# 83: 2-25-20 1

Matthew 21:23-32

Jesus was now openly revealing Himself to the nation Israel as their Messiah. He did so with intentional
displays of His authority - as He rode into Jerusalem, with the authority of their King; as He cleansed the
temple, showing His authority as the LORD; as Deity.

In each of these cases, we observed varied reactions, to that authority. Riding into Jerusalem, the pilgrims
who had come for up for the feast proclaimed Him; but the residents of Jerusalem were agitated. Then in
the temple, the little children were praising Him, but the religious rulers were furious.

The reactions of the religious establishment in Jerusalem would eventually sway the whole nation into
rejecting their Messiah - which would lead to the nation’s judgment.

This is what Jesus demonstrated through His cursing of the fig tree - a symbol of Israel. Their religious
system of works flourished like the leaves of that fig tree - but they only served to cover up the fact that the
nation had never borne sons of God - just as the fig tree was barren of the fruit, that it was intended to
produce.

Like the fig tree, the nation would wither away - it would be uprooted from the land that the LORD had
given them, and cast into the sea of humanity, where the Jews would be dispersed for almost two thousand
years.

This enacted parable of the fig tree was shown only to the disciples of Jesus - that they might one day
recognize the authority of the Creator, who has the right to have the say over His creation.

The nation Israel was created for a purpose: to become living sons of God, who would hold out the light of
truth to the other nations. This purpose could only be realized through Israel believing in her Messiah - the
Life-Giver - to receive His Life. If the nation was unwilling to do this, they would come into God’s
judgment.

This authority - both to give eternal life, as well as to execute judgment - was given by the Father to Jesus
(Jn 5:26-27). It is really two sides of the same coin; for if you will not receive His Life, you will be
condemned, as a creation that has failed to fulfill the Creator’s purpose.

We will see that the nation receives warning after warning of their pending demise, for refusing to receive
Jesus, their Messiah. They will be given every opportunity.

And toward that purpose, Jesus continued to go into Jerusalem each day, teaching the people in the temple.
It was usual for such teaching to take place in the Court of the Gentiles, where large numbers of people
could gather.

Jesus would have been certain to teach there, where everyone could hear His teaching; not just Jewish men,
but women also; and Gentiles, seeking God. Maybe Jesus taught under one of those porticos, that He had
cleared out, from its merchandizing activities.

When the religious rulers had heard of what Jesus had done - cleansing the temple - they sought to destroy
Jesus. But they were restrained from doing so by their fear of the people.

The people gathered were attentive, to hear the teaching of Jesus (Lk 19:47-48); in fact, Mark indicates that
they were astonished at His teaching (Mk 11:18) - they found it amazing.
# 83: 2-25-20 2

And along with that teaching, Luke records that Jesus preached the gospel, to the people (Lk 20:1) - the
good news, that they so needed to hear. Isn’t that remarkable to think about? Jesus Himself, preaching the
gospel - which is all about Him.

At this time, Jesus would have been showing the people their need to repent of their sins; and to turn to
God, as the only One who could save them, and deliver them into His Kingdom.

In just a short time from now, Jesus would do exactly that - bearing away their sins, bringing forth eternal
life for their bodies - for any and all who would receive Him, as their Messiah; as their Savior. His words
at this time would have led them right to His work on the cross - if they were willing to believe Him.

It was as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple that the religious rulers once again approached Him.
We continue now in chapter 21, verse 23.

21:23 Previously, Matthew has shown the chief priests and the scribes confronting Jesus (21:15); now he
mentions in addition to the chief priests here the elders of the people. These were the three groups that
composed the Sanhedrin - the judicial council of the Jews.

The chief priests and the elders were together the self-appointed guardians of community affairs, in
Jerusalem - especially the affairs of the temple. The religious rulers were obviously scrutinizing all of the
activities of Jesus there - and they were displeased with Him, on every count.

With calculated disrespect, the rulers interrupted Jesus while He was teaching the people - and confronted
Him on the subject of His authority. First they ask by what authority Jesus was doing these things. What
things?

They did not have in mind His teaching, in particular; teaching was certainly permitted on the temple
grounds. It wasn’t so much the words of Jesus that they found disturbing at this time; not yet; it was His
actions, that so provoked them.

His entrance into Jerusalem was intentionally framed around Zechariah’s prophecy of Israel’s Messiah, her
King. Just who did this village preacher think He was?

And then there was Jesus’ high-handed cleansing of the temple - interfering with the business conducted
there - business that was essential, to maintaining the temple - business that the chief priest themselves had
permitted. Who had given Jesus permission to remove their business? Had anyone? The temple
authorities certainly had not!

And that was part of their indignation, with Jesus; He didn’t acknowledge their authority, at all; and further,
He apparently assumed an authority that was greater than theirs - and therefore, a direct challenge, to
theirs.

It was a threat to the religious life of Jerusalem - of all Israel - but most importantly, it was a threat to the
rulers’ position. They could not afford to ignore it.

The questions they posed to Jesus were very telling. If we were to answer their questions simply, what
would we say? By what authority was Jesus doing these things? By God’s authority; Jesus acted with
divine authority. And who specifically gave Jesus this authority? His Father in heaven gave it to Him.
# 83: 2-25-20 3

That’s the truth, isn’t it? But in this case, the truth was intended as a trap, for Jesus. Remember that Jesus
was teaching the people when confronted - He had a public audience.

If Jesus explicitly stated that He acted with divine authority; or that His Father gave Him the authority - He
would be asserting a unique relationship with God - beyond that of a mere human - as the Messiah - as the
Son of God.

If the authorities could coerce Jesus into such a public statement, they might be able to justify His arrest
before the people - on the grounds of blasphemy - that Jesus made Himself equal with God (Jn 10:33).

It didn’t matter that this was indeed the truth about Jesus; the issue was trying to use the truth to twist
public opinion, against Jesus. If the rulers were successful, they might even be able to instigate the stoning
of Jesus - for the penalty for blasphemy was death.

But it was not yet time for Jesus to die. Jerusalem must first be given the opportunity to know her King,
and to receive Him. So Jesus evades the obvious trap of the religious authorities - and instead responds to
their questions, with one of His own.

21:24-25a Jesus responded to the rulers’ questions with a question for them - which was something that
was regularly done, in Jewish debates.

Notice that Jesus made His answer to the religious rulers contingent upon their answer to His question -
about John the Baptist. This was reasonable, since it was a parallel question to theirs - about their related
ministries. When the rulers answer His question, Jesus will answer theirs.

Now, when Jesus asked where John’s baptism was from, He didn’t mean this literally. What did He mean?
Jesus meant, Where did the authority come from, for John to do that baptism? Was John’s authority from
heaven - from God? Of was John’s baptism done merely by human authority - presumably, John’s own?

So the counter-question of Jesus relates to the original question of the religious rulers - concerning
authority. They were asking, Who authorizes you, Jesus? Jesus was responding, if you tell me who
authorized John, I’ll tell you.

Notice that Jesus did not speak of the entire ministry of John; only of John’s baptism. I’m sure that Jesus
chose His words quite deliberately. The baptism of John was particularly galling, to the religious
authorities, in Jerusalem.

Do you remember that a delegation from Jerusalem came out to see John, and interrogate him concerning
his baptism? Let’s take a quick look at that again, starting in the gospel of John, chapter 1.

[John 1:19-27]

1:19-23 This answer should have confirmed to the religious delegation from Jerusalem that John was the
forerunner of the Messiah, according to John’s own testimony. But instead of having an interest in the
Coming Messiah, this delegation was only interested in why John was doing what he was doing, out there
in the desert.

1:24-27 Why was John baptizing? That’s what they wanted to know. The Jews would baptize themselves,
- over and over - as a means of ritual purification. Besides that, the Jews only baptized Gentiles, who were
converting to Judaism - as a symbol to show they were washing away their Gentile impurity.
# 83: 2-25-20 4

But John was baptizing Jews, who came to him personally to receive his baptism. John’s was termed a
baptism of repentance; it reflected that a Jew recognized his need to be cleansed from sin, which then
prepared him to receive the One who would do just that - the Savior, Jesus.

The religious authorities expressed their disapproval of what John was doing; after all, that’s why a Jew
offers sacrifices, in Jerusalem. They had a system, to take care of sin, and to keep Jews clean, before God.
But some Jews recognized that the system in no way purified the heart.

On his part, John did more than disapprove of the religious authorities; he denounced them. We saw that at
the beginning of Matthew’s gospel, in chapter 3. Let’s look at that again.

[Matthew 3:7-12] This was John’s scathing rebuke of the religious leaders, who saw no need for personal
repentance. John warned them of certain judgment - and spoke of the One coming after him, who would
execute it - Israel’s Messiah.

[Return to Matthew 21]

Just the mention of John and his baptism would have infuriated the religious rulers. They had categorically
rejected John’s baptism, which flew in the face of their religious system of works, as the means to enter the
kingdom of God.

They must a breathed a collective sigh of relief, when Herod Antipas put John to death. There would be no
more fiery words from John - and no more baptizing of Jews who thought they needed to repent!

But John did complete the work that God had given him to do - to make ready a people prepared for the
Lord (Lk 1:17). And those who really heard John’s message took that preparation to heart - so that they
were made ready - to receive their Messiah, Jesus.

Yet even the people who did not heed John’s message found it impossible to simply dismiss John. The
people still generally regarded John as a prophet, who had been sent by God (Mat 11:9). It was only the
arrogant rulers who had the hardness of heart to utterly disregard John.

Now here was Jesus, bringing up John and his baptism once again - and questioning the rulers about who
authorized it. And that put the rulers on the spot - right in front of all those people, that Jesus had been
teaching. How would the rulers answer this?

21:25b-27 What do we see here? We see that men who reason among themselves apart from God, and in
opposition to Him, are foolish men. The psalmist wrote of the LORD’s view of such men: “He who sits in
the heavens shall laugh; the LORD shall hold them in derision” (Ps 2:4). The rulers had schemed to trap
Jesus. Instead, Jesus caught the wise in their own craftiness (Job 5:13).

The rulers got in a huddle, trying to sort out their dilemma. If they admitted that John’s baptism of
repentance was done by the authority of God, then they should have believed the accompanying message:

- that the Jews needed to repent;

- that the kingdom of God was at hand;
- that Messiah had come, to receive subjects into His Kingdom;
- and that Jesus was the Messiah.

That was John’s testimony - which of course, the rulers did not accept.
# 83: 2-25-20 5

But on the other hand, there was no way that the rulers could say that John was not authorized by God; that
the message was just his own. That would be to say John was not a prophet, and the people all believed
John was a prophet.

Then the rulers could have a riot on their hands… and then the Romans would get involved… and then
what? Then the rulers would lose their position, over the people. If they couldn’t control the people, the
Romans would - directly - with their iron fist. You can see the problem for the rulers.

But Jesus did not trap the rulers. He left them with a way out. Can you see what it is? For them to repent;
to admit they were wrong; that both John and Jesus acted by divine authority; and for them to submit to that
authority.

What we recognize is that in their hardness of heart, the rulers had actually entrapped themselves, and they
then resorted to the only face-saving measure they could conceive of - to say they didn’t know where John
got his authority. This left them looking weak and indecisive, before the very people they desired to wield
their power over.

In addition, the concession of the rulers cast Jesus in a favorable light, before the people - a right light -
having outwitted the religious rulers, and having exercised His own authority, in refusing to answer them -
based on their lack of response.

Surely, some of the people present that day must have noted the contrast between Jesus and the rulers -
between the authority of heaven, and that of mere men. Then, without missing a beat, Jesus invites the
rulers to give their opinion concerning a parable that He tells.

21:28-31b So Jesus told this parable; a story with a hidden, deeper meaning, for the perceptive listener.
Jesus then gave the significance of His parable - after the rulers responded to His question, about it. Let’s
consider the details together, first.

A man had two sons. That makes the man a father, right? The word for “sons” is actually the masculine
form for “child”. “Child” emphasizes the relationship, with the parent - the father, in this case.

So this man - this father - owned a vineyard. And this man called both of his sons to work in the vineyard -
a perfectly reasonable request.

The first son refused to go, but then regretted his decision - he realized he should have obeyed his father,
and so then he went. The second son said he would go, but then he didn’t go into the vineyard, to work.

As Jesus questioned the religious rulers, He asked which of the two did the will of his father. This points to
the identity of the father, in the parable - who would that be?

God the Father. So what would be God’s vineyard? Well, in the OT, a vineyard was a common symbol for
the nation Israel - just as the fig tree was. Both grapevines and fig trees are very fruitful plants.

I want to show you just one passage which uses the imagery of a vineyard, for Israel; we’ll be looking at
another next week. Turn to Psalm 80.

This psalm was thought to have been written after the northern kingdom was taken into captivity by the
Assyrians, and Judah to the south was now being threatened. The psalmist is pleading with the LORD to
show His people favor, and to deliver them from their enemies.
# 83: 2-25-20 6

We’re looking specifically at where the psalmist recounts the history of Israel, using the imagery of a vine.

[Psalm 80:8-19]

80:8-9 This vine was the family of Jacob, that had grown to the size of a nation. The LORD cleared the land
of Canaan, and planted His vine in it, where it grew to fill the land - the LORD’s vineyard, Israel.

80:10-11 This describes the prosperity, during the reign of David and Solomon, when the nation was united
as one kingdom, that stretched from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates River.

80:12-13 The LORD removed His hedge of protection around Israel to the north, for their persistent idolatry.
She was uprooted by Assyria, and taken away into captivity. Assyria then became a threat to the southern
kingdom of Judah.

80:14-16 The psalmist is pleading with the LORD on behalf of Judah to relent of the judgment, to once
again show them favor, and restore them.

The imagery of the strong branch here reflects a king which the LORD raised up; most likely, Hezekiah, who
was especially imperiled by the Assyrians. In his day, the cities of Judah were overcome by the Assyrians;
only Jerusalem did not fall. This develops into a prophetic statement in the next verse.

80:17-19 Who would “the man of Your right hand, the son of man” refer to? To the son of David; the
Messiah. It is this “Branch” - Jesus - that will one day cause God’s people to truly repent, as a nation - still
future to our day - and then the LORD will restore them.

[Return to Matthew 21]

So we can see this imagery of the nation Israel as God’s vineyard, which He planted. Now, a grapevine
will produce much fruit.

And so the LORD had purposed for His nation; it was to bring forth many sons of God. This was the
responsibility of each Jew, individually - to believe in the LORD for themselves, and become a son of God.

But it was also the responsibility of the nation, collectively - God’s call was to all of Israel (Ex 19:6) - to
share the truth with their children (Deut 6:6-9), with their fellow Jews (Jer 31:34) - and even with the
Gentiles (Isa 62:1-2; Rom 2:17-24) - those outside the vineyard, we could say.

And this brings us to the understanding of who the two sons represent - which Jesus indicates, in His
explanation.

In His ministry, Jesus had encountered many a rebellious Jew, who refused to acknowledge God’s calling of
them, and His claim on their lives - and they lived, accordingly. These rebellious Jews were outsiders, to
the religious establishment.

But through Jesus, many of these overt rebels had a change of heart, believed God for themselves, and
became part of God’s great purpose for His nation Israel. These Jews are represented in the first son.

And the second son? We can clearly see these religious rulers in that son. They made a pretense of
believing in God, and obeying Him - but their hearts were far from Him. They feigned a relationship with
the Father, but they never obeyed Him, to do His work.
# 83: 2-25-20 7

They had no genuine care for Israel; for cultivating sons of God from the nation - they only wished to
affirm their own position with the Father, as leading members of the nation Israel, God’s nation: “Yes sir”,
they said to their Father. But there was no true obedience; only lip-service. These were unrepentant rebels,
in a religious guise; hypocrites.

The religious rulers, listening to the story, recognized the first son was the one who was truly obedient; and
they judged that son correctly.

But we wonder - did they recognize themselves, in the second son? I think they would have said “We do
not know” if they realized that second son portrayed them! Unwittingly, the rulers passed judgment on
themselves; they did not obey the will of the Father; God. And then Jesus drove that point home.

31c-32 Notice that now, as Jesus was explaining what His parable meant, the obedience to go into the field
to work is equated with believing.

Believing what? What John the Baptist preached (v. 32). Jesus said that John came to the Jews in the way
of righteousness. This is not referring to John’s conduct in life, although John certainly was righteous.

The idea is that John came showing the Jews the way to become righteous - not through the works of the
Law and the sacrifices, as the religious establishment upheld - but through faith in their Messiah, Jesus - the
Savior.

John’s message struck home with many a tax collector and prostitute, for they easily recognized themselves
to be sinners, in need of a Savior. When they heard John’s message, they repented, and received the One
whom John proclaimed - the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.

They had obeyed the truth, becoming true children of the Father - and fit to enter into God’s presence, in
His kingdom.

Now, the tax collectors and prostitutes were the ultimate rebels, in the eyes of the religious establishment -
the dregs of society. The rulers would have been infuriated to hear Jesus say that these would enter the
Kingdom of God before them.

But was Jesus saying that the religious rulers would then enter - that they would just follow after the former
rebels? Oh, no; Jesus was merely indicating that the entrance of the former rebels had been secured.

Look closely at the words of Jesus at the end of verse 32. The religious establishment took in the same
things as the overt rebels; they heard John’s preaching; they saw his baptism.

But unlike the overt rebels, the religious rulers did not relent - this word, relent, carries the meaning of
repentance, here.

Without believing in the One proclaimed by John, the rulers remained unfit to enter into the presence of
God - for they had never been born again, as God’s true sons.

The possibility is left open to them - to enter in, afterwards - but it will require of them to have a change of
heart, concerning the one God sent; Jesus.
# 83: 2-25-20 8

So we see that the unrighteous sinners were blessed to enter the kingdom of God - because it was easier for
them than for self-righteous religious hypocrites to recognize their spiritual poverty (Mat 5:3). And that
remains true to our day!

Reading: Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19; Isaiah 5:1-7