Context
So, without context, this text feels pretty low stakes. But that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Jesus enters Jerusalem in the beginning of chapter 21. First and foremost, we are now in the place where it all happens. But additionally, this is the day after Palm Sunday. You know the day when many of us preachers talk about the volatility of the crowd. How many of us have preached the two crowds’ sermon of chanting “Hosanna” one day and “Crucify him” the next? If that’s our energy on Palm Sunday, we can’t just low ball it this week.
Additionally, Jesus ransacks the moneychangers at the Temple. In 21:15-17, “15But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the amazing things that he did, and heard the children crying out in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they became angry 16and said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read,
‘Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babies
you have prepared praise for yourself’?”
17He left them, went out of the city to Bethany, and spent the night there.”
Jesus had to leave the city because otherwise he could have been arrested that very night. Jesus needed to leave the city because he could have very well incited a riot.
The next morning Jesus immediately returns to the temple and begins teaching. It is there that our text picks up today.
It makes complete sense that the chief priests and the elders would come up to Jesus and question his authority. They don’t know him from Adam (there’s good theology humor in there) and now this man, who sent them into a frenzy yesterday, is back the very next morning stirring up trouble all over again.
To say that this is a tense moment is a drastic understatement.
Additionally, we have to remember that the next two chapters are all a continuation of this scene. When Jesus enters the temple at 21:23, he doesn’t leave until 24:1. Every parable, every teaching, and all the confrontation is supposed to be continuous and pieced together. Nothing is separated and isolated even though the audience changes at certain times.
Culpepper helps with this breakdown:
“A series of questions from the authorities follows, to which Jesus responds with clever pronouncements and parables that unmask the religious authorities. Each question is put to Jesus by a different group:
- Jesus’ authority (chief priests and elders), 21-23-27
- Parable of the two Sons, 21:28-32
- The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (chief priests and Pharisees: 21:45), 21:33-46
- The Parable of the Great Supper, 22:1-14
- Paying taxes (Pharisees and Herodians), 22:15-22
- The resurrection (Sadducees), 22:23-33
- The greatest commandment (a lawyer, a Pharisee), 22:34-40
- Teaching Pharisees about the Son of David (22:41-46); denouncing them, (crowd and disciples), 23:1-39”[1]
Each of these sections has a particular question asker and the responses are directed to them in particular. However, the one audience that is always around is the disciples. It is implied that they followed him into the temple and then he speaks directly to them in chapter 23 with the crowd. Because the disciples are listening, it means that we as the church should be listening (I will talk more about that with the other parables over the next few weeks).
This Week
With all of this tension, there are two things that are preventing Jesus from getting arrested instantly, the crowd that is listening and his first answer to this question: John the Baptist.
While the chief priests have never met Jesus before last night, they know of John the Baptist. In Matthew’s Gospel, John is not of traditional significance. Unlike Luke, Matthew does not associate John’s lineage with that of the priestly tribe. He’s kind of a nobody other than his giant following. But, no one could doubt that he was captivating. Even Sadducees and Pharisees came to him to be baptized (3:7). So, these chief priests, who would never have acknowledged John’s authority now have to choose how to respond to Jesus’ reversal question in front of the crowd, “Was John’s baptism from heaven or from human origin?” By appealing to the crowd and answering, “we do not know,” they relinquish their opportunity to claim the ultimate authority in the room and thus give Jesus the floor to hold court.
The parable is calling the hearer to assess whether they are doing the father’s will.
Culpepper writes, “The first son replies with no title of respect and no excuse, then later changes his mind. The second son replies with an uncommon title of respect for a father (“lord”), but he simply lies to his father. He does not later reconsider, which may suggest that he never intended to go to the vineyard. His response to his father recalls Jesus’ warning, “Not every who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my father in heaven” (7:21).”[2]
Luz writes that this parable does not match the situation perfectly, “The [chief priests and elders] are identified neither with the yea-sayers nor with the nay-sayers, but they combine what is bad in both. The say no to John without later repenting.”[3]
This is leading us into our tension point. Many commentators have generalized this parable (and the next two) about the rejection of Israel. But that completely loses sight that this entire encounter began with a question of authority.
Culpepper writes, “The interpretation that relates this parable to the rejection of Israel rests on unwarranted generalization. The religious leaders—not Israel or all Jews—are placed under judgment for their failure to accept John the Baptist. There is also no indication that tax collectors are gentiles. The reference to change their minds (metemelēthēte) in 21:32 recalls the response of the first son, but it also evokes John the Baptist’s call for repentance.”[4]
Jesus is questioned about authority and so he is responding with a parable that displays the importance of good authority.
This parable does not lay out a clear correct action. It illustrates how we waffle in our authority.
If the religious authorities had answered, “We do not believe that John the Baptist had the authority, and it was of human origin.” I am not sure that Jesus would have called them wrong in their declaration. But because they did not state what they truly believed because they did not want to have to interact with the crowd, that becomes an example of poor authority. However, if they did believe that John the Baptist had the authority of heaven but did not share it because of fear of Herod (who beheaded him) and the Roman authorities, then that is also poor authority because they are not calling for the repentance of Herod for the murder of a prophet. A quietism authority.
What then do they stand for? And what decision will they make next as they weigh the support of those around them regardless of their own conviction?
Matthew is writing this, not for the sake of the chief priests (as the temple is destroyed by this point), but for the sake of the Church authorities that are listening. The disciples are standing in Jesus’ presence listening to the most powerful leaders of the temple be told that their authority is meaningless if they do not say what they mean and follow it up with their actions. Both are important in leadership.
But, if we learn that what we say or what we do was not for the sake of the kingdom, then we must repent and change our minds and try to do better next time.
Preaching Possibilities
This is not about taking out the trash or holding doors open
I’m going to be a little harsh here. But I’ve heard a number of sermons on this text over the years that will end up boiling this text down to chores.
- ‘Teenagers, when you say that you’re going to take out the trash, then it is important that you do it.’
- ‘Even though no one asked you to, you should hold open the door for others.’
- ‘Even though you don’t want to, you should not just put your dirty dishes in the sink, but you should wash and dry them too.’
We boil it down to menial tasks. Sure, let’s try to do what we say we’re going to do. But boiling it down to smalls tasks and even just to individual actions really waters down the tension of this scence.
If we emphasize the tension of this text, we can’t finish with chores and niceness. This is a major commentary on authority in religious leadership in big decisions and in tense moments. And honestly it is well connected to us today. While the religious authorities of the temple had more political authority than pastors might have, they did not have ultimate authority. Ultimately Rome had the authority over the region. Similarly, while churches can have political influence, we do not have ultimate authority. What makes our influence matter is what we say and what we do.
We have our positions, our advocacy, and our actions. Do those really align? Do we talk out of the sides of our mouth about what we really believe? Do we know what we really believe?
If we say that we care about the poor and the hungry, what do we really mean by that and how are we living into that calling? What actions do we take within our community and addressing our society?
If we say that “all are welcome,” what do we actually mean by that? Are all welcome to be who they are fully, and we will live in the tension of that diversity? Or do we mean that all are welcome to enter into this space and conform to our expectations?
If we say that we care about peace, what do we actually mean by that? Are we advocating for non-violence throughout the nation and world even in the midst of war conversations?
These conversations are far more nuanced than we give them credit for, and we almost never give them enough time. But these are just some of strong declarations that I hear regularly in our communities, but we never actually talk about what we mean by them.
What do we say about these things? Where do we stand? When have we been too quiet? When have we been too loud? When have we needed to repent and change our minds?
This is a week where we can (and probably should) reflect on how we sometimes fall short in our religious leadership. As the Church of Christ, we are called to be leaders. How have we lived into our declarations of faith? How have we leaned into our baptismal promises? How have we fallen short and moved to do better for the sake of the kingdom of heaven?
[1] R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew, 403.
[2] Culpepper, 406.
[3] Ulrich Luz, Matthew, vol 3, 27.
[4] Culpepper, 407.
Micah Krey 
Leave a comment