Matthew 21:23-32 (NRSV)
23 When he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” 24 Jesus said to them, “I will also ask you one question; if you tell me the answer, then I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?” And they argued with one another, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ we are afraid of the crowd; for all regard John as a prophet.” 27 So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” And he said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.
28 “What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 He answered, ‘I will not’; but later he changed his mind and went. 30 The father went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir’; but he did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; and even after you saw it, you did not change your minds and believe him.
Matthew 21:23-32 deals with the authority of Jesus.
Matthew 21:23-27 (Mark 11:27-33, Luke 20:1-8) is a scholastic controversy dialogue around the theme of the authority of Jesus. Note that the words of Jesus are in the style of a sharp comeback, a wisecrack, riposte, retort, or rejoinder. His words are like an angry reply. It has an origin in the early decades of the Jewish-Christian church.[1]
Jesus entered the temple. The chief priests and the elders of the people approach him as he was teaching, an obvious focus of his gospel. Mark says Jesus is merely walking around and Luke that he is teaching and telling the good news. The concern of the religious leaders is that he has done things since he arrived in Jerusalem that makes them wonder who he thinks he is, and thus they asked him by what authority he has done what he did since he arrived in Jerusalem and who gave him that authority. The questions imply Jesus is not officially trained rabbi. He has entered Jerusalem with a crowd of supporters chanting, "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord" (21:9)! He has cast out the moneychangers from the Temple area. One can understand the concern and caution of these religious leaders. Later, of course, these leaders will stand in judgment of Jesus and condemn him to death. The response from Jesus is to answer their question with another question. He wants to draw the answer out of them. in verses 24-25, he asked, I will also ask you one question; if you tell me the answer, then I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. Did the baptism of John come from heaven, an extravagant claim Jesus would make for John,[2] or was it of human origin? This question shows the significance his baptism by John held for Jesus. It suggests that the answer is that his authority rests on the baptism of John and what happened when he submitted to that baptism.[3]John the Baptist spoke and acted in challenging ways. He wants them to consider the authority John had with what he said and did. God may have called him, or he may act on his own will. If they can answer truthfully, then he will answer truthfully. If they can discern the divine origin of the ministry of John, then they should have the ability to discern the divine origin of the ministry of Jesus. For Jesus, the point is that just as the Baptist received his authority from God and not from human beings, so also does he claim such authority.[4] The response of the religious leaders is that they do not know the answer to his question, for if they say his authority came from heaven, then Jesus will ask why they did not believe him, but if they say of human origin, this would be unpopular with the crowd, who think of John as a prophet (14:5). It may mean they have not discussed or studied the matter enough. It may also mean a truthful answer would create problems with the people or with political leaders. They have approached Jesus as if he they had profound knowledge. Their reply is sheepish, as though they had no opinion or had not truly studied the issue thoroughly enough to make a judgment. Since they responded the way they did, Jesus responded, in verse 27 Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.” Jesus’ ultimate silence about this authority is not an evasion; rather, it is testimonial that his authority really does come from a source greater than these religious experts. Surely Matthew means for us to see the irony: Jesus has come, the long- awaited Messiah, the one to whom the Scriptures testify is here. And yet those keepers of the Scriptures, those who claim to be awaiting the Messiah, resist him, examine him, will seek to destroy him.
Matthew 21:28-32 (unique to Matthew) is a narrative parable of Jesus concerning two sons. In a Jewish parallel, various peasants refuse the commission of the king, but the last one accepts it, but does not carry it out, so with whom will the king be most angry? Matthew uses the parable to link together the discussion of John the Baptist in the previous confrontation and the second parable, another vineyard story, about the "wicked tenants." Jesus uses questions to expose the leaders, suggesting that actions rather than empty words are crucial. 28 “What do you think? of his parable he is about to tell them. Such a question shows the parable having the character of an argument, in that it entices the hearer to a judgment upon the situation depicted, and then challenges the hearer to apply that judgment to the matter in hand.[5] A man, whom we are to think of as God, had two sons, whom we are to think of as John the Baptist on the one hand and the religious leaders on the other. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ The father asks the first son to work in his vineyard. The work in the vineyard, then, which John the Baptist ends up doing and the priests do not, represents the work of religious renewal and rededication that John and Jesus awakened in Jewish believers. 29 He answered, ‘I will not’; but later he changed his mind and went. He initially declines, but eventually does what his father asked. One surprising lesson at this point is that it is okay to say No to God. Granted, such persons, like all sinners, initially decline, being not inclined to obey God. Yet, they later repent, reforming their lives. We might say no to God because we are stubborn, afraid, doubtful, or we want to do something else. Given the choice -- labor in the field or spend another hour in front of TV -- what would one choose? The "No" grows out of a sense of being overworked. Can God demand too much of God's people? It might seem like it sometimes. There is a message of God about the compassionate and welcoming parent depicted in the father in the story. The father issues a clear directive and has confidence in the sons' ability to follow it. The father then allows the sons to make their own decisions on their adherence to his command. Like the father, Jesus is looking for followers who are not in mindless, lockstep precision but who, after reflection, are ready to give their all, and follow. This matter of authority and obedience is a difficult one. If we separate them completely, we encourage authoritarian behavior on the one side and doormat behavior on the other. Such separation perverts authority as well as obedience. A person with great authority who has nobody to be obedient to is in great spiritual danger. A very obedient person who has no authority over anyone is equally in danger.[6] 30 The father went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir’; but he did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” The second son immediately gives an affirmative answer but decides not to do so later. Like religious leaders, this son officially and publicly agrees to obey God, but refuse to do the work of being representatives of God in the vineyard. We are to think of the vineyard at this point in the spiritual sense of the Jewish people as the people of God. They have a responsibility to cultivate the spiritual condition of these people. The question Jesus invites the religious leaders to ponder is which son did the will of his father. In this case, we are to think of the divine will as adherence to a specific command or ordinance.[7]The parable poses a genuine dilemma for the normal Galilean family: which son, if either, is to receive commendation? In a society that makes honor and shame the fundamental choice, there is no right answer to the question. Both shame their father. Posing difficult social problems seems entirely consistent with Jesus. The obvious answer to the question is that the first son did the will of the father. In answering correctly, they condemn themselves for not doing the will of God as practiced and preached by Jesus. they miss a chance to change their minds or repent. Their response opens the door for the challenge from Jesus that the religious leaders are like the second son. Jesus told them, applying the parable to the conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you. This sharp appeal to the religious leaders is in the form of a rebuke designed to provoke them to reconsider their relation to God and to the outcasts.[8] Such a paradoxical statement about those who belong to the rule of God testifies that the rule of God is a primary theme of the preaching of Jesus.[9] It emphasizes the role of forgiveness in the preaching and action of Jesus.[10] The parable vindicates the good news, the invitation rejected by the religious leaders but accepted by the despised ones.[11] Those for whom the religious leaders regard as beyond repentance are nearer to God than they are. they may have disobeyed the call of God, but they have shown sorrow and repentance and shall be admitted into the rule of God, but the religious leaders at risk of not entering.[12] These two groups – tax collectors and harlots – are completely outside the bounds of Torah, therefore outside the bounds of salvation and redemption. They are no better than the Gentile dogs. They are despised, forsaken groups who have absolutely no claim upon God – unless God in Jesus Christ has made a claim upon them. The story reminds us that Jesus spent time with tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners, who will enter a life within the rule of God before the religious leaders. Those who think they are devout are not fulfilling the will of God. John brought the requests and desires of the Father to the children of Israel. The disobedient, such as tax collectors and sinners, repented of their course of life. Those who mouth pious platitudes are often those who do not do the will of the Father. For Jesus, the fruit of their ministry is the test of whether their actions come from God or from themselves. This story of compassion and forgiveness is good news for anyone who can remember moments of disobedience, times of ignoring the rules, or periods of poor choices. The arms of Jesus are open wide. For those who have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, there is a message of welcome and an invitation to try again. Past blunders will not be counted against them when they are followed by both a change of heart and a change of course. Followers will not be judged on their initial, often impulsive mistakes but rather on the final choices that lead them either closer or farther away from God. Jesus seems willing to look past the many weaknesses and failures in his followers and invites them to put their earlier bad choices behind them so that they can follow him. In verse 32, the application to the Baptist is surprising. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, an Old Testament expression suggesting he practiced and preached conformity to the will of God that makes a person upright, and you did not believe him, but, people engaged in despised trades[13] like the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; and even after you saw it, you did not change your minds and believe him. The faith here is in the God to whom John pointed people.[14] He had found disobedience in those who by profession were the servant of God, and obedience from those whose way of life was ungodly.[15] This application gives a soteriological application to the parable. Such a judgment is like Luke 7:29-30, Jesus saying that when tax collectors received the baptism of John, they acknowledged the justice of God, but the Pharisees and scribes rejected the purpose of God for themselves by rejecting his baptism. Their piety and theology separates them from, leading them to pride and self-assurance, making their change of mind or repentance almost hopeless. Nothing separates people from God so profoundly as self-assured piety.[16] If tax collectors and sinners are repenting and reforming their lives through his ministry, then his ministry is a work of God. religious leaders reject the word of God while outcasts accept it.[17]
When I think of the first son, I think of the importance of rethinking a decision. Perseverance is usually a superior quality. Yet, “quitters” are often the ones willing to change and lead the way into the rule of God in their lives. All through history, winners have quit one thing and moved on to another. When we do not see a path forward to the point where we become stuck, the time has come to give up. This son reminds us of the truth contained in the saying of John Wesley, “Thou art never weary, O Lord, of doing us good. Let us never be weary of doing thee service.”
Homiletical application
The second son presents a different dilemma. Soren Kierkegaard, in Works of Love, Chapter IIIA, refers to this text as a parable rarely heard preached. He thinks the text shows the danger of saying “Yes” in too great a hurry. The yes-brother was not a deceiver when he said yes, but became one when he failed to keep the promise. His eagerness became his snare. The yes of the promise is sleep inducing. The way that leads from no to repentance is easy to find. The no uttered, and then heard by him, was stimulating. Repentance was not far away. The one who says, “Sir, I will,” takes pleasure in the promise. The one who says no has fear of oneself. A no hides nothing. A yes can easily become self-deception, which of all difficulties is the most difficult to conquer. The saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions is all too true. The most dangerous path for a human being is to go backward with good intentions and promises. We do not praise the son who said no, but the gospel warns us of the danger of saying, “Sir, I will.”Those of us within the church need to be honest about this. It is annoying when those people, those people who are not self-evidently good people, those people who are not well- formed church people, turn out to be such undeniably good people. What are we – we undeniably good well-informed, well-formed church people – to do with their unrestrained beneficence? Why would Jesus work such goodness among them, and not among us? Why are the demands of discipleship so easily fulfilled in their lives, and not ours? Perhaps, because they do not think of themselves as “good,” they are particularly capable of being good. Perhaps because they are not trying to be righteous, righteousness comes so easily to them. Or perhaps this strange phenomenon – the righteousness of the not self-evidently righteous – has more to do with the nature of Jesus than with the nature of people. Perhaps there is something about Jesus that tends toward the unrighteous, the not-so-morally virtuous, the less-than good people? If you are already basking in your own goodness, what goodness could I give you? And, to be honest, many of us enjoy basking in our own goodness. Perhaps, because we are basking in the light of our own righteousness, it is therefore more difficult for us to receive Christ’s light. I do not know. But what I do know is that there does seem to be an annoying tendency in Jesus to reach out to the “lost,” to work wonders among them. And there seems to be this complimentary annoying tendency of the “lost,” to respond to the reach of Jesus.[18]
Let us reflect upon the two sons.
When I think of the first son, I think of the importance of rethinking a decision. Perseverance is usually a good quality. Yet, “quitters” are often the ones willing to change and lead the way into the rule of God in their lives. All through history, winners have quit one thing and moved on to another. We can begin with this Gospel. Matthew tells us that Jesus "left Nazareth and made his home in Capernaum by the sea," where he began his ministry (4:13). Simon Peter and Andrew quit fishing and followed Jesus (4:20). Saul quit "breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord" and became an apostle (Acts 9:1-22). In addition, the quitting has continued, right up to the present day. Abraham Lincoln quit being an owner of a general store and entered politics. Julia Childs quit being a CIA intelligence officer and became a world-famous cook. Harrison Ford quit being a professional carpenter when someone offered him a part in a little movie called Star Wars. "Grandma" Moses quit selling potato chips and began to paint ... at age 80. Clearly, quitters sometimes win when they discover the upside of giving up. When do we decide our time has come to give up what we are doing? We should do so when our hearts are not in it. Passion and deriving meaning and significance from the course we have chosen in life is important. Life is too short. When we lose that, the time has come to stop persevering, quit, and do something new. When we do not see a path forward to the point where we become stuck, the time has come to give up. Of course, if we discern that our decisions have been our way of avoiding what God wants us to do, we need to give up and move on to something new. As Thomas Henry Huxley, put it, “The great end of life is not knowledge but action.” This son reminds us of the truth contained in the saying of John Wesley, “Thou art never weary, O Lord, of doing us good. Let us never be weary of doing thee service.”
The second son presents a different dilemma. Soren Kierkegaard, in Works of Love, Chapter IIIA, refers to this text as a parable rarely heard preached. He thinks the text shows the danger of saying “Yes” in too great a hurry. The yes-brother was not a deceiver when he said yes, but became one when he failed to keep the promise. His eagerness became his snare. The yes of the promise is sleep inducing. The way that leads from no to repentance is easy to find. The no uttered, and then heard by him, was stimulating. Repentance was not far away. The one who says, “Sir, I will,” takes pleasure in the promise. The one who says no has fear of oneself. A no hides nothing. A yes can easily become self-deception, which of all difficulties is the most difficult to conquer. The saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions is all too true. The most dangerous path for a human being is to go backward with good intentions and promises. We do not praise the son who said no, but the gospel warns us of the danger of saying, “Sir, I will.”
Fortunately, Christians throughout history have wrestled with the question of what God wants them to do, and several techniques have been developed that can help us to discern God's will. Some of the best come from a 16th-century spiritual director named Saint Ignatius Loyola.
Ignatius asks us first to clarify the goal of our life: To have a loving relationship with God. With this goal in mind, we can make several choices about how we will achieve this goal, and every choice should move us a little closer to God. We might start a business, go back to school, get married or change jobs. The important thing is to begin with the goal in mind: to follow Christ into an ever deeper and more loving relationship with God.
Once this goal is clarified, we can tackle the complexities of decision-making. This is when we figure out how to stop avoiding what God wants us to do, and how to start working in God's vineyard. If you're trying to decide between two activities, list the pros and cons, side by side, on a sheet of paper. Ask some friends what they think. Set aside some time for prayer, talk to God about your decision, and see if you are given greater clarity about your choice. Ignatius believed that "we can discern the right choice by attending to the inner movements of our spirit."
Sometimes, we must live with a sense of restlessness as God pushes us in a new direction. Other times, we feel peaceful about a decision but then discover that our serenity is really laziness in disguise. Ignatius wants us to continue examining our decisions and make choices that increase the feelings of faith, hope and love within ourselves.
The upside of giving up is that it puts us in a position to change our lives for the better. If we feel that we're avoiding what God wants us to do, we need to stop what we're doing, clarify goals and define what it means to have a loving relationship with God. We should figure out what changes need to be made in order to start using our time and talents as workers in God's vineyard. We ought to pay attention to the inner movements of our spirit, and make choices that will increase our faith, hope and love.
The good news is that by quitting, we might, in fact, be winners. Certainly, it is a win-win when we choose to follow Jesus and move into a more loving relationship with God.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Bread for the Journey, Henri Nouwen
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] William Willimon, Pulpit Resource, 2005.
liked this never thought of this parable in this way
ReplyDelete