21: 23-27. 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?” 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. 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?” But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ we are afraid of the crowd, for all regard John as a prophet.” 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.
What are “these things” and why do they need “authority”? Have the chief priests and elders been arguing about Jesus all night? The “things” are the events we have been reading about: the triumphal entry, the disruption of buying and selling in the temple, the children singing ‘Hosanna’, and then the entry of ‘illegals' into the temple to be healed. All of these things disrupted the carefully controlled normal proceedings in the city and in the temple. Now Jesus has entered the temple again.
The “authority” implies the chief priests, elders, and scribes who think that they are working under the authority of Scripture. But their authority is limited because they also work at the pleasure of the Roman state. They schedule, organize, and manage all of the religious ceremonies in the holy city and the holy temple.At the end of the week in question will be a high holy day; so they are especially careful to avoid any disturbance that would lead the crowd to riot and cause the Romans to restore order with force. From their perspective, Jesus has overstepped his authority.
As was his wont, Jesus does not answer the question directly. Instead, he counters with a question of his own that they must answer before he will comply. This is a tried and true tactic. In Jesus’ perspective, John was sent by the authority of God as attested by the prophets. John baptized Jesus which brought on a direct confirmation by God.
If they answer “from God,” then they are trapped because they did not believe John and did not repent. If they answer “from man,” they would be denying any divine authority. That in itself would disturb the crowd which still had fond memories of John. So, they take the easy way out and say, “We don’t know.” Like all politicians, they are afraid that the crowds will see through their deception.
As someone once said, “The last thing that you want is air in the conversation,” so Jesus takes up the dialogue when the chief priests and elders fail to respond. He offers them a parable that we can be sure will shed more light on the dilemma of those with a little power.
21: 28-32. “What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ He answered, ‘I will not,’ but later he changed his mind and went. The father went to the second and said the same, and he answered, ‘I, sir,’ but he did not go. 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. 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.
Well, what do you think? Not all parables are allegories, but this one is because the first son and the second son represent someone else. The first son refuses the command. Who does he represent? The tax collectors and prostitutes (a phrase representing ‘sinners’) who shunned God, at least God as the temple authorities presented him. The second son says, “Got it, I’m on it!” Who does he represent? The chief priests, elders, and scribes who talk a big line about how people should obey God but miss the main point about what God wants them to do.
Which of them changed their mind? Clearly it is the tax collectors and sinners who repented on hearing John preach. Who never saw their need for repentance? The chief priests, elders, and scribes who thought they had done nothing so wrong as to fall on their knees and beg. They were too religious to humbly repent.
This time the religious authorities spoke too quickly, and they trapped themselves again. Still, Jesus is just getting going. Two more parables to go (the last one is in Chapter 22).
21: 33-41. “Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a winepress in it, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenants and went away. When the harvest time had come, he sent his slaves to the tenants to collect his produce. But the tenants seized his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other slaves, more than the first, and they treated them in the same way. Then he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance.’ So they seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the harvest time.”
Again Jesus tells a story with contours that would be very familiar to his audience. Since the time of Ezra and Nehemiah the issue of landlords and renters has been a touchy one. Nehemiah complained to “the nobles and officials, … ‘You are taking interest from your own people’. … ‘The thing you are doing is not good. … I and my brothers and my servants are lending them money and grain. Let us stop this taking of interest’” (Nehemiah 5: 7-8).
Nehemiah’s speech worked, and those who had given loans at high interest rates repented and said, “We will restore everything and demand nothing more from them.” A reprimand worked at that critical time when the returnees were trying to establish a growing community. However, it became a recurring problem.
Jesus’ parable highlights the opposite problem; tenant farmers who refused to give the landowner his proper share. Once again, the story is allegorical: the props and actors stand for something else.
As I stated before, in the Old Testament, the prophets often portray the people of Israel as a garden, a vineyard, or as an olive or fig tree. The point is that God cares for Israel for a reason, like productive property Israel should produce. The way Jesus frames the story draws directly from Isaiah where God steps forward with a lament.
“Let me sing for my beloved, my love-song concerning his vineyard: My beloved had a vineyard on a very fertile hill. He dug it and cleared it of all stones, and planted it with choice vines; he built a watchtower in the midst of it, and hewed out a wine vat in it; he expected it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes. And now, inhabitants of Jerusalem and people of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard. What more was there to do for my vineyard that I have not done it it? When I expected it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?” (Isaiah 5: 1-2).
This parable is also an allegory with the owner’s servants representing the prophets who were mistreated, and the owner’s son representing Jesus himself. The detail about killing the son outside the walls hints that Jesus will be crucified outside the city, as he was on the hill of Golgatha (see also Hebrews 13: 12 for the significance of this fact).
It is doubtful in real life that such tenants would win the inheritance in a court of law. But, this is a story, so Jesus can make the point about the tenants if he wants. Jesus invites the chief priests and elders to pronounce their own doom; and that is exactly what they do.
21: 42-44. Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the scriptures:
‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is amazing in our eyes’?
Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces its fruits. (v. 44: The one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and it will crush anyone on whom it falls.)
The last verse is not found in the most authoritative early manuscripts of this gospel, although a similar verse does appear in Luke 20: 18.
The reference to a rejected stone comes from Psalm 118 which is a song of Israel’s emergence from a dangerous period of warfare, snatching victory from defeat. The speaker calls for the gates to be opened so that the righteous can enter. But this comes only after being in peril.
“I thank you that you have answered me and have become my salvation. The stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This is the LORD’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day that the LORD has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it” (Psalm 118: 21-24).
Behind this is an old tale (not in the Bible) about the difference between engineers and construction crews. Engineers had stones cut in a quarry and hauled to the site, in this case the temple of Solomon. One stone arrived that did not seem to fit, so it was set aside. Then, as an arch was being built, the builders looked around for the cornerstone or keystone, and it turned out to be the odd piece that they had rejected.
Psalms is talking about the idea that Israel would regain its rightful place in God’s favor. Jesus shifts gaze to himself. His death will represent rejection, but his resurrection will mean coming back in victory. Jesus will fulfill the mission that was first assigned to Israel. Instead of carrying out God’s mission, the chiefs and elders in Jerusalem were trying to conserve their power. But now God’s Son has arrived and he will establish the Kingdom of God that will produce the fruit God is looking for.
21: 45-46. When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking about them. They wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowds, because they regarded him as a prophet.
Historically, if people didn’t like the message, they tried to kill the messenger. Is that logical? Does it happen today? Sounds like a coverup. When authorities find themselves threatened, what is their usual response? Once again we learn that, above all else, men and women desire power. And, if they get a little power, they will do anything to keep it.
Summary of Matthew 21 coming next week.