Matthew 21: It's not who you think

Introduction

Matthew’s Gospel continues into Holy Week and chronologically speaking today’s passage probably happened on Monday of that week. The primary focus is on questioning the Lord’s authority. But out of this question the Lord himself will force his accusers to question themselves and also have a reckoning on who gets into the kingdom, and why.

23-27: Challenging God

This section is fairly simple: after Jesus reenters the temple, the leaders of the people want to know by what authority he has to do such things.

Remember, less than 24 hours prior Jesus was clearing out the temple and healing people. Now he’s back and teaching.

Their question is kind of reminiscent of their ancestors asking Moses, “Who made you judge?” in Exodus 2:14. Even after thousands of years, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

I don’t think Jesus really cared to hide his authority. He makes it clear in other parts of the Gospels that the Father and Spirit both testify to him. As we’ve seen previously in Matthew’s own Gospel, the Father has explicitly declared Jesus to be His Son and needs to be listened to.

The Lord also wasn’t going to give it up merely because they were asking. The truth is, they shouldn’t even be asking this question. They’ve seen everything the ‘common folk’ have seen, and those common folk had no problem believing (this will be important later).

So he offers them a trade: tell him where John’s baptism came from.

He flipped literal tables the day before, and now he’s turning the tables on them.

This question puts the religious leaders in a bind. It basically forces them to admit that they were wrong…or make the crowd angry.

Specifically asking about John’s baptism is important, too. As Jesus is going to point out shortly, this was the beginning of the Gospel. If they had believed John, they would have also believed Jesus.

As it stood, they were too prideful to admit that John’s baptism and his message were divinely inspired, and therefore they were too proud to admit that Jesus was who He claimed to be.

All they can say is “We do not know.” which probably elicited some laughs from the crowd. So Jesus in turn doesn’t answer them. But he isn’t done talking to them. This interaction sets up 3 straight parables in judgment against them.

28-32: Better late than never

The Lord wraps this parable up in a question: “What do you think?” This is going to be how he frames up the second parable, too. He wants them to hear the stories and really think about who they are about.

The question is simple: which of the two sons in this story was obedient? The one who said no, but later went, or said yes, but never went? The answer: the first son (duh!).

The religious leaders knew the answer. What they probably weren’t expecting was what Jesus said next.

He says that the tax collectors (!) and the prostitutes (!) go into the kingdom of God before them (!). The supposed “men of God” were getting beat into the kingdom by the worst of sinners??

Jesus explains to them why this is the case: those sinners believed John the Baptist! The religious leaders did not! Because of that, those sinners had a roughly 3 year head start into the kingdom that these men did not.

But the kicker is, Jesus tells them that the fact that these sinners were believing should have been a sign that something glorious was happening…yet “you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.”

Instead of reacting to the Gospel with, “Gross, these sinners chase after it.” our response should be, “Praise God, these sinners are chasing after it, and I will join them.”

But how does that connect to the two sons?

In the immediate sense, the tax collectors and prostitutes were the son who refused to obey their father (hence why they were sinners…), but in the end they ultimately repented and did obey their father.

The religious leaders on the other hand represented the second son who put on the appearance of obedience…but in truth their hearts were far from God, and they didn’t actually do the work of their Father in heaven.

In a deeper sense, the two sons can also represent the Gentiles and the Jews. For most of human history to this point, the Gentiles had rejected God (Romans 1), but now in the last days they were repenting and doing as their father commanded. The Jews on the other hand had for most of their history put on the pretense of obeying God, but in their hearts ignored him and his Son. This is tragically still true to this day.

I think Paul puts forth a similar thought of “seeing the outsiders repent should make you change your mind” in Romans 11.

33-46: A calculated mistake

The Lord follows this story up with another lengthier parable to the religious leaders. This time it is much more targeted and encompasses their entire history.

The master of the house who planted a vineyard is God creating his kingdom. He leased it to “tenants” i.e. the Israelites.

When it came time to “gather fruit” or to evaluate whether or not they had been living kingdom lives, he sent his servants i.e. the prophets.

But what did the Israelites do to the prophets consistently? They ignored them, and as the parable describes, “beat one, killed another, and stoned another”.

Finally the master (God) sent his Son. “They will respect my son.” Here the parable become prophetic, because what did the religious leaders do? They eventually would kill him.

Next comes a question, just like Jesus asked in the first parable: what is the logical response of the master?

Just like previously, the answer isn’t difficult. These leaders say what any reasonable person would say: He’ll come and put them to death and give the land to someone else.

What I find funny about this response is that it’s basically the same bait and switch that occurred when Nathan the prophet confronted David after the affair with Bathsheba.

Notice how strongly the religious leaders respond, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death”. A wise man once said, “With the same measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

It’s worth noting that this punishment did befall the Israelite people with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, which was widely attributed to God’s judgment for their treatment of Christ and Christians.

The Lord responds to them by asking if they’ve read Psalm 118:22-23. Up to this point, the religious leaders had probably interpreted “the stone” as Israel itself. But now Jesus reinterprets it as himself (!).

Peter was especially fond of this verse, using it in his sermon against these same religious leaders in Acts 4:11 “This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.” and again in his first letter 1 Peter 2:7 “So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,””

What Jesus says next though is downright terrifying if true.

First he tells them that the kingdom of God will be taken away and given to a people producing its fruits (love and righteousness!). It wasn’t hard to see that Jesus is implying that the kingdom would be taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles. Luke tells us their response in Luke 20:16 “When they heard this, they said, “Surely not!””

Second, he paraphrases Isaiah 8:14–15 “And he will become a sanctuary and a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many shall stumble on it. They shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and taken.””

If Jesus is the rock, then the implications are clear:

The harder they try to stop him, the more they will be destroyed - like something shattering on a rock. Also note that in this case, the judgment had nothing to do with the might of the stone, but rather their own force by which they were trying to hurt it.

And on the other hand, when He comes down on them they will be utterly crushed.

In both cases, the stone is unharmed. For all the persecution that Jesus (and His Church) has endured, the stone still stands. His resurrection deemed any harm, including death, moot.

As previously mentioned, Peter recites both of these verses in his first letter (1 Peter 2), there he encourages us believers by contrasting those of us who believe (those who are being built up on the stone as living stones into a new race of holy people) with those who do not believe and obey Jesus.

It didn’t take a genius to realize that Jesus was talking about these religious leaders. Naturally they wanted to arrest him, but they couldn’t because of his status among the people.

22:1-14: Third time is the charm

Since they couldn’t shut him up, he kept talking! This time he tells a third parable. If you want to get a point across, you say it three times!

He follows the same theme of the kingdom of God and it’s inhabitant.

The king throws a feast for his son - The king is God the Father, his Son is Jesus

He sends out his servants to tell those who were invited that the time to party has come! This can be seen as Israel who had been “invited” (‘first to the Jew, then to the Gentile…), but now with the advent of the Son and his feast/kingdom, they rejected him.

As had been illustrated in the previous parables, they didn’t just ignore the invitation, but they sometimes outright killed the messengers.

This of course led the king to “destroy those murderers and burned their city” - again, prophetic of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD

So the king told his servants to go out once again and call everyone they could find. So they went out and found “both bad and good”. This is the opening of the kingdom to the Gentiles.

“The wedding hall was filled with guests” is the church bringing in as many people as she can.

But there is a twist! Even though everyone is called in, when the king finally comes to inspect he notices that one of the guests isn’t properly dressed, which leads him to being thrown out!

What does this mean? While the Church is called to bring everyone in, both good and bad, the reality is that not everyone in the Church will be allowed to stay in the kingdom. There is an expectation to be “clothed”.

So what is this “wedding garment” that the king expects us to be wearing?

This is the garment of the heart: love and righteousness.

Psalm 132:9 “Let your priests be clothed with righteousness,”

1 Timothy 1:5 “The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.”

This is a recurring theme in Revelation about God’s people wearing the proper garments:

Revelation 3:4 “Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy.”

Revelation 7:9 “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands,”

Revelation 7:14 “They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”

Revelation 19:7–8 “Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure”— for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.”

Some closing thoughts on this parable

The servants were originally the OT prophets, but as the story transitions, the servants become us, Christians. Because we have the Holy Spirit we are on par, and even greater than, the prophets of old.

It is our jobs to bring as many people to Christ and his church, “both good and bad”, and not be too concerned with where their hearts ultimately are. The king will ultimately judge whether or not a person’s heart is truly full of love and righteousness…or if they are just putting up a front.

I think Paul gives a similar message to this parable in Romans 11, where he warns Gentiles that just because we have been grafted into the kingdom doesn’t mean God won’t also cut us off if we aren’t living out our faith and producing fruit of righteousness.

Conclusion

These three parables illustrate how the kingdom was ultimately taken away from the Israelites/Jews because of their disobedience and given to a “new” people, the Gentiles. But there is still a very real warning here that surface level religion, or being part of the “in-group”, doesn’t get you automatic entry into the kingdom. This is just as true as it was for the religious leaders hearing this message as it is for the Christians who have grown up in church but don’t actually produce fruit. The doors to the kingdom is open to everyone, but we all must be willing to participate in it. If not, we will find ourselves “in the outer darkness”.