Matthew 21:23

23 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?

Ver. 23. And when he was come into the temple] Not into the inn or food house, though he had been so hungry by the way. He forgot that; the zeal of God’s house had eaten him up; it was his meat and drink to do the will of his heavenly Father; this he preferred before his necessary food. And truly a man would wonder what a deal of work he did up in these three days’ time, before his apprehension. All those sermons and discourses set down by Matthew from Mat 21:23-46; Mat 22:1-46; Mat 23:1-39; Mat 24:1-51; Mat 25:1-46; Mat 26:1-75; by Mark from Mar 11:1-33; Mar 12:1-44; Mar 13:1-37; Mar 14:1-72, by Luke from Luk 20:1-47; Luk 21:1-38; Luk 22:1-71; and by John from Joh 12:1-50; Joh 13:1-38; Joh 14:1-31; Joh 15:1-27; Joh 16:1-33; Joh 17:1-26; Joh 18:1-40, were delivered by him in these three last days of his liberty. He dispatched them with speed, as if he had been loath to have been taken with his task undone. To teach us to get up our work, and to work out our salvation; not work at it only. Lazy spirits aspire not to immortality. The twelve tribes served God instantly day and night, and found all they could do little enough, Act 26:7.

Came unto him as he was teaching] Otiosum vel tacitum facile tulissent, saith an interpreter. If he would have been quiet or silent, they would never have questioned him. A wolf flies not upon a painted sheep; we can look upon a painted toad with delight. It is your active Christian that is most spited and persecuted. Luther was offered to be made a cardinal, if he would be quiet. He answered, No, not if I might be pope; and defends himself thus against those that thought him (haply) a proud fool for his refusal, Inveniar sane superbus, et modo impii silentii non arguar. (Epis. ad Staune.) Let me be counted fool or anything, said he, so I be not found guilty of cowardly silence. The Papists, when they could not rule him, railed at him, and called him an apostate. Confitetur se esse apostatam, sed beatum et sanctum, qui fidem diabolo datam non servavit. (Epis. ad Spalatinum.) He confesseth the action, and saith, I am indeed an apostate, but a blessed and holy apostate, one that had fallen off from the devil. They called him devil, but what said he? Prorsus Satan est Lutherus, sed Christus vivit et regnat. Amen. Luther is a devil; be it so, but Christ liveth and reigneth, that is enough for Luther. So be it.

By what authority doest thou these things?] They saw that their kingdom would down, their trade decay, if Christ should be suffered thus to teach and take upon him in the temple as a reformer. When Erasmus was asked by the elector of Saxony, why the pope and his clergy could so little abide Luther, he answered, for two great offences, viz. Ventres et culinas appeti, arcas exhauriri. Attigisse coronam papae, et monachorum ventres (Scult.), he had meddled with the pope’s triple crown, and with the monk’s fat paunches. Hinc illae lachrimae, hence all that hatred; and hence today those Popish questions to the professors of the truth: By what authority do ye these things? where had you your calling, your ordination? where was your religion before Luther? Whereunto it was well answered by one once, In the Bible, where yours never was.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

See also Mar 11:27-33; Luk 20:1-9.

Mat 21:23

When he was come into the temple - That is, probably, into the inner court - the court of the Israelites.

They took this opportunity of questioning him on this subject when he was not surrounded by the multitude.

By what authority ... - There was a show of propriety in this question. He was making great changes in the affairs of the temple, and they claimed the right to know why this was done, contrary to their permission. He was not “a priest;” he had no civil or ecclesiastical authority as a Jew. It was sufficient authority, indeed, that he came as a prophet and worked miracles. But they professed not to be satisfied with that.

These things - The things which he had just done, in overturning the seats of those that were engaged in traffic, Mat 21:12.

Mat 21:24, Mat 21:25

And Jesus answered ... - Jesus was under no obligation to give them an answer.

They well knew by what authority he did this. He had not concealed his power in working miracles, and had not kept back the knowledge that he was the Messiah. He therefore referred them to a similar case - that of John the Baptist. He knew the estimation in which John was held by the people, and he took the wise in their own craftiness. Whatever answer they gave, he knew they Would convict themselves, and so they saw when they looked at the question. They reasoned correctly. If they should say that John received authority to baptize from God or from heaven, he would directly ask why they did not believe him. They professed to hear all the prophets. If they said, “Of men,” they would be in danger, for all the people believed that John was a prophet.

The baptism of John - For an account of this, see Matt. 3. The word “baptism” here probably includes all his work. This was his principal employment; and hence he was called the Baptist, or the “Baptizer.” But our Saviour’s question refers “to his whole ministry.” “The ‘ministry of John’ - his baptism, preaching, prophecies was it from God, or not?” If it was, then the inference was clear that Jesus was the Messiah, and then they might easily know by what authority he did those things.

From heaven - By divine authority, or by the command of God.

From men - By human authority.

Mat 21:26

We fear the people - They feared that the people would stone them (Luke). Such an unpopular sentiment as to profess that all that “John” did was “imposture,” would have probably ended in tumult, perhaps in their death.

Mat 21:27

We cannot tell - This was a direct falsehood. They could have told; and the answer should have been, “We will not tell.” There was no reason but that why they did not tell. The reason, probably, why they would not acknowledge that John was a prophet, was that, if they did, they saw he could easily show them by “what authority” he did those things; that is, by his authority as Messiah. John came as his forerunner, pointed him out to the people, baptized him, and bore his public and solemn testimony to the fact that he was the Messiah, Mat 3:13-15; Joh 1:29-34. If they acknowledged one, they must the other. In this way our Saviour was about to lead these crafty men to answer their own question, to their own confusion, about his authority. They saw this; and, having given them a “sufficient” answer, there was no need of stating anything further.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Mat 21:23-27. When he was come into the temple, the chief priests came — Who thought he violated their right: And the elders of the people — Probably, members of the sanhedrim, to whom that title most properly belonged: which is the more probable, as they were the persons under whose cognizance the late action of Christ, in purging the temple, would naturally fall. These, with the chief priests, seem purposely to have appeared in a considerable company, to give the more weight to what they said, and, if need were, to bear a united testimony against him. As he was teaching — Which also they supposed he had no authority to do, being neither priest, nor Levite, nor scribe. Some of the priests, (though not as priests,) and all the scribes, were authorized teachers. By what authority doest thou these things — Publicly teach the people? And drive out those who had our commission to traffic in the outer court? Jesus answered, I also will ask you one thing — Who have asked me many: The baptism — That is, the whole ministry; of John, whence was it? — Whence had he his commission? from heaven, or of men? — Did God or man give him his authority to act and teach? This question reduced the priests and elders to an inextricable dilemma: and they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven, &c. — They considered, on the one hand, that if they should acknowledge John’s mission to be from God, it would oblige them to acknowledge Christ’s authority; John having more than once borne testimony to him as the Messiah. On the other hand, if they denied John’s divine mission, they did not know but the people, who stood listening to Jesus, would stone them; for they generally believed John to have been a prophet, many of them had submitted to his baptism, and at present not a few held him in high esteem on Christ’s account. Wherefore, as matters stood, they judged it safest to answer that they could not tell whence John’s baptism was. And he said, Neither tell I you — That is, not again in express terms: he had often told them before, and they would not believe him. Thus, by the question which he put to them, he obliged them to confess that they had not been able to pass any judgment upon John the Baptist, notwithstanding he claimed the character of a messenger from God, and they had sent to examine his pretensions. This in effect was to acknowledge themselves incapable of judging of any prophet whatsoever. “Ye are come,” said he, “to inquire into the proofs of my mission. I agree to submit myself to your examination, on condition that you tell me what your determination was concerning John. Was he a true or a false prophet? You say you do not know. But if you were not able to form a judgment concerning John, how can you take upon you to judge me?” In this light our Lord’s question, in answer to theirs, appears to have been formed with the greatest wisdom; because, whether the priests replied in the affirmative or in the negative, or gave no reply at all, they absolutely condemned themselves. See Macknight.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

§ 114. — JESUS’S DISCOURSE WITH THE CHIEF PRIESTS IN THE TEMPLE, Mat_21:23 to Mat_22:14.

CHRIST’S ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF HIS AUTHORITY, Mat_21:23-27.

23. Into the temple — Our Lord persists calmly in the work of teaching, while he knows that danger besets him, and that death is close at hand.

By what authority doest thou these things? — They ask this question, not because they do not know, but because they will not acknowledge. Jesus therefore proceeds to show them that they knew, and so compel them to the necessity of exposing their unwillingness to confess.

It was the province of the Sanhedrim to give authority to teachers in the temple, an authority which Jesus had never received.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat_21:23. The chief priests and the elders.—St. Mark and St. Luke add “the scribes,” thus including representatives of the three constituent elements of the Sanhedrin (Plumptre). By what authority, etc.—Their inquiry was hostile in its design; His opponents would oppress Him at once by their authority, and therefore they interrupted Him even in the midst of His teaching. But the form of their inquiry was official, and according to theocratical rule; the Jewish rulers had the right to demand of a man who exercised prophetic functions the warranty of his prophetical character. But, as Jesus had already abundantly authenticated Himself by various miracles, their seemingly justifiable act was only a shameless avowal of unbelief (Lange).

Mat_21:25. The baptism of John.—Meaning his whole mission and ministry, of which baptism was the proper character (Brown). They reasoned with themselves.—They reasoned aside among themselves. They turned aside to one another, and privately conferred together on the Saviour’s question (Morison).

Mat_21:27. We cannot tell.—We know not (R.V.). Before such a tribunal the prophet whom they called in question might well refuse to plead (Plumptre).

Mat_21:32. In the way of righteousness.—The term seems used in a half-technical sense, as expressing the aspect of righteousness which the Pharisees themselves recognised (Mat_6:1), and which included, as its three great elements, the almsgiving, fasting, and prayer, that were so conspicuous both in the life and in the teaching of the Baptist (ibid.).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat_21:23-32

A twofold answer.—The question asked in Mat_21:23 was very natural in its way. Although the Saviour had hitherto done nothing of a strictly punitive kind, He had acted recently with a degree of authority previously unusual with Him (see Mat_21:1-17). Naturally, therefore, those who sat in the seat of authority (Mat_23:2) were stirred up by such doings; and naturally, therefore, came to inquire into their nature and source (Mat_21:23). They were almost bound, indeed—from their point of view—to do something of the kind. The Saviour answers, first, by asking another question in turn; and, secondly, when that was not answered, by asking another one yet.

I. The first question had to do with the mission and ministry of John the Baptist.—Connected with this we see, first, a most legitimate challenge. Next to the appearance of the Saviour Himself, the appearance of John, as a spiritual phenomenon, had been the most important one of the day. In a manner unknown for centuries past, it had agitated the faith of the day; and had afterwards left behind it an impression of the deepest and widest description (see Mat_21:26; Mat_3:5-6; Act_19:3). Also, it had been connected intimately with the Person and work of the Saviour Himself. John may almost be said, in fact, to have effaced himself in pointing to Jesus (Mat_3:11-12; Joh_1:19-27; Joh_1:29, etc.). It was only to be expected, therefore, that professed teachers in religion (Joh_3:10), such as these questioners of the Saviour, should have made up their minds about John; and only right, therefore, that they should be asked about him by the Man whom they questioned.” John the Baptist continually pointed to Me. Tell Me, therefore, if you wish to know about Me, what you say about him.” In anwer to this challenge we see, next, a pitiful evasion. That apparently simple question was not so simple as it looked from their point of view. If they said in reply what was certainly true, viz., that the mission of John was from above, they feared the Saviour. He would say at once as in Mat_21:25; and so would expose them before all as the false guides that they were. If they said what was false and declared it to be only “of men,” they feared the people, who would then listen to them no more. So all they could think of was—in a most clumsy manner—to try and leave the question alone. “The point asked about is not one on which we can give an opinion” (Mat_21:27). An answer in which, therefore—so we see finally—they completely answered themselves. “How can the question you ask be discussed at all unless this necessary preliminary to it has been considered at least? How can you learn about Me if you are thus ignorant about him? How can you possibly know what you profess to want to know, in such circumstance as yours?” Thus it was, in effect, that the Saviour covered them with shame for having asked their question at all!

II. The second question went deeper than this.—In it the Saviour not only silenced His adversaries; He convicted them too. He aims at this result, in the first place, by putting a case. After a method not unusual with Him, He sets forth a parable touching the matter in hand. A certain man with two sons commanded them both to go and work in his vineyard (Mat_21:28). One refused at first, but afterwards went. The other consented at first, but that was all. Obedient in word, this son was wholly disobedient in work (Mat_21:29-30). Which did they think, of two such sons, should be looked upon as obedient? (Mat_21:31). They answered—they could but answer—that it was the one spoken of first, he that “afterwards repented and went.” The Saviour reaches the result He aimed at, in the next place, by explaining this parable and applying its moral. The message of God to His people through the ministry of the Baptist was the “command” of this parable. The “priests and elders” who had gone out with others to hear the teaching of John, and could not but own that he had come “in the way of righteousness” (Mat_21:32) and yet had refused to do as he taught, were like the “second son” in the parable. The “publicans and harlots” who had believed in him, though notoriously impenitent and disobedient at first, were like the “first son” in the parable. It followed, therefore, that what these priests and elders had said of the “first son” was true about these. Of the two sets, they would go first into the kingdom of God. It followed, also, that what these same men had implied of the second son was true of themselves. They had never really done the will of their Father. They had not dealt faithfully with the requirements of His kingdom as coming through John. More than this, they had seen others repenting and going in; yet had never done so themselves. They were, therefore, all of them, outside of it still (Mat_21:32).

Besides the wonderful wisdom and dialectical skill of the Saviour, we see in this passage:—

1. How great is the danger of hypocrisy!—These men had dealt treacherously with the light that they had. Even notorious sinners in the end are in less darkness than they. (Cf. Joh_5:46; Luk_16:31; Mat_6:23.)

2. How greater yet is the mercy of Christ!—Even of such He does not speak so as to bid them despair. If others are spoken of as going in “before” them, it is not said of them that they go in alone (Mat_21:32).

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat_21:24-26. Christ and the cavillers.—

1. When cavillers come to tempt us and to take advantage of our speeches, we ought to be circumspect, that neither the truth be damnified by us, nor our adversaries get advantage against us. Therefore here Christ asketh a question instead of giving an answer.

2. The Lord can catch the crafty in their craftiness, and can decipher the folly of them who seek to cloak wickedness under colours, for this question both answered the former, and convinced the adversaries of wilful wickedness, for they knew John’s calling and doctrine to be Divine, and that John bare witness unto Christ, and so they behoved to know Christ to be the Messiah; therefore, pertinently doth He ask, John’s baptism, whence was it?

3. Callings unto the holy ministry must either be from God, and so they are lawful, or from men only, and so they are unlawful.

4. The Sacraments, and all religious service and worship, must have the same authority with the doctrine, to wit, Divine; for the question is moved about John’s baptism instead of John’s doctrine, or John’s commission or calling.

5. Men of corrupt minds do seek, not the verity but the victory in dispute; they do not look what is true or false, right or wrong, but what is most for their own corrupt ends and purpose, as the reasoning of these men doth show; for the verity which they knew of John they will not confess for shame, nor dare they flatly deny it, for fear the people should fall on them.

6. Whosoever confess a doctrine to be from heaven, and yet do not believe it, are inexcusable, and condemned by their conscience; for, say they, “If we say from heaven, He will say, Why,” etc.?—David Dickson.

Mat_21:27. Evading the truth.—

1. The Lord’s enemies at last are confounded and put to silence. “We cannot tell,” say they.

2. One sin ensnareth and draweth a man into another sin, for they refuse to tell the truth, and in refusing they fall into a lie, saying, “We cannot tell.”

3. Such as captivate the knowledge they have, and make no use of it, are justly deprived of what further knowledge they pretend to seek, for “Neither will I tell you” is Christ’s last answer to such.—David Dickson.

Mat_21:28-32. The two sons.—I. The two distinct and opposite answers.—

1. That of the first son, “I will not,” was evil, and only evil. It is of first-rate practical importance to make this plain and prominent. Looking to the son in the story, we see clearly that the answer was outrageously wicked: it was an evil word flowing from its native spring in an evil heart. Looking next to the class of persons whom that son represents, we find they are the openly and daringly ungodly of every rank in every age. They neither fear God nor pretend to fear Him. At this point, among certain classes, a subtle temptation insinuates itself. In certain circumstances ungodly men take credit for the distinct avowal of their ungodliness, and count on it as a merit. The frank confession that they are not good seems to serve some men as a substitute for goodness. What comfort will it afford to the lost to reflect that they went openly to perdition, in broad daylight, before all men, and did not skulk through byways under pretence that they were going to heaven?

2. The answer of the other son was evil, too, if you look, not to its body, but to its spirit. His smooth language was a lie; and his subsequent conduct showed, not that he had changed his mind when his father was out of sight, but that he concealed it while his father was present. The expression of the lips was like a glittering ripple caused by a fitful breeze, running upward on the surface of the river, while the whole volume of its water rolls, notwithstanding, the other way. Thus is even the worship of hypocrites worthless. “Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord,” etc. Thus, at first, both these sons were in a false and unsafe position. Their characters were not the same—were not similar; they differed in thought and word; but the difference, in as far as their answers were concerned, indicated only varieties of sin. Legion is the name of the spirits that possess and pollute the fallen; but all the legion do not dwell in every man. At the time when the father uttered his command, the character of the first son was bold, unblushing rebellion; the character of the second was cowardly, false pretence.

II. The two distinct and opposite acts.—

1. The first, after flinging a blunt refusal in his father’s face, repented of his sin. The turning-point is here. His heart was first turned and then his history. The grieved father would weep for joy, as he looked up the precipitous hill-side on which the terraced vineyard hung, and saw there the head and hands of his son glancing quickly from place to place among the vine plants. Thus there is joy in heaven—deep in the heart of heaven’s Lord—over one sinner that repenteth. Among the vines that day work was worship; the resulting act of obedience—fruit of repentance in the soul, was an offering of a sweet-smelling savour unto God.

2. The other son promptly promised, but failed to perform. The first was changed from bad to good, but the second was not changed from good to bad. No change took place in this case, and none is recorded. This son represents, in the first instance, those Pharisees who were then and there compassing the death of Jesus. They ostentatiously professed that they were doing God service; yet they were spreading a net for the feet of the innocent, and preparing to shed His blood. It is meant that in this glass all the self-righteous to the end of the world should see themselves; their profession is fair, but their life is for self, and not for God.—W. Arnot, D.D.

Mat_21:28-31. The last first.—

1. Men will more readily acknowledge their fault in another man’s person than in their own; therefore doth Christ draw forth these men’s judgment by a parable.

2. He will have the conscience of the wicked subscribing to the righteousness of God’s judgment against themselves, as will appear by “What think ye?” compared with their answer.

3. The most odious and despised sinners, repenting and believing in Jesus, do find grace and place both in the church and in heaven above; but such as confide in their own righteousness are debarred, for “harlots,” saith Christ, “go into the kingdom of heaven before you.”—David Dickson.

Mat_21:28. Cultivating the Lord’s vineyard.—I. Our Heavenly Father calls us to work for Him.—We may take the Lord’s vineyard to represent:

1. Our own natures.

2. Our own households.

3. The Christian church. 4. The whole earth.

II. Our Heavenly Father calls us to work for Him as sons.—As recognising the filial relation and breathing the filial spirit—i.e. working cheerfully, prayerfully, hopefully.

III. Our Heavenly Father calls us to work for Him at once, “to-day.”—John Morgan.

“I will,” and “I won’t,”—a story of two brothers (For children).—We do not know the names of these two brothers, so we will call them “I WILL” and “I WON’T.” They evidently lived with their father, who owned a vineyard.

I. Two brothers very much unlike.—I think “I will” was the elder of the two, and in some versions of the story he is put first. He was a very promising young man; indeed, he was all promise, as we shall see, and little performance. He found it so much easier to say “Yes” than “No,” that he often said “Yes” when he did not mean it. Brothers are often unlike each other. Instance Jacob and Esau, Moses and Aaron, Peter and Andrew, James and John. No need for brothers to be exactly alike. Nature is full of variety and character is full of variety. Tastes, habits, acquirements, all make us different, even as our faces are different.

II. A reasonable request.—

1. Their father asked them kindly. “Son, go work in my vineyard.” Not “slave,” not “servant,” not even “go,” but “son.”

2. He asked what each had the power to perform.—“Go work.” Idleness is a disgrace. Work is pleasant, manly, profitable, honourable.

3. His request involved no hardship.—Did not say, “Go work in my coal mine,” but “work in my vineyard.”

4. It was a rightful request.—He was their father.

III. The two answers.—“I WON’T” at once refused. He was a hasty boy; did not think about it; made up his mind in a moment. He was blunt. He had no right to have spoken so curtly to a father. His answer would grieve his father. “I WILL” promised at once. He also was hasty. It was not the promptness of a grateful and ready mind, but the utterance of a glib tongue. It was insincere. He said what he did not mean. Words and intentions should go together. He was thoughtless. As soon as his father was out of sight he forgot his promise, and went on with his pastime.

IV. A youth who changed his mind.—It is said the boy who changes his mind proves that he has a mind to change; but he must beware of fickleness. “He repented.”

1. His repentance did not come immediately.—It was “afterwards he repented.”

2. His repentance implies that he was sorry.—There was a true heart under a rough exterior. “Some men seem to imagine they will be forgiven for being sinners because they have never pretended to be saints; but is a man less the enemy of God because he is outspoken?”

3. His repentance was immediately followed by work.—It is very easy to express regret—to say we are sorry; but this boy “went and did the will of his father.”

V. Which brother are we like?—

1. Do not be too ready to say, “I will;” mean it first and then say it.

2. Cultivate courtesy, and before refusing a reasonable request be sure that you have good reasons for refusing.

3. Look upon this little parable as a picture of our Heavenly Father’s, call. To every son He says, “Go work in My vineyard,” and He says, Do it “to-day.” Is my name “I will,” or “I won’t?”—Preparation.

The temptations of work.—Work has its temptations, more subtle than the temptations of idleness. There are two great formulas: the formula of the world and the formula of Christ. The formula of the world is: Not you, but yours; not what you are, but what you do, is the thing sought for. The formula of Christ is: Not yours, but you; your life is greater in God’s sight than your life-work. The formula of the world finds its practical and its powerful ally in the temptations of work. The formula of Christ means the protection and the development of your spiritual life. The temptations of work, what are they?

I. To self-deception.—The more you love your work, and the greater your success in your work, the more are you exposed to the temptation of self-deception. If you love your work the performance of it gives you pleasure and satisfaction, and weaves into your thought the subtle idea that work is the ultimate thing, and that success in work means completeness. What you do becomes more to you than what you are, and every time you do well, and the world tells you you do well, that illusive sense of ultimateness gains power over you, and your life-work overtops your life.

II. To unspirituality.—It grows out of the first. We are not promised that the Spirit of God shall dwell in our work, except in so far as He first dwells in our life. When ambition, the appetite for power, or when activity, the appetite for work, becomes the ruling idea of existence, when we live for effect, or when we attempt to find ultimateness in being busy, it is amazing to see how a wall seems built up between our life and our work; and how the nobleness, even the spirituality, of our calling communicates no blessing to our neglected and depleted spiritual life. Do you ask me, “What is the proper food of the spiritual life?” I answer by naming a trinity of truths, upon which, if you feed day by day, you will ever keep greater and holier than your life-work; great and holy as, for some of you, that life-work may be. Christ’s work for you, Christ’s presence in you, Christ’s purpose through you.—Charles Cuthbert Hall.

Work.—Observe:—

I. The command.—“Go.” Some Christians would always be with Christ. They love emotion—contemplation; like Mary they would never move from His feet. To such He says, Go; you must tear yourself away from the ideal of religion to the practical. The society of your Master is to come after.

II. The labour.—“Work.” Religion is toil. Toil in self culture. Toil in converting souls. Toil in perfecting and carrying out God’s plans.

III. The time.—“To-day.” Divine things admit no delay.

IV. The place.—“In My vineyard.” It is all God’s vineyard. Though the world is reeking with sin, though the soul is fouled with sin, though Satan is riding roughshod over fallen creation, it is all God’s. Consider:

1. How vast the sphere of duty.

2. How great the requirements of service.

3. How intense the responsibility.

4. How great the privilege.

5. How sure the reward.—Anon.

Mat_21:29. Wisdom of complying with the gospel-call.—

I. What is the work to which the gospel calls, and with which sinners will not comply? It is the work of practical godliness. It is a large work, as extensive as the commandment, which is exceeding broad.

II. Why is it that sinners will not comply with this work?—

1. Because it is the work, to which of all works, their hearts are most averse (Rom_8:7).

2. Because of the prevailing love of carnal ease. Fighting, running, praying, striving, wrestling, taking heavenly violence and the like, they cannot away with.

3. Because Satan furnishes them with work (Joh_8:44). They are busy doing nothing, or hatching the cockactrice’s egg; doing worse than nothing, they have much to do having the desires of the flesh and mind to fulfil.

III. Why this reason should be retracted?—

1. Because this refusal is against the respect and duty which you owe to Him who calls you to the work (Mal_1:6).

2. Because this refusal is full of the basest ingratitude.

3. It is the most foolish and unreasonable refusal that can be; and if the sinner were not out of himself, he could not be capable of it.

4. You are ruined if you stand to your refusal.—Anon.

Mat_21:31-32. The application of the parable.—The application of the parable to those to whom our Lord was speaking could not be misunderstood.

I. The first son, the man who at first said he would not go, but afterwards repented and went, was the representative of the publicans and harlots.—They had lived in open sin, and were not surprised that men should denounce them as hopelessly corrupt. But John’s preaching went to their hearts, because he assured them, that even for them there was an open gate into the kingdom of God.

II. The priests and elders.—The men who represented all that was respectable and religious in the country, were depicted in the second son who promptly said he would go and work for his father, but did not do so. These priests and elders spent their time in professing to be God’s people. Their day was filled with religious services. They had no secular business at all; they were identified with religion; their whole life was a proclamation that they were God’s servants, and a profession of their willingness to obey. And yet they failed to do the one thing they were there to do. They heard John’s teaching, they knew it was the voice of God, but they refused to prepare their hearts and understandings, as he taught them, that they might recognise Christ. Their whole profession collapsed like a burst bubble; they were proved to be shams, to be dealing in mere words with no idea of realities.—M. Dods, D.D.

Mat_21:31. Grace manifested in flagrant sinners.—The manner of working grace in profane persons, and great sinners, for the most part is this: they see two things:—

I. Their own misery.—They ascend to a sight of their misery by these steps.

1. They see their own sins, which they have committed against God.

2. They see the severity of that law which they have transgressed, and of that Lord, whom they have offended, into whose hands it is a fearful thing to fall.

3. They tremble and fear by reason of the righteous judgments of God.

4. They grieve and mourn that by their sins they have roused a sleeping lion, and incensed and stirred up against them so potent a foe.

5. They confess and acknowledge that they are unworthy to come unto God, or to receive mercy from Him.

II. God’s mercy.—They attain unto the sight thereof by these degrees.

1. They see the promises of the gospel and the condition of repentance expressed in the gospel.

2. They come humbly to Christ.

3. They accept of the conditions which the gospel requires.

4. They come unto the holy Eucharist, as a symbol and confirmation of all these.—Richard Ward.

Mat_21:32. Reason for condemnation.—

1. The more blameless and holy the preacher of repentance and righteousness by Christ be found, the greater is the sin of those who do not receive the message, for so Christ aggravateth these men’s sins saying, “John came in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not.”

2. Albeit self-conceited, righteous people do not believe the doctrine of righteousness by Christ, yet God will manifest the power of His truth in the conversion of despised sinners; for “the harlots believed John” albeit the Pharisees did not.

3. The sight and example of other folks believing and repenting in Christ, if it do not move us unto acknowledging our sins also and flying unto Christ, it shall stand as a witness against us, to aggravate our sin and condemnation; therefore, saith He, “And ye, when ye had seen it, ye repented not.”

4. Remorse for not believing God’s word in His servant’s mouth, in time bygone, is a special spur and preparative to believe it the more solidly for time to come; therefore saith He, “Ye repented not, that ye might believe him,” that is, “When you saw that the publicans had outstripped you in the way of righteousness by believing John’s testimony of Me, ye did not lament your unbelief, that you might give him so much the more credit for time to come, and so recover your loss by faith in Me.”—David Dickson.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

SIXTH SECTION

THE ASSAULTS OF THE EXTERNAL THEOCRACY UPON THE ROYAL LORD IN HIS TEMPLE

Mat_21:23 to Mat_22:46

The symbolical transaction of the fig-tree begins to unfold itself in spiritual judgments upon the Jews in al. their authorities. The second day of the stay of the Messiah in the temple is come, the Tuesday of Passion-week; or the third, if we include the day of the entry. It was the great day of contest after the day of peace: a day on which Jesus endured victoriously the hostile attacks of the authorities in the temple, in which He silences and puts to confusion their several bands, one after another; and then, after His great judicial discourse ( Matthew 23), in view of their obduracy and in prospect of their violence, voluntarily leaves the temple. The first assault was made by the high priests and elders: it is disguised under the forms of official authority. Jesus confronts them, and discloses their true position by three parables, Mat_21:23 to Mat_22:14.—The second attack was an attack of cunning, led on by Pharisees and Herodians: they ironically assume that He has Messianic authority, in order that they may politically entangle Him ( Mat_21:15-22). Then follow the Sadducees with their attack. They seek, by their alternative, to involve Him in Sadducean or antinomian assertions ( Mat_21:23-33). Hereupon, the Pharisees make their last desperate assault, with a tempting and fundamentally threatening question of the law; and are reduced to pronounce their own discomfiture by His counter-question touching the divine dignity of the Messiah, according to Psalms 110—(Then follows the judicial discourse of Matthew 23; and finally the departure from the temple.)

A. The Attack of the High Priests and Elders, and the Victory of the lord.

Mat_21:23-27

(Mar_11:27 to Mar_12:12; Luk_20:1-19; Luk_22:1-14.—The Gospel for the 20th Sunday after Trinity.)

23And when he was come into the temple, the chief [high] 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? 24And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing [one word, λόγον ἕνα], which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with [among]38 themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why [then, οῦν] did ye not then believe him? 26But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people [multitude, ὄχλον]; for all hold John as a prophet. 27And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell [We do not know, οὐκ οἴδαμεν]. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

Transition to the Offensive.—First Parable: The Parable of the Two Sons (the hypocritical unbelief)

Mat_21:28-32

28But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my [the]39 vineyard. 29He answered and said, I will not; but afterward he repented, and went. 30And he came to the second [other],40 and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go [I will, ἐγώ],41 sir; and went not. 31Whether of them twain [Which of the two, Τίς ἐκ τῶν δν́ο] did the will of his father [the father’s will, τὸ θέληυα τοῦ πατρός]? They say unto him, The first.42 Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. 32For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not; but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not43 afterward, that ye might believe him.

Second Parable: The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (the murder of Christ, and the judgment)

Mat_21:33-46

33Hear another parable: There was a certain44 householder, which [who] planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about [put a hedge around it, φραγμὸν αὐτῷ πρριέθηκε], and digged [dug] a winepress in it, and built a [watch ] tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far [another] country:45 34And when the time of the fruit [the fruit-season]46 drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it [to receive his fruits].47 35And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another [and one they beat, and another they killed, and another they stoned].48 36Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on [have]49 his inheritance. 39And they caught [took, λανόντες] him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.50

40When the lord therefore [When therefore the lord, ὅταν οῦ̓ν] of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked [miserable] men [or: he will wretchedly destroy those wretches],51 and will let out his [the] vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall [who will] render him the fruits in their seasons. 42Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing [from the Lord, παρὰ κυρίου], and it is marvellous [wonderful ] in our eyes (Psa_118:22)? 43Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall [will] be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.52

45And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. 46But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared53 the multitude [multitudes, τοὺς ὄχλους], because they took him for a prophet [held him as a prophet, ὡς προφήτην αὐτὸν εῖ̓χον].54

Third Parable: The Marriage of the King’s Son (the judgment of the rejection of Israel and the new theocracy of the kingdom of heaven).

Mat_22:1-14

1And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by [in, ἐν] parables, and said, 2The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which [who] made a marriage for 3his son, And [he] sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. 4Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which [that] are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner [τὸ ἄριστον, early meal, midday-meal]: my oxen and my [the] fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. 5But they made light of it, and went their ways [went away, ἀπῆλθον], one to his farm, another to his merchandise: 6And the remnant [But the rest, οἱ δὲ λοιποί] took [laid hold of, κρατήσαντες] his servants, and entreated them spitefully [ill-treated, ὕβρισαν], and slew them. 7But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. 8Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which [that] were bidden were not worthy. 9Go ye therefore into the highways [thoroughfares, διεξόδους τῶν ὁδῶν],55 and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. 10So those servants went out into the highways [ὁδούς], and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good. and the wedding was furnished with guests. 11And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which [who] had not on a wedding garment: 12And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless [put to silence, ἐφιμώθη]. 13Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and56 cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 14For many are called, but few are chosen.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Mat_21:23. As He was teaching.—At first the members of the Sanhedrin, with the high priest himself at their head, confronted the Lord with an official and formal inquiry. Their action was passionately prepared; for, no sooner had Jesus repaired again to the temple, than they were on the spot. Their inquiry was hostile in its design; His opponents would oppress Him at once by their authority; and therefore they interrupted Him even in the midst of His teaching. But the form of their inquiry was official, and according to theocratical rule: the Jewish rulers had the right to demand of a man who exercised prophetic functions the warranty of His prophetical character. But, as Jesus had already abundantly authenticated Himself by various miracles, their seemingly justifiable act was only a shameless avowal of unbelief. It was no other than the highest rebellion in the disguise of strict legality.

The high priests and the elders.—That is, the Sanhedrin in its official authority. Hence Luke and Mark add the scribes also; for these belonged in a wider sense to the presbytery. The high priests: the plural is explained by the then existing relations of the high-priesthood. The high priest was supposed legally to enjoy his function during life (see Winer, art. Hohepriester); and before the exile we read of only one deposition (1Ki_2:27). But since the time of the Syrian domination the office had often changed hands under foreign influence; it was often a football of religious and political parties, and sometimes even of the mob. This change was especially frequent under the Roman government. Thus Annas (Ananus) became high priest seven years after the birth of Christ (Æra Dion.); seven years ater Ishmael, at the command of the Roman procurator (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 2, 2); afterward Eleazar, son of Annas; a year later, one Simon; and after another year, Joseph Caiaphas, a son-in-law of Annas. Thus Caiaphas was now the official high priest; but, in consistency with Jewish feelings, we may assume that Annas was honored in connection with him as the properly legitimate high priest. This estimation might be further disguised by the fact of his being at the same time the סָנָן, or vicar of the high priest (Lightfoot); or, if he was the נָכִוֹיא, president of the Sanhedrin (Wieseler). Compare, however, Winer, sub Synedrium. That, in fact, high respect was paid to him, is proved by the circumstance that Jesus was taken to him first for a private examination (Joh_18:13). And thus he here appears to have come forward with the rest, in his relation of colleague to the official high priest. Moreover, the heads of the twenty-four classes of the priests might be included under this name. Probably the whole was the result of a very formal and solemn ordinance of the Council, at whoso head stood the high priests.

By what authority?—(Comp. Act_4:7.) The two questions are not strictly the same. The first demanded His own authority, or what was the prophetic title which He assumed; the second demanded the authority from which He derived His own, and which authenticated Him. It therefore seems to have intimated that their authorization was denied to Him. Doubtless their aim was to extort from Him thus early that same declaration which they afterward ( Matthew 26) construed into a criminal charge.

Doest Thou these things? ταῦτα.—Grotius, Bengel, and others refer the ταῦτα to His teaching: Meyer, on the contrary, to the cleansing the temple and the healing, Mat_21:14. Better, de Wette: The whole of the work of Jesus in the temple up to this time. As they would not acknowledge the acts of Jesus, the definite word ταῦτα is chosen with design.

Mat_21:24-25. I also will ask you.—The counter-question is once more a testimony to the heavenly supremacy of Christ’s wisdom as a teacher. They had presented this inquiry under the pretext of theocratical rule; and, in the true spirit of this theocratical rule, He put to them His counter-question: The baptism of John, was it from heaven? that is, Did John act as a true prophet under divine authority? The antithesis, or of men, signifies his having come by his own arbitrary boldness, undertaking an enthusiastic work, supported by the party spirit of like-minded confederates. As the opposite of divine authority of the true prophet, the words still more definitely describe the character of the false prophet. Now if the Sanhedrin declared for the latter part of the alternative, they would not only come into collision with the faith of the people, but they would condemn themselves as having proved false to the theocracy, as the administrators of its laws. If, on the other hand, they acknowledged the divine mission of John, they must also acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah; for John had declared himself to be the forerunner of the Messiah, and he had moreover directed the people to Jesus as the Messiah. Indeed, the silent secret is here hinted at, that he had directed themselves—the Sanhedrin—to Jesus as the Messiah (see Matthew 4).

Mat_21:25. They deliberated among themselves.—Their pondering must issue in a formal answer; and, as they must give a common answer, a common consultation and deliberate calculation was previously necessary: hence ἐνἑαυτοῖς, among themselves; which also appears in the διαλογίξεσθαι. (See Mat_16:7.)—Why then did ye not believe him?—that is, his testimony concerning the Messiah.

Mat_21:26. We fear the multitude.—We have the crowds (τὸνὄχλον) to dread. Meyer assumes here an aposiopesis, which (Luk_20:6) interprets: All the people will stone us. But the expression φοβούμεθα intimates the same in a more indefinite way. The ὄχλος is scornful: the mob, as in Joh_7:49.

[The intelligence of this official consultation, which is related almost verbatim by the Synoptists, may have been originally derived from Nicodemus, who belonged to the Sanhedrin.—P. S.]

Mat_21:27. We do not know.—This reminds us of the hierarchical decision, “mandatum de supersedendo,” which is so frequent in papal history; e.g., in the conflict between Reuchlin and the Dominicans (see Ranle: Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation vol. i. p. 281). They were caught in a rough alternative, and could extricate themselves only by a step of desperation. The Sanhedrin were under the necessity, in the temple and in the hearing of all the people, to utter a confession of ignorance, and. that of hypocritical ignorance. If they were not already enemies of Jesus to the death, this would make them so. This declaration made them, in the eyes of Jesus, cease to be a truly legitimate and divinely authorized Sanhedrin; after this, they were to Him only as usurpers. Hence His reply, Neither tell I you. [The οὐδὲ ἐγὼ λέγω is an answer not to their words: οὐκ οῐδαμεν, but to their inward thoughts: οὐ θέλομεν λέγειν.]

Mat_21:28. But what think ye?—Now there is a transition to the offensive. First Parable.—Jesus had already by His counter-question obliged His enemies to by bare their ignorance, or their unbelief. He now constrains them, in the first parable, to declare heir own great; and, in the second, to declare their own punishment; and, as they had now decided to put Him to death, He describes to them, in the third parable, the consequences of their great violation of the covenant and ingratitude—the destruction of their ancient priesthood, and the triumphant establishment of His new kingdom of heaven among the Gentiles. The first parable is found only in Matthew.57

Mat_21:30. I will, sir, ’Εγώ.—Not merely, yes, but an elliptical expression of devoted willingness, like the Hebrew הִכֵּנִי (Grotius). De Wette: It always refers to the previous verb: thus, ὑπάγω or ἐργάσομαι must be supplied. But the emphasis of the answer with I is to be regarded as intimating a contrast to the refusing son.

Mat_21:31. The publicans and the harlots.—Thus, those who were excommunicated from the Jewish Church: the last word specializes the usual expression, sinners. They are represented by the first son. Their earlier relation to the requirements of the law and the prophets was a virtual no, which often in the expression of unbelief had become an actual and literal no. But, since the coming of the Baptist, they had repented. The contrast to them is the Sanhedrin in the second son. By their doctrine and hypocritical piety they had exhibited themselves as the obedient ones, yet with a boastful I will, sir, and with a contemptuous look upon the disobedient son. But they were the disobedient in relation to the Baptist and the Christ; they would not be influenced even by the example of the publicans’ repentance.

Go before you, προσάγουσιν.—Here intransitive: not of a “future,” but of a present entering into the kingdom of God. But the following of the others is not intimated; rather the reverse. [According to Trench, on the contrary, the words imply that the door of hope was not yet shut upon the Pharisees by an irreversible doom, and that they might still follow, if they would. So also Alford and Nast. Comp. Joh_12:35; and Christ’s prayer on the cross, Luk_23:34.—P. S.]

Mat_21:32. In the way of righteousness, ἐν ὁ δῷδι καιοσύνης.—Meyer: “As a thoroughly righteous and upright man. It is not the preaching of righteousness which is meant.” De Wette: “For he preached righteousness.” That ὅδος often means doctrine, as a standard of practical righteousness, is a settled point (comp. Mat_22:16; Act_13:10, etc.). But here we must understand the way of righteousness in reference to the words of Christ in Joh_14:6 : I am the way. John came (ἔρχεοθαι of teachers arising, Mat_11:18) as the forerunner of the Messiah, pointing to Him, the way of righteousness. The δικαιοσύνη here is analogous to the σοφία, Mat_11:19.

Repented not.—Μεταμελέομαι here expresses the coming to a change of mind and purpose, and not merely “to meditate something better;” yet repent is rather too strong a translation, and corresponds to δικαισσὐνη. Comp. Mat_27:3; 2Co_7:8.

Mat_21:33. Hear another parable.—[As if to say: “I have not done with you yet; I have still another word of warning and rebuke.” Trench.] This second parable does not merely predict “ the future punishment” of the enemies of the Messiah; it more definitely specifies the nature of their guilt, in its last and near approaching consummation, the murder of Christ.

Planted a vineyard.—The theocracy under the similitude of a vineyard: see Isa_5:1-7; Isa_3:14; Son_2:15. Israel the vine: Jer_2:21. Christ the vine: Joh_15:1. [A vineyard was regarded as the most valuable plantation, which yielded the largest harvest, but required also the most constant labor and care. Cato says: Nulla possessio pretiosior, nulla majorem operam requirit.—P. S.]

A wine-press, ληνὁς.—Properly the trough which was buried in the ground; the wine-press proper stood above, and the juice flowed through a grated opening into it. But the press and the trough were also together called ληνός.

[The digging, of course, can only refer properly to the receptacle for the juice in the rock or ground to keep it cool (Mark has for it ὑπολήνιον=lacus vinarius); but ληνός=torcular, sometimes means the whole structure for treading the grapes and receiving the expressed juice. Dr. Hackett (Illustrations of Scripture, p. 157, 8th ed.), as quoted by Dr. Conant in loc., gives the following description of it: “A hollow place, usually a rock, is scooped out, considerably deeper at one end than the other. The grapes are put into this trough, and two or more persons, with naked feet and legs, get into it, where they jump up and down, crushing the fruit.… The juice flows into the lower part of the excavation.… The place for treading out the grapes is sometimes dug in the ground, lined probably with a coating of stone or brick. The expression in Mat_21:38 may allude to such an excavation.”—P. S.]

Tower.—Watch-tower; generally built in vineyards [not so much for recreation as for the watchmen who guarded the fruits against thieves].

Let it out to husbandmen, ἐξέδοτο.—De Wette: For a part of the fruits, Meyer: For money, as the lord himself received the fruits, Mat_21:34; Mat_21:41. But in Luk_20:10 we have ἀπὸ ταῦ καρποῦ τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος, and hence de Wette must be right. If the ἐκδιδόναι had been used of money (it must be distinguished, even then, from the μισθοῦν of the laborers, Mat_20:1; Mat_20:7), the lord would have required of these husbandmen, not the fruits, but the rent. Meyer himself favors this explanation, when he makes τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτοῦ refer, not to the fruits of the vineyard, but to the fruits belonging to the lord.

Mat_21:35. Stoned another.—Meyer: According to Mat_23:37; Joh_8:5; Act_7:58, etc., “this is related to killing as its climax, as species atrox (Bengel) of killing.” But in the parallel of Mark, where λιθοβολήσαντεσ is sufficiently authenticated, we must understand it, that the servant was saluted from afar with stones. The climax is there, but of another kind: they did not let the third messenger come near them, but drove him away with stones. It must be remembered, that stoning is used here as part of the parable, not in the sense of the Jewish law.

[ Mat_21:37. But last of all he sent unto them his son, etc.—It has been frequently observed by ancient and modern commentators, that the only and well-beloved Son of God is here distinctly marked out as far above the prophets in dignity and rank, the sending of whom is the last and crowning effort of divine mercy, and the rejection of whom fills up the measure of human sin and guilt. Compare here the more expressive language of Mar_12:6 : “Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, they will reverence my son.” The expression of the hope, that the husbandmen will reverence the son, implies, of course, no ignorance, but the sincere will of God, that all should be saved; and the fact of man’s freedom and responsibility which is perfectly consistent with Divine foreknowledge and foreordination, although we may not be able in this world to see the connection and to explain the mystery.—P. S.]

Mat_21:38. Let us have his inheritance, καὶ σχῶ μεντὴν κληρονομίαν.—The reading κατάσχωμεν (seize), and the parallel in Mar_12:7, contain the true explanation. That of Meyer, “And let us hold fast, not be driven out” (as if they did not mention the result, but their further design, what they would do after the killing of the son), gives no good sense. Till then, they regarded themselves as hired laborers; after killing the heir, they usurp the possession.

Mat_21:39. They cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.—Mark’s inversion of the order exhibits the act in a more passionate and dramatic manner; but it loses a typical feature. For, the sequence in Matthew (and Luke) bears with it an undoubted allusion to the excommunication which preceded death. Chrysostom, Olshausen, and others refer the casting out to the crucifixion outside of Jerusalem; and they are so far right, as this was the consequence of the sentence and curse which rested on Jesus, Heb_13:12.

Mat_21:33-39. The Meaning of the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen.—The vineyard is the theocratical kingdom of God, especially58 in its Old Testament form. The hedge is the divine order of restriction and mark of membership: in the Old Testament, circumcision; in the New Testament, the power of the keys, and baptism with confession (Chrysostom and others: the law59). The wine-press is the altar in the widest sense (Chrysostom and others: the altar; in the New Testament also, the Lord’s Supper60). The tower is the theocratical protection; or also the New Testament office of watchman ideally viewed (Chrysostom: the temple). We must hold fast the fundamental traits of the Mosaic law; yet so as to include the New Testament fulfilment, for the vineyard passes over in the New Covenant to other laborers. The departure of the proprietor. Bengel: tempus divinœ taciturni tatis, ubi homines agunt pro arbitrio. But against this speaks the fact, that the time of the prophets is described, and their mission is combined in one with the mission of Christ. It is rather the period of the natural human development of the kingdom of God from the date of its divine institution. The laborers, or husbandmen, are the official leaders of the theocracy, especially the priests, elders, and scribes. The servants are the prophets sent by God. For their maltreatment, see the flight of Elijah, the histories of Jeremiah and Zechariah (2Ch_24:20), the tradition concerning Isaiah. The son is the Messiah. The attempt of the laborers to gain the inheritance for themselves, is the ambition of the Jewish rulers. The coming of the lord is the judgment of retribution.

Mat_21:40. When therefore the lord of the vineyard cometh.—His enemies are constrained to explain the parable for themselves. But, inasmuch as their solution was a necessary consequence of their whole position, Mark and Luke represent Jesus as Himself drawing the conclusion. But they also put first the question, “What will the lord of the vineyard do?” Each representation is in harmony with the connection of each Gospel; but that of Matthew seems the original one. Meyer supposes that the Sanhedrin daringly gave their decision, although they felt that the parable referred to them; and in favor of this is the μἡ γένοιτο, Luk_20:16. On this assumption, their apparent sincerity was only hypocrisy; and they thereby declared that the parable did not apply to them.

Mat_21:41. He will miserably destroy those miserable men.—Meyer, well: As miserable ones will He miserably destroy them. See his examples of the same phraseology. It signifies the theocratical judgments upon Israel, appearing in the destruction of Jerusalem; which Meyer, with his wonted misunderstanding of the advent, denies. The Parousia of Christ is consummated in His last coming, but is not one with it. It begins in principle with the resurrection (Joh_16:16); continues as a power through the New Testament period (Joh_14:3; Joh_14:19); and is consummated in the stricter sense in the final advent (1Co_15:23; Mat_25:31; 2 Thessalonians 2 etc.).

To other husbandmen.—The passing over of the kingdom of God to the Gentiles. The significance of this feature of the parable was not, probably, clearly seen by the Council. Remarkable is the praise which they finally lavish upon the new laborers. The meaning is, that the Lord will always know how to seek and to find faithful laborers in His work.

Mat_21:42. And Jesus said unto them.—A parabolical word follows from the Old Testament, which gives its edge to the preceding parable; showing the Sanhedrin from the ancient Scriptures that most assuredly the parable suited them. The passage which the Lord brings to their remembrance is that of Psa_118:22 [the same Psalm of triumph from which the people had taken their Hosannas], quoted from the Septuagint. According to Ewald, this Psalm was sung at the first Feast of Tabernacles after the return from captivity. This much is certain, that it primarily pointed, in its historical sense, to the pious, mystical kernel of the people, as exalted above all the attempts of the heathen to destroy them. According to Zec_3:8-9; Zec_4:7, Zerubbabel was probably the person; but Zerubbabel was a type of the Messiah; therefore the passage was a typical prophecy of Christ, as the Rabbins always acknowledged. But as the stone is described as one rejected by the builders, this could hardly be said of the Gentiles, and must refer to the Jewish builders themselves, the priests and rulers, who first despised the stone and then rejected it. We have then here something that passes beyond historical type, and which makes the parable a striking prophecy of the conduct of the Sanhedrin toward Christ. And if the cornerstone, the stone which bears up the theocratical edifice, is distinguished from that building, it cannot signify all Israel, but the theocratical offspring of David, who is the definite type of the Messiah. Since the cornerstone, or head of the corner (κεφαλὴ γωνίς) binds together the two walls, Ammonius and Cyril found in this image the union of Jews and Gentiles in Christ.61 But the idea here prominent is this, that the despised and rejected stone becomes the corner-stone of the theocracy. [Compare for a similar application of this Psalm in Act_4:11; 1Pe_2:1.]

Mat_21:43. Therefore I say unto you.—De Wette: “Therefore, because ye have rejected the comer-stone.” Better: Because the word concerning the corner-stone shows that the parable spoken expressly suits you, the word also concerning the vineyard being given to others suits you also; the kingdom will be taken from you, etc. For this also speaks the expression: “given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”

To a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.—The New Testament people of God, with emphasis upon the new and heterogeneous element, the Gentiles. Meyer: The Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ πνεῦμα.

Mat_21:44. Whosoever shall fall upon this stone, etc.—The privative and negative punishment of the wicked laborers is followed by their positive punishment. Thus we have here an explanation of the words: “He will miserably destroy these miserable men,” connected with the figure of the stone, which now approves its rocky nature, that fitted it to be the corner-stone. Thus Christ also demonstrates that He is the Judge. The positive and punitive judgment has again its two sides. The stone falls on none who have not first fallen on it: that is, only the unbelievers, who have rejected Christ, will be by Him condemned and rejected. But it is a double form of punishment which is expressed by this antithesis. He who falls upon Christ, the corner-stone, or who runs against and falls over it, making Him a spiritual offence and stumbling-block, σκάνδαλυν (Isa_8:14; comp. 1Pe_2:8), will be bruised. This is death through dismemberment of the body: spiritual death, reprobation, and demolition of Israel, or of the individual unbeliever. This is the judgment which falls upon the active enemy of the passive Christ, as subject. But he will also be the passive object of the punishment of the glorified and governing Christ. But on whomsoever it shall tall.—He against whom Christ comes in judgment—according to the figure of the stone, Dan_2:34-35—will He grind to powder, λικμήσει; Vulgate:62 conterat; Luther: zermalmen, to crush, to pulverize. Meyer maintains that the Greek verb can only mean, shall winnow him, throw him off as chaff. But this does not suit the effect of a falling stone. The expression is chosen with reference to the mysterious stone in Daniel, which grinds to powder the image of the monarchies; that is, to Christ, who unfolds His life in the kingdom of God, and grinds the kingdoms of the world to powder. This is the actual and most proper result of His historical judgment: perfect dissolution of organization, dissipation of its elements even to apparent annihilation. The threatening here refers primarily to the Jewish hierarchy and the destruction of Jerusalem; but the unbelieving individual will also be ground to powder at last, the glory of his life will be dissipated, he will be reduced to his elements, and driven to the verge of annihilation.

Mat_21:46. They sought to lay hands on Him.—They had already fixed the decree to kill Him. But their exasperation at the condemning import of the parables might have urged them at once to carry out their resolution, had not their dread of the people prevented them.

Mat_22:1. And Jesus answered.—The third parable: the Marriage of the King’s Song of Solomon 1 The judgment upon Jerusalem and the Jews, and the new theocracy of the kingdom of heaven.—The Lord’s further words are introduced as an answer, because they refer to the schemes of His enemies to seize Him.

In parables.—Plural of the category.

Mat_22:2. Made a marriage for his son.—This parable is related, in its fundamental idea that the kingdom of heaven is a festive meal, to that of Luk_14:16-24. But there is an essential difference between them. The festive supper of a host is here expanded into a wedding supper which a king made for his son. In Luke the whole parable is so ordered as to depict the infinite goodness and grace of the Lord: hence the scornful guests are at once passed by, and the parable turns to those newly invited out of the streets and lanes. But in Matthew the judgment is the standpoint from which the whole is viewed. Hence not only is the judgment upon the first neglecters of the invitation depicted, but further judgment is extended to the guests who actually came. The practical scope of these parables has been altogether overlooked by those who have maintained that the former was the original parable, and that evangelical tradition pieced together in this one many separate fragments. (De Wette, Strauss, Schnecken-burger, and others.)2 Evangelical parables are not works of art in this sense. Their fundamental ideas may be viewed from different points of view, and differently developed accordingly. So here, when the Lord shows what judgments will fall upon the various kinds of contempt poured on the marriage supper of the kingdom of God. The Jews had long been wont to think of the festival of the consummated kingdom of heaven under the figure of a feast. The paschal meal, doubtless, gave them the type of it; while all the heathen festivals and sacrificial feasts rested upon the same common foundation. Comp. Exo_24:11; Psa_23:5; Isa_25:6. This feast of the kingdom of heaven is an image of the blessedness and fellowship of the life of faith, and assumes a threefold form: 1. It is a feast in the future world, Luk_16:22; Luke 2. it is the future feast at the visible advent of the Messiah, Luk_14:15; Mat_25:1; Matthew 3. it is the present, spiritual feast which begins at once with the life of faith, Psalms 23; the parables, Luk_14:17, and in this section. The Jewish rabbinical mythology exhibited the feast at the end of the world, at the advent of the Messiah, with all sensuous characteristics, and in colossal figures. The change of the simple feast into a marriage supper rested upon the Old Testament representation of the covenant between Jehovah and Israel by the figure of the marriage state: Isa_54:5; Eze_16:4; Matthew 23; Hos_2:19-20; compare the Canticles. In the New Testament development of this figure, we must, of course, regard the Messiah as the Bridegroom, for whom the Father prepared the marriage with the Church: Eph_5:25; Revelation 21 Calovius and many others have interpreted the wedding as the union of the divine and human natures in Christ.3 And indeed, this union forms the ideal foundation and real root of the actual union and communion between Christ and His Church, which was typically foreshadowed by the union of Jehovah with Israel. Believers are here represented as guests; but this does not militate against the reference to Christ’s relations with His Church, because the ideal Church in its totality must be regarded as the bride, and the individual Christians as guests. But certainly the bond of connection between Christ and His Church has its root in His assumption of His humanity by the assumption of His human nature. The expression γἀμοι then is not to be generalized, and translated feast. “Michaelis, Fischer, Kuinoel, Paulus, and others have thought that only a feast in celebration of the receiving of the kingdom is meant. But the Messiah is the Bridegroom ( Mat_25:1), whose betrothal is the establishment of His kingdom (comp. on Eph_5:27).” Meyer.4

Mat_22:3. To call them that were bidden.—An Oriental custom. The first invitation was an invitation to the feast generally; the second, to the beginning of the feast itself.

Mat_22:4. Behold.… my dinner, τὸἄριστόν.—The introductory meal, which opened the series of wedding feasts; an early meal toward midday, not the same as the δεῖπνον.5

Mat_22:5-6. But they made light of it … but the rest.—How is this difficult clause to be construed? As the words stand, a division into two parts is suggested, the first part being again subdivided into two:—1. But they made light of it, and went away: a. some to their fields; b. some to their merchandize. 2. But the rest, etc.—So Meyer, after de Wette: ἀμελήσαντες refers only to those who went away; for the remainder, Mat_22:6, acted in direct hostility (κρατήσαντες). But the contempt which is expressed by ἀμελήσαντες is the general term for the enmity which embraced them all in one guilt; and, accordingly, they are all together condemned afterward as φονεῖς. Fritzsche therefore is right in assuming an inexactness in the phrase, which should have been: οἱ δὲ ἀμελ. and οἱ μὲν ἀπῆλθον; as the Vulgate has it: Illi autem neglexerunt, el abierunt, etc. Yet the οἱ found wanting before ἀπῆλθον is contained in the following ὁ μὲν, ὁ δέ. Thus, οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ κρατήσαντες 1. ἀπῆλθον δ μὲν, ὁ δὲ; 2. οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ κρατήσαντεσ. The ἀμέλεια is the hostile unbelief which is common to all. This expresses itself in two ways: a. In the indifferent worldliness: they think nothing of their king, and devote themselves to their own private affairs, b. In fanatical spirituality, which makes the positive persecution of the servants (prophets) an official business. This is a striking picture of the miserable contrast of false worldliness and spirituality in the hierarchical communion.6 Fundamentally, however, the contrast is only a reciprocal influence; and both dwell together in only one city of murderers, which was doomed to burning.

Mat_22:9. Out into the highways.—Not the places where the streets of the city meet (Kypke, Kuinoel, and others); for the city is assumed to be burned, Mat_22:7; but the outlets of country roads (Fritzsche, Meyer).7 At this point our parable goes beyond that of Luk_14:16. There, the streets and lanes of the city are mentioned, where the maimed and the poor gathered together (the halt, the lame, the blind: publicans and sinners within the theocracy). Here, the commission is to go far beyond the doomed city, out into the high roads of the world: all, both bad and good, the heathen simply, are invited; both those who were looking for light, and the common people of heathenism generally.

Mat_22:10. Both had and good.—Bengel: locutio quasi adverbialis. Meyer: They acted as if they would make no difference, whether the persons were morally good or bad, provided only they accepted the invitation; the distinction between them must be made by the king at a later period, and not by them. But in this interpretation, first, the distinction between the wicked and the good in the heathen world (Acts 10; Romans 2) is improperly done away with; and, secondly, it is not proper to confound the difference between the good and the bad among the invited, with the difference between the guests who had, and those who had not, the wedding-garment. The plan of salvation shines clearly through the whole; and that does not look at the previous life, but at faith or unbelief toward the gospel. The words: they gathered together, imply that they accepted the invitation with joy.

The wedding was furnished with guests.—With the filling of the wedding-chamber the wedding feast was consummated. The contemners of the feast could not do away with or invalidate it: it came to its full consummation.

Mat_22:11. To see the guests.—At the thought of a calling of the Gentiles to the Messianic salvation the Pharisaic legality revolted with horror, as opening the gate to antinomianism and anarchy. Christ meets this aversion of the hierarchy with the doctrine that righteousness and judgment would pervade, though in higher and nobler forms, even the new economy of grace. And the idea of judgment is predominant throughout the whole parable. The higher forms of the spiritual law: 1. The guests are examined by the king; 2. the sign of worthiness is the wedding-garment; 3. the punishment is a personal and rigorous exclusion.

Not having a wedding-garment, ἔνδυμαγάμου.—Here, not merely “a garment suitable for a wedding feast” (de Wette), but specifically a wedding-garment. 1. Michaelis, Olshausen, and others interpret: The guests of kings were in the East presented with festal garments, or caftans, according to Harmar (Observations on the East, ii. 17) and others. This custom is assumed in the parable; and the figure is appropriate, the more so as saving righteousness, faith, and the Holy Spirit are likewise the gifts of God. But Fritzsche, Meyer, and de Wette object to this view. De Wette remarks “that such a custom cannot be sufficiently proved (Meyer: Not even by Gen_45:22; Jdg_14:12; 2Ki_5:22; 2Ki_10:22; Est_6:8; Est_8:15); and that there could be no reason why an invited guest should despise the festive garment.” 2. They therefore suggest another explanation: “That the guests were bound to come with festal clothing, was an obvious and customary propriety that needed no enforcement. Moral δικαιοσύνη was thereby symbolized, which men, after the call to the kingdom of the Messiah, should obtain for themselves through the μετάνοια.” So Meyer; without, however, giving any more precise explanation of this moral δικαιοσύνη.8 De Wette: “The view here obtains, that the spirit which is appropriate to the kingdom of God depends upon man himself.” But where could guests get these garments in the urgency of the feast, especially as they were men of all kinds (according to Luke’s parable, probably many of them beggars)? The passages quoted by Meyer show at least that the custom of furnishing the guests with festive garments on such occasions was very ancient in the East.9 Andthe man might have excused himself by his poverty, If it were not assumed that every one might have received his wedding garment. However, we must not lay any more stress upon the idea that the garment was presented, than upon the notion that every one must provide it for himself. There is no feature in the parable which specially points to the one or the other of these assumptions. The stress lies upon this, that every one must be found at the wedding in a wedding garment, and that he must therefore have previously taken pains in the matter. The question, how that trouble was to be taken, and how the garment was to be obtained, is designedly avoided, because another point of view is here the more important. If the guest had not taken any pains about the wedding-garment, he showed positive disrespect to the inviting lord, and a contempt for his feast, or Antinomianism. The free gift of righteousness as such cannot here be meant; as that consists in the invitation to the supper and the participation of the feast. Nor is faith as such intended; for that takes place at the acceptance of the invitation itself. Therefore, the wedding garment is the exhibition of character, or appearance, corresponding to the invitation and the feast: that is, discipline of spirit, an earnest Christian life.10The first historical figure in which this guest comes before us in the apostolical history, is that of the Antinomians, who are depicted in the Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude, and the Nicolaitanes of the Apocalypse. If it is still thought necessary to supply the deficient point (which, however, tends to weaken the main impression), we may say that the wedding garment was at once freely given and obtained by personal effort. It was given as free grace; yet it was to be obtained in the ante chamber by earnest effort and prayer. The chief point is, that it was obtained by diligent anxiety, springing from a right appreciatior of the dignity of the feast.

Mat_22:13. Bind him hand and foot.—An appropriate punishment of lawlessness. It had not for its object merely to keep him fast in his place of punishment, but also to carry him there securely; for, at he was a desperately bold intruder, he could not otherwise be driven out and carried away. The binding is the hard political restraint which follow on lawlessness. It is the business, not of the guest of the church, but of the servants of the King.—Outer darkness—Comp. Mat_8:12. It may be worthy of notice, that the Antinomians are cast out into the same place of punishment with the traditionalists and legalists. This points to an internal connection between the two extremes.

There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.—See above. There is no sufficient reason for separating these words from the parable, as Meyer does, and making them explanatory words of Christ.

Mat_22:14. For many are called.—If we take these words as simply the Lord’s explanation, they refer not only to the punishment of the one guest, who had not on the wedding-garment, but to those also who had been earlier invited; and thus the antithesis of the many and few is better established and illustrated. Comp. Mat_20:16. Called and chosen signify here not merely a difference, but an antithesis. Both in the old and in the new economy there is a rigorous separation made between the worthy and unworthy, and on that this antithesis is founded. We must not, therefore, understand the word here in its common doctrinal meaning; it is no more than the historical call or invitation, and the called are simply the individual members of the theocracy, and of the Christian Church. And so, further, the idea of election here is not the usual dogmatic conception of an eternal decree, but that final election in the judgment which, however, points back to the first election. De Wette goes no further, in his exposition, than the definite sentence of the Judge upon the worthiness and unworthiness of men. Meyer interprets it of the eternal decree by which God appointed those to enter into the kingdom of the Messiah who would appropriate His righteousness, Mat_25:34 (essentially the Arminian view). Perhaps it is better to go no further here also than the historical illustration. Many are called; few, as actual guests, have escaped as elect ones the two crises of judgment. Probably the expression rests upon some proverbial saying, such as, Many guests, few elect ones. The Scripture doctrine of election is the basis of the saying; but it is an election which is here viewed in all its developments and processes down to the judgment day.

Mat_22:1-14. The Meaning of the Parable of the Marriage of the King’s Son. It speaks everywhere for itself. God is the King, and the wedding of His Son is the feast of the Messiah’s kingdom. The invited, who have a second invitation, are the Jews. The second invitation came through John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. The city burnt is Jerusalem. The second sending of the servants is the mission of the Apostles. The highways are the heathen world. Good and bad are the whole body of heathen, receiving a common and unlimited proclamation of the gospel. The other traits—the general acceptance, etc.—have been already sufficiently explained. Lampe understood by the wedding garment Christ Himself: we regard it as the moral excellence of the Christian character. Judas has been discerned in the man without the garment (ἑταῖρε, Mat_26:50); but the connection shows that this man is the collective Antinomianism of the New Testament economy.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. See the foregoing Exegetical Notes.

2. His enemies would oppress and destroy the Lord through the might of their theocratic hierarchical authority. But He constrained them, by the Might of His wisdom, to pronounce before the people in the temple the sentence of their own deposition and degradation. By the question concerning the origin of John’s baptism He accomplished three things: 1. He constrained them to make manifest how much they differed from the belief of the people in the prophetic mission of the Baptist. 2. He brought home to their minds their own guilt, in having rejected the Baptist’s express authentication of His claims as the Messiah. 3. He rendered it necessary that they should pronounce their own sentence upon themselves as utterly incompetent to discharge the duties of their office. Thus the defensive was turned already into the offensive. But the special attack upon them, to which He now passes on, unfolds their guilt and its punishment in perfect gradation; and here again they are obliged to pronounce sentence upon themselves. Despisers of John, the prophet of repentance, worse than the publicans and harlots ! this is the first sentence. That of the second is—Unfaithful stewards of the Lord’s vineyard, murderers of the Messiah, condemned, deprived of their office, degraded, and forced to make way for strangers better than themselves!—this is the second sentence. Being with the whole people insane despisers of God and His salvation, and in all their acts rebels against Him, their city is to be burned, while they themselves are to be destroyed and to give place to the Gentiles!—this is the third sentence, which the Lord Himself utters in an allegorical prophecy. In all these mark the gradation of their guilt. In the first parable they are, by their “I will, sir,” condemned, as well as by the repentance of the publicans and harlots. In the second parable they are condemned by the favorable terms on which the vineyard is let to them, by the long forbearance of the Proprietor, by the bold generosity with which He at last committed to them His Son. In the third parable, by the dignified invitation of their King to the wedding of His Son, as if they were friends, while at the same time they are subjects, and might be commanded; by the repetition of the call, and the anxious, almost supplicating, manner in which the preparations are spoken of, and the probable embarrassment caused by their absence; but, most of all, by the emptiness of their excuses, and the stupid malignity of their vengeance upon the messengers who invited them.

3. The appendix in the second parable perfects Its application to the Council; but at the same time unfolds the two sides of the judgment which falls upon the builders who rejected the corner stone. The corner stone of Psalms 118., which the builders rejection, thus securing their own rejection, is made here, on the one hand, a figure of Isaiah’s suffering Messiah (the stone of stumbling in Israel’s way, Isa_8:14-15), by the contemptuous rejection of whom the enemies of the Messiah pronounced their own spiritual condemnation; and, on the other hand it is made a figure of Daniel’s glorified Messiah (the rock which descended from the highest mountain of the earth into the valley), who in the judgments of history annihilated His enemies. But the second part of the third parable is a justification of the hint, that the kingdom of God pastes over to the Gentiles. Hence it is shown that law, justice, and judgment are to rule in the new economy, although in another and a higher form.

4. The marriage of the Son.—The call to the kingdom of God is a call to the highest honor, the highest joy, and the highest festivity. The inviting king is God; the bridegroom is Christ; the bride (not here appearing) the Church. The fact that the invited who accept the invitation belong to the body, which is the bride, comes not into view in the parable. Believers individually are the guests; believers collectively are the bride. The guests are the subjects of the king: He might constrain them as servants to do the work of servants, but He invites them as guests and friends to partake of His honors and joys, and invites them even with urgency. The motives of honor, love, duty, here all cooperate in their influence. And this makes the conduct of the first invited all the more unnatural and damnable.

5. “It does seem strange that the invited guests ill treat and kill the messengers, who invite them to make their appearance; but what if this senseless conduct in the parable were designed to point to the equal folly of those who are now acting in the same senseless way with regard to God’s messages !”—Weisse (2. p. 113).

6. At the end of this section, the theocratical authority of Christ has taken the place of the old and forfeited authority. The Sanhedrin had now only the form of authority remaining with it. Essentially it was displaced by Christ.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

I. The Whole Section.—The spiritual and real reckoning between Christ and the Sanhedrin points to the future open and historical reckoning.—The full development of the fall of Israel. 1. Their sin: (a) Disobedience under the guise of piety; (b) persecution of the prophets; (c) the murder of Christ; (d) contempt of God, and self exclusion from the gospel feast, 2. Their judgment: (a) Put to shame by publicans and harlots and Gentiles; (b) degradation from their dignity and historical vocation; (c) loss of their land; (d) burning of their city; (e) and total downfall of all their glory.—Mark the fate of every hierarchical dominion which, like that of the Jews, withstands the Lord.

2. The Question of the Sanhedrin; Christ counter question, Mat_21:23-32.—Christ is the spiritual avenger of the Baptist’s blood in the temple.—The Lord in his House obliged to defend His rights; outraged by servants, and treated by them as a usurper.—Christ the conqueror of all hierarchical spirits in the temple of God. The supreme authority of the Lord robs all other authority here of its power.—The silencing of the Council: their silence was a sign of their desperation and of their hardening.—Connection of false prudence and fear: 1. false prudence begets fear; 2. fear begets false prudence —Before the Lord in His holy temple must all the world keep silence.

3. The Parable of the Two Unequal Sons.—The open, and the false character.—The penitent sinner held up by the Lord to put to shame the hypocrite.—The Lord’s sermon of repentance in the temple.

4. The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, Mat_21:33-41.—The fearful wickedness of God’s laborers, who would turn His vineyard into a private possession 1. The sources of this conduct: Misunderstanding of the Lord’s external absence, of His longsuffering and tenderness; selfishness, worldliness, ambition, evil company. 2. The form of its manifestation: Denial of the fruits; contempt of the messengers; renunciation of the Lord; conspiracy against the Heir. 3. The issue of this conduct: Displacement from their vocation; loss of the vineyard; and terrible ruin.—The ruinous delusion of the servants of Christ who turn an office of service into an office of rule.—The ordinary offices in the Church are lost, when they fail to recognize the Lord’s extraordinary messengers.—The murder of Christ in the vineyard of His Father; Joh_3:16 : So God loved the world, etc.—The history of the hardening of Israel an eternal warning to the Church.—They knew the Son and they knew Him not (Luk_23:34; Act_3:17); their blindness was a self inflicted obscuration of their minds.—In Christ’s end the guilt of the whole world is summed up.—How He made His enemies pronounce their own doom.

5. Christ The Stone Rejected by the Builders, Which became the Head of the Corner, Mat_21:42-46.—As the Old Testament foretold the degeneracy of His officers, so did also the New.—Christ the rock: 1. The stone which the builders rejected, and who was made the corner stone (Psalms 118.); 2. the stone in the way, a stumbling block and a stone to rest upon (Isaiah 8.); 3. the rock which, hewn out, rolled down from the everlasting hills (Daniel 2.).—How unbelief turns the warning of ruin into a new and ruinous snare.—How the fear of the people’s faith restrained the enemies of the Lord in their assaults.—The embarrassment and impotence of the Jewish Council: 1. Pressed within by the spiritual words of the Lord; 2. pressed without by the people’s temper.—The malignity of unbelief reaches its climax in the feeling of its own impotence.

6. The Marriage of the King’s Son. The old Scripture lesson for the twentieth Sunday after Trinity. Mat_22:1-14.—The kingdom of heaven a wedding feast, which God has prepared for His Son—All preaching of the gospel is an invitation to this wedding.—Two kinds of guilt in dealing with the invitation: 1. Contempt of the invitation: dishonoring (a) the King, (b) the King’s Son, (c) the inviting messengers. 2. Contempt of the feast itself: (a) dishonoring the blessedness of the feast in gross carnality and service of the world; (b) dishonoring the holiness and consecration of the feast, in preferring the beggarly fellowships of the world.—The guilt of remaining away, and the guilt of appearing ill (without the wedding garment).—The difference and the common glory of the Old and New Covenants. 1. The difference: the Old Testament is the invitation to the feast; the New Testament is the feast itself. 2. The common glory: grace runs through the whole of the Old Covenant as well as the New; and the spirit of judgment and justice runs through the New Covenant as well as the Old the guests are examined.—The best thing in our earth life is, that in it we are invited to the feast of the salvation of God.—The true and proper loss of life in life is the despising the invitation to God’s great least.—How God in His mercy condescends to represent Himself as an embarrassed host, who fears for the dishonoring of His feast, and prays us to come.—All God’s martyrs are persecuted messengers of invitation.—How it can come to pass that unbelief should rise in rebellion against the invitation to the free gift of blessedness.—Indifference which undervalues salvation in the midst of earthly cares, and fanaticism which persecutes the heralds of the gospel, are fundamentally one and the same self seeking worldliness, though assuming different forms.—All God’s judgments are the counterparts or antitheses of slighted feasts and invitations.—The Lord’s armies, which He sends out for retribution (Romans, etc.); or, heaven and earth must contend for the honor of the Lord and His Son.—All the endless confusion of the course of this world must subserve the one clear end of God.—The passing over of the kingdom of heaven from the first invited to the new guests.—The ingratitude of those who would not come cannot invalidate the feast: the wedding is fully furnished and crowded nevertheless.—In the Church of the gospel the law is born again.—Friend, how earnest thou in hither ? or, lawlessness (Antinomianism) in the Church, and its judgment.—Holy discipline of the Church of Christ, the rule of Christ in the midst of it.—The eternal consecration of the eternal feast of Christ.—Outer darkness; or, the punishment of the servants of men’s precepts, and the scorners of the law, the same.—Many are called, etc., or the difference between the external and the internal Church: (a) called, elect; (b) many, few; (c) remaining without, new and different guests.

Selections from other Homiletical Commentaries

1. The Question and the Counter Question—Starke:—From Zeisius: The anti christian spirit arrogates to itself all power in the Church, and will lord it over all things (2Th_2:4).—Spiritual councils, synods, and consistories, not only may err, but have erred, and err to this day; so that we must not obey them further than they conform to the word of God.—Most necessary it is to use prudence in dealing with the enemies of the truth.—Sometimes the cunning of the enemy can be met and unmasked by a little counter question.

Gerlach:—The mysterious answer which Jesus had given them the first time (John 2.) had remained dark to their minds.—Christ’s counter question was by no means a mere evidence of His prudence, or an evasive reply; but He opens up to His enemies the way to acknowledge His Messiahship, for if they believed in John, they must receive his testimony concerning Jesus as the Messiah.

2. The Two Sons.—Starke:—Two sorts of men: manifest sinners, and hypocrites.—Quesnel: What would have been to man, in a state of innocence, pleasure, is now hard work on account of sin.—Cramer: To sin is human, but to continue in sin is devilish.—We must never give up all hope of the vilest sinner.—Behold, Jesus receiveth the vilest sinners, publicans and harlots!—Hedinger: Hypocrites promise much and keep little.—Obstinate persons are hard to convert.—Good examples of penitents should draw sinners to follow them.

Heubner:—The first application is to the persons named in Mat_22:31; the second, to the Jews and Gentiles. But the parable is for all men generally.—Those that are converted late often become more acceptable to God than those who are relapsing from early zeal.—The summoning “Go work” is for every man.—True improvement comes from action, not from wishing and promising.

3. The Wicked Husbandmen.—Starke:—From Quesnel: Ministers of the divine word must regard their flocks as a vineyard of the Lord.—The rulers of the Church are often its greatest persecutors, and most responsible for its corruptions.—The Son of God is heir of all things: whosoever rejects Him here has no part in the heavenly inheritance.—Those who cast Jesus out of their hearts, cast Him also out of the vineyard which He purchased with His blood.—Zeisius: The wicked are very often made unconsciously to bear witness against themselves.—The time of retribution will come.

Gerlach:—The number of the prophets increased in the later ages of the Israelitish people; so also, the longer the Church lives, the further the individual advances, the more abundant are the tokens of God’s grace.—He sent his son (Mat_21:37, comp. Heb_1:2). Important passage, showing how Christ essentially distinguished Himself from all the former messengers of God, by His own peculiar relation to His heavenly Father.—The husbandmen know the son: thus Christ declares that His enemies knew who He was, or at least that they were guilty of their own ignorance. He tells them also why they watched for His life: because they feared He would lake from them their usurped authority.—Human nature, in rebellion against Christ, has a right instinct, that if it could overcome Him, it would overcome all opposition.

Heubner:—The high priests acted as the agents or representatives of the evil spirit, the prince of this world. If Jesus could be destroyed, all would be won for Satan.—The Church of Christ often the stage of most frightful cruelty.—God’s judgments become more and more severe.—The Jewish people a monument of divine mercy and justice.

4. The Corner Stone.—Starke:—From Canstein: The corner stone of the Church is Christ: 1Co_3:11; Eph_2:20; 1Pe_2:6-8.—The Saviour falls on no one as a judgment, who has not already by unbelief stumbled at Him.—So blind are the ungodly, that they fear men, while they have no fear of God.

Heubner:—The Old Testament bad foretold the rejection of the Son of God; the New Testament foretells to us the apostasy from Christianity,11 for the warning and confirmation of believers.—Jesus honored the Scripture, and every where saw in it the counsel of God indicated. Ought not this to inspire the Christian with reverence for the Old Testament—What wise one of this world, what human reason, would have conceived, under the cross, that this man, hanging suspended between two malefactors, and despised by all, would one day receive the worship of the whole world ?—This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes.—Vain are all attempts and devices to suppress the truth, or thwart the counsel of God.—It is madness to rush against the rock: it is for us only to rest and build on.—The doom of the despisers of God’s grace.

5. The Wedding Feast, Mat_22:1-14.—Starke:—The blind world often regards the good messengers, who invite them to a heavenly feast, as their enemies.—God is great, not only in His love, but also in His anger.—Cramer: Joyful word: All things are ready ! Alarming word: Thou art not ready!—Osiander: Let all take care that they do not slight the gospel, that God may not take away His word (“and give it to others”).—Quesnel: It the work of salvation there is no respect of persons.—Cramer: In heaven there are only good, in hell only wicked; but in the militant Church there are tares and wheat together (Gregor. M. Homil. 38).—He was speechless: Job_9:3; Psa_130:3.—Zeisius: The small number of the elect should make no Christian despond, or weaken his hope of salvation; but only cause him to rub all sleep out of his eyes.—Not external communion with the Church, but divine election through faith, saves us.

Gerlach: The wedding feast of the Son of God with mankind, when Ho assumed our flesh.—The highways, the places where men most congregate.

Heubner:—My dinner. God has made all provision for our salvation, and that in the most abundant manner.—The climax: 1. Seize, hold fast and imprison, those to whom all houses and hearts should be opened; 2. Scorn, despise in word and act, those to whom men are bound to show the greatest respect and love; 3. Kill, those for whom the longest life should be desired.—Christianity is offered to us without merit.—The wisdom of God knows even how to derive good from evil.—The Jews’ contempt for the gospel sent it over to the Gentiles.—All without distinction are invited.—Different receptions of the invitation to the kingdom of heaven.—The goodness and earnestness of the call of mercy.

Hofacker:—The righteous judgment of God upon those who obey not the gospel.—Reinhard:—The predominant spirit of every age furnishes its own pretexts for repelling the appeals of the gospel—J. J. Rambach:—The vain hope of false Christians.

[Comp. also Matthew Henry, on the parable of the Marriage Feast, on which he is quite full and rich for practical purposes.—P. S.]

Footnotes:

[1][So It is called in the headings of the English Bible, to distinguish it from the parable of the Great Supper in Luk_14:16-24. Sometimes it is called less appropriately the parable of the Wedding Garment, which after all is only an episode in it.—P. S.]

[2][Even Theophylact, Calvin, and Maldonatus maintain the Identity of the two parables; while Olshausen, Stier, Nast. Alford. Trench, and Owen agree with Lange in keeping their distinct Comp. the apt remarks of Trench on the difference and against Strauss, p. 208 sqq.—P. S.]

[3][The Edinb. trsl. here again reverses the sense of the original by adding: “but we have no Scripture warranty for this, and then omitting the following sentence altogether. A translator has no right to change the views of his author, unless he state that he has done so.—P. S.]

[4][Falsely credited to Lisco in the Edinb. trsl. with the omission of all the names representing this view.—P. S.]

[5][The Edinb. trsl., which usually retains the language of the Authorized Version, even whore Dr. Lange’s version and comments require an alteration, falsely gives the text in this case: My supper is Ready, and thereby contradicts both the English Version and Dr. Lange’s comment. The term: ἅοιστον, from ῆ̓ρι, early, means properly an early meal, but generally a late breakfast, lunch, prandium, taken about midday, comp. Joseph. Antiq. v. 4, 2 (while the early breakfast, taken at sunrise, was called ἀκράτισμα), and is uniformly rendered dinner In the E. V. (Mat_22:4; Luk_11:38; Luk_14:12): δεῖπνον was the principal meal taken early In the evening, after the work and heat of the day, as now in large cities, and is always rendered supper (Mar_6:21; Luk_14:12; Luk_14:16-17; Luk_14:24; Joh_12:2; Joh_13:2; Joh_13:4; Joh_21:20; 2Co_11:20. “the Lord’s supper;” Rev_19:9, “the marriage supper of the Lamb”), except In three passages, where it Is rendered feast (Mat_23:6; Mar_12:39; Luk_20:46). The corresponding verbs are translated: to dine and to sup. Some have proposed to translate ἄριστον, breakfast, and δεῖπνον, dinner. But it would sound very strange to the English ear accustomed to the admirable idiom of his good Anglo-Saxon Bible to hear of “the Lord’s dinner,” and “the marriage dinner of the Lamb.” In such cases the common sense and traditional reverence of English Christendom would tolerate no alteration. In our passage the ἅριστον is the beginning of the marriage feasts, which culminate in the marriage supper of the lamb, Rev_19:9.—P. S]

[6][In German: in dem hierarchischen, Gemeinwesen, which the Edinb. edition has rendered: ecclesiastical nature!]

[7][Alford and Trench refer διέξοδοι to the city, i.e., not the city of the murderers (Jerusalem), but the city in which the marriage was supposed to be celebrated. Trench, p. Matt 220: “We must not permit our English highways to suggest places in the country as distinguished from the town; the image throughout is of a city, in which the rich and great and noble, those naturally pointed out as a king’s guests, refuse his banquet whereupon the poor of the same city are brought in to share it.”—P. S.]

[8][In the fourth edition of his Commentary, Meyer adds: “This δικαιοσύνη was tube obtained gratuitously by faith for the sake of the death of Christ: but the knowledge of this doctrine was reserved to the later development of the Christian faith.” Similarly Alford: “The garment is to imputed and inherent [?] righteousness of the Lord Jesus, put on symbolically in Baptism (Gal_3:27), and really by a true and living faith (Gal_3:26),—without which none can appear before God in His kingdom of glory;—Heb_12:14; Php_3:7-8; Eph_4:24; Col_3:10; Rom_13:14 :—which truth could not he put forward here, but at its subsequent manifestation threw its great light over this and other such simllitudes and expressions.”—P. S.]

[9][Compare a so what Trench address from modern travellers and modern customs in the East, which are likely to date from very ancient times, p. 225. Horace tells of Lucullus (Epist. 1:6, 40) that he had not less than five thousand mantles in his wardrobe. Chardin says of the king of Persia that he Rave away an infinite number of dresses (Voyage en perse, vol. 3. p. 230). Owen, like Lange, urges the obvious impossibility that the guests, especially the poor ones, could provide themselves with costly garments In so short a time, unless they wore ready in the king’s palace. “It must be remembered.” he says, “that these guests were Invited and brought In from the very highways. along which they were passing for pleasure or business, and It is very unreasonable to suppose that they were, or could be, provided, at so short a time, with appropriate dresses. Many of them wore doubtless too poor to meet the expense of such a garment, had lime been given them to procure one. On the other hand, we have abundant evidence, that kings were provided with extensive wardrobes, from which each invited guest was furnished with a suitable garment.”—P. S.]

[10][The Fathers, the Roman Catholic and some Protestant commentators, understand the wedding garment to mean charity or holiness; most of the older Protestant commentators, faith; John Gerhard, Olshausen, Trench, Brown, and others, combine the two in the conception of Christ, or righteousness, both in its root of faith and its flower of charity, or “faith as the Investing power, charity as the invested robe,” in putting on Christ (Gal_3:27). Comp. Isa_61:10 : “I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for He hath clothed me with the garment of salvation, He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself if with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with jewels.” Trench explains It of “righteousness In its largest sense, the whole adornment of the new and spiritual man, Including the faith without which it is impossible to please God (Heb_11:6), and the holiness without which no man shall see Him (Heb_12:14), or like this guest, only see Him to perish at His presence: it is at once the faith which Is the root of all graces, the mother of all virtues, and likewise those graces and those virtues themselves.” A singular curiosity In modern exegetical the interpretation of Wordsworth, who soberly refers the wedding garment to baptism “as the germ of all the means of spiritual grace,” and applies the rebuking ἑταῖρε, friend, especially to the Quakers or Friends, because they reject the visible signs and means of spiritual grace, provided for and prescribed to all by the Great King! The white baptismal garment. In the ancient church must serve as an illustration in the absence of proof.—P. S.]

[11][In German: den Abfall vom Christenthum, from Christianity, nut of chritstendom, as the Edinb. trsl. has it, which would require la German: den Abfall deb Christenheit.—P. S.]

[38] Mat_21:25.—Παῤ ἑαυτοῖς. Lachmann and Tischendorf [not in the ed. of 1859] read: ἐν ἐαυτοῖς, after B., L., Z., etc. The latter reading is preferable, since the sanhedrists had to consult among themselves before giving a general answer.

[39] Mat_21:28.—Μου is omitted in many MSS. [So also in Cod. Sinait. and in the critical editions of Lachmann Tischen-dorf, Tregelles, and Alford.—P. S.]

[40] Mat_21:30.—[Τῷ ἑτέρῳ is the correct reading, sustained by the best authorities, including Cod. Sinait., instead of the Recepta: δευτέρῳ, which after πρώτῳ appears as a gloss. Dr. Lange, however, retains δευτερῳ with Lachmann (who follows the Vatican Cod.), and makes no mention of the other reading.—P. S.]

[41] Mat_21:30.—[̓Εγὼ, κύριε, is, of course, elliptical, to which ὑπάγω, or πορεύομαι, or ἀπέρχομαι must be supplied. The various readings: ναὶ, κύριε, ὑπάγω, κύριε, and others, are to be traced to the desire of amending an apparently incomplete phrase.—P. S.]

[42] Mat_21:31.—Lect. rec.: ὁπρῶτος. [So also Tischendorf and Alford.] Lachmann [and Tregelles] after B., D.: ὁ ὔστερος; still others: novissimus, This reading is connected with the reversion of the answers it Mat_21:29-30, but the sense remains the same. Comp. for different views Meyer. [Comp. also the note of Conant in favor of ὕστερος, i.e., the later, the tardier one, he who was behind the other in his compliance; which is descriptive, while πρῶτος merely identifies. The reversion of the order in some authorities may be easily accounted for by the error of a transcriber who thought that the parable must refer to the successive calling of Jews and Gentiles (as Origen, Chrysostom, and Jerome do), while it applies to two classes in the same nation.—P. S.]

[43] Mat_21:32.—Cod. B., al., Lachmann, [and Alford]: οὐδέ [for οὑ which Is retained by Tischendorf in the edition of 1889—P. S.]

[44] Mat_21:33.—[Lit: “There was a man, a householder,” ἄνθρωπος ῆ̓ νοἰκο δεσπότης, Lange: Es war sin Mensch, ein Gutsherr. All the critical editions omit τις (certain) after ἄνθρωπος.—P. S.]

[45] Mat_21:33.—[̓Απεδήμησεν means: he went abroad (Lange: er zog über Land), without reference to distance, as is implied in the far of the E. V.—P. S.]

[46] Mat_21:34.—[̔Ο καιρὸς των καρπῶν, as distinct from χρόνος.—P. S.]

[47] Mat_21:37—[Ααβεῖν τοὺς κορποὺς αὺτοῦ: αὐτοῦ, like the previous one after δούλους, referring to the householder as the subject of the sentence, and not to the vineyard, as in the E. V. See Meyer and Conant in loc.—P. S.]

[48] Mat_21:37.—[So Luther, Lange, and Conant, according to the emphatic form of the original: ὅν μὲν ἔδειραν, κ.τ.λ.—P. S.]

[49] Mat_21:38.—[The critical authorities, including Cod. Sinait., and editions read: σχῶμεν for κατάσχωμεν, which eems to be a gloss.—P. S.]

[50] Mat_21:39.—Cod. D., al., in reverse order: they slew him and cast him out of the vineyard. A correction in keeping with a passionate proceeding. The order of the Recepta is better. The expulsion from the vineyard before the murder signifies the priestly excommunication and rejection which preceded the crucifixion.

[51] Mat_21:41.—[Κακοὺς κακῶς (=pessimos pessime) ἀπολέσει, a classic phrase of the purest Greek (petita ea purissimo sermone Grœco, as Grotius observes). The paronomasia brings out the agreement of the deed and the punishment In German: er wird die Elenden elendiglich umbringen (Meyer); schlimm wird er die Schlimmen umbringen (Lange); ubel wird er die Ueblen (better: Uebelthäter) vernichten (Ewald). In English we have no equivalent phrase. The rendering of the Authorized Version is as good as any I have seen. Dr. Conant retains it. Dr. Geo. Campbell (The Four Gospels, etc.) renders: he will put those wretches to a wretched death, which I have slightly altered in the text. The Rheims Version has: the naughty men he will bring to naught, after the Vulgate: Malos male perdet.—P. S.]

[52] Mat_21:44.—Omitted by Tischendorf without sufficient authority. [Meyer defends the words, and accounts for the omission by an overnight of a transcriber who passed from αὐτῆς και, at the close of Mat_21:43, at once to αυτὸν και, at the close of Mat_21:44. Lachmann retains the verse, but in brackets.—P. S.]

[53]Ver, 46.—[Better: And they sought … but they feared, και ζητοῦντες … ἐφοβήθησαν, as in Mat_14:5, where the E. V. renders: And when he would hare put him to death, he feared the multitude.]

[54] Mat_21:46.—[As in Mat_21:26, or: they counted him as a prophet, as the E. V. renders the same phrase in Mat_14:5.—P. S.]

[55]Ch. 22 Mat_21:9.—[Διέξοδος, transitus and exitus (Durchgang and Ausgang, Passow), a way through and out, a crossing, fork of the roads, where many resort or pass; here a common outlet of the ways (των ὁδῶν) that lead into it, a thoroughfare. Lange translates it: Scheidewege, and ὁδούς, Strasen.—P. S.]

[56] Mat_21:13.—[The words: ἄρα τε αὐτὸν καί, take him away and, are omitted by Lachmann, Tregelles, Alford, and Lange in his Version (who, however, translates καί), but retained by Tischendorf in the edition of 1859. See Tischendorf and Alford, Crit. apparatus.—P. S.]

[57][Trench (50:100 p. 185) remarks on these three parables that notwithstanding their severe and threatening aspect, they are not words of defiance, but of earnest tenderest love, spoken with the intention of turning them, if possible, from their purpose, of saving them from the fearful outrage against His person which they were about to commit, and. of winning them also for the kingdom of God. The parable of the Two Sons is rather retrospective, while the two that follow, are prophetic also.—P. S.]

[58][Not: that is, as the Edinb. transistor (Rev. Mr. Pops) has it, evidently mistaking the German namentlich for nämlich, and thereby confining the vineyard to the Jewish church, when Lange expressly means to apply it to the Christian church also, as the connection clearly shows. Such errors are very frequent In this translation, especially in. the few preceding and all the subsequent chapters.—P. S.]

[59][So also Trench who refers the hedge to the law which Paul calls “the middle wall of partition” between the Jew and the Gentile (Eph_2:14), and which was a hedge both of separation from, and defence against, Gentile abominations and hostile foreign influence. He refers It at the same time to the geographical isolation of Palestine.—P. S.]

[60][Irenæus, Hilary, Ambrose, and others, take the winepress to be a symbol of the prophetic Institution.—P. S.]

[61][So also Origen. Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Theophylact. and among modern commentators, Alford, Trench, and Wordsworth. See Eph_2:20-22.—P. S.]

[62][The original substitutes the Greek Septuagint (which ought to be connected with the preceding λικμᾷν) for the Latin Vulgate,—an obvious oversight (doubtless of the printer, who may have omitted Vulgate), which the Edinb. translator, as usual, faithfully and thoughtlessly copies.—P. S.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 21:23-32.

The Rulers Question Christ’s Authority, And Are Rebuked

Found also in Mar 11:27-33; Luk 20:1-8. It occurred on the third day of our Lord’s appearance in the temple, which was probably Tuesday.

Mat 21:23. The chief priests and the elders. Mark, ’the chief priests and the scribes and the elders,’ representing the three classes which composed the Sanhedrin (see on "Mat 26:59"); it is not necessary to suppose a formal deputation. They had already begun seeking to destroy him, Luk 19:47 f. and even some time sooner. Joh 11:53

As he was teaching. So Luke, Rev. Ver.; Mark has ’as he was walking in the temple,’ probably in one of the beautiful colonnades, as some months earlier in Joh 10:23. To teach while walking about was very common with the Rabbis, as it was at Athens, where the followers of Aristotle were from this specially called Peripatetics. To stop a teacher and ask him questions, was also common. Mat 22:16, Mat 22:23, Mat 22:35 The conversation between our Lord and the rulers now goes on for a long time in the temple court, Mat 21:23 to Mat 22:46 the people thronging to hear, their usual keen interest in rabbinical discussions being heightened by the triumphal entry and other recent events. After that, he turns from the baffled rulers to address directly the multitudes and his disciples (ch. 23), and towards evening speaks to the disciples on the Mount of Olives. (ch. 24 and 25.) By what authority (see on "Mat 9:6"), more exactly, by what sort of authority; so also Mark and Luke. And who gave thee this authority? The first question asks the nature of the authority, the second asks its source. Did he claim prophetic authority, Mat 21:11 Messianic authority, Mat 21:15 or what? Did he claim authority from man, or from God? Any Jew was allowed to talk publicly about religious questions (as in our social meetings), but if he proposed to be a regular teacher (Rabbi), he must be authorized by other Rabbis or by the Sanhedrin (compare Edersh.). Jesus was not only making it his occupation to teach, but working miracles, cleansing the temple as if a prophet, and apparently justifying his followers in greeting him as the Messiah. It was proper for the Sanhedrin to inquire into his authority, (compare Act 4:7) if it had been done in a proper spirit. These rulers ought to have recognized his divine mission, as their associate Nicodemus had done two or three years before, just after the first cleansing of the temple. Joh 2:18

Mat 21:24-27. Jesus answers by asking them a question. He did this not simply as a retort, or to escape from a dilemma, but (compare Origen) because his question tended to show them the inconsistency of their position, and lead, if possible, to self-searching and a better mind. (compare Mat 22:41 ff.) If they would squarely answer his question, their own question would then answer itself. What sort of authority did John have, and who gave it to him? But John had testified to Jesus. The baptism of John. This striking rite, from which John was popularly called ’John the Baptizer’ (compare on Mat 3:1), represented in the popular mind his entire ministry, and our Lord so uses it here. Compare Act 1:22, Act 10:37, Act 13:24. From heaven, was the same as to say ’from God’ (see on "Mat 3:2"). And they reasoned with themselves, may mean either among themselves, or in their own minds. Their embarrassment in argument grew out of their practical misconduct, as often happens. John’s ministry had made a great impression (compare on Mat 3:5), and the people had very naturally recognized that it was from heaven, that he was a true prophet. This feeling was doubtless deepened by sorrow at his untimely death, so that the multitude would not now tolerate any expression of doubt as to his being a prophet. But the rulers, after their first early interest, (Mat 3:7) had turned away from his ministry, and declined his baptism; (Luk 7:30) hence their present embarrassment. Why did ye not then believe him? John constantly testified that the Messianic reign was near at hand, and distinctly intimated to messengers from the rulers that the Messiah would very soon appear, (Joh 1:19, Joh 1:26 f.) and again in the presence of a Jew that Jesus was the Messiah. (Joh 3:25-30) Long before, at Jerusalem, our Lord had recalled this embassy to John, and the testimony borne to himself. (Joh 5:32-36) In the region of the baptizing this testimony was well remembered. (Joh 10:40-42) So then to reject him, when by his actions and by popular acclaim declared to be the Messiah, was refusing to believe John; they saw this plainly, and knew that it would be said. (Mat 21:32.) We fear the people, or multitude. Luke adds, ’All the people will stone us.’ For all hold John as a prophet. So also Mark and Luke. Herod had long feared to put John to death for the same reason. (Mat 14:5) In Galilee Jesus took for granted, and strongly encouraged, the popular persuasion that John was a prophet. (See on "Mat 11:7".) We cannot tell. We know not, is the literal and exact meaning. So Wyc. and Rheims. It was Tyn. that introduced ’we cannot tell.’ And he, or he also, with a certain emphasis on ’he’ (see on "Mat 1:21".) Neither tell I you. So also Mark in Rev. Ver., and Luke. Not ’neither do I know,’ as they had said; in fact even theirs was not really a failure to know, but to tell. He was released from all obligation to tell them on the ground of courtesy, by their declining to answer, his question. He did not choose to answer, because he did not wish make distinct and public proclamation of his Messiahship till the moment of crisis came; (Mat 26:63 f.) while they probably wished to entrap him into some avowal for which he could he accused before the Sanhedrin, as in Mat 22:15 ff. And he did not need to answer, for they knew that John had testified to him as the Messiah, and that he had suffered the people to greet him as the Son of David. The principle involved in his refusal is the same as when he refused a sign from heaven, (Mat 16:4) viz., (Alex.) "that no man has a right to demand a superfluity of evidence on any question of belief or duty, and that as the call for such accumulated proof is a virtual rejection of that previously given, it is the law of that divine administration to refuse it even as a favour." (Compare Luk 16:31)

Our Lord now rebukes the rulers by three parables, the first and second being pointedly applied to them, viz., Mat 21:28-32, Mat 21:38-46, Mat 22:1-14. The first and third are given by Matt. only.

Mat 21:28-30. Two sons, literally, children. Perhaps we may suppose them to have been boys, to whom the conduct in the two cases would be especially natural. Son, child, as an expression of affection (See on "Mat 9:2"). Go, go along, said with a certain urgency, compare Mat 4:10, Mat 5:24, Mat 13:44, Mat 18:15, Mat 19:21. In my vineyard, the, not ’my,’ according to the best text. The father speaks of it as pertaining to the family, not as distinctively his own. I will not,[1] a rough and curt answer. Repented is the Greek word (metamelomai) which expresses regret, and may or may not be followed by change of purpose and conduct; (compare Mat 27:8) quite different from the word (metanoeo) used to denote repentance unto life. (See on "Mat 8:2".) It is rendered ’repented himself’ in Com. Vet. of Mat 27:8, and it is better to give with Rev. Ver. the same rendering here and in Mat 27:32. In 1Co 7:8, 1Co 7:10, the milder English term ’regret’ is a sufficient translation. I go, sir, with emphasis on ’I,’ as it is expressed in the Greek; a polite and pretentious reply. So the Jewish rulers professed that they served God, while others did not. The same fault had been illustrated that morning by the fig. tree, which made great show of leaves, but had no fruit. Some understand the ’I’ as a Hebraistic expression without emphasis, comparing Act 9:10 Jdg 13:11; but those cases are unlike this, and even in those the ’I’ is really emphatic.—A somewhat similar parable is given (Wun.) in the Midrash (Jewish commentary) on Exodus, probably of the eleventh or twelfth century. A king wished to rent out some land; several farmers declined; one undertook it, but did not work the land; the king will be most angry with the last. This may have been an imitation of that given by Jesus.

[1] There is here a famous and quite perplexing question of text criticism, though fortunately it does not materially affect the sense. Westcott Hort follow (as usual) B and certain other documents in transposing the order in which the conversation with the’ two sons is held, and then in Mat 21:21 rending ’the latter’; thus getting the same sense as that of the common text. Lachm. and Treg. follow the "Western" documents in keeping the order of the common text and yet reading ’the latter.’ They preferred this as the more difficult reading, readily accounting for the other two as alterations from it; but the difficulty here amounts almost to impossibility, for Jerome’s supposition that the Jews purposely said ’the latter’ through perverseness is excessively far-fetched. Those who prefer the "Textus Receptus" at all hazards, or who merely count authorities instead of grouping them, decide at ones for the common reading. W. H., on the other hand, declare B, the lost uncial represented by 13, 69, 124, and 346, with three cursives, the Memph., Jerusalem Syr., Arm., and some codices of the Æth., and some rather late Fathers, to be "far the higher authority," which is surely far too strong a statement. It is not easy to say whether the common reading or that of B will best account for the others. Perhaps the most satisfactory conjecture would be that in some early copy of the "Western" type ’the latter’ or ’the last’ was substituted by a copyist’s mistake, and propagated; and that then a corrector of the "Alexandrian" type (some such corrections we have already found in B) removed the difficulty by transposing the order of the two conversations, a transposition further recommended to him by the fact that it puts first the son who represents the rulers as opposed to publican and harlots, and (upon the interpretation of Origen and other Fathers) the Jews as opposed to Gentiles, which might seem the more natural order, and would correspond to the order of allusion in Mat 21:32. This theory is certainly not more finespun than that of W. H. in the opposite direction. So far as it goes it will tend to support the common text.

Mat 21:31 f. The application is not (as Origen and other Fathers explain) to Jews in contrast to Gentiles, as in the next parable, but expressly (Mat 21:31) to the Jewish rulers and outwardly correct persons, in contrast to some who had been grossly wicked. Compare Luke’s remark (Luk 7:29 f.) on an earlier occasion. Here for the first time our Lord makes an open, personal application of a parable to the Jewish authorities. So also in Mat 21:43 ff. The time has come for speaking out unreservedly to them, and also to the people concerning them, as he will do later in the day. (ch. 23.) The publicans were very unpopular, and often very wicked. (See on "Mat 5:46".) To these he adds the class everywhere most despised, and too often regarded as beyond the reach of religious influence. The "woman which was a sinner" of Luk 7:37 probably belonged to this class. Bruce: "Publicans and harlots! why, the phrase was proverbial to denote all that was vile, loathsome, and alien to the feelings of the pure, the respectable, and the patriotic. The analogous phrase in Corea, another Judea in exclusiveness, is ’pigstickers and harlots.’ To tell the proud, self-satisfied zealots for righteousness that the moral scum of society was nearer the kingdom of God than they, was to offer them a mortal and unpardonable insult." Verily I say unto you, solemnly calling attention, See on "Mat 5:18". Into the kingdom of God , the Messianic kingdom, See on "Mat 8:2" and See on "Mat 11:12". Go before You (as in Mat 21:9), or more probably ’lead you on’ (as in Mat 2:9 Mar 10:32, and so in Mat 26:32, Mat 28:7). You not only do not lead them forward, as you ought to do, but will not even follow their lead. In the way of righteousness, and not in any way of sin—a man of righteous behaviour and righteous teaching. Compare 2Pe 2:21 Pro 8:20, Pro 12:28; Tob 1:3. You cannot excuse your failure to believe him by impugning his character or his instructions. John showed no lack of righteousness even as to the externals which the Pharisees so valued, for he practiced fasting, (Mat 9:14, Mat 11:18) and made formal prayers. (Luk 11:1) Olsh. and Bruce seem to go too far in making this last the sole thought. And ye believed him not, compare on Mat 3:7. They knew Jesus would charge this upon them. (Mat 21:25.) When ye had seen it, or saw, saw that some of the vilest were believing John and entering the kingdom. Repented not, etc. Better, as in Rev. Ver., Did not even[1] repent yourselves afterward, that ye might believe him. This does not mean that they did not repent of their sins in general (metanoeo), but that they did not even after seeing the effect produced in others, repent (metamelomai) of their previous refusal to believe John and enter the kingdom. The terms ’repent yourselves’ and ’afterward’ are in the application borrowed from the parable.

[1] Not even, oude, rather than ou, ’not’ (com. text), is read by B, several cursives, the Latin and Syriac versions, Memph., Æth., and some Fathers. D and two copies of the Old Latin put it ’repented afterward because you did not believe, ’which shows early confusion as to the text. ’Not even’ would be readily changed to ’not,’ by copyists who did not see the force of the argument, and is no doubt the correct reading.

Homiletical And Practical

Mat 21:24-26. A question answered by a question. (1) It is sometimes proper to silence captious inquiry by asking questions in return. (Compare Mat 12:27, Mat 22:41, Mat 22:46) (2) We are frequently involved in logical and in practical difficulties by our previous wrong-doing; compare Pilate. (3) One has no right to decide questions of truth and duty by considerations of safety and popularity. (4) Yet public opinion is often wiser than eminent rulers. (compare Joh 7:48 f.)

Mat 21:25."From heaven or from men." (1) No religious teaching is authoritative unless it comes from God. (2) No religious ceremony is obligatory unless it is commanded by God. (3) All teachings from God should be believed, and all ceremonies appointed by him should be practised.

Mat 21:27."We know not." (1) Men often shrink from knowing, because of a lurking fear that the knowledge might not please them. (2) Men often pretend they do not know, because it would be embarrassing to tell what they do know. (3) Men might often gain, by acting up to what they know, some blessed increase of knowledge.

Mat 21:30."I go, sir." (1) It is right to profess, if we also practice. (2) It is wrong in professing to assume superiority to others; compare Peter. (Mat 26:33) (3) It is abominable to profess, and that loudly, when one does not practice; compare the fig tree. (Mat 21:19) (4) It is wise not to bring the profession down to the practice, but to bring the practice up to the profession.

Mat 21:31 f. The decent and the vile. (1) The vile who believe God’s message and turn from their sin are accepted; the Prodigal Son, Zaccheus, and the penitent robber. (2) The decent who refuse, to believe God, are thereby guilty of great and ruinous sin; Eve, Caiaphas, Gallio. (3) The saved who were once vile should stir penitent shame and awaken new hope in the decent who have been unbelieving. "Moral" persons ought to set an example to the vicious of joyfully accepting God’s mercy; but, alas! they are often self-righteous, and will not even follow an example. Chrys.: "It is an evil thing not at the first to choose the good, but it is worse not to even change afterwards, Let no man then of them that live in vice despair; let no man who lives in virtue slumber. Let neither this last be confident, for often the harlot will pass him by; nor let the other despair, for it is possible for him to pass by even the first."

John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

THE HIGH PRIESTS DEMAND HIS AUTHORITY

Mat 21:23-27; Luk 20:1-8; Mar 11:27-33. “And again they come into Jerusalem. And He, walking round in the temple, file high priests, scribes, and elders come to Him, and say to Him, By what authority do You these things? And who gave You this authority that You may do these things? And Jesus, responding, said to them, I will also ask you one question; answer Me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men? Tell Me. And they reasoned among themselves, If we may say, It is from heaven, He will say, Wherefore then did you not believe on him? But if we may say, It is from men; they feared the people: for all held John, that he was truly a prophet. And responding, they say to Jesus, We do not know. And Jesus, responding, says to them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.” Those high priests considered the authority He exercised in the purification of the temple outrageous, intrusive, and usurpatory in the extreme. Consequently they look Him in the face, with the scribes and Pharisees holding up their hands, and publicly demand His authority, feeling that it was their prerogative to manage affairs in the temple. See how inconsistent their attitude, as they were really Satan’s preachers, worshipping him as God; while the Son of God, with all authority in heaven and in earth, was there, and they were too blind to see Him! How does history repeat itself! The Lord’s true people, saved, sanctified, and filled with the Spirit, alone have authority this day to preach and labor to save souls, going where He leadeth. Do we not see the authority of such called in question by the high priests and Pharisees on all sides? Jesus simply referred them to the ministry of John, under which He was baptized with water, and thus inaugurated into His official Messiahship, the Holy Spirit immediately descending and filling Him, thus qualifying Him for His work. As Jesus said to John, “Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” — i.e., to verify every injunction of the Levitical law, which required the high priests to be anointed before entering upon the duties and exercising the authority of their office — so, pursuant to the example of our Great Leader, we should all conform to the ritual law of the New Testament, and be sure that, like Jesus, we get filled with the Holy Ghost, thus silencing criticism and disarming our enemies. You see all the high priests, Pharisees, and elders here dumfounded. They were in a dilemma, and dare not take either horn. If they denied the Divine authority of John, they were afraid of a riot, as the people all regarded him as truly a prophet, there being no dissenting voice, but unanimity of opinion as to the Divine prophetical commission of John, whose ministry was a sunburst on Israel after a dark interregnum of four hundred years. Again, they were afraid to acknowledge the Divine authenticity of John’s ministry lest Jesus would say, Why did you not believe on Him? Consequently they took a neutral position. O what a succession these blind, unspiritual high priests, ruling eiders, and Pharisees have this day! Do you not know that, as a rule, their successors in the Churches are now playing neutrality in reference to God’s mighty works in the great current revival shaking all nations, and denominated the “Holiness Movement?”

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Subdivision 2. (Mat 21:23-46.)

Rejection and its Consequences.

The opposition gathers strength, although still kept in check by the power displayed in Him, and by the revealing words in which He lays bare the condition of things and their hypocrisy and unfrankness in their rejection of Him. They are made to feel how well He knows them, and their intent, and how its success would leave Him Master still, themselves alone undone by it. Quiet, simple, strong, irrefutable words, they penetrate through all the defenses of a seared conscience and a hardened heart, and confound, if they do not convert. We do not read of conversion; but then we are here occupied with another and very different subject, and tracing Israel’s rejection of her King, as it goes on step by step to the end now so near, when He leaves desolate the House (no longer His Father’s, but their own) to the Gentile invader.

1. For the moment He is in the House which He has cleansed, teaching publicly, as was His wont, and there the chief priests and elders of the people come upon Him with the question; "By what authority doest Thou these things? and who gave Thee this authority?"

It was the Sanhedrim, the highest religious authority itself among the people, that asked this; and their question implied their disclaimer of any authorization on their part. But it was a vain and foolish question: for as they knew on the one hand that He was no Rabbi of the schools, so on the other, as we know, the testimony of Scripture united with that of His miracles to proclaim Him what He was even now declaring Himself to be. But for those who were questioning Him there was a yet more simple ground of appeal. They had sent a special mission to the Baptist to investigate his claim; and the Baptist’s own recognition of the Lord was known to all. They "sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth." What then was "the baptism of John? was it of heaven or of men?" Either they had decided about John’s authority, or else they were incompetent to pronounce as to the Lord; and their verdict as to the one would necessarily include both: in any case they had the means of answering their own question.

Answer it, however, they cannot: if they said the mission of John was from heaven, they had to believe the testimony that he gave; if they said, of men, they would be in direct opposition to the people, and theirs was no martyr-spirit to suffer for their convictions. It was easier, with all the humiliation it involved, to profess their ignorance; but then they were no court to adjudicate in claims of this kind: "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things."

2. Plainly it was conscience they needed, and the Lord has in turn a question for them. A man had two sons: one who to his bidding, "Go, work today in my vineyard," answers openly and defiantly "I will not;" while the other expresses at once his ready obedience. After all, the first repented and went; the second never did go. Which, then, did the will of his father? The answer is put into their mouths: they could only say, The first. Then He makes application for them: the tax-gatherers and harlots would go into the Kingdom of God before them. For John came in the way of righteousness, only demanding on their part an upright conscience to receive manifest truth, but, built up in legal self-righteousness, they had turned from him; while the people of evil life had been convicted and believed; and even this witness of repentant sinners they had refused.

3. He searches them out with another parable, in which Israel’s history as a whole is shown to be of a piece with this, while He follows it on to the end soon coming, and shows them how their success against Him would only be ruinous defeat for themselves at last.

The figure of a vineyard had been used of old in the prophets with reference to Israel. The "man," the householder, could only partially represent God. Was it not a representation of things according to their own thoughts merely, that God was like a man in a far country, and things were in their hands as they proudly assumed? Yet their responsibility was fully granted, and let them take heed to it. All through the ages down, God had been sending to those in trust for Him, to get the fruit of His vineyard; and the prophets had been His messengers to them to present and urge His claim. How had they treated them? Certainly they well knew, whose claim had been; that if they had lived in their fathers, days, they would not have been "partakers with them in the blood of the prophets." They had beaten one, killed another, stoned another, and so whenever God had sent flesh witnesses.

But now He had sent His Son: there the full glory of the Speaker is flashed upon them; had He not title to say, without taking into account His divine knowledge, "They will respect My Son"?

But indeed He is not ignorant to what He sends Him: and now all that is in their hearts to do and what they will accomplish is pictured for them, as if it were a history of the past. What a testimony to the actors in it that are to be, - He face to face with them, with those clear, deep, always compassionate eyes looking into theirs! think after this of their going on to fulfil it. "But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves" - not, who art Thou? or who gave Thee this authority? but on the contrary, "This is the heir;" and their after action is all grounded upon this.

Yes, they could have been very tolerant of a false claim: the true one was quite another matter. The claim of God is uncompromising, and His yoke intolerable to the natural heart. The second psalm represents the refusal of Messiah as the Lord does, as the manifestation of the spirit which said, "Let us burst their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us." Here it breathes of murder, - "Come, let us kill Him, and lay hold of His inheritance."

And the thing is done. The Lord quietly assures them, as He had done before with His disciples, that He is in fact to die. But if He be in reality the Son; will that secure them what they seek? "when the lord of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?" and they are forced to pronounce what is their own doom.

He confirms it from their own scriptures: for was not the chief corner stone of which the psalmist spoke to be a stone rejected by the builders in Israel? Was not "the Lord’s doing" to be the reversal of their deed? But the result of it for that generation would be the taking from them of that Kingdom which in the person of its King they were thus refusing. It would be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof: that is, not the Christian Church, but the Israel of the future; in fact the first nation which will be all holy. The terms of the new covenant expressly assure us of this.

Meanwhile "whosoever shall fall on this stone" - as the nation then were doing - "shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall" - in the day when it strikes the feet of the image, as Nebuchadnezzar, the head of the image, saw it - "it shall grind him to powder." At the coming of the Lord judgment will do its complete and effectual work.

The chief priests and Pharisees knew that it was of them that He was speaking; but His words held the people, and they could as yet do nothing. Those who have lost the fear of God are just those who will be most completely dominated by the fear of man.

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

21:23–22:46 This section focuses on the Jewish leaders’ attack on Jesus’ authority. In each case, Jesus’ wisdom revealed the leaders’ spiritual blindness. These debates also revealed Jesus’ status as Messiah and the consequences of rejecting him. Tragically, the leaders grew more resistant with each encounter and plotted to eliminate Jesus (21:23, 46; 22:15-17, 23, 34, 41).

21:23 Elders (literally elders of the people) were family heads from each tribe who were members of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem (cp. Ezra 5:5; 6:14; 10:8).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 21:23. Προσῆλθον Αὐτῷ, κ.τ.λ., came unto Him, etc.) This was the solemn[926] question, which occasioned the final trial.—οἱ ἀρχιεπεῖς, the chief priests) who considered their right to be invaded.—λέγοντες, κ.τ.λ., saying, etc.) The morose scepticism of His adversaries now at length demands credentials for the Son and Heir’s caring for His vineyard; see Mat 21:37-38. They thought that Jesus had no call to teach, since He was neither a Priest nor a Levite.—ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ; by what authority?) divine or human.—ταῦτα, these things) sc. teaching; cf. διδάσκοντι, as He was teaching, and Mar 11:27.[927]

[926] Solennis quæstio, “Their customary question.” Act 4:7; Act 7:27.—ED.

[927] τίς, who) viz. of the order of the chief priests, or other rulers?—V. g.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_21:23. Comp. Mar_11:27 ff.; Luk_20:1 ff.

Διδάσκοντι] while He was engaged in teaching.

ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ] in virtue of what kind of authority. Comp. Act_4:7. The second question is intended to apply to Him who has given the authority; the first is general, and has reference to the nature of the authority (whether it be divine or human).

ταῦτα] these things, cannot point merely to the cleansing of the temple (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus), which is too remote for such special reference. As little can the teaching by itself be intended (Grotius, Bengel), that being a matter in connection with the ministry of Jesus about which the Sanhedrim was comparatively unconcerned, and for which He did not need a higher authority. We should rather say that, in their ταῦτα, the questioners mean to include all that up till that moment Jesus had done and was still doing in Jerusalem, and therefore refer to the triumphal entry, the cleansing of the temple, the miraculous healing and the teaching in the temple, all which, taken together, seemed to betoken the Messianic pretender. Comp. de Wette, Bleek, Weizsäcker, p. 532; Keim, III. p. 112. The members of the Sanhedrim hoped either to hear Him acknowledge that the ἐξουσία was divine, or presumptuously assert that it was self-derived, so that in either case they might have something on which to found judicial proceedings against Him. They seem to have been a provisional deputation of the Sanhedrim appointed to discover a pretext for excommunicating Him. Comp. Joh_1:19.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 21:23-27 . Interrogation as to authority (Mar 11:27-33 , Luk 20:1-8 ), wherewith suitably opens the inevitable final conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders of the people.

Mat 21:23 . ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ ἐ . τ . ἱ .: coming on the second day to the temple, the place of concourse, where He was sure to meet His foes, nothing loath to speak His mind to them. διδάσκοντι : yet He came to teach, to do good, not merely to fight. ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ , by what sort of authority? the question ever asked by the representatives of established order and custom at epoch-making initiators. So the Judaists interrogated St. Paul as to his right to be an apostle. ταῦτα , vague ( cf. Mat 11:25 ) and comprehensive. They have in view all the offences of which Jesus had been guilty, throughout His ministry all well known to them whatever He had done in the spirit of unconventional freedom which He had exhibited since His arrival in Jerusalem. καὶ τίς : the second question is but an echo of the first: the quality of the authority ( ποίᾳ ) depends on its source. ταύτην , this authority, which you arrogate, and which so many unhappily acknowledge. It was a question as to the legitimacy of an undeniable influence. That spiritual power accredits itself was beyond the comprehension of these legalists.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Or, by what power.

Against them which overstepping the doctrine, blind the calling and vocation to an ordinary succession going about by that false pretext, to stop Christ’s mouth.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 23. By what authority doest thou these things?] The things which the chief priests allude to, were his receiving the acclamations of the people as the promised Messiah, his casting the traders out of the temple, and his teaching the people publicly in it.

Who gave thee this authority?] Not them: for, like many of their successors, they were neither teachers nor cleansers; though they had the name and the profits of the place.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(23) The chief priests and the elders.—St. Matthew and St. Luke add “the scribes,” thus including representatives of the three constituent elements of the Sanhedrin. The character of the teaching is further specified by St. Luke, “as He was preaching the gospel”—proclaiming, i.e., the good news of the kingdom, the forgiveness of sins, and the law of righteousness.

By what authority . . .?—The right to take the place of an instructor was, as a rule, conferred by the scribes, or their chief representative, on one who had studied “at the feet” of some great teacher, and been solemnly admitted (the delivery of a key, as the symbol of the right to interpret, being the outward token) to that office. The question implied that those who asked it knew that the Prophet of Nazareth had not been so admitted. The second question gave point to the first. Could He name the Rabbi who had trained Him, or authorised Him to teach?

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23–27. The Authority of Christ is questioned

Mar_11:27-33; Luk_20:1-8.

23. By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?] The second question is not a mere repetition of the first, Jesus is asked (1) what kind of authority He possesses—human or divine? (2) By whose agency this authority was bestowed? No one had a right to teach unless “authority” had been conferred upon him by the scribes.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And when he was come into the temple,.... The day following the cursing the fig tree: for the withering of it, and the notice the disciples took of it, and our Lord's discourse with them about it, were not in one and the same day, as is clear from the account the Evangelist Mark gives; but on the morning that Christ had conversed with his apostles by the way from Bethany to Jerusalem, concerning the strength of faith in prayer, and the success of it; when they were come into the city, and to the temple, whither he directly went, and entered upon his work of preaching to the people,

the chief priests and elders of the people came unto him. The "chief priests" were not the high priest, and his "sagan", or deputy, but the principal of the priesthood, who were chosen from the rest of their brethren, to sit in the sanhedrim; and "the elders of the people" were the laity that were chosen from among the people, to be members of the same grand council: in this sense the Jewish writers interpret the word "elders", in Deu 21:2 "thy elders, and thy judges"; that is,

"thy elders, who are thy judges: it is a tradition, R. Eliezer ben Jacob says, , "thine eiders; this is the great sanhedrim" (a).

The other Evangelists Mark and Luke add to these, Scribes, who also were a part of this great assembly; so that the principal members of it, if not the whole sanhedrim, came in a body together, if possible, by their presence and authority, to daunt Christ, discourage his ministry, bring it into contempt with the people, and stop his proceedings and success. And this they did

as he was teaching; the people, that is, preaching the Gospel to them, as Luke explains it: he was instructing them in the things relating to himself, and his kingdom, dispensing the mysteries of his grace, the doctrines of regeneration, justification, and salvation. Mark says, it was "as he was walking in the temple": and at the same time teaching the people, who flocked about him in like manner, as the Peripatetic philosophers taught their scholars walking: whence they had their name,

And said, by what authority dost thou these things? that is, drive out the buyers and sellers out of the temple, which greatly provoked them, their own gain and interest being concerned therein; and perform these miracles of restoring sight to the blind, and causing the lame to walk; which he had very lately wrought in the temple; and particularly preach these doctrines, the work in which he was then engaged:

and who gave thee this authority? They do not object to his doctrines, or dispute whether they were true or false; nor examine his miracles, whether they were of God, or of the devil: in these points they might fear he would be able to put them to silence and confusion, of which some of them had had an experience before; but they proceed in another way, in which they might hope for success, and attack him about his commission and authority under which he acted, whether he pretended to derive his authority from God, or from men: by this they designed to ensnare him and hoped they should gain their point, let him answer in what form he would. Should he say that God gave him the authority to do these things, they would charge him with enthusiasm and blasphemy, urging, that it was wickedness and presumption any man to pretend to be sent immediately from God; since the order of the priesthood, and of teaching was fixed, and none were to take upon them the office of a priest, or of a teacher of the people, but by their appointment; or none were called and sent, but through them, or by their means: and if he should say, that he had his authority from men, they would confront him, and absolutely deny that he had any from them, who only had the power of giving men an authority of preaching in the temple; wherefore he must be an usurper of this office, and a turbulent, seditious person, that sought to destroy all order, civil and ecclesiastical,

(a) T. Hieros Sota, fol. 23. 3. Jarchi in Deut. xxi. 2.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mark hath before this, Mar 11:18, And the scribes and chief priests heard it, that is, his turning the buyers and sellers out, and overturning the tables of the money changers, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people were astonished at his doctrine. Then he saith, Mat 22:27,28, And they come again, to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, and say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? Luke saith, Luk 19:47,48; And he taught daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy him, and could not find what they might do: for all the people were very attentive to hear him. It is plain that our Saviour went every night to Bethany, and returned to Jerusalem every morning, and daily preached in the temple. And Luke saith, the people were very attentive to hear him; in the Greek it is, hung upon him, hearing him. They were also much affected with the miracles which they had seen him working. So as the scribes and the elders feared him, saith Mark. This possibly might be one reason why they made no opposition to our Saviour, driving the buyers and sellers out of the temple, viz. for fear of the people; for we must remember they were a conquered, tributary people, and traded the jurisdiction of the Romans, under whom, though they had a liberty for the exercise of their own religion, yet they had not such a power as before; it was not lawful for them to put any to death, Joh 18:31. And for the preserving of their own liberty, they were obliged to take heed of causing any tumults for matters concerning their religion. So as what they did of this nature they did by craft, rather than plainly and openly attempting it, Mar 14:1. It is likely they might have some previous secret counsels what method to take, mentioned both by Mark and Luke. The method, it seems, which they agreed upon, was first to send to him, to know by what authority he did those things, and who gave him such authority. This is mentioned both by Matthew and Mark. They sent such a message to John, Joh 1:19-21. They had often questioned him about his doctrine, and had gone by the worst, he justifying his doctrine to their faces. For the truth of his miracles, it was so evident that they could not question that; They therefore now only question his authority to preach. The question was captious enough, for if he had said, By a Divine authority, they would probably have accused him of blasphemy. For a human authority, they knew he had none, according to their rules for order, for they came from the court that should have given them such authority. Our Saviour well enough understanding their design, gives them, who would not understand his Divine mission by his miraculous operations, a wary answer.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Ver. 23-Mat_22:14. Our Lord"s authority questioned: he replies by uttering three parables. (Mar_11:27-33; Mar_12:1-12 Luk_20:1-18)

Vers. 23-27. First attack, referring to his late actions: and Christ"s answer.

When he was come into the temple. The conversation recorded here belongs to the Tuesday of the Holy Week, and took place in the courts of the temple, at this time filled with pilgrims from all parts of the world, who hung upon Christ"s words, and beheld his doings with wonder and awe. This sight roused to fury the envy and anger of the authorities, and they sent forth sections of their cleverest men to undermine his authority in the eyes of the people, or to force from him statements on which they might found criminal accusation against him. The chief priests and the elders of the people. According to the other evangelists, there were also scribes, teachers of the Law, united with them in this deputation, which thus comprised all the elements of the Sanhedrin. This seems to have been the first time that the council took formal notice of Jesus" claims and actions, and demanded from him personally an account of himself. They had been quick enough in inquiring into the Baptist"s credentials, when he suddenly appeared on the banks of Jordan; (see Joh_1:19, etc.) but they had studiously, till quite lately, avoided any regular investigation of the pretensions of Jesus. In the thee of late proceedings, this could no longer be delayed. A crisis had arrived; their own peculiar province was publicly invaded, and their authority attacked; the opponent must be withstood by the action of the constituted court. As he was teaching. Jesus did not confine himself to beneficent acts; he used the opportunity of the gathering of crowds around him to preach unto them the gospel, (Luk_20:1) to teach truths which came with double force from One who bad done such marvellous things. By what authority doest thou these things? They refer to the triumphal entry, the reception of the homage offered, the healing of the blind and lame, the teaching as with the authority of a rabbi, and especially to the cleansing of the temple. No one could presume to teach without a proper commission: where was his authorization? They were the guardians and rulers of the temple: what right had he to interfere with their management, and to use the sacred precincts for his own purposes? These and such like questions were in their mind when they addressed him thus. Wilfully ignoring the many proofs they had of Christ"s Divine mission, (which one of them, Nicodemus, had long before been constrained to own, Joh_3:2) they raised the question now as a novel and unanswered one. Who gave thee this authority? They resolve the general inquiry into the personal one Who was it that conferred upon you this authority which you presume to exercise? Was it some earthly ruler, or was it God himself? Perhaps they mean to insinuate that Satan was the master whose power he wielded an accusation already often made. They thought thus to place Christ in an embarrassing position, from which he could not emerge without affording the opportunity which they desired. The trap was cleverly set, and, as they deemed, unavoidable. If he was forced to confess that he spoke and acted without any proper authorization, he would be humiliated in the eyes of the people, and might be officially silenced by the strong hand. If he asserted himself to be the Messiah and the bearer of a Divine commission, they would at once bring against him a charge of blasphemy. (Mat_26:65)

Vers. 23-40. The controversy in the temple.

I THE LORD"S AUTHORITY CALLED IN QUESTION.

1. The intervention of the chief priests. St. Luke tells us that they had resolved to destroy our Lord. He had now allowed himself to be saluted openly as the Christ, the Son of David. He had accepted the hosannas of the multitude in the city, in the temple itself. He had assumed a paramount authority in the temple. The chief priests regarded themselves as rulers there; the market in the court of the Gentiles was held by their licence; it was a source of profit to them. They now determined to interpose publicly. They sent an official deputation, composed of members of the three classes of the Sanhedrin chief priests, scribes, and elders to demand the Lord"s authority for his conduct. What right had he thus to intrude, as they deemed, into their province, to interfere with the administration of the temple? What right had he to teach publicly in the temple courts without licence from the rabbis? What right had he to the titles of "King of Israel," "Son of David," which he had accepted from the people as his due?

2. The Lord"s reply. His enemies had hoped to ensnare him. They expected, doubtless, that he would openly assert his Divine mission, and they might then make his claims the basis of a formal accusation. But in that wonderful calmness and self-possession which we note so often in the history of our Lord, he answered at once with another question, "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?" They could not deny his right to ask this; it was closely connected with their question. John had repeatedly asserted in the strongest terms the authority, the Divine mission of him whose way he had come to prepare. They dared not deny openly the prophetic character of the Baptist; they feared the people, for the belief in John"s sanctity was universal and enthusiastic. "All the people will stone us," they said. They were completely foiled. They could only say, in confusion and disappointed malice, "We cannot tell." It was a bitter humiliation. They were masters of Israel, and yet could not guide the people in a matter which had so profoundly stirred the religious thought of the time. They could only answer, "We cannot tell" to a question of such great spiritual importance. They were as ignorant as "the people of the earth," whom they so much despised. Alas for a country whose spiritual rulers are like those priests and scribes! Let us pray that our teachers may be taught of God.

II THE PARABLE OF THE TWO SONS.

1. The story. It is very simple. One of the sons, when bidden to work in the vineyard, rudely refused to obey his father; the other respectfully promised obedience. The first afterwards repented and went. The second broke his promise and went not to the vineyard.

2. The spiritual meaning. There are open and notorious evil livers, who make no profession of religion, and exhibit in their lives an open and wilful disobedience. Some of these are brought to repentance by the grace of God. They learn to see the guilt, the awful danger, of disobedience; a great change is wrought in their souls; they do their best to redeem the time; they go at last and work for God; and God, in his sovereign grace and generous bounty, accepts their service, though, it may be, they have wrought but one hour in their Father"s vineyard. There are others, brought up, perhaps, in Christian families, among good examples and surroundings, who maintain a respectful attitude towards religion, and regularly observe all the outward ordinances of the Church. But, alas! there are many such who have not given their hearts to God; they say from time to time (at Confirmation, for instance), "I go, sir," and perhaps at the moment they really have a sort of intention to keep God"s holy will and commandments, and to walk in the same all the days of their life. But they have no strength of purpose, they have not attained to the spirit of self-sacrifice; and when they are called to do work for God (whether inward or outward) which requires effort and self-denial, they shrink back from the Master"s service. The yoke which the Lord calls "easy" seems to them hard and rough; the burden which the Lord calls "light" seems to them heavy and crushing; the cross terrifies them. They go not into the vineyard; they do not keep their promises; they do not work out their own salvation with fear and trembling, and so they do no real work for God.

3. The application. The Lord gives his testimony to John the Baptist, as he had done before; John came from God, a preacher of righteousness. He came "in the way of righteousness;" he had the righteousness of strict Levitical purity and the loftiest asceticism; he told men their duty plainly and sternly. Many notorious sinners, publicans and harlots, who had lived in open disobedience to God, heard him and repented. These priests and scribes and elders saw and heard him; they felt the holiness of his life, the power of his preaching; they had asked him if he was the Christ, or Elijah, or the prophet that was to come. But they repented not; they believed not. The publicans and harlots went into the kingdom of God before the priests and scribes. They ought to have led the way; they ministered in the temple of God; they were the recognized teachers of the people. Yet the Lord does not shut out all hope. "The publicans go before you;" they might follow, if they would humble their proud hearts into self-abasement and lowly obedience. Pride hardens the heart in disobedience and wilfulness; humility opens it to repentance, to the gracious voice of the Saviour. Oh that we may listen, and repent, and work for God before it be too late!

III THE PARABLE OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN.

1. The story. It was the well known parable of Isaiah (5:1-7), related again with more authority and in greater detail. The lord of the vineyard asks again, "What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?" Hedge, winepress, tower, everything needful had been carefully provided. But the husbandmen were rebellious; they beat and murdered the servants who were sent to receive the fruits of the vineyard, and at last they cast out and slew their lord"s only son. The end of those men must be utter destruction. Judaea was a land of vineyards. The Lord often drew his parables from surrounding circumstances; in Galilee, from the corn land or the lake; in Judaea, from the vine or the fig tree. So Christian teachers should try to give life and interest to their teaching by connecting it with matters of daily life.

2. The meaning. Isaiah tells us, "The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant." The hedge must be the Law, with its ordinances, circumcision, and other rites which served to separate Israel, as God"s peculiar people, from other nations. The tower and winepress have been interpreted of the temple and the altar. But it is enough, without pressing these details, to understand the parable as meaning that God had given his people all things necessary for their spiritual welfare. The latter part of the parable differs from that in Isaiah. There the men of Israel are reproved: they brought forth wild grapes, not the fruits of righteousness. Here the Lord rebukes the husbandmen, the spiritual rulers of his people. The Lord of the vineyard went into a far country. God did not always manifest himself as he had done on Mount Sinai. He sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of the vineyard. Those servants were the prophets, sent again and again, to supply the deficiencies of the ordinary ministry, to warn both priests and people of their sins, to call both priests and people to repentance. "I sent unto you," God said, by the mouth of Jeremiah, (Jer_44:4) "all my servants the prophets, rising early and sending them, saying, Oh, do not this abominable thing that I hate!" Some of these were persecuted, some were slain. "They cast thy Law behind their backs", (we read, in the confession of the Levites in Neh_9:26) "and slew thy prophets which testified against them to turn them unto thee." But now the Lord"s eye, which had ranged over the past history of the nation, turns towards the future. The lord of the vineyard had yet one son, his well beloved; he sent him last, saying, "They will reverence my son." The parable veils the awful mysteries which hang around the relations between the infinite foreknowledge of God and the free will of man. Human thought cannot grapple with these mysteries; human words cannot express them. God gave his only begotten Son; the Son of God came to give his life a ransom for many. The purpose, the fore knowledge of God, did not destroy the free agency or remove the guilt of those who crucified the Lord of glory. These priests had already taken counsel to put the Lord to death. Caiaphas had already "prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation". (Joh_11:47-53) They had already said, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance." They wished to keep possession of their old authority, their old exclusive privileges. Those privileges had been given them for a time; their priesthood was transitory. Christ was the Heir of all things; he was the Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. The Lord knew what was coming; they would cast him out, (Heb_13:12) they would kill him. How calmly he prophesies his own death! how simply he asserts his own Divine character! yet in words which his enemies could not take hold of. He was the Son, the one only Son, the well beloved, of the Lord of the vineyard. They felt his meaning, but the parable afforded no ground for accusation.

3. The warning. "When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?" Christ puts the question to the guilty men themselves, and forces them to pronounce their own condemnation. Perhaps they pretended not to see the drift of the parable, and to regard it as a story, and nothing more. Perhaps (and this surely is more probable) they were overawed by the Lord"s dignity, by the solemn power of his words, and so, like Caiaphas, became prophets against their will. "He will miserably destroy those miserable men." They prophesied their own doom. Alas, that the approaching danger did not lead them to repentance! They prophesied also the loss of those exclusive privileges which they guarded so jealously. "He will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen." The Gentiles were to succeed to the privileges which the Jews possessed; they had been strangers and foreigners, but soon they would become fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God. "I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord". (Isa_66:21) They would tend the Church of God; they would render the fruit in due season to the Lord of the vineyard.

IV THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE.

1. Its exaltation. The parable, like every other parable, was inadequate to express the whole spiritual truth. The heir was slain; he could not appear again in the story as the judge. The Lord adds another illustration, quoting the psalm (the hundred and eighteenth) from which the "Hosanna!" of Palm Sunday had been derived: "The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner." The priests and scribes were the builders; it was their duty to rear up the spiritual temple. One stone they had rejected; it was mean and poor in their eyes. God himself would raise that stone to the highest place of honour. It should become the head stone, with shoutings, "Grace, grace unto it!". (Zec_4:7) This is the Lord"s doing. God highly exalted him whom the Jews rejected.

2. The application. The Lord now applies both parables directly and distinctly to the priests and scribes. They were the husbandmen, he told them the rebellious husbandmen. The vineyard was the kingdom of God; it should be taken from them; they should no longer possess its privileges. The spiritual Israel, the Israel of God, is the nation to whom the kingdom should be given; not one earthly nation, but the nations of the saved; of all nations, and kindreds, and peoples, and tongues. And that nation, the great Catholic Church of Christ, would bring forth the fruits which the vineyard ought to yield, not wild grapes, but good grapes, the precious fruit of the Spirit. The priests and scribes were also the foolish builders. They had rejected the chief Cornerstone, elect, precious, which the Lord would lay in Zion; it was becoming to them a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence. The low estate of Christ was a stumbling block now; the cross of Christ would be a stumbling block afterwards. "Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken," the Lord said, referring again to Isaiah, (Isa_8:15) where we observe that the stone of stumbling (vers. 13, 14) is the Lord of hosts himself. The Jews were now incurring this guilt and this danger. (comp. Luk_2:34 Mar_6:3 Mat_11:6) But a greater danger remained; when the stone is become the head of the corner, when it is raised to its place of honour, it shall grind to powder those on whom it will fall. When the ascended Lord is exalted to the judgment throne, utter destruction will overtake those hardened, impenitent sinners who reject his offers of mercy unto the end, and will not know him as a Saviour, but must at last see him, when every eye shall see him, upon the great white throne.

3. The anger of the priests. They perceived that he spake of them; they felt the stern rebuke of his words; they felt, too, their truth. Their own consciences smote them. They blazed into fierce anger; they sought to seize him; but for the moment they were powerless; they could do nothing while the multitude regarded him as a prophet. May God give us grace to take reproof in a becoming spirit! It should produce, not anger, but repentance.

LESSONS.

1. Profession without obedience is worthless. God bids us work in his vineyard; let us obey him.

2. God has a right to the fruits of vineyard. His ministers must tend the vineyard. They must see, as far as lieth in them, that the fruit is rendered to the Lord.

3. Christ is the chief Cornerstone; the living stones of the spiritual temple must be built upon that one Cornerstone, elect, precious.

Vers. 23-27. Question met by question.

Perhaps we shall best gather up the lessons of this incident if we look first at the form it assumed, then at the underlying substance.

I THE FORM.

1. The question of the rulers.

(1) An insulting question. What right had they thus to challenge One before whom they should have bowed in humble adoration? Technically, they were in the right in so far as they acted as guardians of the Law and religion of Israel. Yet they had proved themselves false to their trust by their permission of the desecration of the temple, and by the too common hypocrisy of their religion. Some people put the same question today without a shadow of the claim of the Jewish leaders. The human intellect has a right to search for truth; we all ought to look for good grounds of faith. But the attitude of humility will be that of an inquirer, not that of a judge.

(2) An irrelevant question. The charges Christ made were true; the things he denounced were wrong. Why, then, care so much about the question of his authority? People raise technical questions and abstract difficulties, but often these only obscure the plain moral truths which cannot be denied.

(3) An insincere question. Did these rulers thirst for knowledge concerning the mission of Christ? Were they troubled with grave doubts? We know that they were only anxious to entrap our Lord. Flippant doubt is culpable, but the most deadly doubt is that which hates the light.

2. The counter question of Christ. He postpones his reply to a question he desires to have answered by the rulers.

(1) Showing his skill and wisdom. Christian apologists have acted too much on the defensive. It would be wiser to follow the example of Christ, and carry the war into the enemy"s territory.

(2) Proving the weakness of the rulers" position. They challenged Christ"s status. What was theirs? People who reject Divine revelation, and the larger number who simply ignore it, will have to account for their conduct. At least they should be prepared to justify themselves.

(3) Turning from a formal to a. moral inquiry, John the Baptist was an embodiment of the national conscience. How was such a man to be treated? We make too much of questions of rank and office, and too little of those that touch right and wrong conduct.

II THE SUBSTANCE. That was indeed an important question which the rulers put to Christ. If it were asked humbly and sincerely, it might be regarded as most just and reasonable. When it is so asked, Christ does answer it. Indeed, if the rulers had not been blind, they would have found a twofold reply close at hand. Christ justifies and confirms his claims:

1. By the authority of conscience. When he startled the people in the temple by an unwonted exercise of authority, they submitted without an attempt at resistance, because their consciences confirmed his action. Christ speaks to the conscience, and the conscience echoes what he says.

2. By the authority of knowledge. Who are the authoritative teachers? Surely the only teachers who can speak to us with authority are those who know the subjects they undertake to teach. Jesus "spoke with authority", (Mat_7:29) because he spoke out of knowledge. There was a self-evidencing truthfulness and clearness of vision in him.

3. By the authority of God. The rulers could not see this. If their blindness had not been morally culpable, they would have been excused for rejecting the claims of Christ, because those claims were so great that no mere man could have a right to put them forth. When we perceive the Divine nature of Christ, all his words and deeds are justified, and his authority comes upon us with more than kingly power. W.F.A.

Vers. 23-32. The authority of Jesus.

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 Joh_5:36, Joh_5:43)

(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 Isa_56:7 Jer_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 Mar_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 Joh_3:1, Joh_3:2)

(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; (Mat_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. Isa_40:3 Mat 3:3Jo Mat_1:23) So Malachi. (cf. Mal_4:5 Mat_11:14) So Zecharias. (see Luk_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 2Ch_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 Jer_23:21, Jer_23:22)

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.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

When he was come into the temple, the chief priests came - Who thought he violated their right: and the elders of the people - Probably, members of the sanhedrim, to whom that title most properly belonged: which is the more probable, as they were the persons under whose cognizance the late action of Christ, in purging the temple, would naturally fall. These, with the chief priests, seem purposely to have appeared in a considerable company, to give the more weight to what they said, and if need were, to bear a united testimony against him. As he was teaching - Which also they supposed he had no authority to do, being neither priest, nor Levite, nor scribe. Some of the priests (though not as priests) and all the scribes were authorized teachers. By what authority dost thou these things - Publicly teach the people! And drive out those who had our commission to traffic in the outer court? Luke xx, 1; Mark xi, 27.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The Authority of Christ.

The question of the elders:

v. 23. 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?

The members of the Jewish Sanhedrin, the Great Council of the Jewish Church, were ever jealous of their rights and suspicious of any one that dared to think and act for himself. The point of their question was: If you claim the authority to purge the Temple, if you openly teach and heal in the Temple, give us an account of your prophetic character, prove that you have a prophet’s mission from God. It was a foolish resentment, one which incidentally laid bare the blindness of the rulers. For Jesus had given countless examples of His prophetic power, both by miracles and by such authoritative preaching as no other teacher in Israel possessed. Their demand is twofold: Give us evidence that you actually possess this authority; then satisfy us also as to the source of the authority you are using. They wanted Him to render an account for whatever acts He had done in His official ministry.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Pharisees having often questioned our Saviour’s doctrine before, they call in question his mission and authority now: although they might easily have understood his divine mission by his divine miracles. Almighty God never empowered any to work miracles that were not sent by him. When the adversaries of Christ can object nothing against his doctrine, they then quarrel with him about his commission and calling, and demand by what authority he doth teach and work miracles. Our blessed Saviour well understanding their drift and design, answers them one question by asking them another.

The baptism of John, was it from heaven or of men? Was it of divine institution or of human invention? Implying, that the calling of such as call themselves the ministers of God, ought to be from God. No man ought to take this honour upon himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. Heb 5:4.

The Pharisees reply, they could not tell whence John had his mission and authority. This was a manifest untruth; by refusing to tell the truth, they fall into a lie.

One sin ensnares, and draws men into the commission of more. Such as will not speak exact truth, according to their knowledge, they fall into the sin of lying against their consciences. Our Saviour answers them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. He doth not say, I cannot, or I will not tell you; but I do not, I need not tell you; because the miracles which I work before you, are a sufficient demonstration of my divine commission, that I am sent of God amongst you; for God never set the seal of his omnipotence to a lie, or impowered an impostor to work real miracles.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CVIII. A. Third Great Group of Parables].

CVIII. IN REPLY TO THE QUESTIONS AS TO HIS AUTHORITY, JESUS GIVES THE THIRD GREAT GROUP OF PARABLES. (In the Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.) Subdivision A. INTRODUCTION aMATT. XXI. 23-27; bMARK XI. 27-33; cLUKE XX. 1-8.

c1 And it came to pass, on one of the days, bthey [Jesus and the disciples] come again to Jerusalem: a23 And when he was come into the temple, band as he was walking in the temple [The large outer court of the temple, known as the court of the Gentiles, was thronged during the feasts, and was no doubt the part selected by Jesus and his apostles when they taught or preached in the temple. We thrice find them on that side of it where Solomon's porch was located-- Joh_10:23, Act_3:11, Act_5:23], cas he was teaching the people and preaching the gospel [viz.: "the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye"-- Mar_1:15], there came upon him { bcome aunto him bthe chief priests and the scribes, and cwith the elders; aof the people [the Sanhedrin (see Joh_10:24.] a24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, cI also will ask you a aone question, which if ye tell me, band answer me, aI likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 The baptism of John, whence was it? bWas it from heaven, or from men? answer me. [The question which Jesus asked was intimately and inseparably connected with the question which they had asked. Jesus, of course, did not derive his authority from John the Baptist, but John had testified plainly to the Messiahship of Jesus, and had, in no uncertain terms, designated Jesus as immeasurably greater than himself. Now, if the Pharisees admitted that John was a heaven-sent messenger or witness (of which fact his baptism was propounded as a test, since it was a religious ordinance introduced on his authority), then John had already answered the Sanhedrin that Jesus derived his authority from his Messiahship, and hence, all that the Sanhedrin had to do to satisfy their minds was simply to believe John. But if, on the other hand, the Pharisees rejected John's pretensions and claims as a heaven-sent messenger in the face of the almost universal popular conviction, then what was there for Jesus to present his claims to so blind, bigoted, and unreasoning a body?] 31 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, aunto us, Why then did ye not believe him? [When he testified to the Messiahship of Jesus ( Joh_1:7, Joh_1:15, Joh_1:34, Joh_3:26-36, Joh_10:40-42). The Sanhedrin could not admit that the messenger was heaven-sent and yet deny his testimony.] 26 But if we shall { bshould we say, From men-- call the people will stone us: awe fear the multitude; for all hold John as a prophet. cfor they are persuaded that John was a prophet. bthey feared the people: for all verily held John to be a prophet. 33 And they answered [587] Jesus cthat they knew not whence it was. aand said, bsay, We know not. [It should be noted in their consultation there was no effort either to ascertain or to speak the truth. The question as to whether John really was or was not a prophet was in no sense the subject of their investigation. They were merely deciding what to say. They were seeking for the most expedient answer, and as neither truthful answer was expedient, they resolved to falsely deny any knowledge of the case. Men of such brazen dishonesty could not be dealt with openly and fairly as could sincere seekers after truth.] And Jesus, aalso said bsaith unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. [Their spoken lie was, "We know not," but their inward and true answer was, "We will not tell," and Jesus answered the suppressed truth saying, "Neither tell I." How readily the subtle minds of the Jewish people would justify Jesus in thus declining to submit the question of his authority to judges who at that very moment publicly confessed their inability to even hazard an opinion, much less render a decision, as to the authority of John the Baptist, who claims were in popular estimation so obvious. It was plain that however well these men might judge human credentials, the divine testimonials of a prophet or of the Messiah were above their carnal sphere. Thus Jesus put his enemies to confusion in the first of man conflicts of that perilous Tuesday. But we may well imagine that they were rendered more bitter by the evidence of a wisdom so much beyond any which they possessed.]

[FFG 586-588]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

23. When he was come into the temple. Compare Mark 11:27, and Luke 20:1. This was on Tuesday, after the discourse on the fig tree, which occurred the morning after the curse was pronounced. The chief priests and the elders. Mark and Luke add “the scribes.” These three classes made up the Sanhedrim, and this was probably a deputation from that body. By what authority doest thou these things? Such acts as driving the money-changers and traders out of the temple, done the day before.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

This begins the account of the religious leaders questioning Jesus' authority.

had come into the temple

It is implied that Jesus did not enter the actual temple. He entered the courtyard around the temple. (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

these things

This refers to Jesus teaching and healing in the temple. It probably also refers to Jesus driving out the buyers and sellers the previous day.

translationWords

Jesus

temple

chief priests

elder

authority

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

23–27. THE AUTHORITY OF CHRIST IS QUESTIONED

Mar 11:27-33; Luk 20:1-8

Tuesday, Nisan 11

23. ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ (א B C D L) for ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ, supported by the later authorities.

23. ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιεῖς; καὶ τίς σοι ἔδωκεν τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην; The second question is not a mere repetition of the first Jesus is asked (1) what kind of authority He possesses—human or divine? (2) By whose agency this authority was bestowed? No one had a right to teach unless ‘authority’ had been conferred upon him by the scribes.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23-32.] Mar 11:27-33.Luk 20:1-8Luk 20:1-8. Our Lord’s authority questioned. His reply. Now commences that series of parables, and discourses of our Lord with His enemies, in which He developes more completely than ever before His hostility to their hypocrisy and iniquity:—and so they are stirred up to compass His death.

23. οἱ ἀρχ. κ. οἱ πρεσ. τ. λ.] Mark and Luke add γραμματεῖς, and so make up the members of the Sanhedrim. It was an official message, sent with a view to make our Saviour declare Himself to be a prophet sent from God—in which case the Sanhedrim had power to take cognizance of His proceedings, as of a professed Teacher. Thus the Sanhedrim sent a deputation to John on his appearing as a Teacher, Joh 1:19. The question was the result of a combination to destroy Jesus, Luk 19:47, Luk 19:48. They do not now ask, as in Joh 2:18, τί σημεῖον δεικνύεις ἡμῖν ὅτι ταῦτα ποιεῖς; for they had had many signs which are now included in their ταῦτα. The second question, καὶ τίς κ.τ.λ., is an expansion of ποίᾳ.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23-27. From Mar 11:27-33.

(M) 23. And when He came into the temple, there came to Him, as He was teaching, the chief priests and elders of the people, saying, By what authority doest Thou these things, and who gave Thee this authority?] Mk. has: “And they come to Jerusalem: and as He was walking in the temple, there come to Him the chief priests, and scribes, and elders, and were saying to Him, By what authority doest Thou these things? or who gave Thee this authority that Thou shouldest do these things?” Mk.’s καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα is unnecessary after v. 18.—προσῆλθαν] aor., as often, for Mk.’s hist. present. For προσέρχεσθαι, see on 4:3. For the aor. in a, see Blass, p. 45.—διδάσκοντι] This is to be a day of teaching, as yesterday was of action; see on v. 14.——προσῆλθαν—λέγοντες] for Mk.’s ἔρχονται.—καὶ ἔλεγον, as often. Mt. omits Mk.’s redundant ἵνα ταῦτα ποιῇς at the end.

23-27. Mt. and Lk. agree in the following:

αὐτῷ διδάσκοντι, Mat_23; διδάσκοντος αὐτοῦ, Luk_1; περιπατοῦντος αὐτοῦ, Mk 27.

λέγοντες, Mat_23, Luk_2.

ἀποκριθεὶς δέ, Mat_24, Luk_8. Mk. has no ἀποκριθείς.

κἀγώ, Mat_24, Luk_3.

εἴπητε, Mat_24; εἴπατε, Luk_8; ἀποκρίθητε, Mk 29.

Both Mk. and Lk. omit ἵνα ταῦτα ποιῇς from Mk 26 and ἀποκρίθητέ μοι from Mk 30.

οἱ δέ, Mat_25, Luk_5; καί, Mk 31.

ἐὰν δέ, Mat_26, Luk_6; ἀλλά, Mk 32.

Mk. has here: “And He began to speak to them in parables,” followed by the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. Mt. inserts first the parable of the Two Sons, then borrows from Mk. that of the Husbandmen, and then adds the parable of the Marriage Feast; thus forming a group of three prophetic parables (cf. Introduction, p. lxv), foretelling the divine judgement impending over the Jewish nation. See Gould on Mar 12:1.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.