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 21:23-27
is a dialogue or pronouncement story around the theme of the authority of
Jesus. The source is Mark 11:27-33, while Luke reproduces it in 20:1-8. 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. The exchange
between Jesus and the religious leaders of the Jewish people occurs in the
temple area in Jerusalem. Matthew says he is teaching in the area, an obvious
focus of his gospel. The religious leaders approach him. Their concern is that
he has done things since he arrived in Jerusalem that makes them wonder who he
thinks he is. They wonder about who has given him authority to do what he has
done. He has entered Jerusalem with a crowd of supporters. 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. He
asks them about John the Baptist. He 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. The response of the Jewish leaders
is that they do not know the answer to his question. 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.
We learn that
appearances can be deceiving. By all appearances, the chief priests and elders
of the Jewish people in the day of Jesus were the exemplars of piety and
religious sensitivity. John the Baptist, on the other hand, with his hair shirt
and ascetic diet, did not fit any proper image of a respectable religious
leader in this era. Even if one maintains that he did look the part of the
classical Israelite prophet, there were many in the Jewish community who by the
Second Temple period had a deep mistrust of prophets and prophecy in general.
See, for instance, Zechariah 13:1-6, where a day is coming when the Lord will
remove prophets from the land because they lie. Therefore, when one compared
John with the leaders of the Jerusalem religious establishment, one saw two
entirely different types of religious expression. Which was truly of God? Could
they possibly both be of God?
The major part of
John's ministry, about which Jesus questions the religious leaders, is his
practice of baptism. This baptism was different from the standard Jewish
rituals of bathing. Jewish law required that ritual baths be undertaken in
order to purify persons who had encountered various causes of ritual impurity. These
water rituals were required in order to restore the person to a pure state in
which they could resume contact with others and return to participation in
religious life. Sources of ritual impurity included sexual activity,
childbirth, menstruation; certain illnesses and contact with a dead body (see,
for example, Leviticus 12-15). Largely, the causes of ritual impurity were not sins.
They were simply conditions of life during which they believed it to be
inappropriate to participate in official worship or feast days. Thus, the
Jewish ritual baths that purified one from these conditions of uncleanness did
not remove sin. They simply restored a person to their normal state of ritual
purity. By the year 200, when rabbis compiled the Jewish law codes known as the
Mishnah, an entire tractate, roughly one-sixth of the whole work, had the title
Toharot ("pure things"), dedicated to the issue of ritual purity or
loss of it. This represents a large portion of Jewish law in this era, but
nowhere in this work is the idea presented that one could use ritual bathing to
remove sin. Therefore, John's baptism was a substantial departure from standard
Jewish custom, and submitting to such a ritual would have represented not only
an endorsement of this new idea but also an admission of sin on the part of the
Jewish leaders that they were apparently unwilling to make.
Matthew 21:28-32
is a parable of Jesus concerning two sons. The parable is unique to Matthew.
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." In context, he asks the religious leaders
what they think of his parable he is about to tell them. A man, whom we are to
think of as God, has two sons, whom we are to think of as tax collectors and
sinners on the one hand and the religious leaders on the other. The father asks
the first son to work in his vineyard. He initially declines, but eventually
does what his father asked. Such persons, like all sinners, initially decline,
having no inclination to obey God. Yet, they later repent, reforming their
lives. 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.[1]
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, opening the door for
the challenge from Jesus that the religious leaders are like the second son. 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. If tax collectors and
sinners are repenting and reforming their lives through his ministry, then his
ministry is a work of God.
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.”
