always falling down, who begin to pray and forget midway what they intended to say? Do I speak to any poor bruised, broken heart, that is always bringing itself right into collision with some cruel obstacle or hindrance? I would speak comfortably to such. I have known such among the very best people in the world. Do not be discouraged or cast down. You ask no little peddling questions about authority, you do not go into the question of official ink and prescriptive signature you are real, and you want reality, and when you have done your worst, no man condemns you so much as you condemn yourself. I shall find you one day with your eyes melted into great hot tears, standing a little way outside the door, asking if after all you may not come in and come in you shall, come in you will! If men were turned out because of errors and sins like yours, heaven itself would be but a wooden place filled with wooden saints. No, in you and through you Christ shall come into his great broad human inheritance. Is the seed in you, is the right purpose in you, when you sin do you judge yourself and send yourself to hell? When you have got wrong do you sentence your soul to a lake of fire and brimstone where the devils are and the hot chains and the eternal burnings? If so, Christ shall yet have hold of you none shall pluck you out of his hand. Out upon those who cry for mere authority and stand upon official conventionalism in the things pertaining to this inner kingdom; and a welcome, broad as the firmament, bright as the sun, to every prodigal heart that comes in and says, “I said I would not go, but I want to come, after all. Open the door and let me in.” He will work well because he means it well.

“Hear another parable,” said Christ, which was inviting the men into a second thunderstorm. Hear another parable it was asking them to bind themselves again to the whipping-post till he scourged them with thongs of scorpions. He calls it a parable it burns like a judgment. He says it is a picture, but as they look, the fire bursts out of it, and scorches their beholding faces. In every Gospel there is a judgment, as in every offer of mercy there is the possibility of a development of obstinacy that will end in penalty. Hear another parable. If he had said so to us in the thirteenth chapter of the gospel, we should have said, “Yes, and gladly ten thousand more, for they are like new stars hung up on the background of night’s gloom,” but now we hesitate. Another parable? Another fire, another judgment, another revelation of ourselves to ourselves!

Then comes the parable of the householder who planted the vineyard, claimed the fruit, sent his servants for it, last of all despatched his son to bring the fruit of the husbandmen, who acted rudely, violently, and with fatal cruelty. Then said Jesus, “What shall be done to these men?” It was another secular instance, it was another instance of his extra-ecclesiastical or theological reasoning, and these men, who were sharp in the marketplace, clever in following the lines of an analogy, and a jagged kind of rude justice towards ill-behaving servants, admitted that if the case were as the Speaker put it, there was nothing for those miserable husbandmen but to be destroyed. Jesus said, “Have ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes”? The rejection was but for the moment, but God’s elections will come up in the outgo and expenditure of the ages. He works by centuries, he breathes aeons and epochs of a thousand years apiece, but he surely brings his purpose to its culmination.

He did not himself apply the matter further. When they began to think of it, they said, “He means us. Kill him. We dare not, or the people would kill us.” Sometimes in judging a case of human justice, we award the penalty to ourselves, and inflict the judgment upon our own hearts. Let us take care lest we bring upon ourselves the double damnation of admitting the logic in a secular case and endeavouring to elude its application in spiritual instances.

Still he is judge then; and yet I could not leave these parables with any hope, if I did not search further into them to see if the dear, sweet-souled, loving-hearted Christ were not in them somewhere not in the authority, not in the son that would go and did not, not in the wicked husbandmen yet he must be here somewhere, I know he must even yet speak some sweet gospel word. Here it is: “The publicans and the harlots believed him: the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you: the kingdom of God shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” There is the same Christ, the Christ that cast out devils, the Christ that gave a new chance in life to the woman taken in adultery, the Christ that expelled from the heart of Mary Magdalene the tenants that diabolised her. This is the Christ of hope this is the Man that dined with publicans and sinners. Fearful as coming from his lips at that time this utterance to the priests, the chief-priests, the elders of the people, as who should say, “Gentlemen, so-called in your own esteem, you who hold the keys of the church and the writings of the sanctuary, ye shall never go into the secret, sacred place, but shall be driven out, and publicans, sinners, harlots; bruised, wounded prodigals, naked, shoeless, coatless, penniless all tears, all sorrow with such outcasts shall God fill his house, and ye proud mockers shall be damned.”

Selected Notes

Mat 21:27 “And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was.” “They answered.” Wicked regard not a lie, serving their purpose. ” Could not tell.” Gr. they did not know.

He compelled them to pronounce their own sentence, as incompetent to fill Moses’ seat.

If they cannot answer one here, can they a thousand? Job 9:3 . Caught in a hard alternative; extricated by an act of desperation.

They were thus convicted by all of gross hypocrisy.

Elements of their future vengeance were slowly gathering.

Before the Lord, all the world must keep silence. Hab 2:20 .

These “great knowers” who have always their “we know” at hand, for once, after their arrogant question, say with shame, in the presence of the people, ” We know not.”

Many a so-called “honest doubter,” against his own conviction, resembles them, i.e., they know it well, but ” will not say it.”

Thousands will say anything, rather than ” we are wrong.”

Gehazi, Ananias, and Sapphira have more imitators than Peter or Paul.

The unrenewed often feel more than they confess.

Knowing the Gospel true, they want courage to confess it.

They know Christianity is right, but are too proud to say it.

They pretend to judge Christ’s mission, and cannot tell even that of John.

Those who imprison the truth stifle conviction.

This declaration made them cease to be a Sanhedrim.

After this they were to Jesus only as usurpers.

The people could have answered without hesitation.

Rulers’ refusal showed a want of courage and honesty.

Jesus and John were not their kind of prophets.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XVII

THREE QUESTIONS AND CHRIST’S ANSWERS

Harmony, pages 147-154 and Mat 21:23-22:33 ; Mar 11:27-12:27 ; Luk 20:1-40

This section commences on page 147 of the Harmony, near the bottom. Before its special exposition let us consider several introductory thoughts:

First, It is a part of a great day in the life of our Lord. We have already noted one great day’s work in Galilee, and a little later we considered another great day, and this one makes the third. The transactions of this one twenty-four hour day covers everything from page 146 to page 172 of the Harmony. If we reckoned according to the Jewish method of days, from sunset to sunset, we would have to stop at page 168.

To obtain some general idea of the tremendous work of this day we must group its events:

Jesus walked from Bethany to the Temple two miles.

On the way he gave the lesson concerning the withering of the fig tree.

On arriving at the Temple he began walking about and teaching. Here the Sanhedrin pressed on him this question of authority: “What sort of authority have you for doing these things and from whom did you get it?” Their inquiry looks to the nature of his authority and its author. To that question he makes an elaborate reply. Then commences the series of questions resulting from a conspiracy on the part of his several enemies with a view to ensnare him or tangle him in his talk in one way or another that would make him odious either to the authorities or to some part of the people. The object of the second question is to put him either in opposition to Herod and Rome, and thus make him amenable to the civil authority, or to the people, and thus destroy his popularity. This was a question concerning the tribute money. Then comes a question concerning the resurrection, the answer to which they hoped would array him against either the Sadducees or the Pharisees. This was followed by a question as to the kind of commandment that should be considered greatest. The form of this question resulted from a conference among themselves, and they selected a lawyer to propound it. To all of these questions he gave the most marvelous replies, demonstrating his supreme wisdom and rendering them dumb. Then follows his last public discourse, in which he makes a terrible indictment against the scribes and Pharisees, denounces an awful penalty upon the Jewish nation, but holds out a glorious future hope.

Then follows his lesson on giving suggested by the widow’s contribution to the treasury of the Temple. Then, after he left the Temple and got as far as Mount Olivet going to Bethany, came his great discourse concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and his final advent in response to the questions of his disciples. This great discourse is recorded in Matthew 24-25; Mar 13 ; Luk 21 .

Following this comes a lesson concerning his death nearly at hand. In the meantime a meeting of the Sanhedrin is held concerning the way to put him to death. We have a thrilling account of a feast given in his honor when he arrives at Bethany, at which he is anointed by Mary, and where he delivered a great lesson concerning that anointing. Following this anointing Judas returns to Jerusalem and offers for a price to betray him to the Pharisees. All of these events thus grouped happened in one day. The strain upon both his physical and mental resources must have been very great.

Second, The next introductory thought lies in the obvious fact that here it is Bethany versus Jerusalem, an obscure village against the Holy City. His headquarters are at Bethany and every morning he goes into the city and teaches in the Temple, and every afternoon late he goes back to Bethany. The whole narrative here is very lively.

Third, We cannot fail to see the steps of a triple development. The malice of his enemies ripens rapidly. We see also the development in the clearness of Christ’s exposure of their murderous attempt. We see the rapid development in the spiritual downfall of Judas Iscariot and how it culminated.

Commencing then on page 147 of the Harmony, in the text of Mat 21:23-22:14 , Mar 11:27-12:12 , and Luk 20:1-19 , let us consider in detail such of the events of this great day, as come within this discussion. We see him walking and teaching in the Temple. One who is familiar with Greek history may recall how Aristotle was accustomed to teach in the same manner, walking about with his disciples under the colonnades of certain buildings; hence the name, “peripatetic philosophy.” He may also recall from Greek history the method of Socrates, who taught by asking and answering questions, and the scene of Paul at the marketplace in Athens.

FIRST QUESTION The scribes and Pharisees commenced the catechism with this twofold question: “By what sort of authority do you teach and do these things and who gave it to you?” They were accustomed to give authority to the rabbis before they taught. No man could expect to be heard in teaching who could not show the authority by which he taught. Their questions, however, had already been answered by our Lord, as appears from Joh 12:44-50 . I will quote:

And Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that beholdeth me beholdeth him that sent me. I come a light into the world that whosoever believeth on me may not abide in the darkness. And if any man hear my sayings, and keep them not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, bath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I spake not from myself, but the Father that sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life eternal; the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak.

Here very plainly and explicitly he has given a reply to that question as to the sort of authority under which he acted and the author of that authority. He had divine authority for all he said and did. They knew well enough what he had taught concerning his being sent of the Father, and there was no need to propound that question this time, but let us see how he replies now.

He replies by a counter question. This was an acceptable method of rejoinder by both Pharisee and Greek philosophers: “I also will ask you a question; and tell me the baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men?” After consideration they replied that they did not know. Their answer was insincere, for in their communing they had said, “If we say that John’s baptism is from heaven, then he will say, Why did not ye believe him when he testified of me and baptized me as the Messiah and pointed to me, saying, Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world!” Hence to answer that the baptism of John was from heaven would be to answer the question that they had just propounded to him. On the other hand, if they had answered that it was from men, then the people would rise up against them, for the people believed that John was a prophet, and here they would be defeated in the object that they had in view, viz., to destroy his popularity with the people. As the object of their questioning was to break his power with the people so that they could arrest him safely, we can readily see the dilemma in which he placed them by his counter question. So they had to stand there dumb before the people. To complete their discomfiture he then goes on to show that John was sent from heaven and that the people who believed in John were wiser than these religious teachers propounding questions to him: “The publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God ahead of you. They justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John, and you, when you saw it, repented not yourselves that you might believe.” In this way he made it plain that it was not a desire upon their part to know his authority) but their question was one of guile and malice. Nor is he yet through with them upon this question of authority. He continues to press home upon them their own wickedness by a parable. A man had two sons. To the first he said, “Son, go along and work to-day in the vineyard,” and he answered and said, “I will not,” but afterward he repented and went. He said also to the other son, “Son, go and work in the vineyard,” and he replied, “I will, sir,” but went not. Having stated this parable he forces them to say which was the obedient son, the one who first said, “I will not” and afterwards obeyed, or the one who said, “I will,” and did not obey. Having extorted from them the reply that the first was the obedient son, he then applied his lesson. Here are two classes of people: First, these publicans and harlots refused to obey God at first, going into open wickedness and wrong, then later repented and obeyed God and he accepted them. The other class, consisting of the scribes and Pharisees, are all the time saying, “I will, I will,” but their professions are empty; they never obey.

He now drives them like a wolf into a final corner by another parable the parable of the wicked husbandman. His object is to utterly expose the malice underlying all their opposition to him. They could not misunderstand the application of this parable. It is a perfect arraignment of the Jewish nation and of its leaders. Following the old time Jewish imagery he tells of a vineyard as one of the prophets hath said, “I brought a vine out of Egypt, and planted it and watered it and cultivated it, and what more could I do to my vineyard than I have done?” Now these husbandmen who had charge of that vineyard were refusing to its owner its land dues. The prophets who had been sent unto them were maltreated, their message rejected, some of them were killed, some sawn asunder, some stoned. Then at last the heir comes and they take counsel to kill him in order to make permanent their authority over the vineyard. His purpose is to show that the most inveterate unbelief, hardness of heart, and murderous malice are evinced by these scribes rind Pharisees. From that day until the present the unbelieving Jews have sought to evade the point of our Lord’s great indictment, that they have murdered the Prince of Glory, their own Messiah.

Many years ago, when I was a young pastor, a Jewish rabbi came to Waco and offered to prove from the Gospels themselves that the Jews were not guilty of the death of Christ; that he was punished according to the forms of the Jewish law. And he offered to prove this if any church in the city would offer him their pulpit. I accepted on condition that I be allowed to reply to him, and he would get his people to hear my reply, as I would get my people to hear his discussion. The arrangements were made and when he delivered his address he followed very closely an account of the trial of Jesus Christ given by Mr. Joseph Salvador, a physician and learned Jew, who had published at Paris a work entitled A History of the Institution of Moses and the Jewish People. In this history there is a chapter on the administration of justice. Then follows an application of the principles set forth in that chapter to the most memorable trial in history that of Jesus Christ. Doubtless this rabbi supposed that nobody in Waco had ever heard of that book. When I began my reply the following night I recited the facts concerning Mr. Salvador’s book and that this rabbi’s speech was merely a series of quotations from that book, and then I gave the reply to Mr. Salvador’s book by a distinguished French lawyer, Mr. Dupin. Mr. Dupin, with the utmost courtesy and respect, grinds to fine powder Mr. Salvador’s argument. I then told the audience that they would find both Mr. Salvador’s argument, which was the same as that to which the audience had listened, and Mr. Dupin’s reply in an appendix to Greenleaf’s Testimony of the Evangelists.

I may refer also to a discussion by Mayor Gaynor of New York, and I mention the most exhaustive discussion by a great lawyer: The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer’s Standpoint two volumes, by v. M. Chandler of the New York Bar. While fully agreeing with Mr. Chandler in his broad sympathies with all persecuted Jews, by any country” or religion, I utterly dissent from him on one capital point which is also both a legal and a historical one, my own conviction being that nations as well as individuals are responsible for their actions and the actions of their leaders, and more so in this case than in any other in history. There can be no serious question here. Jesus of Nazareth was pursued to death murderous death contrary to the forms of the Jewish law. This is exactly our Lord’s indictment, and in this argument of the wicked husbandman he puts the final point upon this indictment, forces these scribes and Pharisees to answer this question: “When, therefore, the Lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto these husbandmen?” And they are compelled to answer: “He will miserably destroy these miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their season.”

Our Lord seeks to prepare all of his audience for this immense transition, the taking away of the kingdom of God from the Jews and the giving of that kingdom to the Gentiles. He puts the capstone upon his application by a citation from the prophets, “The stone which the builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner.” Isaiah had said, “Behold, I lay for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone.” Now our Lord’s charge is that this stone, which God himself had prepared for the foundation, they rejected, and then he announces their doom: “Whoever stumbles on that stone, whoever through unbelief in this life, rejects Christ, shall be broken. But upon whom that stone shall fall, he shall be ground to powder.”

He follows up this victory by another parable, the parable of the marriage feast. We have already seen Luke’s account of a similar parable, and yet in some things dissimilar: The parable of the gospel feast. The distinction between the two is very important. A student should put them side by side. The gospel feast is at the beginning, illustrating the preaching of the gospel to the Jews. The marriage feast presents not the beginning, but the culmination. While the Jews counted a betrothal as binding as marriage, yet there was a distinction between the betrothal and the consummation of the marriage. The object of the gospel feast is to betroth Christ. The object of the marriage feast is to show the consummation of that betrothal. Paul says, “I have espoused you as a chaste virgin unto Christ.” Everybody is invited under the terms of this gospel feast to be betrothed to Christ, but in this marriage feast the rejection is final, and as a penalty the king himself sends his armies and destroys the murderers and burns their city. Such is the fate of Jerusalem. Already the shadow of the coming armies of Titus on the nation appears. In less than forty years from the time that Jesus speaks this parable, Titus takes Jerusalem, since which time they have had no home, no Temple, and no national government.

This argument clearly shows that on the rejection of the Jews the heralds of the cross are to go to the highways and the hedges. There is one special incident in the parable a man who outwardly accepts the invitation to the wedding feast, but attends without a wedding garment is cast into the outer darkness. He represents the formal professor of religion; the one who accepts God’s invitation so far as externals are concerned, but who makes no inward preparation. Thus by parable after parable Christ makes an end to his answer to their first question, “By what sort of authority do you teach and who gives it?”

SECOND QUESTION The conspiracy underlying the second question and the motive prompting it is thus expressed by Luk 20:20 : “And they watched him, and sent forth spies, who feigned themselves to be righteous, that they might take hold of his speech, so as to deliver him up to the rule and to the authority of the governor.” There were two political parties. One was called the Herodians, that is, those who accepted the Roman government and its administration through Herod. The Sadducees belonged to this party. The Pharisees constituted the bulk of the other party. Their object was to free their nation from any semblance of dependence upon Rome. The issue between these parties was very sharp. Everywhere there was alignment for one or the other. One who committed himself to the Herodians deprived himself of favor with what is called the patriotic party led by the Pharisees, and one who openly aligned himself with them secured the enmity of the ruling party. Led by malice they feigned great love for Jesus and respect for his teaching and brought him a question concerning the poll tax or tribute money. With flattering words they thus introduce it: “Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest not for any one: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us, therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not?” If he had answered, “Yes,” this would have turned the people against him. If he had said, “No,” this would have made him obnoxious to the authorities and would have furnished them the ground for preferring a charge of treason. It is a well laid plot. The question was a puzzling one to most of the Jewish people. They were a holy nation enslaved to a heathen nation. Could they as God’s own people pay this poll tax? History tells us that not long after Christ was crucified a rebellion took place on this very subject. A man named Judas in Galilee raised an insurrection, and Barabbas, about whom we will learn later, was not so much a common robber and murderer as he was a representative of this patriotic idea of freeing the nation from the iniquitous government of Rome. Our Lord does not hesitate to make a reply to their question. He passes no judgment on the righteousness of the Roman rule, but he recognizes the fact that they are the rulers of Judea. His mission is not a political one, but a spiritual one. He asks for the tribute money. Holding it in his hand he says, “Whose is this image and superscription?” They answer, “Caesar’s.” He replies, “Render, therefore, unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

This reply shows that he would not head a political faction; that his kingdom was not of this world; that while he did not justify the Roman government, he recognized the fact that they were the rulers of the nation and he made it the occasion of laying down a principle of worldwide application by his people. Paul repeats it later, “Render tribute to whom tribute is due.” Peter repeats it, “Honor the king,” not that he expresses a preference for a monarchial form of government over a democratic, but that it is not the object of the Christian religion primarily to teach forms of human government, but to save men; to deal with the spiritual condition of the people. The answer of our Lord to this second question, has, throughout all history, been the guiding principle of his people.

THIRD QUESTION The Sadducees came to the front with a question that has hitherto puzzled their adversaries. They do not believe in the immortality of the soul. They are materialists. They think when a man dies that is the last of him, and, of course, they do not believe in the resurrection of the body. The Pharisees believe in the immortality of the soul and in the resurrection of the body. The Sadducees present what they consider an unanswerable question, citing a supposititious case of a man dying without an heir and under the Mosaic law his brother taking his place as a husband of the widow, and that brother dying without an heir, and so on, until she had been the wife of seven brothers. Then she dies. Now, in the resurrection which one of the seven will be her husband? Of course, they did not believe that there would be any resurrection, but as the Pharisees were accustomed to teach that in the next world there would be marriages, and that earthly relations would be continued, to them the question was a puzzle. The Mohammedans also teach the continuance of sexual relations in the world to come: They hold out as an incentive the luxuries of sexual pleasures of paradise. Of course, it was agreed between the Pharisees and the Sadducees that this question should be propounded to our Lord. If he should answer in favor of the Sadducees that would turn against him all the people who followed the teachings of the Pharisees. If he should answer in favor of the Pharisees then the Sadducees, who were Herodians, fewer in number, but occupying the most of the offices, would have had ground of accusation against Christ. The Sadducees were the party in power. The object of the question was to put him between the upper and the nether millstones. He completely vanquishes both of them by his teaching that in the next world there is no marriage nor giving in marriage. Those who attain the resurrection state are sexless, as are the angels, not that they will be angels. But the present physical conditions of this life will not be continued in the other world. He does not mean that man and wife living long together on earth may not rejoice with each other in heaven, remembering the lessons of time, but that the physical conditions of married life do not continue in the world to come. This answer both breaks the points of the question of the Sadducees and corrects the erroneous doctrine of the Pharisees concerning the conditions of the future life. No Pharisee with the views that he held could have met the difficulties of the question of the Sadducees. Our Lord now turns upon the Sadducees with a most crushing rejoinder. “You deny the resurrection of the body. You err upon two points: You neither know the scriptures nor the power of God.” He then proves from the Pentateuch the resurrection of the dead by the words of God to Moses: “I am the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” He is not the God of dead people, but of living people. Abraham is dead only as to his body. He lives and is with God. This argument is from the greater to the lesser; if God be the Saviour of the soul of Abraham he will be the Saviour of his body, rescuing it from the grave. Some commentators have been puzzled to see the application of Christ’s answer to the resurrection of the body. But our Lord was wiser than commentators. His one citation destroys both errors of the Sadducees. They held that there is no immortality of the soul. He disproves that. They held that there is no resurrection of the body. He disproves that.

QUESTIONS

1. What are the three introductory thoughts to this chapter?

2. What is the greatest day’s work in the life of our Lord, and what two other very great days in his life?

3. Give a detailed outline of this great day’s work.

4. What are the parallels between the methods of Christ and Paul in their teaching and the methods of the Grecian philosophers?

5. With what double question did the scribes and Pharisees open the discussion with Christ in the Temple?

6. How had Jesus already answered these questions?

7. How did Christ answer them here and how did this answer place them in a dilemma?

8. Do you know any other people who have been puzzled to account for John’s baptism?

9. How does Christ complete their discomfiture?

10. How does he further press on them their own wickedness in a parable?

11. How does he drive them into a final corner by another parable?

12. Give an account of the controversy which occurred in Waco between a Jewish rabbi and the author.

13. Where may be found the substance of the rabbi’s speech and the reply?

14. What other discussion cited and commended and what one point from the prophets and what application?

15. What great purpose of Christ toward his audience, what citation of dissension?

16. How does he further show their doom in a parable?

17. What other parable similar and what points of contrast and distinction between the two?

18. What historical event clearly foreshadowed by this parable?

19. Who represented by the man that “had not on the wedding garment”?

20. What were the two political parties in the time of Christ, what did each stand for, how did one of these parties try to entangle Christ, and how did Christ in his reply, outwit them?

21. What does this reply show, what principle here enunciated by Christ and how recognized afterward by Paul and Peter?

22. What distinctive tenets of the Sadducees, how did they conspire with the Pharisees to entrap Christ, what dilemma in which they attempted to place him and how did he escape?

23. How does Christ prove the resurrection in this connection and what is the argument?

24. How does this citation disprove the two main tenets of the Sadducees and thus silence them?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

Ver. 23. And when he was come into the temple ] Not into the inn or food house, though he had been so hungry by the way. He forgot that; the zeal of God’s house had eaten him up; it was his meat and drink to do the will of his heavenly Father; this he preferred before his necessary food. And truly a man would wonder what a deal of work he did up in these three days’ time, before his apprehension. All those sermons and discourses set down by Matthew fromMat 21:23-46Mat 21:23-46 ; Mat 22:1-46 ; Mat 23:1-39 ; Mat 24:1-51 ; Mat 25:1-46 ; Mat 26:1-75 ; by Mark from Mar 11:1-33 ; Mar 12:1-44 ; Mar 13:1-37 ; Mar 14:1-72 , by Luke from Luk 20:1-47 ; Luk 21:1-38 ; Luk 22:1-71 ; and by John from Joh 12:1-50 ; Joh 13:1-38 ; Joh 14:1-31 ; Joh 15:1-27 ; Joh 16:1-33 ; Joh 17:1-26 ; Joh 18:1-40 , were delivered by him in these three last days of his liberty. He dispatched them with speed, as if he had been loath to have been taken with his task undone. To teach us to get up our work, and to work out our salvation; not work at it only. Lazy spirits aspire not to immortality. The twelve tribes served God instantly day and night, and found all they could do little enough, Act 26:7 .

Came unto him as he was teaching ] Otiosum vel tacitum facile tulissent, saith an interpreter. If he would have been quiet or silent, they would never have questioned him. A wolf flies not upon a painted sheep; we can look upon a painted toad with delight. It is your active Christian that is most spited and persecuted. Luther was offered to be made a cardinal, if he would be quiet. He answered, No, not if I might be pope; and defends himself thus against those that thought him (haply) a proud fool for his refusal, Inveniar sane superbus, et modo impii silentii non arguar. (Epis. ad Staune.) Let me be counted fool or anything, said he, so I be not found guilty of cowardly silence. The Papists, when they could not rule him, railed at him, and called him an apostate. Confitetur se esse apostatam, sed beatum et sanctum, qui fidem diabolo datam non servavit. (Epis. ad Spalatinum.) He confesseth the action, and saith, I am indeed an apostate, but a blessed and holy apostate, one that had fallen off from the devil. They called him devil, but what said he? Prorsus Satan est Lutherus, sed Christus vivit et regnat. Amen. Luther is a devil; be it so, but Christ liveth and reigneth, that is enough for Luther. So be it.

By what authority doest thou these things? ] They saw that their kingdom would down, their trade decay, if Christ should be suffered thus to teach and take upon him in the temple as a reformer. When Erasmus was asked by the elector of Saxony, why the pope and his clergy could so little abide Luther, he answered, for two great offences, viz. Ventres et culinas appeti, arcas exhauriri. Attigisse coronam papae, et monachorum ventres (Scult.), he had meddled with the pope’s triple crown, and with the monk’s fat paunches. Hinc illae lachrimae, hence all that hatred; and hence today those Popish questions to the professors of the truth: By what authority do ye these things? where had you your calling, your ordination? where was your religion before Luther? Whereunto it was well answered by one once, In the Bible, where yours never was.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

23 32. ] Mar 11:27-33 .Luk 20:1-8Luk 20:1-8 . OUR LORD’S AUTHORITY QUESTIONED. HIS REPLY. Now commences that series of parables, and discourses of our Lord with His enemies, in which He developes more completely than ever before His hostility to their hypocrisy and iniquity: and so they are stirred up to compass His death.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

23. . . . . . ] Mark and Luke add , and so make up the members of the Sanhedrim. It was an official message , sent with a view to make our Saviour declare Himself to be a prophet sent from God in which case the Sanhedrim had power to take cognizance of His proceedings, as of a professed Teacher. Thus the Sanhedrim sent a deputation to John on his appearing as a Teacher, Joh 1:19 . The question was the result of a combination to destroy Jesus , Luk 19:47-48 . They do not now ask, as in Joh 2:18 , ; for they had had many signs which are now included in their . The second question, . . ., is an expansion of .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 21:23-27 . Interrogation as to authority (Mar 11:27-33 , Luk 20:1-8 ), wherewith suitably opens the inevitable final conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders of the people.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Mat 21:23 . . . .: coming on the second day to the temple, the place of concourse, where He was sure to meet His foes, nothing loath to speak His mind to them. : yet He came to teach, to do good, not merely to fight. , by what sort of authority? the question ever asked by the representatives of established order and custom at epoch-making initiators. So the Judaists interrogated St. Paul as to his right to be an apostle. , vague ( cf. Mat 11:25 ) and comprehensive. They have in view all the offences of which Jesus had been guilty, throughout His ministry all well known to them whatever He had done in the spirit of unconventional freedom which He had exhibited since His arrival in Jerusalem. : the second question is but an echo of the first: the quality of the authority ( ) depends on its source. , this authority, which you arrogate, and which so many unhappily acknowledge. It was a question as to the legitimacy of an undeniable influence. That spiritual power accredits itself was beyond the comprehension of these legalists.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 21:23-27

23When He entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to Him while He was teaching, and said, “By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?” 24Jesus said to them, “I will also ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. 25The 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?” 26But if we say, ‘From men,’we fear the people; for they all consider John to be a prophet.” 27And 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.”

Mat 21:23 “the chief priests and elders of the people” Notice in Mat 21:15 they are called “chief priests” and “scribes.” These three groups made up the Sanhedrin. Whether they were an official or unofficial delegation is uncertain, but they represented the Jewish leadership. The phrase ” elders of the people” is unique to Matthew (cf. Mat 21:23; Mat 26:3; Mat 26:47; Mat 27:1).

“while He was teaching” Jesus taught under Solomon’s portico (cf. Act 3:11; Act 5:12) in the Court of the Gentiles within the Temple area. He was still trying to reach the Jewish leadership.

“‘By what authority are You doing these things'” This was the central question! “These things” could refer to the cleansing of the Temple (cf. Mat 21:12-16), Jesus’ rejection of oral tradition, or His public miracles. They could not deny the miraculous acts, so they attacked the source of His authority. Apparently the religious leaders of Jesus’ day thought Jesus was an extremely powerful demon possessed person (cf. Mat 12:24; Mar 3:22; Luk 11:15; Joh 7:20; Joh 8:48; Joh 8:52; Joh 10:20-21).

Mat 21:24-27 This discussion sets the stage for the three parables that follow. It shows the compromising position of the religious leaders. These men had been trying to catch Jesus on the “horns of a dilemma” for several months. Now He reversed their strategy.

Mat 21:24-26 There are three third class conditional sentences, which meant potential future action.

Mat 21:26 “‘a prophet'” See SPECIAL TOPIC: NEW TESTAMENT PROPHECY at Mat 11:9.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

temple = the Temple courts. Greek. hieron. See note on Mat 23:16.

what = what kind of.

authority. Greek. exousia. App-172.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

23-32.] Mar 11:27-33. Luk 20:1-8. OUR LORDS AUTHORITY QUESTIONED. HIS REPLY. Now commences that series of parables, and discourses of our Lord with His enemies, in which He developes more completely than ever before His hostility to their hypocrisy and iniquity:-and so they are stirred up to compass His death.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 21:23. 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?

Jesus knew that these men came to him for no good purpose, mad that willing were only trying to trip him up in his speech. He was always willing to teach when men were willing to learn, but he did not care to cast his pearls before swine. Therefore, mark the holy caution, the sacred ingenuity with which our Lord replied to these men.

Mat 21:24-27. And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

He carried the war into the enemys camp. He answered his accusers by asking them a question which they could not answer in either way without condemning themselves.

Mat 21:28-32. But what think ye? A certain 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 repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, 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. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

Those poor fallen women and degraded tax-gatherers practically said, by their conduct, We will not serve the Lord. Their past evil life had been a deliberate rejection of the authority of God; and yet, when John the Baptist came, they repented, and they believed. Each of them had said, like the elder son, I will not, yet they did it. But as for these chief priests and elders, who all their lives had been outwardly serving the Lord, and Saying, We will go and work in Gods vineyard. when John came, and pointed them to Gods own Son, they would not accept him. They had, just now, by refusing to tell whether the Lords messenger was from heaven or of men, again rejected him, and proved that they had not repented. They did not believe John, they had themselves confessed that it was so; and, therefore, out of their own mouths they were condemned. I wonder whether there is any lesson in this parable to some who are here; I should not be surprised if there is. I hope that there are some among you, who hitherto have said, I will not go, who will repent, and go and serve your God; and, on the other hand, it is to be feared that there may be some here, who have always been saying, I go, sir, who nevertheless have not gone, and perhaps never will go; but will remain to the last disobedient to the command of God. The Lord grant that it may not be so!

Mat 21:33-41. Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

You see at once how this parable related to the leaders of the Jewish people. From generation to generation, they scorned the prophets of God, persecuted them, and put them to death; and when our Lord himself appeared, though his glory might easily have been seen by them, yet they cast him out from among them, and put him to death. Yet, beloved friends, we must never regard the Scriptures as referring only to strangers and people of past ages; we must also look to see what bearing they have upon ourselves. The rejection of Gods prophets is the sin of our common humanity; and the murder of the Son of God was the crime, not of the Jews only, but of the whole human race. We, too, have a share in it, for we have rejected the Son of the Highest. But we were not there, say you. No; and yet we may have repeated that terrible tragedy in our own lives. God has sent you many messengers; and if you remain, at this moment, unconverted, you have not treated them well, else you would have yielded your heart to God. Some of them you have rejected by your neglect, and others have been the subject of your ridicule and contempt. Against some, you have striven violently, for your own conscience has been touched, and you have had to do violence to conscience in order to reject their message. Last of all, the Son of God himself has come to you in the preaching of the gospel. You have heard of his death, and of his atoning sacrifice, but you have rejected them; and, in acting thus, you have done, as far as you could, the same as they did who crucified the Saviour. You still refuse to have him for your Saviour; you disown him as your King; you strive against his righteous sway. You tell me that you do not. Well, then, you have yielded to him, and you are saved. But if that be not the case, you still remain such an adversary of God that you reject his Son. Take care lest of you also that prophecy should become true, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

Mat 21:42. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures,

What a question this was for our Lord to put to men who professed to have the whole of the Scriptures at their fingers ends, and to be the only qualified interpreters of them: Did ye never read in the Scriptures,

Mat 21:42-43. The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head, of the corner: this is the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

And, at this day, we Gentiles enjoy the privileges of the gospel, while poor Israel is scattered to the four winds of heaven. But he, that spared not the natural olive, will not spare the engrafted branches if we are found unfruitful. God takes the gospel away from one nation, and gives it to another; but it is not accepted by the other one, and if he has not all the glory of it ascribed to him, he will take it away from that nation, too. He may deal there with us; if England becomes and remains a drunken nation, a cruel nation, a proud nation, an unbelieving nation, a superstitious nation, and brings forth the evil fruits of the vine of Sodom, we may not expect that God will always continue his kingdom amongst us. He will say to us, as Christ said to these chief priests and elders, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Mat 21:44. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken:

If you stumble over Christ, the chief Corner-stone of Gods building, you will be broken in pieces. If you reject him, you shall suffer serious loss.

Mat 21:44. But on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

If you arouse the wrath of Christ, and the Rock of ages falls on you,a huge cliff comes toppling from its lofty height upon the traveler, and crushes him past all recognition,you will be ground to powder.

Mat 21:45-46. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

Unhappy peop1e, to reject him who alone could bless them, and yet to stand in fear of trim whom they tried to despise! Let it not be so with any of us, but may Jesus become our Teacher, and our Friend, and our Saviour for ever, by his abounding grace! Amen.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

Mat 21:23. , …, came unto Him, etc.) This was the solemn[926] question, which occasioned the final trial.- , the chief priests) who considered their right to be invaded.-, …, saying, etc.) The morose scepticism of His adversaries now at length demands credentials for the Son and Heirs caring for His vineyard; see Mat 21:37-38. They thought that Jesus had no call to teach, since He was neither a Priest nor a Levite.- ; by what authority?) divine or human.-, these things) sc. teaching; cf. , as He was teaching, and Mar 11:27.[927]

[926] Solennis qustio, Their customary question. Act 4:7; Act 7:27.-ED.

[927] , who) viz. of the order of the chief priests, or other rulers?-V. g.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Mat 21:23-32

Section III.

Disputations in the Temple, Mat 21:23 to Mat 22:46

J.W. McGarvey

His Authority Demanded, Mat 21:23-27.

(Mar 11:27-33; Luk 20:1-8)

23. By what authority.-What authority to cast out the traders, as he had done on the previous day, to teach, and to allow himself to be called the Son of David. As he was neither a priest nor a civil ruler, and had not been commissioned either by Csar or the Sanhedrim, they denied that he had rightful claim to the authority which he exercised.

24, 25. I will ask you.-It was absurd and impertinent to ask him for his authority when his miracles had given an unmistakable answer; consequently his reply was not an attempt to enlighten them, but to expose their folly. They had often tried to place him in a dilemma, and had never succeeded; he sometimes tried the same with them, and never failed. He does so on this occasion by asking them the source of authority for John’s baptism.

25-27. We can not tell.-They were forced either to tell a lie, which they did, or to acknowledge the fact that John’s baptism was from heaven. Had they made this acknowledgment they foresaw that he would demand of them, “Why then, did you not believe him” (Mat 21:25), which means not merely, Why did you not believe in John as a prophet, but, Why did you not believe what be said about me? This second question was the one they dreaded; so, fearing to offend the people by saying that John’s baptism was of men, they fell upon the false and foolish alternative, “We cannot tell.” The response of Jesus, “Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things,” exposed their hypocrisy and at the same time made it very apparent to the people that his authority was the same as John’s.

The Authority of Jesus Questioned – Mat 21:23-27

Open It

1. What comes to mind when you hear the word “authority”?

2. Why are people so resistant to authority?

3.What do you like or dislike about debates (either presidential debates or TV shows where guests bat around a controversial topic)?

Explore It

4. Where was Jesus when the incidents of this passage occurred? (Mat 21:23)

5. What was Jesus doing when He was interrupted? (Mat 21:23)

6. Who interrupted Jesus? Why? (Mat 21:23)

7. What questions did the chief priests and the elders ask Jesus? (Mat 21:23)

8. What deal did Jesus make with his accuser? (Mat 21:24)

9. Jesus question dealt with what subject? (Mat 21:24)

10. What were the only two possible answers the religious leaders could give? (Mat 21:25-26)

11. What was the drawback to claiming that Johns ministry was divinely inspired? (Mat 21:25)

12. What was the risk of claiming that John had no divine authority? (Mat 21:26)

13. How did the religious leaders finally respond to Jesus? (Mat 21:27)

14. What reply did Jesus give to the chief priests and elders? (Mat 21:27)

Get It

15. What do you think is behind many peoples “confrontations” with Jesus?

16. Why do we feel threatened when someone challenges our beliefs or actions as Christians?

17. How do we typically feel when our motives are exposed as selfish?

18. How can religious traditions, rules, and habits sometimes blind us to the truth?

19. What are some ways we outright defy what Jesus has said?

20. In what ways do we try to rationalize our way out of submitting to Christs authority?

21. How does pride keep us from acknowledging our mistakes?

Apply It

22. In what area of your life do you need to submit to Jesus authority today?

23. How can you humble yourself before God today?

Parable of the Two Sons, Mat 21:28-32

28-31. Whether of them twain.-An obsolete form of expression for Which of the two. Neither of them did in full the will of his father, but, leaving out of view the improper answer of the first, and looking only at his subsequent conduct, it was correctly answered that he did his father’s will.

31. publicans and harlots… before you.-Here the conduct of the publicans and harlots as a class is declared to correspond with that of the first son, and that of the chief priests and elders (Mat 21:23) to the conduct of the second son. The assertion that they “go into the kingdom of God before you,” does not mean that either party had already gone into the kingdom of God, but it declares the direction in which they were moving, and points to the result soon to be attained. The publicans and harlots had made one step in that direction by believing in John (Mat 21:32), while the priests and elders had not gone so far as that. The rebuke was a stinging one on account of the contempt with which publicans and harlots were regarded by the priests and elders, and the great disparity which had formerly existed between the two classes.

32. For John came.-The precedence declared in favor of the publicans and harlots had reference, not to their reception of Jesus, but to their regard for John. Previous to John’s coming these wicked characters had been like the first son, saying, “I will not,” making no pretense of obedience to God, while the priests and elders had been like the second son, saying, “I go, Sir,” making great professions of respect and obedience. But when John came and by his preaching put both parties to the test, the latter “believed him not,” made no change in their conduct; but the former “believed him,” giving up their evil practices, confessing their sins, and being baptized for the remission of gins. (Mat 3:6; Mar 1:4.)

repented not.-The word translated repented here and in Mat 21:29, is not melanoeo the one usually so rendered, but metamelomai. The former expresses a change of thought or purpose, the latter a change of feeling. The latter is used in the case of Judas (Mat 27:3), who did not repent as sinners are required to repent, though he experienced regret even to the degree of remorse. Regret is its best English representative, and by this term Mr. Green renders it throughout his Two-fold New Testament. The first son and the publicans and harlots did experience a change of purpose as well as a change of feeling; but the change of feeling only is expressed in the word, while the change of purpose is ascertained only by its being implied in their subsequent action.

that ye might believe.-In the statement ye “repented not afterward, that ye might believe him,” the dependence of their belief on previous regret is clearly assumed. The nature of the dependence is made apparent by the following considerations. When John first came “in the way of righteousness,” the chief priests and elders, after a formal inquiry as to who he was, rejected him. (Joh 1:19-25; Luk 7:30.) Afterward, when they saw the wonderful effect of his preaching on the lives of the publicans and harlots, they should have regretted the inconsiderate manner in which they had rejected him; and this regret, had they felt it, would have caused them to re-examine his claims, and, as a consequence, to become believers in him. Their belief depended on regret as one of its remote causes, and so does the belief of all persons in analogous circumstances.

The Parable of the Two Sons – Mat 21:28-32

Open It

1. As you recall all the TV families youve ever seen, which character would make the best child? Why?

2. What is the best illustration youve ever seen of the old saying, “Actions speak louder than words”?

3. In what ways can knowledge be dangerous?

Explore It

4. Who are the main characters in this parable? (Mat 21:28)

5. In the Parable of the Two Sons, what did the man say to his first son? (Mat 21:28)

6.How did the first son respond to his fathers words? (Mat 21:29)

7. What happened to the first son later? (Mat 21:29)

8. What did the man say to his second son? (Mat 21:30)

9. How did the second son respond to his fathers words? (Mat 21:30)

10. What did the second son actually do? (Mat 21:30)

11. What question did Jesus ask His audience at the end of the parable? (Mat 21:31)

12. Who did Jesus claim would be in heaven before the religious leaders in His audience? (Mat 21:31)

13. According to Jesus, who came to show the Jews the way of righteousness? (Mat 21:32)

14. How did the religious leaders respond to Johns message? (Mat 21:32)

Get It

15. If the Jewish religious leaders were trained in the Law and familiar with the Old Testament, why did they oppose Jesus?

16. Why doesnt religious knowledge or information guarantee that well be godly?

17. If Jesus really is the King of kings and Lord of lords, why do we often drag our feet doing what He has told us to do?

18. What does it mean to repent?

19. If, as Jesus claimed, many “unrighteous” people will enter the kingdom of God, and many “righteous” people wont, what does that say to you about Gods system of justice?

20. When is it too late to do the right thing?

Apply It

21. What step can you take this week toward correcting a mistake?

22. What command of Christ that you have been neglecting do you need to obey today?

23. What promise that you made to Christ can you keep today?

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Authority Which Silenced and Condemned

Mat 21:23-32

Our Lord always refused to gratify idle curiosity. When an earnest seeker for truth, like Nicodemus, approached Him to know the way of life, He was willing to give time and thought without stint. But of what use was it to endeavor to satisfy these men who had refused to acknowledge the divine mission of the Forerunner! They would not speak out their inner convictions, because of the effect it would have on their worldly prospects. For such as these Christ has nothing. At all costs, we must be true to the inner light, that is, to Gods Spirit within us.

The parable of the two sons teaches that hard hearts may lie under fair words, while those of whom we expect least and whose first greeting is abrupt and disappointing, may later prove to be the most devoted and hopeful disciples. If a man repels the gospel with violence, he is more likely ultimately to be won than he who gives a polite and facile assent.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Chapter 61

Two Questions and A Parable

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? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, 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. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

(Mat 21:23-32)

The passage we have before us begins the last three days of our Lords earthly ministry prior to his arrest in Gethsemane. It is simply astonishing to consider how much work our Savior pressed into those three days. All that is recorded from Mat 21:23 through chapter 25, all that is recorded by Mark in chapters 20, 21, and 22, and all that we read in Johns gospel from chapters 12 through 18 was done in those last three days before his arrest. His food and drink was to do his Fathers will. What an example he has given us! May God give us grace to follow it as men and women who know that time is short.

In these verses we see the priests and elders of the people, the religious leaders of the day, attempting to discredit the ministry of the Son of God. These bitter enemies of righteousness, these bitter envious, insecure religious men swarmed around the Son of God like a nest of bees, trying to find some weakness in him. The question by which he silenced their quibbles, and the parable by which our Master forced them to condemn themselves are here recorded for our comfort, learning, and admonition by divine inspiration. May God the Holy Spirit, who inspired Matthew to write these words, inscribe their lessons upon our hearts.

Satans Strategy

The question raised by our Lords adversaries demonstrates the fact that Satans strategy never changes. While the Lord Jesus was preaching the gospel (Luk 20:1) in the temple, the chief priests, with the scribes and elders (Mar 11:27), rudely blurted out, By what authority doest thou these things; and who gave thee this authority? (Mat 21:23).

Their obvious insinuation was that our Savior obtained his power to perform the miracles he had performed from Satan. From the beginning of time, Satans most constant weapon against Christ and his people has been slander. Eve was seduced by the serpents slander of Gods character. Once the Lord God was discredited in her eyes, she was snared. Whenever it is impossible to disprove the work of God or deny the truth of God, Satans weapon of choice is to discredit the messenger of God by slander.

These hell-inspired religionists could not refute our Lords doctrine. They could not deny his power. (The fig tree withered before their eyes!) And they could not find any fault with his life or the lives of his disciples. So the only way to defend themselves, the only way they could justify their opposition to the Son of God was to discredit him by casting some slander upon him.

Often they slandered the Savior by his association with sinners; but here they attempted to discredit his authority. They ignored the good he did healing the sick, cleansing the temple, raising the dead, and teaching the people the Word of God, and quibbled about his authority to do what he did.

Commenting on the actions of these men, J. C. Ryle observed, Too many care nothing for the manifest blessings of God upon a mans work, so long as he is not sent forth by their own sect or party. These religious leaders had all the right credentials; but they knew nothing of the power of God. The Lord Jesus had no earthly credentials; but his words and works manifested the very wisdom and omnipotence of God. Credentials, degrees, and papers of authority mean nothing in the church and kingdom of God.

Any man who is being used of God can expect to be the object of hellish slander. Wolves never attack a panted sheep, only living ones. Even so, artificial preachers are rarely the objects of spite, ridicule, and persecution, but faithful ones.

The pope offered to make Luther a cardinal if he would just keep quiet. Luther refused. Then men called him a proud fool. He said, Let me be counted fool or anything, but I will not be guilty of cowardly silence. When the papists could not silence him, they said, Luther is an apostate. Luther replied, I am an apostate, but a blessed and holy apostate, one that has fallen off from the devil! When men said, Martin Luther is a devil, he replied, So be it. Luther is a devil; but Christ liveth and reigneth. That is enough for Luther.

The most common areas of slander, by which Gods servants are attacked today, are the very same areas of slander that were hurled against the Son of God. Many are ridiculed because they lack the backing of recognized religious leaders, or lack impressive, academic degrees. William Huntington, who always signed his name William Huntington, S.S., once said, The degree S.S., or sinner saved, is more needful to teach others than an M.A. or a D.D. Commenting on that degree, Spurgeon said, Huntingdon’s degree of S.S., or Sinner Saved, is more needful for a soul winning evangelist than either M.A. or D.D. The pardoned sinner’s matter will be good, for he has been taught in the school of experience, and his manner will be telling, for he will speak sympathetically, as one who has felt what he declares.

Others are slandered in other ways. Perhaps the most common charge laid against gospel preachers is that they are antinomians. In the religious world no one is so quickly identified as a base, wicked man as that one against whom the charge of Antinomianism is laid. But, the fact is, no man ever preached the gospel of Gods free and sovereign grace who was not accused of antinomianism! The Pharisees accused our Lord Jesus of being a glutton and a drunk. The legalists of his day accused Paul of teaching, Let us sin, that grace may abound.

When wicked men, religious or irreligious, cannot refute that which is taught by another, slander is the tool they most commonly use to discredit the man. Nothing in this world is more base, more vile, more hellish and demonic than gossip and slander! Slander comes from an evil heart (Luk 6:45). It is characteristic of Satan, the slanderer (Rev 12:10). Slanderers are wicked, base hypocrites (Psa 50:20; Pro 11:9). Slander inflicts deadly wounds (Pro 18:8; Pro 26:22), stirs up strife (Pro 26:22), separates friends (Pro 16:28; Pro 17:9), and causes discord among brethren (Pro 6:19). The tongue of slander is a scourge (Job 5:21) that is venomous (Psa 140:3; Ecc 10:11) and destructive (Pro 11:9).

Believers Baptism

Our Saviors question, by which he confounded the religious quibblers, clearly teaches us that believers baptism is a divine ordinance.

And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. (Mat 21:24-27)

If they had been honest the question which our Lord put before these men would have been very simple to answer. But they were not honest men. Though they pretended to serve God, they were men-pleasers. And men-pleasers are like politicians. They never commit themselves to anything until they know which way the wind is blowing and what the costs will be.

Obviously, our Lord could easily have answered their question. He had already told them many times who he was and by what authority he acted. But now he seems to contemptuously shake off the dust of his feet against them. He showed his contempt for them publicly because they were public men.

We must always be ready to give answer to anyone who desires to know the reason of our hope (1Pe 3:15). We ought never shrink from any inquiry from people seeking to understand gospel doctrine or practices. Yet, our Saviors example plainly shows us that we have no obligation to answer the caviling quibbles of those who oppose the gospel.

Our Masters primary instruction in this question was for the benefit of his disciples. The ministry of John the Baptist, particularly his practice of immersing those who professed repentance toward God, was a matter of great controversy in those days, just as believers baptism is a matter of great controversy today. Here, our Lord Jesus teaches us that Johns baptism was of heavenly origin. John Gill wrote, By the baptism of John is meant the ordinance of water-baptism, which was first administered by him. No one had ever done anything like this before. Believers baptism began to be practiced by divine ordinance with the ministry of John the Baptist.

Many today talk about baptism as a matter of choice, or of indifference. But neither is true. Believers baptism is a divine ordinance. As such, it is essential in the worship of God. These things are so clearly taught in Holy Scripture that any confusion about this blessed gospel ordinance is inexcusable. Baptism is for believers only (Act 8:37-38). Infant baptism is utterly without foundation in the Word of God. Baptism is by immersion only (Mat 3:15-17). Immersion is not the mode of baptism. Immersion is baptism. That is what the word means. Baptism is a symbolic burial and resurrection (Rom 6:3-6; Col 2:12). Until you can bury a corpse by throwing a few grains of sand on its face, you cannot baptize a person by throwing a few drops of water on their head. Baptism is a symbolic picture of the gospel (Rom 6:4-6). It is not a picture of regeneration, or of circumcision, or of renewal, or of cleansing. It is a picture of redemption, a picture of our, death, burial, and resurrection with Christ our Substitute.

Gods Saving Grace

In the parable about the two sons, our Savior teaches us that the Lord our God graciously saves every penitent sinner, even the most base and vile.

But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, 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. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him. (Mat 21:28-32).

This parable is very brief, but very instructive. All who are wise will learn what it teaches. All men belong to God. God is not the Father of all men in a gracious, covenant way; but he is the Father of all and the Owner of all as the Creator of all (Mat 20:15). As the sovereign Owner of all, God almighty has the right to do what he will with all. And he has chosen some to salvation and passed by others, loved some and hated others (Rom 9:13-18).

All men are commanded to repent (Act 17:30-31). In the Word of God, and particularly in this passage (Mat 21:28-29; Mat 21:32), repentance, obedience, and faith are used synonymously. Repentance is neither more nor less than faith in Christ; and faith in Christ is neither more nor less than obedience to him as Lord. We preach the gospel to all, and call all who hear our voices to faith in Christ. Because God commands all to repent, all who hear the gospel are responsible to repent.

And the Lord our God is infinitely willing and able to save every sinner who bows to his dear Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, in true repentance and faith. It matters not how bad the sinner has been. All who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved. It matters not how good you appear to be, or imagine yourself to be, if you do not trust the Son of God, you must perish forever. God is no respecter of persons. None are too bad to be saved; but many are too good in their own eyes to be saved.

Robert Hawker wrote, From our Lords giving the preference to publicans and harlots, to that of self-righteous scribes and Pharisees, we may safely conclude that nothing was more offensive to the Lord of life and glory, than a frame of mind which, of all others, is more immediately leveled against the leading doctrines of his gospel. Oh! for grace to be always aware of the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees, which the Son of God himself declares to be hypocrisy. (Luk 12:1). In the day of judgment I would rather stand before God as a publican, or a harlot, or anything, rather than stand before him as a self-righteous hypocrite (Rom 9:30 to Rom 10:4). Beware of self-righteousness!

When you are slandered let it have no effect upon you, except to drive you into your Fathers arms. If you would be saved, you must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. If God has saved you, if he has given you faith in Christ, confess him in believers baptism.

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

The King Confounds and Warns HIS Enemies

Mat 21:23. 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 thing3? and who gave thee this authority?

Jesus returned to his Father’s house, and there he was again met by his old antagonists. When he was coins into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him; they had rallied their forces, and taken time to recall their courage. They interfered with him as he was teaching, and demanded his authority for what he said and did. He had taken their breath away by his daring purgation of the temple, unarmed and unaided; and only after a night’s interval dared they question his right to act as he had done. Now they put him to the question: “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?” That he did marvellous things was admitted; but in what official capacity did he act, and who placed him in that office? This was carrying the war home: they struck out fiercely at their assailant. They hoped to wound him in this point, and to overcome him. Poor fools! They were not worthy of an answer from him.

Mat 21:24. And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ash you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.

Yes, Jesus answered. His answers are always complete, but seldom what his foes expect. The quibblers of our day need not be in too great a hurry to call their statements unanswerable: Jesus will answer for himself in due time. He says to these chief priests and elders, ” I also will ash you one thing.” Their question was met by another question, even as the rods of the Egyptian magicians, when turned into serpents, were met by Aaron’s rod, which, as a serpent, swallowed up their rods. Frequently it will be wisdom not to reply to the quibblings of the enemies of the gospel, but to pose them with some mystery too deep for them.

Our Lord’s conditions were fair and reasonable: “If ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.” Apparently, the questioners raised no objection, for Jesus at once stated his question to them.

Mat 21:25-27. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

The question our Lord put to the chief priests and elders was simple enough had they been honest men; but as they had a game to play, they could not reply without great difficulty.

Men-pleasers are obliged to bo politicians, and see which way the land lies. Our Lord put his questioners on the horns of a dilemma. If John the Baptist was sent from heaven, why had they rejected him? That John was of men, they dared not assert; for their fear of the people silenced them. They were in a corner, and saw no way of escape, and therefore they pleaded ignorance: They answered Jesus, and said, “We cannot tell.” Which answer was no answer from them, but supplied him with a just and crushing reply to them: “Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.” They could have told Jesus whence John’s baptism was, but they would not; and he could have told them all about his divine authority, but he knew that no useful end would be answered, and therefore he declined to say more. It is a solemn thing when love itself grows weary, and refuses further conversation. Our Lord’s tone to these questioners is that of one who is dealing with hopeless creatures, who deserve no quarter, since they would make no use of leniency. They could not be won by gentleness; they must be shaken off, exposed, and dethroned from the seat of power, before the eyes of those who had been misled by them.

Mat 21:28-29. But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he revented, and went.

By two parables the Lord Jesus deals with the religious leaders who had opposed him.

In the first parable, that of the two sons, he exposes their fair but false dealings with God. “A certain man had two sons.” Both were bound to serve upon the family estate, and ought to have felt it a pleasure to do so. The first son was wilful and wayward, but he was truthful, outspoken, and above-board in all that he did. His father said to him, “Son, go work to day in my vineyard;” a command which contains the father’s claim, the son’s duty, the immediate character of that duty, and the sphere of it. The command was plain enough, and so was the reply: “He answered and said, I will not.” It was rude, rebellious, ungrateful, unfilial; but it was hasty; and when a little interval had elapsed, quiet reflection brought the wayward boy to a better mind. “Afterward he repented, and went.” This was true repentance, for it led to practical obedience. He did not offer a verbal apology, or make a promise of future good behaviour; he did far better, for he went about his father’s business without more ado. Oh, that many, who have hitherto refused to obey the gospel, might now be changed in mind, hearken to the voice of God, and enter his service!

Mat 21:30. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.

The second was of milder mood, and blander manner. To him the father spoke as to the elder, and the reply was verbally all that he could desire: ” I go, sir.” As if it were a matter of course, with exemplary politeness he bade his father consider that he was fully at his disposal. He assented and consented; he was orthodox and precise. He had an easy, natural religiousness, which strongly contrasted with the blunt ungodliness of his brother. But note those words: “and went not.” His fine phrases and fair promises were deceit and falsehood. He never went to the vineyard, much less lifted pruning- knife or spade. His father’s vineyard might go to ruin for aught he cared; yet all the while he was bowing and scraping, and promising what he never meant to perform.

Mat 21:31-32. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, 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. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

Jesus made the hypocritical ecclesiastics judges in a case which was indeed their own. He asked them, “Whether of them twain did the will of his father?” Only one reply was possible: They say unto him, “The first.” It was clear that the first son, despite his rough refusal when he first heard his father’s command, was after all the doer of the father’s will. Then Jesus pointed out that the publicans and the harlots were like the first son; while the chief priests and elders of the people, with all their pretty professions, were deceitful and disobedient like the second son. They had professed great reverence for the divine Word; but when it came by John, they did not repent that they might believe him. Open sinners, who had seemed to refuse the voice of God, did actually believe him, and so, by heeding John’s ministry of righteousness, went into the kingdom of God before the more likely classes. What must these self-satisfied priests and elders have thought when they heard publicans and harlots placed before them? Gnashing their teeth, they planned murder in their hearts.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s The Gospel of the Kingdom

when: Mar 11:27, Mar 11:28, Luk 19:47, Luk 19:48, Luk 20:1, Luk 20:2

the chief priests: 1Ch 24:1-19

By what: Exo 2:14, Act 4:7, Act 7:27

Reciprocal: Num 16:7 – too much 2Ch 25:16 – Art thou made Ezr 5:3 – Who hath commanded you Pro 26:5 – a fool Jer 26:9 – Why Jer 29:26 – and maketh Amo 7:10 – the priest Mat 2:4 – the chief Mat 7:29 – having Mat 11:12 – from Mat 17:12 – and they Mat 20:4 – Go Mat 21:15 – when Mar 8:11 – Pharisees Mar 14:49 – was Luk 15:11 – General Luk 22:53 – I was Joh 1:19 – when Joh 1:24 – Why Joh 2:18 – seeing Joh 5:12 – What Joh 18:20 – I spake Act 5:20 – stand 1Co 3:9 – ye are God’s Heb 12:3 – contradiction

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

1:23

When he was come into the temple was the day after Jesus had driven the moneychangers out. It was that act the chief priests and elders meant when they called upon him for his authority to perform it.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

THESE verses contain a conversation between our Lord Jesus Christ, and the chief priests and elders of the people. Those bitter enemies of all righteousness saw the sensation which the public entry into Jerusalem, and the cleansing of the temple, had produced. At once they came about our Lord like bees, and endeavored to find occasion for an accusation against Him.

Let us observe, in the first place, how ready the enemies of truth are to question the authority of all who do more good than themselves. The chief priests have not a word to say about our Lord’s teaching. They make no charge against the lives or conduct of Himself or His followers. The point on which they fasten is his commission: “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?”

The same charge has often been made against the servants of God, when they have striven to check the progress of ecclesiastical corruption. It is the old engine by which the children of this world have often labored to stop the progress of revivals and reformations. It is the weapon which was often brandished in the face of the Reformers, the Puritans, and the Methodists of the last century. It is the poisoned arrow which is often shot at city-missionaries and lay-agents in the present day. Too many care nothing for the manifest blessing of God on a man’s work, so long as he is not sent forth by their own sect or party. It matters nothing to them, that some humble laborer in God’s harvest can point to numerous conversions of souls through his instrumentality. They still cry, “By what authority doest thou these things?” His success is nothing: they demand his commission. His cures are nothing: they want his diploma. Let us neither be surprised nor moved, when we hear such things. It is the old charge which was brought against Christ Himself. “There is no new thing under the sun.” (Ecc 1:9.)

Let us observe, in the second place, the consummate wisdom with which our Lord replied to the question put to Him. His enemies had asked Him for His authority for doing what He did. They doubtless intended to make His answer a handle for accusing Him. He knew the drift of their inquiry, and said, “I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or of men?”

We must distinctly understand, that in this answer of our Lord’s there was no evasion. To suppose this is a great mistake. The counter question which He asked, was in reality an answer to His enemies’ inquiry. He knew they dared not deny that John the Baptist was a man sent from God. He knew that, this being granted, he needed only to remind them of John’s testimony to Himself.-Had not John declared him to be “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world”? Had not John pronounced Him to be the Mighty One, who was to “baptize with the Holy Ghost”?-In short, our Lord’s question was a home-thrust to the conscience of His enemies. If they once conceded the divine authority of John the Baptist’s mission, they must also concede the divinity of His own. If they acknowledged that John came from heaven, they must acknowledge that He Himself was the Christ.

Let us pray that, in this difficult world, we may be supplied with the same kind of wisdom which was here displayed by our Lord. No doubt we ought to act on the injunction of Peter, “and be always ready to give a reason of the hope that is in us with meekness and with fear.” (1Pe 3:15.) We ought to shrink from no inquiry into the principles of our holy religion, and to be ready at any time to defend and explain our practice. But for all this, we must never forget that “wisdom is profitable to direct,” and that we should strive to speak wisely in defense of a good cause. The words of Solomon deserve consideration: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be like unto him.” (Pro 26:4.)

In the last place, let us observe in these verses, what immense encouragement our Lord holds out to those who repent. We see this strikingly brought out in the parable of the two sons. Both were told to go and work in their father’s vineyard. One son, like the profligate publicans, for some time flatly refused obedience, but afterwards repented and went. The other, like the formal Pharisees, pretended willingness to go, but in reality went not. “Whether of them twain,” says our Lord, “did the will of his father?” Even his enemies were obliged to reply, “the first.”

Let it be a settled principle in our Christianity, that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is infinitely willing to receive penitent sinners.-It matters nothing what a man has been in time past. Does he repent, and come to Christ? Then old things are passed away, and all things are become new.-It matters nothing how high and self-confident a man’s profession of religion may be. Does he really give up his sins? If not, his profession is abominable in God’s sight, and he himself is still under the curse.-Let us take courage ourselves, if we have been great sinners hitherto. Only let us repent and believe in Christ, and there is hope. Let us encourage others to repent. Let us hold the door wide open to the very chief of sinners. Never will that word fail, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1Jn 1:9.)

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

Mat 21:23. Into the temple, probably the court of the Israelites.

The chief priests and the alders of the people. Mark and Luke add: the scribes. Perhaps a formal delegation from the Sanhedrin.

By what authority doest thou these things! Referring both to His teaching there, and to His cleansing of the temple on the previous day. They were the proper persons to challenge His authority.

And who gave thee, etc. Even if you assume to be a prophet, who sent you? A hint at the old charge of Satanic power.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Subdivision 2. (Mat 21:23-46.)

Rejection and its Consequences.

The opposition gathers strength, although still kept in check by the power displayed in Him, and by the revealing words in which He lays bare the condition of things and their hypocrisy and unfrankness in their rejection of Him. They are made to feel how well He knows them, and their intent, and how its success would leave Him Master still, themselves alone undone by it. Quiet, simple, strong, irrefutable words, they penetrate through all the defenses of a seared conscience and a hardened heart, and confound, if they do not convert. We do not read of conversion; but then we are here occupied with another and very different subject, and tracing Israel’s rejection of her King, as it goes on step by step to the end now so near, when He leaves desolate the House (no longer His Father’s, but their own) to the Gentile invader.

1. For the moment He is in the House which He has cleansed, teaching publicly, as was His wont, and there the chief priests and elders of the people come upon Him with the question; “By what authority doest Thou these things? and who gave Thee this authority?”

It was the Sanhedrim, the highest religious authority itself among the people, that asked this; and their question implied their disclaimer of any authorization on their part. But it was a vain and foolish question: for as they knew on the one hand that He was no Rabbi of the schools, so on the other, as we know, the testimony of Scripture united with that of His miracles to proclaim Him what He was even now declaring Himself to be. But for those who were questioning Him there was a yet more simple ground of appeal. They had sent a special mission to the Baptist to investigate his claim; and the Baptist’s own recognition of the Lord was known to all. They “sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.” What then was “the baptism of John? was it of heaven or of men?” Either they had decided about John’s authority, or else they were incompetent to pronounce as to the Lord; and their verdict as to the one would necessarily include both: in any case they had the means of answering their own question.

Answer it, however, they cannot: if they said the mission of John was from heaven, they had to believe the testimony that he gave; if they said, of men, they would be in direct opposition to the people, and theirs was no martyr-spirit to suffer for their convictions. It was easier, with all the humiliation it involved, to profess their ignorance; but then they were no court to adjudicate in claims of this kind: “Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.”

2. Plainly it was conscience they needed, and the Lord has in turn a question for them. A man had two sons: one who to his bidding, “Go, work today in my vineyard,” answers openly and defiantly “I will not;” while the other expresses at once his ready obedience. After all, the first repented and went; the second never did go. Which, then, did the will of his father? The answer is put into their mouths: they could only say, The first. Then He makes application for them: the tax-gatherers and harlots would go into the Kingdom of God before them. For John came in the way of righteousness, only demanding on their part an upright conscience to receive manifest truth, but, built up in legal self-righteousness, they had turned from him; while the people of evil life had been convicted and believed; and even this witness of repentant sinners they had refused.

3. He searches them out with another parable, in which Israel’s history as a whole is shown to be of a piece with this, while He follows it on to the end soon coming, and shows them how their success against Him would only be ruinous defeat for themselves at last.

The figure of a vineyard had been used of old in the prophets with reference to Israel. The “man,” the householder, could only partially represent God. Was it not a representation of things according to their own thoughts merely, that God was like a man in a far country, and things were in their hands as they proudly assumed? Yet their responsibility was fully granted, and let them take heed to it. All through the ages down, God had been sending to those in trust for Him, to get the fruit of His vineyard; and the prophets had been His messengers to them to present and urge His claim. How had they treated them? Certainly they well knew, whose claim had been; that if they had lived in their fathers, days, they would not have been “partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.” They had beaten one, killed another, stoned another, and so whenever God had sent flesh witnesses.

But now He had sent His Son: there the full glory of the Speaker is flashed upon them; had He not title to say, without taking into account His divine knowledge, “They will respect My Son”?

But indeed He is not ignorant to what He sends Him: and now all that is in their hearts to do and what they will accomplish is pictured for them, as if it were a history of the past. What a testimony to the actors in it that are to be, – He face to face with them, with those clear, deep, always compassionate eyes looking into theirs! think after this of their going on to fulfil it. “But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves” – not, who art Thou? or who gave Thee this authority? but on the contrary, “This is the heir;” and their after action is all grounded upon this.

Yes, they could have been very tolerant of a false claim: the true one was quite another matter. The claim of God is uncompromising, and His yoke intolerable to the natural heart. The second psalm represents the refusal of Messiah as the Lord does, as the manifestation of the spirit which said, “Let us burst their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.” Here it breathes of murder, – “Come, let us kill Him, and lay hold of His inheritance.”

And the thing is done. The Lord quietly assures them, as He had done before with His disciples, that He is in fact to die. But if He be in reality the Son; will that secure them what they seek? “when the lord of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?” and they are forced to pronounce what is their own doom.

He confirms it from their own scriptures: for was not the chief corner stone of which the psalmist spoke to be a stone rejected by the builders in Israel? Was not “the Lord’s doing” to be the reversal of their deed? But the result of it for that generation would be the taking from them of that Kingdom which in the person of its King they were thus refusing. It would be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof: that is, not the Christian Church, but the Israel of the future; in fact the first nation which will be all holy. The terms of the new covenant expressly assure us of this.

Meanwhile “whosoever shall fall on this stone” – as the nation then were doing – “shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall” – in the day when it strikes the feet of the image, as Nebuchadnezzar, the head of the image, saw it – “it shall grind him to powder.” At the coming of the Lord judgment will do its complete and effectual work.

The chief priests and Pharisees knew that it was of them that He was speaking; but His words held the people, and they could as yet do nothing. Those who have lost the fear of God are just those who will be most completely dominated by the fear of man.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

The Pharisees having often questioned our Saviour’s doctrine before, they call in question his mission and authority now: although they might easily have understood his divine mission by his divine miracles. Almighty God never empowered any to work miracles that were not sent by him. When the adversaries of Christ can object nothing against his doctrine, they then quarrel with him about his commission and calling, and demand by what authority he doth teach and work miracles. Our blessed Saviour well understanding their drift and design, answers them one question by asking them another.

The baptism of John, was it from heaven or of men? Was it of divine institution or of human invention? Implying, that the calling of such as call themselves the ministers of God, ought to be from God. No man ought to take this honour upon himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. Heb 5:4.

The Pharisees reply, they could not tell whence John had his mission and authority. This was a manifest untruth; by refusing to tell the truth, they fall into a lie.

One sin ensnares, and draws men into the commission of more. Such as will not speak exact truth, according to their knowledge, they fall into the sin of lying against their consciences. Our Saviour answers them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. He doth not say, I cannot, or I will not tell you; but I do not, I need not tell you; because the miracles which I work before you, are a sufficient demonstration of my divine commission, that I am sent of God amongst you; for God never set the seal of his omnipotence to a lie, or impowered an impostor to work real miracles.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mat 21:23-27. When he was come into the temple, the chief priests came Who thought he violated their right: And the elders of the people Probably, members of the sanhedrim, to whom that title most properly belonged: which is the more probable, as they were the persons under whose cognizance the late action of Christ, in purging the temple, would naturally fall. These, with the chief priests, seem purposely to have appeared in a considerable company, to give the more weight to what they said, and, if need were, to bear a united testimony against him. As he was teaching Which also they supposed he had no authority to do, being neither priest, nor Levite, nor scribe. Some of the priests, (though not as priests,) and all the scribes, were authorized teachers. By what authority doest thou these things Publicly teach the people? And drive out those who had our commission to traffic in the outer court? Jesus answered, I also will ask you one thing Who have asked me many: The baptism That is, the whole ministry; of John, whence was it? Whence had he his commission? from heaven, or of men? Did God or man give him his authority to act and teach? This question reduced the priests and elders to an inextricable dilemma: and they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven, &c. They considered, on the one hand, that if they should acknowledge Johns mission to be from God, it would oblige them to acknowledge Christs authority; John having more than once borne testimony to him as the Messiah. On the other hand, if they denied Johns divine mission, they did not know but the people, who stood listening to Jesus, would stone them; for they generally believed John to have been a prophet, many of them had submitted to his baptism, and at present not a few held him in high esteem on Christs account. Wherefore, as matters stood, they judged it safest to answer that they could not tell whence Johns baptism was. And he said, Neither tell I you That is, not again in express terms: he had often told them before, and they would not believe him. Thus, by the question which he put to them, he obliged them to confess that they had not been able to pass any judgment upon John the Baptist, notwithstanding he claimed the character of a messenger from God, and they had sent to examine his pretensions. This in effect was to acknowledge themselves incapable of judging of any prophet whatsoever. Ye are come, said he, to inquire into the proofs of my mission. I agree to submit myself to your examination, on condition that you tell me what your determination was concerning John. Was he a true or a false prophet? You say you do not know. But if you were not able to form a judgment concerning John, how can you take upon you to judge me? In this light our Lords question, in answer to theirs, appears to have been formed with the greatest wisdom; because, whether the priests replied in the affirmative or in the negative, or gave no reply at all, they absolutely condemned themselves. See Macknight.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

CVIII.

IN REPLY TO THE QUESTIONS AS TO HIS AUTHORITY,

JESUS GIVES THE THIRD GREAT GROUP OF PARABLES.

(In the Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)

Subdivision A.

INTRODUCTION

aMATT. XXI. 23-27; bMARK XI. 27-33; cLUKE XX. 1-8.

c1 And it came to pass, on one of the days, bthey [Jesus and the disciples] come again to Jerusalem: a23 And when he was come into the temple, band as he was walking in the temple [The large outer court of the temple, known as the court of the Gentiles, was thronged during the feasts, and was no doubt the part selected by Jesus and his apostles when they taught or preached in the temple. We thrice find them on that side of it where Solomon’s porch was located– Joh 10:23, Act 3:11, Act 5:23], cas he was teaching the people and preaching the gospel [viz.: “the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye”– Mar 1:15], there came upon him {bcome aunto him} bthe chief priests and the scribes, and {cwith} the elders; {aof the people} [the Sanhedrin (see Joh 10:24.] a24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, cI also will ask you a {aone} question, which if ye tell me, band answer me, aI likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 The baptism of John, whence was it? bWas it from heaven, or from men? answer me. [The question which Jesus asked was intimately and inseparably connected with the question which they had asked. Jesus, of course, did not derive his authority from John the Baptist, but John had testified plainly to the Messiahship of Jesus, and had, in no uncertain terms, designated Jesus as immeasurably greater than himself. Now, if the Pharisees admitted that John was a heaven-sent messenger or witness (of which fact his baptism was propounded as a test, since it was a religious ordinance introduced on his authority), then John had already answered the Sanhedrin that Jesus derived his authority from his Messiahship, and hence, all that the Sanhedrin had to do to satisfy their minds was simply to believe John. But if, on the other hand, the Pharisees rejected John’s pretensions and claims as a heaven-sent messenger in the face of the almost universal popular conviction, then what was there for Jesus to present his claims to so blind, bigoted, and unreasoning a body?] 31 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, aunto us, Why then did ye not believe him? [When he testified to the Messiahship of Jesus ( Joh 1:7, Joh 1:15, Joh 1:34, Joh 3:26-36, Joh 10:40-42). The Sanhedrin could not admit that the messenger was heaven-sent and yet deny his testimony.] 26 But if we shall {bshould we} say, From men– call the people will stone us: awe fear the multitude; for all hold John as a prophet. cfor they are persuaded that John was a prophet. bthey feared the people: for all verily held John to be a prophet. 33 And they answered [587] Jesus cthat they knew not whence it was. aand said, {bsay,} We know not. [It should be noted in their consultation there was no effort either to ascertain or to speak the truth. The question as to whether John really was or was not a prophet was in no sense the subject of their investigation. They were merely deciding what to say. They were seeking for the most expedient answer, and as neither truthful answer was expedient, they resolved to falsely deny any knowledge of the case. Men of such brazen dishonesty could not be dealt with openly and fairly as could sincere seekers after truth.] And Jesus, aalso said {bsaith} unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. [Their spoken lie was, “We know not,” but their inward and true answer was, “We will not tell,” and Jesus answered the suppressed truth saying, “Neither tell I.” How readily the subtle minds of the Jewish people would justify Jesus in thus declining to submit the question of his authority to judges who at that very moment publicly confessed their inability to even hazard an opinion, much less render a decision, as to the authority of John the Baptist, who claims were in popular estimation so obvious. It was plain that however well these men might judge human credentials, the divine testimonials of a prophet or of the Messiah were above their carnal sphere. Thus Jesus put his enemies to confusion in the first of man conflicts of that perilous Tuesday. But we may well imagine that they were rendered more bitter by the evidence of a wisdom so much beyond any which they possessed.]

[FFG 586-588]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

THE HIGH PRIESTS DEMAND HIS AUTHORITY

Mat 21:23-27; Luk 20:1-8; Mar 11:27-33. And again they come into Jerusalem. And He, walking round in the temple, file high priests, scribes, and elders come to Him, and say to Him, By what authority do You these things? And who gave You this authority that You may do these things? And Jesus, responding, said to them, I will also ask you one question; answer Me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men? Tell Me. And they reasoned among themselves, If we may say, It is from heaven, He will say, Wherefore then did you not believe on him? But if we may say, It is from men; they feared the people: for all held John, that he was truly a prophet. And responding, they say to Jesus, We do not know. And Jesus, responding, says to them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things. Those high priests considered the authority He exercised in the purification of the temple outrageous, intrusive, and usurpatory in the extreme. Consequently they look Him in the face, with the scribes and Pharisees holding up their hands, and publicly demand His authority, feeling that it was their prerogative to manage affairs in the temple. See how inconsistent their attitude, as they were really Satans preachers, worshipping him as God; while the Son of God, with all authority in heaven and in earth, was there, and they were too blind to see Him! How does history repeat itself! The Lords true people, saved, sanctified, and filled with the Spirit, alone have authority this day to preach and labor to save souls, going where He leadeth. Do we not see the authority of such called in question by the high priests and Pharisees on all sides? Jesus simply referred them to the ministry of John, under which He was baptized with water, and thus inaugurated into His official Messiahship, the Holy Spirit immediately descending and filling Him, thus qualifying Him for His work. As Jesus said to John, Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness i.e., to verify every injunction of the Levitical law, which required the high priests to be anointed before entering upon the duties and exercising the authority of their office so, pursuant to the example of our Great Leader, we should all conform to the ritual law of the New Testament, and be sure that, like Jesus, we get filled with the Holy Ghost, thus silencing criticism and disarming our enemies. You see all the high priests, Pharisees, and elders here dumfounded. They were in a dilemma, and dare not take either horn. If they denied the Divine authority of John, they were afraid of a riot, as the people all regarded him as truly a prophet, there being no dissenting voice, but unanimity of opinion as to the Divine prophetical commission of John, whose ministry was a sunburst on Israel after a dark interregnum of four hundred years. Again, they were afraid to acknowledge the Divine authenticity of Johns ministry lest Jesus would say, Why did you not believe on Him? Consequently they took a neutral position. O what a succession these blind, unspiritual high priests, ruling eiders, and Pharisees have this day! Do you not know that, as a rule, their successors in the Churches are now playing neutrality in reference to Gods mighty works in the great current revival shaking all nations, and denominated the Holiness Movement?

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Mat 21:23-27. The Question of Authority (Mar 11:27-33*, Luk 20:1-8).Mk. is no doubt right in connecting the priests question with the purging of the Temple, though these things may include teaching (and healing). For scribes and elders Mt. has elders of the people.By what authority: lit. by what kind of authority, i.e. human or Divine, ecclesiastical or civil.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 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? By what power (Vulg.), Greek, , i.e., authority; meaning, Who gave Thee right and authority to teach in the temple? to cast out of it the buyers and sellers? and to call the people together to acclaim thee by Hosanna as the Teacher and the Messiah?

Verse 24. And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. It is commonly said, He does not put an end to a suit who resolves a suit by a suit. For thus dishonest lawyers, when they have no faith in their cause, get up another cause and lawsuit, so that they may quibble and escape condemnation. So also when the heretics cannot reply to the arguments of Catholics, they bring forward other arguments, so as to find a way of escape from their heresy and ignorance. But Christ does not here act so, but he proposes another question, on the solution of which depended the answer to the question proposed by the Scribes. Thus-“Ye do not believe Me when I say that I have received power from God, believe then John the Baptist who bare witness to Me, that I have been sent by God to do these things.”

The baptism of John, whence was it, from Heaven or of men? By the baptism of John, Christ means his testimony, doctrine, and the whole of his preaching concerning Him. There is a synecdoche. This is Christ’s argument, bearing upon the Scribes with irresistible force. Thus, “Ye ask, from whence I have power-from God or from men? I, in reply, ask you, from whom had John power to preach and baptize-from God or from men? If he had that authority from God, as all allow, then have I the same authority from God. For this was the witness which John gave of Me, teaching that he was the servant, but I the Messiah, the Son of God. And this he did when ye sent messengers to him expressly about this very thing, to ask him if he were the Messias.” (John i. 20, 26, 27.)

From Heaven, come from God. Where observe: The Hebrews by metonyme, by which that which holds is put for what is held, call God , Scamaim, i.e., Heaven. The Greek poets, following this usage, called the father of Saturn , and the Latins, clum. Thus Caninius (de nomin. Hebris, c. 2). Hence the Jews worshipped Heaven and the stars as God. Hence Christians who apostatized from Christianity to Judaism were formerly called clicol, against whom there are extant rescripts of the emperors Theodosius and Honorius (lib. 18, de Judis et clicolis). See Baronius, A.D. 408. Hence also the poet sings of the Jews-

“They adore shining clouds and the divinity of Heaven.”

For the Heaven by its immensity, beauty, motion, adornment, and influx, carries every one away with admiration of it. “Whence Heaven” (clum), says Sipontius, “is so called because it is, as it were, sculptured with stars and constellations.” But Varro (lib. 4, de lingu Latin) derives it from , i.e., hollow, because it embraces all created things in its cavity. Hence God is, as it were, the Atlas of Heaven and earth, of whom Virgil says (lib. 6, n.)-

“Where Heaven-bearing Atlas turns round the Heaven,

Furnished with burning stars upon his shoulders.”

Wherefore many nations have worshipped Heaven as a god. As Cicero (lib. 2, de Divinat.) says, “I have always said, and I will say, that the race of the gods belongs to Heaven.” The same (in Somnio Scipionis) says, “And I give thanks to thee, 0 highest sun, and to you the rest of the heavenly ones.” And Pliny (lib. 7, cap. 33) says, “Divinity and a certain most noble association of women from Heaven was in the Sibyl.” Hear also S. Augustine (lib. x. de Civit. cap. 1), “And they call the gods themselves clicol, for no other reason than that they inhabit (colant) Heaven, not, indeed, worshipping, but inhabiting-as it were, colonists (coloni) of Heaven.” Lastly, Heaven is the throne of God, and the seat of His majesty and glory, as well as of the holy angels and beatified men.

Learn from hence to be ambitious of Heaven, to sigh after Heaven, to despise the earth and earthly things, and to say with our S. Ignatius, “How mean to me is the earth when I look at Heaven.” For he who seeks Heaven, seeks paradise, happiness, a blessed eternity-he desires the God of Heaven. “0 Israel, how great is the house of God, and vast the place of His possession!” (Baruch iii. 24. See the passage.)

But they thought within themselves, saying: Greek, , i.e., they thought and conferred among themselves, deliberating what to answer Christ, being anxious and perplexed.

If we shall say, From Heaven; He will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? verse 24. But if we shall say, of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. Wherefore did ye not believe him, declaring Me to be Messiah, and persuading you to prepare by repentance for My grace and salvation? We fear the multitude, understand, lest they should stone us, as Luke adds (Luk 20:5). As a prophet: The word, as, is the mark of truth, not of likeness. It means, all held John for a true and a great prophet, and therefore sent by God. For a prophet is the ambassador, seer, and interpreter of God. Thus it is said of Christ (John 1.), “We saw His glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father,” where as denotes reality, not similitude. Meaning, “We saw the glory of Him, as verify the Only Begotten Son of God, or, of Him who was the true and Only Begotten of God.”

And they answered Jesus and said, We know not. They lie; for they had seen the life of John, as well as his most holy and divine preaching, sealed by his death and martyrdom for the sake of chastity. But dishonesty would rather lie than be convicted of falsehood and convinced of dishonesty.

And He said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. It means, “Ye are not willing to answer My question, wherefore neither will I answer yours, because the solution of yours depends upon Mine. But ye say that ye do not know it, and ye lie. I say that I know, but am unwilling to say; and I speak the truth, that I may confound and put down your insolence.” For by this answer Christ stopped the mouth of the Scribes, so that they were as silent as mice, nor did they dare again to open their lips. Whence S. Jerome says: “He showed that they knew, but would not answer, and that He knew, and did not answer, because they kept back what they knew.

How seemeth it to you? Christ, by the following parable, convicted the Scribes and Pharisees-who said that they knew not whether the baptism of John were from heaven or of men-of the utmost dishonesty and obstinacy; because, although they wished to be accounted sons of God, yet refused to receive John who was sent by God, and would not believe His preaching, nor do penance. Moreover, Christ in this place, says S. Chrysostom, brings in guilty the judges themselves, with a great confidence in justice, where the cause is entrusted to the adversary. But He employs a parable, that they may not perceive how they are pronouncing sentence against themselves: “A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to-day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not; but afterwards he repented and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir; and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto Him, 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. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not; but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.” (Verses 28-32.)

This parable scarcely needs an explanation, because Christ applies and explains it. In truth, the first-being at the beginning unwilling to obey his father, but afterwards repenting and obeying, by going to work in the vineyard-denotes the publicans and harlots; who at first by their sins repelled the will and law of God, but afterwards by John’s preaching came to a better mind, and did penance, and lived chastely and justly, according to the law of God. The second son-who said to his father that he would go into the vineyard, but broke his word, and went not-denotes the Scribes and Pharisees; who always had the law of God in their mouths (as though they were most zealous and religious observers of it), but did not fulfil it in their deeds, but by lust, rapine, and usury acted contrary to it. Wherefore they provoked the heavy displeasure and anger of God against them, as well on account of their wickedness itself as because of their hypocrisy and feigned observance of the Law. For such hypocrisy and duplicity grievously provokes God.

Go before-Greek, , in the present tense; future in Vulg. Meaning as follows: “The publicans and harlots precede you, 0 ye Scribes, i.e., they go before you in the way of God and of virtue, and advance to Heaven by the pattern of faith, repentance, and change of life; and therefore they will indeed precede and go before you into the kingdom of Heaven, into which ye wicked ones will never enter, although ye might enter if ye would repent and change your lives. Thus (Mat 5:19) the least in the kingdom of Heaven are the impious and the reprobate, who shall be shut out of it.

In the way of justice; the Syriac is, walking in the way of rectitude-i.e., leading a life perfectly just, right, holy and blameless.

Neither repented-i.e., did not do penance. The Greek is , did not repent and amend.

Mystically. Publicans and harlots denote the Gentiles, who at first were slaves to idols and vices, and afterwards were converted by the preaching of the Apostles, and served God and virtue. The Pharisees and Scribes denote the Jews, who seemed to worship God, but really despised Him, since they despised Christ who was sent by Him, and hardened their hearts in this perfidy. Whence S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, Origen, S. Athanasius, Bede, Euthymius, Maldonatus, Jansen, and others, passim, interpret the parable of them.

Tropologically. Christ shows, says S. Chrysostom, that the populace and plebeians, who some time or other are converted, are better than priests who are never converted.

Tropologically. Ordinary Christians and lay people who, from a desire of holiness, keep evangelical counsels, although they are not bound to them by vow or profession, are like the first son. Priests, monks, and religious, who have taken vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, and afterwards break them, are like the second son.

“Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a wine-press in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: and when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vine-yard, and slew him. When the Lord, therefore, of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto Him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons” (Verses 33-41). Christ turns the point of this parable against the Scribes and Pharisees, His adversaries; but borrows it from Isaiah (Isa 5:1), that He may add weight to it, so as to press and convince them. For Isaiah there made use of it, and predicted that Christ would use it. For Isaiah begins his fifth chapter thus. “I will sing to my beloved (Christ Incarnate) a song of my kinsman of his vineyard. A vineyard has been made for my beloved in the horn of a son of oil” (Vulg.)-i.e., in a horn of olives, meaning in Juda, which was strong and lofty like a horn, and fertile and rich like an olive. I have expounded this at length on Isaiah v.; from whence I will repeat summarily what has been there said, and will go through the whole parable in a few words.

1 The man planting a vineyard is God founding the Church, or synagogue, according to Psa 80:9. “Thou hast transplanted a vine out of Egypt, Thou hast cast out the nations (from Canaan), and there planted the vine,” i.e., the Synagogue, or Temple of the Jews.

2. The hedge, the wine press and the tower erected in the vineyard signify that God provided abundantly for His Church all things necessary. Literally however by the hedge you may understand, with S. Jerome, the wall of Jerusalem; or strong princes like David and the Maccabees, with the Interlinear; or the Law, with Auctor Imperfecti, and S. Irenus (lib. 4. cap. 70). hedged it round about, the Syriac has, protected it on all sides by a wall.

The wine press is the Altar where the blood of the victims was poured out. So Origen, S. Jerome, Bede, Theophylact, Euthymius. The wine press is said to be dug, because formerly small lakes were cut out, or dug, for the purpose. Or as Mark says (Mar 12:1) a lake: where they received the new wine pressed from the grapes by the press. This is plain from Isa 5:2. Tropologically, the wine press says S. Jerome, denotes the martyrs. Whence the Psalms 8. 81, and 84. are entitled, For the wine presses. But S. Hilary thinks the prophets are meant, into whom the richness of the Holy Ghost very warmly flowed. S. Chrysostom by the wine press understands the word of God, which presses and torments man, through the opposition of the flesh.

The tower of the vineyard, i.e., of the synagogue was the temple of Jerusalem, and God’s worship there. So Origen, the Chaldee, S. Hilary, Bede, Theophylact, Euthymius. Mystically, the prophets, pastors and teachers, together with the kings and princes of the people were the tower. For they as from a tower were the watchmen of the people. So the same. Whence S. Hilary says, “A tower denotes the eminence of the law, which towered towards heaven, and from which the Advent of Christ might be watched for.

3. The inhabitants of the vineyard were the princes of the people: for it is their part to rule and guide the people. To work in the vine-yard, is to do justice, says S. Chrysostom.

4. God went into a far country, because, as Origen says, when He had given His law and covenants to the Jews, appearing to them on Mount Sinai, He did not afterwards appear to them, as though He had gone elsewhere.

5. The time of fruits, i.e., of the observance of the law and worship of God was in the time of David, Solomon, Josaphat, Hezekias, Josias, &c., when the Jews were able to live quietly to themselves and to God, as they ought. Or rather this time was always; because they were always bound to serve God, and bring forth the fruit of good works. Whence Maldonatus thinks this pertains to the figures and adornment of the parable.

6. The servants sent by God to the vineyard, i.e., the synagogue, to gather its fruits were Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the rest of the prophets, whom the Jews killed, because they reproved their vices, stoning some of them, as Jeremiah. And He sent them a second time, and more than the first, that by His diligence and His love He might overcome the wickedness of the husbandmen. Whence S. Chrysostom says, “Through all the grades of wickedness the mercy of God went on increasing, and through all the steps of God’s mercy, the wickedness kept increasing.” Wherefore at length God sent unto them His Son, that is Christ, now Incarnate, whom as the Heir of the Synagogue, the Scribes both slew and crucified without the city, i.e., outside of Jerusalem, on Mount Calvary, that they themselves might preside over and rule the synagogue, and enrich and magnify themselves by means of it. Instead of they will reverence My Son, the Syriac has, they will be ashamed on account of My Son.

Lastly, every one’s vineyard that he must till is his soul. To a pastor it is his parish: to a bishop, his diocese: to a magistrate, the state; that they may bring forth the fruit of good works and virtues. The hedge is the laws and statutes: the keepers are the angels: the tower is meditation, reason, forethought: the wine press is tribulation, mortification, the cross. “A servant is sent,” says Rabanus, “when the law, a psalm, or a prophecy is read: he is cast out when they are blasphemed or despised. He kills the heir, who tramples on the Son of God, and does despite to the Spirit of grace. The vineyard is given to another when the humble receive the grace which was despised by the proud.”

Moreover, The man planting the vineyard is God, who is called a man, says S. Chrysostom, by similitude, not reality. By nature He is Lord, by kindness Father, according to the words in Isaiah “The vineyard of the Lord of Sabaoth is the house of Israel.”

They (the Scribes) say unto Him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men. You will say, Mark and Luke assert that Christ said this; how then does Matthew attribute the same words to the Scribes? I may reply with S. Chrysostom and Euthymius, that the Scribes said it first, and afterwards Christ repeated and confirmed the same, in such manner and gesture that from thence, and from what preceded and followed (as Abulensis rightly observes, qust. 20), the Scribes sufficiently understood that it was spoken of them; and then they added, God forbid, as Luke has (c. Luk 20:16).

He will miserably destroy the wicked: namely, the wicked ones of the vineyard, i.e., the husbandmen of the Church, or the Scribes, with their followers, who killed the prophets and Christ. God will destroy them by Titus and Vespasian in this life, and by the devils in hell.

And will let out His vineyard to other husbandmen (viz., the Apostles and their successors), who shall render to Him the fruits in their seasons. This fruit of the vineyard, i.e., of the Church of God, is made manifest in the conversion of the whole world to the faith and holiness of Christ, and especially in the constancy of so many thousands of virgins and martyrs. The rejection of the Jews and the conversion of the Gentiles are here foretold, as Christ teaches, verse 43.

Moraliter: learn from hence that, like as a vineyard produces good grapes even if those who till it be evil, so does the Church and her faithful members produce the good works of virtues, even though her pastors and teachers be sometimes evil, like the Scribes. Yet will they bring forth more and larger fruits if the pastors are good, as is plain from the Apostles, whose Apostolic virtues the primitive believers imitating, excelled in chastity, charity, patience, and all virtues. Zeuxis, a famous painter, is an illustration of this emblem. He painted a boy with a basket of grapes so skilfully and beautifully as to deceive the birds; for the birds flew to these grapes as though they were real, and pecked at them, to try to eat them. Then Zeuxis said, modestly, “I have painted the grapes better than I have the boy; for the birds fly to the grapes, and do not fear the boy, who stands there, as being only a picture.” Thus the shepherds and keepers of the Church are frequently depraved, and badly depicted; but the grapes, i.e., the works of the people, are better and mote beautiful. By the carelessness of the keepers-i.e., of the pastors-it comes to pass that they become the prey of the birds-that is, of the demons-by whom they are devoured.

Verse 42. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Christ cites Psa 18:22, where David speaks and prophesies of Christ. And the Scribes knew this. Wherefore they understood that they were marked and censured in this sentence by David as well as Christ. The meaning is: the Scribes, Priests, and Pharisees as the builders of the Synagogue-i.e., of the Jewish Church-cast Christ from it as a worthless stone; indeed, as being hurtful to it, they condemned and killed Him. For the Scribes, whom He had previously called labourers and husbandmen, He now calls builders, says S. Jerome. But this stone rejected by the Jews is made by God the Head of the corner. That is, it was placed at the head of the corner, and was made the chief and altogether fundamental stone of the Church, and at the same time the corner stone, so as to join and connect the two walls of the Gentiles and the Jews on Itself, as in a corner, in the same fabric and house of the Church. So S. Augustine, S. Basil, Euthymius, Cassiodorus, Abulensis, Jansen, Maldonatus, and the rest of the Fathers and expositors, either here, or on Psa 18:22. Also S. Peter (Epist. 1, cap. ii. 6), where I have expounded the passage at length. For frequently in Scripture the fabric of the Church is compared to the building of a house, which is laid upon a solid foundation, such as a rock; for thus the Church is built upon, and rests upon, Christ. Christ, therefore, is the first rock of the Church, who communicated this name (together with the thing itself) to S. Peter-that after Christ he should be the rock of the Church-and then to the rest of the Apostles, whom in like manner He constituted the foundations of the Church, as is plain from the Rev 21:19, Eph 2:20, and elsewhere. Moreover, Calvin arrogantly, as well as foolishly and impiously, declares himself to be this stone; forasmuch as, being rejected by the Pope and the Roman Church, he became the foundation of the Calvinistic sect. Thus does that proud braggart dare to equal himself to Christ, yea, to rob Christ of His oracle and title. But let him give the signs by which he may show that he has been sent by God: let him show, I say, miracles, prophecies, Scriptures, as Christ did. But he never has shown them, and he never will. Therefore he is not the reformer of the Church, but the deformer.

Verse 43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. The Church is constantly called the kingdom of God in the gospel, because in it God reigns in the faithful by faith and grace, and leads them to the heavenly kingdom, that He may reign in them by glory.

Behold there is here, as it were, the epimythion, or post-parable and application, in which Christ clearly expounds and applies the three parables which He has spoken-namely, the first, concerning the two sons, one obedient, the other disobedient; the second, concerning the vineyard, whose husbandmen killed the servants and the Son of the owner; the third, concerning the rejected stone, which was made the head of the corner-to the Scribes themselves, and the Jews their followers, as follows: “You, 0 ye Scribes, are disobedient sons to God your Father, for ye persecute Me His Only Begotten Son sent by Him. Ye, too, are the husbandmen of this vineyard, who will kill Me its Heir. Lastly, ye are the builders of the synagogue, who reject Me as a stone; but God will make Me the basis and foundation of His Church, because He will take it away from you, and transfer it to the Gentiles, who will eagerly receive and worship Me, and so will be endowed by Me with grace and glory.” For all the parables of Christ have this end in view-that they may signify the rejection of the Jews and the election of the Gentiles, because the Jews rejected Christ, Whom the Gentiles accepted. By this parable Christ so pricked the Scribes, that they prepared the cross for Him.

Verse 44. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. The Syriac has, shall dissipate him. It means, whoso shall resist Christ and persecute Him, as you do, 0 ye Scribes, shall do it in vain, and shall bring hurt to himself both in mind and in body: still in such sort as that it may, by repentance, be repaired.

But upon whom it shall fall: this stone. Upon whomsoever Christ shall press with the whole weight of His heavy vengeance, as, for example upon the damned in the Day of Judgment (as you, 0 ye Scribes will be damned unless ye repent), to such a one there shall remain no hope of reparation, or restitution: as if a great stone should fall upon a shell, and dash it into minutest fragments, so that in no way could it be restored, or repaired. Christ therefore here threatens the Scribes with eternal and irreparable destruction, even the flames of hell. So S. Augustine (lib. 1. qust. Evang. ix. 30), Abulensis, Barradi, Jansen, Maldonatus and others. Hear S. Augustine, “They fall upon Him, who only despise Him, or injure Him: but He shall fall upon them, when He shall come to judgment to destroy, that the wicked may be as dust which the wind driveth away.”

Verses 45, 46. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard His parables, they perceived that He spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet. The Scribes were aware, partly from the actual words of the Psalm, partly from the words and gestures of Christ, that these things were spoken against them, wherefore they roared, and gnashed their teeth at Him; and wished to take Him and torment Him, but through fear of the people, they did not dare to do so. Behold how by degrees Christ through His reproofs of the Scribes prepared for Himself the way to the cross and death. For to this after three days He was brought by the Scribes. Thus was fulfilled the counsel of God, that He would redeem mankind by the death of Christ.

*With this line begins a translation of every word of the original Latin. (back)

END OF VOLUME II.

Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary

21:23 {6} 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 {k} authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?

(6) Against those who neglect the doctrine and bind the calling and vocation to an ordinary succession, going about by that false pretext, to stop Christ’s mouth.

(k) Or by what power.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The issue of authority 21:23-27

Israel’s religious leaders approached Jesus asking that He show them His credentials authorizing Him to disrupt the buying and selling in the courtyard and to heal people.

"Two incidents about authority (Mat 21:23-27 and Mat 22:41-46) serve as ’bookends’ to three parables (Mat 21:28 to Mat 22:14) and three controversial dialogues with the Pharisees and Herodians, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees (Mat 22:15-40)." [Note: Bailey, in The New . . ., p. 44.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Jesus taught in the temple courtyard or perhaps under one of the colonnades that surrounded it. The chief priests were high officials in the temple. At this time in Israel’s history the Roman authorities appointed these leaders (cf. Mat 2:4). They constituted part of the Sanhedrin, the ruling council in Judaism. The elders were evidently non-priests who represented leading families in Israel. They also had representation on the Sanhedrin. [Note: Jeremias, Jerusalem in . . ., pp. 222-32.] Matthew described these men in terms of their status, not their party affiliation. His point was that these were high-ranking leaders of Israel.

They inquired about Jesus’ authority to drive out the moneychangers and merchants, heal the sick, and teach the people. They were the people with authority to control what happened in the temple area. Authority (Gr. exousia) is the right, and the power that goes with the right, to do something. [Note: Lenski, p. 826.] They wanted to know what authority Jesus had and who had given Him the authority to do what He did since they had not. The validity of Jesus’ authority depended on its source. [Note: Bruce, 1:265.] Their question indicated their opposition to what He did.

". . . at the time of our Lord, no one would have ventured authoritatively to teach without proper Rabbinic authorisation [sic]. . . . ’who gave Thee this authority to do these things?’ seems clearly to point to their contention, that the power which Jesus wielded was delegated to Him by none other than Beelzebul." [Note: Edersheim, The Life . . ., 2:382, 283.]

"The real issue in the passage concerns not information about the authority of Jesus but the unbelief and unreceptivity of the Jewish leadership. The latter knew well enough that Jesus would have claimed divine authority for his doings in the temple area. Their question thus reflects not an inquisitive openness but an already established rejection of Jesus and the attempt to gain evidence that could later be used against him." [Note: Hagner, Matthew 14-28, p. 610.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

2. Rejection by the chief priests and the elders 21:23-22:14 (cf. Mar_11:27 to Mar_12:12; Luk 20:1-19)

The cursing of the fig tree happened as Jesus and the disciples walked from Bethany to Jerusalem on Tuesday. The disciples’ exclamation about the withered tree and Jesus’ lesson followed on Wednesday. Jesus and His disciples proceeded into Jerusalem where confrontations with three groups erupted in the temple courtyard that day.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles