Lectionary Bible Studies and Sermons


Matthew

The authority of Jesus. 21:23-32

[Seed logo] Introduction
      The question concerning Jesus' authority and the parable of the two sons, occurs in Matthew's record of the opening events of Passion Week. They are part of a group of controversies that occur in the precincts of the temple court. The parable is the first of a group of three in which Jesus attacks the Jewish leaders. The first and the third are peculiar to Matthew.

The passage
      v23. Public questioning and debate between religious teachers was a popular sport in Judaism. Yet, it is likely that these representatives of the Sanhedrin were more into entrapment than debate. In seeking to identify the authority by which Jesus exercised his ministry, they were hoping to gather further evidence for a charge of blasphemy.
      v24-25a. Jesus reads their motives and so toys with them. He asks them by what authority John the Baptist exercised his ministry.
      v25b-26. They could give Jesus an answer, even debate the matter, but they were smart enough to see they would be cornered. They were there to entrap Jesus, but now found themselves trapped.
      v27. These religious officials had long rejected Jesus and therefore, Jesus rejects their right to judge him.
      v28-31b. The son, who was initially disobedient but finally obeyed his father and went to work in the vineyard, represents the "tax collectors and the prostitutes". These outcasts (rebels to God's law), on hearing the good news of the kingdom, repent, believe and enter. Although initially disobedient, when it comes to the crunch, they obey. The son who said he would obey, but in the end didn't, represents "the chief priests and the elders of the people." These righteous ones, who passionately obey God's law, outwardly at least, refuse to repent and believe in Jesus. Although seemingly obedient, when it comes to the crunch, they disobey.
      v31c-32. The long awaited age has dawned. John the Baptist has pointed to "the way of righteousness". He has detailed the means of access into the very presence of God - how to stand before him right/approved in his sight, how to enter and be a part of God's new age. Access into God's presence is through repentance (a turning from self to God) and belief in the word of God revealed through John and particularly now, through and in the person of Jesus. Yet, an amazing and totally unexpected thing has occurred; the seemingly righteous sons have refused to enter and the outcasts are streaming in.

The lost
      One son said "yes", but did nothing, the other son said "no", but later did the father's will. Doing the father's will was the issue. The older son (Israel) might have said "yes" to the Father's will, but did not do it. The younger son, the outcast, had said "no", but did it. The "tax collectors and the prostitutes" have done the Father's will, and that will is to "repent and believe" the kingdom message, v32.
      In our new millennium, this story seems quite redundant. What useful truth can it reveal to those of us who have repented and believed in Jesus? Are we not the son who finally did what his father commanded? Yet, if that was the end of it there would be little point in Matthew wasting precious space in his gospel recording the parable. What is the use of a back-slap which affirms our standing before God? No, there is more to this parable than meets the eye. The parable reminds believers today that we are, in a sense, the "elder sons" and so we may not be the obedient son. It well may be that some outside the church are obeying the Father's will and we are not.
      So then, how do we apply this parable to the here and now? When it comes obeying the Father's will, there is one act of obedience that is essential, but is easily placed in the non-essential basket. It is the obedience of faith.
      A belief that our standing before God is maintained or advanced by a faithful attention to the law of God, can easily undermine our initial "yes" for Jesus. We can easily come to believe that our continued standing before God, his approval and love, and our progress in the Christian life, is ours by obedience to Christ. This way of thinking undermines "repentance and faith." That is, it undermines the grace of God. "By grace are you save, not by works, lest anyone should boast." So, the initial "yes" for the journey of faith, can be undermined if the believer gets into the business of law-obedience. For us today, let us take care that we haven't unknowingly said "yes", but have then forgotten the Father's will.
      The church today is infested with the heresy of sanctification by obedience. Too many church attenders have forgotten their "yes" and now seek a law-righteousness rather than a righteousness which is apart from the law of God. If we are to do what the Father wants, then we must live by grace through faith and not by works of the law.

Discussion
      1. Looking at v31 and 32, discuss who the two sons represent.
      2. The "father wanted" his two sons to work in his vineyard. What does this work represent, as far as our heavenly Father is concerned? Restrict yourself to the passage.
      3. Discuss the issue of law-obedience in the Christian church. How dominant is the heresy of sanctification by works? Examine the grace/law issue.
     


Notes

Textual notes   Abbreviations,   Bibliography
 
      Jesus uses the parable of the two sons to teach a truth to "the chief priests and the elders of the people." Unlike the rag-tag crowd of evil doers, the religious leaders have failed to respond to the good news of the dawning kingdom of God. They have stood by while "tax collectors and prostitutes" have entered the kingdom.
      The parable falls into the context of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. Like the barren fig tree, Jesus finds the temple devoid of true worship - it is a "den of robbers". Sadly, the curse upon the fig tree will inevitably be upon Israel, 21:12-21. Jesus is then given the treatment by the Jewish authorities who display a complete lack of faith, 21:23-27. Jesus then describes their condition in the parable of the two sons, 21:28-32.
      In the parable itself, there is a slight technical problem which affects translation, although not its interpretation. The problem concerns the two sons. There are two options:
        1. The first (older) son says no, but repents and goes; the second son says yes, but does nothing. Who performs the Father's will? The first. This is the translation used by the NIV.
        2. The older son says yes, but does nothing; the second son says no, but repents and goes. Who performs the Father's will? The younger, the last, or the second.
      Whichever option is correct, the interpretation is simple enough. One changed his mind. Jesus' explanation remains the same: the sinner enters the kingdom while the "righteous" person remains outside, or possibly, comes in second / just gets in. Sinners believe the gospel proclaimed by John ("John came to you in righteousness" - ie. preaching a righteousness which is apart from the law, or preaching righteousness. See below). The righteous (initially?) don't believe his message, but sinners do; they repent and enter the kingdom.
      Setting aside technical matters that may affect translation, we need to consider the more substantial issue of interpretation, and particularly how this parable teaches God's affirmative action toward the lost.
      What we actually have in the parable of the two sons is a common theme that runs through the gospels. The word of God is rejected by the religious leaders, the righteous ones, but is accepted by the outcasts, by sinners. In fact, the theme is presented as an unprecedented concern by God for "the publicans and sinners", "tax collectors and prostitutes", "outcasts", "the lost." In a real sense, God discriminates positively in favour of the outcast. Today we would call this behavior affirmative action. God moves positively toward "the lost."
      Jesus' statement in Mark 2:17 summarizes this unexpected move on God's part. "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
      Time and again Jesus makes this point. Take Luke 15, the parables of the Lost Sheep, Lost Coin and the Prodigal Son. All display an unprecedented concern for the lost and a seeming disregard for the "righteous". With such treatment it is probably only to be expected that the "righteous son" might get a bit "angry". None-the-less, his actual status in the sight of God is not in any way threatened. "You are always with me, and everything I have is yours." If the "righteous son" stands outside the gates of the kingdom (ie. does not repent), it is his own doing.
      The parable of the Great Feast further illustrates the point, Matt.22:1-13, Lk.14:16-24. The invitation is rejected by the "righteous", but is accepted by the publicans and sinners. The simple fact is, God is discriminating positively toward the outcast. He is acting graciously, offering eternity as a gift to those who do not deserve it.
      Yet, God's positive discrimination toward the outcast does not impact negatively on the "righteous". Any good Jew, with a reasonable understanding of the Old Testament, could not help but be overjoyed to see God take a special interest in the "lost". The gathering of the lost from the four corners of the earth is a demonstrable sign of the dawning of the new age of the kingdom. In God's move toward the outcast, no Israelite is hindered from entering the kingdom. The true remnant of Israel does in fact enter, although the nation and its institutions continue in unbelief.
      With regard "the lost." The term refers initially to those children of Abraham who were members of the ten northern tribes taken into exile. It was later widened to include those who had remained behind in Jerusalem after the Babylonian invasion and who had intermarried with foreigners. Finally, it included all "evil doers". They were the outcasts of Israel, excluded from national religious life. The prophets spoke of the final day when the lost would be gathered into the kingdom. In Jesus, that day has come.
      The question for us is, how do we Gentiles fit into God's gracious program of affirmative action? Zechariah describes the Gentiles scraping in on the tassels of the incoming children of Israel. We get a look-in because at this moment God is dealing with outcasts, and we get to squeeze in on the tassels of the one righteous Jew, namely, Jesus. The movement of the gospel to the Gentiles is an act of God's grace - his covenant mercy now extending forgiveness to the world. In Luke's gospel, this movement is given prominence. Even in the parable of the Great Feast, Luke has a multiple invitation to parallel the Gentile mission, ie. outcasts and Gentiles get the invite. Interestingly, in Matthew's account of the parable he has a little addition which carries a warning for "the Johnny-come-latelies." We might have just squeezed in, but beware, cf. 1Cor.10:1-13.
      Yet, in what sense "beware"? What is the warning to the outcasts who come to the "wedding hall" "not wearing wedding clothes", Matt.22:11-14? I can remember a sermon on this parable from my fellowship days. The minister said that this person came to the wedding feast not clothed in the blood of Christ; he had not done what the Father commanded, that is, repent and believe. Although the imagery is a bit stark for our age, I still think his interpretation was the right one. The warning is simple, "many are invited, but few are chosen", so beware! To be one of the "chosen" we must "repent and believe." God discriminates positively toward outcasts, but we still have to hold onto Jesus to enter His heaven.

v23
      oiJ arciereiV (uV ewV) "chief priests" - The chief priests were a priestly aristocracy who led the temple services and were members of the Sanhedrin.
      oiJ presbuteroi (oV) "elders" - Probably here non members of the Sanhedrin.
      didaskonti (didaskw) pres. part. "while he was teaching" - teaching. The participle probably serves to form a temporal clause, but some have taken it as causal, "because he was teaching."
      tauta pro. "these things" - Referring to Jesus' miracles, his activity in the temple, or possibly his teachings. "What right have you to act as you are doing?", Barclay
      edwken (didwmi) aor. "gave" - give. The question as to who gave Jesus the authority to do "these things" is most likely not genuine, but rather serves as a form of entrapment. This explains why Jesus plays with their question rather than answering it at face value.

v24
      kagw "I [will] also [ask]" - and I. Emphatic. Jesus can ask difficult questions as well.
      erwthsw (erwtaw) fut. "will [also] ask [you a question]" - will ask, question. The question Jesus asks in return corners his opponents. If they affirm John's authority, then they must accept the authority of Jesus since John pointed to Jesus. If they reject John's authority then they face the wrath of the crowd. No one openly alienates their congregation.
      ean eiphte moi "if you answer me" - if you tell me. "And if you answer it correctly."

v25
      to baptisma "baptism" - immersion, either literally in water, or figuratively in a pressure-cooker situation. Here, Jesus possibly has in mind the totality of John's ministry rather than just his practice of water baptism.
      poqen hJn "where did it come from?" - from where was it? Probably a question as to the source of its authority. "Who gave John the right to baptize", CEV.
      ex ouranou (oV) gen. "from heaven" - "Was it divine?", Barclay
      oiJ dielogizonto (dialogizomai) imperf. "discussed" - reason, debate, consider, discuss. The imperfect possibly indicating the discussion went on a bit, or identifying the beginning of a discussion that was bound to go on a bit, "they began to argue with each other", Barclay.

v26
      foboumeqa (fobew) pres. pas. "afraid" - fear. Political expediency is nothing new. The religious authorities lined up well with Herod and Pilate. "We can't say John acted on his own authority. The people are convinced that he is a prophet and they might turn on us."

v27
      oidamen (oida) perf. "[we don't] know" - know as a fact, remember. The authorities would have considered John slightly unhinged, but would be too afraid to say. Jesus demonstrates that they really had no authority to ask the question since they had failed to address the scriptures that point to him, nor had they considered the testimony of John. "We do not know who gave John his authority", TH.
      en poia/ exousia "by what authority" - "Who authorized me."

v28
      Ti de umin dokei "what do you think?" - what does this seem to you? We might say "OK, let me run this by you." This construction is peculiar to Matthew. As a typical teaching parable a once upon a time introduction helps set the tone; "I will tell you a story about a man who had two sons", CEV.
      tw/ prwtw/ adj. "the first" - first, former, prominent. Literally "first", but probably "senior", "older", "the elder", NAB, is intended.

v29
      ou qelw "I will not" - Probably emphatic, "no, I will not go"
      metamelhqeiV (metamelomai) aor. pas. part. "he changed his mind" - having repented. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "he went." Possibly "regretted what he had said"

v30
      proselqwn (prosercomai) aor. part. "then [the father] went to" - having approached. The participle forming a temporal clause, as NIV. "The father" added for meaning to "he went". "The Father approached", Phillips.
      tw/ eJterw/ pro. "the other son" - the other, different. "The second", Barclay; "the younger son."
      egw "I will" - "I am on my way, sir", NAB.

v31
      proagousin (proagw) pres. "are entering [the kingdom of God] ahead of you" - are going before you, are preceding you. Those who never accepted God's authority over them are now accepting it in Jesus and are entering the kingdom, while those who once accepted it, now reject it in Jesus and find themselves outside the kingdom. An inaugurated/realized eschatology, "are going into the kingdom of God in front of you", Phillips, is better than "are going to go into the kingdom of heaven before you", Barclay. "Ahead of" is possibly "instead of", "in place of", but unlikely.

v32
      en oJdw/ "to show you the way" - in the way.... way of life, conduct. Lit. "in the way" is possibly saying that John came living the righteous conduct required of kingdom membership. "John came to you as a truly good man", Phillips. Yet, it is likely that the NIV is correct when it suggests that John came showing the way; "showing you the right path to take", TEV, ie. proclaiming righteousness.
      dikaiosunhV (h) "righteousness" - Depending on the context, the word means "doing what is right according to the Father's will" (performing the will of God), or "possessing a righteousness of which God is the source and author." Invariably, Matthew takes the first meaning, although there is no suggestion that we can do the law and so gain God's approval. Such righteousness is beyond us and so reminds us of our unworthiness in the sight of God. This then prompts us to seek God's mercy and a righteousness (right-standing before God - covenant compliance) that is divinely recognized by an act of grace, which rests on Christ sacrifice appropriated through faith, rather than awarded on the basis of deeds done. In the present context, the emphasis would then fall on John's ethical preaching which prefigured Jesus' ethical ideals. Thus, he proclaims the fullness of the law so as to prompt repentance.
      autw/ "[believe] him" - "Believe his message"


[Printer icon]   A print friendly justified 10pt Times New Roman version sized to fit a 1 page A4, or 2 page A5 format.
 
[Pumpkin Cottage]
Pumpkin Cottage Ministry Resources
Lectionary Bible Studies and Sermons
www.lectionarystudies.com