Matthew 21:23-32 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, and said… The "things" in reference to the doing of which this question of the authority of Jesus was raised by the chief priests and elders, were his purging the temple from the traffickers, his publicly teaching and working miracles of healing there. Mark, by more clearly placing the miracle of the withering of the fig tree in order before these things, brings them into closer connection with the passage before us. We may profitably consider the authority of Jesus - I. AS IT IS EVIDENT IN HIS CONDUCT. 1. His questioners were not ignorant of his claims. (1) He had long before plainly told them who he was (see John 5:36, 43). (2) He had but the day before claimed to be the Lord of the temple. He called it the "temple of God," and spoke of it as his own house (see vers. 12, 13). And the passages he quoted in connection with this claim spake of the temple as the house of Jehovah (see Isaiah 56:7; Jeremiah 7:11). (3) Their object was now to get him to assert this again, that they might make it a pretext to fix upon him the charge of blasphemy; for they had plotted to destroy him (see Mark 11:18). 2. His conduct vindicated his claims. (1) His expulsion of the traffickers was a miracle. It was a work which an army might hesitate to undertake. Yet single-handed he did it effectually. (2) He wrought miracles of healing which, the rulers and Pharisees themselves being witnesses, no man could do unless God were with him (see John 3:1, 2). (3) Moral miracles also attended his ministry. Publicans and harlots - unjust and immodest persons - notorious sinners, were converted into reputable citizens and exemplary saints. These were the people represented by the son in the parable who "said, I will not; but afterwards repented, and went" (ver. 29). The life of the sinner is an actual clamour of "I will not." But as there are those who promise better than they prove, so are there those who prove better than they promise. "Seest thou yon harlot, wooing all she meets; The worn out nuisance of the public streets; Herself from morn to night, from night to morn, Her own abhorrence, and as much your scorn? The gracious shower, unlimited and free, Shall fall on her when Heaven denies it thee." (Cowper.) 3. Note here the gospel call. (1) It is a call to work for Christ. "Go, work in my vineyard." It is charged upon the Pharisees that they say, and do not (Matthew 23:3); upon the chief priests and rulers here that they said, "I go, sir, and went not." Buds and blossoms are not fruit. (2) It is a call to work for Christ now. "Go, work today in my vineyard." (3) It is a call from the common Father. It comes to the "two sons," and these represent the two great classes of sinners, viz. the openly irreligious and the hypocritical professors. (4) But though coming equally to all, it differs in its effects. There is more hope of the openly irreligious than of the hypocritical professor. (5) True repentance is practical. When he repented "he went." II. AS IT IS EVIDENT IN THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN. 1. John's baptism was proved to be "from heaven. (1) By the scope of his ministry. He came in the way of righteousness." He came walking in it as well as preaching it. He did not affect the "soft clothing" of the courtier, as he might have done, being the son of a notable priest, had he been moved by a vulgar ambition. Neither did he flatter princes, but lost his head for his fidelity. (2) By the success of his ministry. (a) "The baptism of John" is here put for his doctrine. (b) Jesus, by submitting to John's baptism, accepted and sanctioned his doctrine. (c) The vast multitudes who came to his baptism thereby professed faith in his teaching. Hence the general expression, "All hold John as a prophet." The defeat of Herod's army in the war with Aretas, King of Arabia, was esteemed by the Jews a judgment for the death of John (Josephus, 'Ant.,' 18:7). 2. John's testimony therefore should be conclusive. (1) Prophecy indicated him to be the harbinger of Messiah. Thus Isaiah spoke of him (cf. Isaiah 40:3; Matthew 3:3; John 1:23). So Malachi (cf. Malachi 4:5; Matthew 11:14). So Zecharias (see Luke 1:17). (2) He indicated Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God, the Lamb of God that beareth away the sin of the world. (3) The questioners had no reply to this argument. "They reasoned with themselves," not what was true to be believed, but what it was safe to acknowledge. Note: Truths appear in the clearest light when taken in order. The resolving of the previous question will be the key to the main question. If the questioners answered Christ's question, they would answer their own. III. AS IT IS EVIDENT IN THE DISCOMFITURE OF HIS ENEMIES. 1. They set up their authority against his. (1) They claimed the right to rule in the temple. They were "chief priests" - judges in the ecclesiastical courts, "and elders" - judges in the civil (see 2 Chronicles 19:5-11). They should therefore have been the promoters of the kingdom of Messiah which they opposed. (2) They questioned the right of Jesus to teach in the temple, he being neither priest nor Levite. They were more concerned about the right of our Lord to preach than about the character of his preaching. (3) Their question, "Who gave thee this authority?" suggests that they were offended because he not only taught without their permission, but contravened their concession to the traffickers when he drove them out. (4) Here, then, is human authority disputing with the Divine - office in conflict with wisdom. Those who take upon themselves to act with authority should ask themselves the question, "Who gave thee this authority?" Those who run before their warrant run without their blessing (see Jeremiah 23:21, 22). 2. He treated their presumption with contempt. (1) He convicted them as hypocrites. They had wit enough to see that reason was against them; for the Divinity of Christ was evident from the testimony of John. They knew that their "We cannot tell" was a lie for "We will not tell." The son who said, "I go, sir," and went not, dissembled and lied. What sort of truth seekers are those who refuse the evidence whose cogency they see? They were typical infidels, whose heart is at fault rather than the head. Those who are engaged against the truth are abandoned to the spirit of falsehood. (2) He exposed them as incompetents. They affected to be judges as to the authority of Jesus. Jesus forced from them the confession, "We cannot tell," in relation to the previous question of the authority of John. The "Neither do I tell you" was a merited repulse in which Jesus in his authority triumphs. (3) He humbled their pride by proving them to be slaves to the fear of the people. But for the fear of the multitude, they would have questioned the authority of John. Many who are not influenced by the fear of sin are influenced by the fear of shame. (4) He shamed them by the example of the publicans and harlots, who believed John, but the lesson of whose reformation was lost upon them. Examples of the power of truth are of little avail to the perverse. - J.A.M. Parallel Verses KJV: And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? |
    |