In our last segment, we left off with the Lord Jesus returning to the temple after having stirred up the city and his initial encounter with the religious leaders who were attempting to stifle the praise of the children. We now move to Matthew 21:23-27.
THE CHALLENGE OF THE CHIEF PRIESTS (Matthew 21:23-27/ Mark 11:27-33/ Luke 20:1-8)
The Chief Priests and elders of the people[1] approached the Lord when He entered the temple. While He was teaching, they began to question Him on the “things” He was doing. They probably hoped that when He had left the previous day that He would not come back but He returned to teach in the temple to a crowd of listeners. He was speaking publicly, and they wanted to confront Him openly probably in hopes to dissuade His listeners. The things that provoked their inquiry was almost certainly His actions in the cleansing of the temple and His refusal to quiet the children’s singing judgment. They asked by what authority was He doing these things and who gave Him that power/right to do it. These religious leaders were the authority over the people and the care of the temple was their responsibility by means of their office. Who was this Galilean who would question them? His answer was not what we would have expected given the situation since He didn’t explicitly answer the question. He answers with in return with a question mainly: The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?” In His day, a counter question as an answer was quite common in debate and in return His answer/question was both wise and clever.
The Lord challenges them by offering to answer their question if they are able to answer His. He uses their reaction to John the Baptist’s teaching as a basis to this challenge. Before giving the source of His authority, he asks if they know the source of the authority of John the Baptist’s baptism. Did John’s baptism come from men or from heaven (God)? The point that Jesus was trying to make was that John the Baptist was considered a prophet (Matthew 3:1-4; 11:7-19) who pointed out that one greater than him would come (3:11-12) and even this superior One of whom John spoke accepted John’s baptism (3:13-16). The dilemma brought a no-win situation for these accusers since if they said it was from heaven, then they were guilty of not believing it yet if they answered that it was from men, they risked being stoned by the crowd. As N.T. France points out: “To voice their true view of John would have exposed them to popular anger, but to give an insincere answer would expose them to ridicule, since their rejection of John’s message was well known, as Jesus will confirm in v.32” [2] If they couldn’t discern by who’s authority John received his baptism, how could they decipher by who the Messiah received His authority? Rather than risk the bad publicity in either answer, they decided not to answer the question.
The leaders didn’t recognize their Messiah and even questioned His authority even if they outwardly accepted John the Baptist’s. Their attempt to rebuke our Lord Jesus was meant to interrupt the gathering of the children in the way that a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. This unbelief would prove to be the condemnation upon them and upon the city. Their actions in the crucifixion would exhibit just how deep their unbelief would run.
EXPOSING THE LEADERS: THE PARABLE OF THE TWO SONS (Matthew 21:28-32)
Let’s move on to Matthew 21:28-32. The Lord Jesus begins His lengthy rebuke of the religious leaders for their rejection of the call of God with three concise parables. The first parable begins with a father who had two sons and to whom he tasked the care of his vineyard. One of the sons agreed to his father’s wishes but didn’t deliver on his word while the other initially rejected the request but had a change of heart which lead to faithfully doing what his father had asked. The Lord then asks the religious leaders which son had done the will of his father to which they rightfully answered the first. The vineyard here probably alludes to Isaiah 5:1-7 where the vineyard is identified with Israel[3]. They maintained that they held to the law of God and even viewed themselves as the protectors of its content. Those who they despised the most in society (tax collectors and prostitutes – Luke 18:11) were the ones who had a change of heart and came to Him in repentance. The amazing point of the parable in this text is that these “sinners” who were represented by the first son would go into the kingdom first ahead of these religious leaders who would be found outside (Matthew 8:11-12). The Lord then goes on, in v.32, to explain that these leaders would find themselves condemned for not responding to John the Baptist’s message. John showed them the way of righteousness through his life and in his message. The message of repentance was not received by these religious leaders, but the tax collectors and prostitutes had accepted it through repentance and baptism. Not only had the leaders not repented when hearing John’s message but they even refused to repent after the sinners that they loathed so greatly had received it!
The moral of the story is that the religious leaders, much like the 2nd son, spoke of answering the call of God but it was the 1st son, who represented the tax collectors and prostitutes, who recognized their sins, repented and went to work for their Lord who would find God’s favour. The recipients of the Kingdom were those who repented and produced the fruit of repentance preached by John the Baptist.
EXPOSING THE LEADERS: THE PARABLE OF THE LANDOWNER (Matthew 21:33-41/ Mark 12:1-12/ Luke 20:9-18)
This second parable, found in Matthew 21: 33-4,1 begins with a landowner who planted a vineyard and rented it to a group of vine-growers. The owner was most likely someone wealthy since the possession of a new vineyard and slaves is attributed to someone prosperous. He would require farmers to grow the crops and generally an agreement needed to be reached upon how much the landowner would receive as his portion of the crop once fruit began to be produced (generally after 4 years). The vine-growers would receive the rest of the crops as their wage. In the parable, the landowner sent trusted slaves to gather his due crop and these vine-growers decided to stiff the owner by refusing to give him his fair share. Not only did they refuse to pay him his part but savagely beat and murdered the slaves. Finally, the landowner decides to send his son as an ambassador to reason with them and expected a certain amount of respect from these vine-growers. A son in this culture in the first century was considered the heir and the highest representative of the landowner. But the respect that the landowner’s son merited was not received. They treated his son in a similar fashion as they did to the previous slaves and murdered his inheritor.
The allegory in this parable represents a historical review of Israel’s continuous rejection of God’s prophets. Jeremiah even stated in his day that they had not obeyed the prophets sent by Yahweh (Jeremiah 7:25-27)[4]. The Lord quotes Isaiah 5:1-7 to establish that the vineyard is in fact Israel. The death of the Son will be fulfilled by the leaders of Israel in antagonizing the crucifixion of the sinless Son of God causing His murder outside the city. They would rebel against the will of God in a climactic way, by not only rejecting His claims but also would finally have Him put to death. The parable concludes when the landowner himself comes to the vineyard and Jesus asks the religious leaders what he should do at his coming. They rightly answer that these wicked men deserve a wretched end not realizing that they are the ones who placed the verdict upon their own heads. Later in the gospel, the Lord Jesus will address this again adding a final condemnation upon them in that “upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the righteous blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar” (Matthew 23:25). What is especially fascinating about the parable is that, not only were they to receive judgment for their actions against the slaves and the son, but that vineyard would be rented to another, and these would pay him what he is due. This would be those who would inherit the Kingdom![5]
Jesus responds to their answer of punishing the vine growers by quoting Psalm 118:22-23 (Matthew 21:42) to demonstrate that the Son of God whom they rejected would become the chief corner stone. This stone would have an effect upon those who would fall upon it. To those who would be faithful to God, the stone would become a sanctuary but to those who were unfaithful, it would cause them to stumble and be broken (Isaiah 8:14-15). It’s important to note that this Psalm was also used by the early church in regards to Israel’s rejection of their Messiah and others coming in salvation who have faith in Him (Jews & Gentiles). They are those who would become a house that would offer spiritual sacrifices to God (Acts 4:11; Romans 9:32-33; 1 Peter 2:4-8). This same stone would break all other kingdoms and would eventually grow to become a mountain that fills the whole earth (Daniel 2:44-45)!
The Lord continues with a more explicit explanation of renting out of the vineyard to another vine-grower. The kingdom is referring to the Kingdom of God which would be “taken away” from them and in return given to a nation that would produce the fruit of it. Jesus seems to intertwine the term “vineyard” with the “kingdom” probably alluding to the true Kingdom of Israel. The vineyard is not replaced with another vineyard, but the care of the vineyard is given to another nation. The term “nation” is singular meaning that it won’t be multiple peoples of God but one united people who will bear fruit from it.
This parable continues the same thematic approach as the previous one. God expects his servants to receive His word and to live a life bearing the fruit of His will. The kingdom will be taken from the religious leaders and given to another nation consisting of those who have believed God’s word and produced actions that would be fitting to the glory of the heavenly landowner.
EXPOSING THE LEADERS: THE PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE FEAST (Matthew 22:1-14/ Luke 14:16-24)
In the third parable, found in Matthew 22:1-14, the Lord relates the kingdom to the story of a king who was preparing a wedding feast for his son. He sends his servants to gather people for the banquet and calls those who had been invited to come when the preparations were completed. The original invitees finally reject the summons to the son’s wedding. Many excuses were made for their refusal. Some went their way to deal with everyday business responsibilities while others went further by rejecting the King’s request by mistreating the servants even to the extent of killing them. This act of murder lead to the kindling of the king’s righteous anger and he sends his armies to destroy them and their city. In a surprising twist, the king sends his servants to call people to the feast who were not originally invited, even seeking them from the highways and streets whether good or evil. During the wedding feast, the king makes his rounds to acknowledge the guests and finds some not dressed appropriately for the wedding which lead to their expulsion from the banquet.
The king, in this parable, represents God the Father and the son can easily be identified as Jesus[6]. The marriage feast is speaking of the Messiah’s Kingdom. The servants sent to the original invitees signify the OT prophets and the 2nd set of servants was probably referring to the repeated appeals to come including John the Baptist and the apostles. The religious leaders confirmed their refusal to come to the Messianic kingdom by taking no action to accompany their said acceptance (no fruit). Their rejection even went as far as to kill the prophets. They rejected the invitation based upon everyday responsibilities such as farming and business, not appreciating the honour that came with the invitation. In v.7, the Lord states that they and their city would be destroyed by armies. This was accomplished in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 when the Roman armies lead by Titus destroyed the temple and burned the city to the ground. Some may object that this was not the army of God but Caesars, yet the OT is full of examples of God using a pagan nation to judge Israel (Isaiah 10:5-11; 44:28-45:7; Jeremiah 25:9)[7]. The city and its temple were filled with polluted practices which lead to the original encounter with the religious leaders.
The invitees from the streets are symbolized by those who had no special status in society or religious life in Jerusalem such as the tax collectors and prostitutes from 21:31. Interestingly, in what is particular to this parable, the Lord states that within these outsiders, there are those who are good and those who are evil. This theme is reoccurring throughout the gospel whether in the form of those who cast out demons in His name but were practicing lawless deeds (Matthew 7:21-23) or the wheat and the tares grow together until the end of the age where the tares are burned with fire (Matthew 13:38-41) for their lawlessness. Much like the landowner in the previous parable, the king comes to the banquet guests. He looks over the invitees discovering some who were not dressed appropriately for the wedding feast. The symbolism is challenging to interpret. Did the invitee refuse to put on a garment provided by the king? Did he have clothing at home that he refused to wear? Regardless, the result of the refusal to wear the proper wedding attire is a fate worse than the original invitees in that they are cast into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, the abode of the damned.
The Lord Jesus summarizes the entire parable in saying that many are called but few are chosen. The term “for” gives the reason for their casting into the darkness. There were two groups invited to the feast, the first rejected the call to the wedding feast through their actions (fruits) and within the second group, some rejected the call through different actions (fruits). Yet, the Lord is clear that those invited who accepted the invitation and dressed appropriately for the feast didn’t receive the king’s approval due to the calling, but because of being of the chosen. It is the children of the promise that receive the kingdom, the elect, God’s true chosen people. Within all those who were called (the many), only a few were chosen to remain at the banquet of the son.
[1] The gospels of Mark & Luke add that the Scribes were present during this encounter also. It should be noted that the two groups were representatives of the religion, the temple and the people.
[2] France P. 799
[3] France points out that there are some differences: “The allegories are not the same in that in Isaiah it is the fruit itself that fails, while here it is the tenants; in Isaiah the vineyard is itself destroyed, but here it is given to new tenants, so that in this parable there remains hope for the future, whereas in Isaiah all is disaster” (P. 812)
[4] Uriah (Jeremiah 26:20-23), Zechariah (2 Chronicles 24:20-22), The prophets murdered by Jezebel (1 Kings 18:4), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 26:10-19; 38:4-13) and Zechariah (Matthew 23:35/Zechariah 1:1)
[5] It’s important to note that there are not two vineyards mentioned but one that is transferred to another.
[6] The Lord Jesus is represented as a bridegroom in many instances (John 3:29; Ephesians 5:25-32; Revelation 21:2,9)
[7] This theme will be further developed in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21
The Moncton Herald 