Sermon Tone Analysis

In 1949, at the age of 19, my dad had saved up enough money from his work at Pontiac Motors to make a down-payment on a 120 acre farm in Lapeer, Michigan.

His intention was to provide a permanent home for his mother, because they had moved from one property to another as renters his entire life.

When they closed on the land-contract my dad made sure to have his name, his mother’s name and his dad’s name all on the contract.

That way my grandfather, who was a bit of a “horse-trader” could not sell the farm out under neath them.

Many years later, probably back in the mid-1990’s, I was out on my grandmother’s farm hunting on opening day of deer season.

I had scouted the area out a few weeks prior and knew just where I wanted to set up.

I arrived before day light and found my spot, and tried to quietly wait for it to become daylight.

As the day began to dawn I heard a noise and looked behind me to find another hunter approaching me with his shotgun pointing right at me, as if he intended to use it.

He asked me who gave me permission to be on this private property.

Then he told me his name, which I have long forgotten, and informed me that he had been given exclusive permission to hunt here, and that he was in charge of policing the property.

I asked who had given him this permission, and listed my uncle as his source of authority.

I then informed him that he may have received permission to hunt, but I was a family member, whose named was listed on my grandmother's trust as to be an inheritor of her estate should my dad pass before she did.

And my claim out-ranked his.

Many years ago, probably back in the mid-1990’s, I was out on my grandmother’s farm hunting on opening day of deer season.

I had scouted the area out a few weeks prior and knew just where I wanted to set up.

I arrived before day light and found my spot, and tried to quietly wait for it to become daylight.

As the day began to dawn I heard a noise and looked behind me to find another hunter approaching me with his shotgun pointing right at me, as if he intended to use it.

He asked me who gave me permission to be on this private property.

Then he told me his name, which I have long forgotten, and informed me that he had been given exclusive permission to hunt here, and that he in charge of policing the property.

I asked who had given him this permission, and listed y uncle as his source of authority.

I then informed him that he may have received permission to hunt, but I was a family member, whose named was listed on my grandmother's trust as to be an inheritor of her estate should my dad pass before she did.

And my claim out-ranked his.

Nevertheless, since was holding a loaded shotgun, pointed at me, I did concede and vacated.

However, after my dad heard about this, he became livid with anger (which was so out of character for him), and that person, who held a gun on the owner’s son, was never allowed on our property again!

The source of one’s authority is an intriguing study.

The man I had an encounter with thought that he had some sort of authority based on a casual conversation with my uncle.

That authority had strong limitations, however.

There is a form of authority that comes from rank or position.

A CEO of a large business is in a position of power and authority.

A CFO of the same business would have a different position of authority.

And yet it is still authority.

I would consider these to be derived authority.

But there is a different type of authority that comes by virtue of birth.

And birthright authority usually trumps derived authority.

Throughout the Gospel of Matthew the apostle established that Jesus had was an authoritative figure.

Matthew’s genealogy demonstrates that Jesus’ authority was a birthright.

What’s more, He was the authoritative teacher of His day.

He established His authority over disease, over the elements of nature, and over the spirit-world.

At the conclusion of Matthew’s account we read that all authority on heaven and on earth had been given to Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of God.

Yet the religious leadership of Israel had the gall to question His authority.

And that is exactly what we find them doing in our text for today, Matthew 21:23-32.

As I mentioned last week, the events that occur in all happened on one very, very long day.

The day began with Jesus journeying from Bethany to Jerusalem with His disciples in tow.

On the way they encountered the fig tree which Jesus had cursed the previous day, and a teaching moment arose regarding faith, prayer, and service.

Then, as we will look at this morning, Jesus was confronted by the priests and elders in the temple while He was teaching those who would listen to Him.

I’m very curious as to just what He taught them, but states

They questioned Him about His authority.

Then Jesus went on to tell these religious leaders of Israel three consecutive parables in which they were soundly rebuked for their false leadership.

Then various groups tried to trap Jesus by asking Him question after question.

Following these feeble attempts at entrapment Jesus blasted the hypocritical leaders with a series of eight woes.

The recorded events of this day ended with Jesus delivering what is known as the Olivet Discourse to the apostles, in which He taught them about end times.

This morning’s passage is about authority, unbelief, and hypocrisy.

As we journey through this passage we will look at the challenge by the religious leadership, the counter-challenge by Jesus, the hypocritical response by the leadership, the holy response by Jesus, and the parable that ensues.

What I want you to see is that by the use of a question which called for either a denial, an affirmation, or a plea of ignorance, coupled with a pointed parable, Jesus was able to expose the hypocrisy of the religious leadership of Israel.

Let’s read our text together.

Let’s look first at

The Challenge (vs.

23)

What authority did these priests and elders question?

Most likely, from the context, they quesitoned His authority regarding three distinct things:

The Counter-Challenge (vs.

24)

His authority to cleanse the temple

His authority to heal the blind and the lame

His authority to teach in the temple

D. A. Carson noted:

“Their concern in asking who gave him this authority (cf. ) sprang less from a desire to identify him than from a desire to stifle and perhaps ensnare him.”

It seems that they were trying to coerce Jesus to blaspheme by stating, as He had on other occasions, that His authority was His birthright as the Son of God.

Of course we understand that in saying this Jesus would not be guilty of blasphemy because it was, in fact, true.

But these pathetic leaders did not believe His claims.

And so, in their minds it would be blasphemy.

As a side note, to believe or not believe something does not in itself make it true or false.

There was once a young preacher who was known for saying: “God said it, and I believe, and that settles it!”

But an older preacher noted: “God said it, and that settles it, whether I believe it or not!”

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not founded on our faith.

But our faith should be founded on the Gospel!

It is the grace of God which brings salvation.

And a believer’s faith is the channel through which salvation comes.

Let’s look at Christ’s reply as we consider

The Counter-Challenge (vs.

24)

It is really futile to try and trap the omniscient God.

Jesus knew exactly what these men were trying to do.

And instead of giving them a direct answer He answered their question with a question.

The question which Jesus asked was not a simple question for them to answer.

It was a question which forced them to either give a denial, give an affirmation, or give a plea of ignorance.

Let’s look at the question and see which way they responded.

Look at verse 24-25.

These dudes understood that Jesus had turned the tables on them.

If they answered the question, either as a denial or in the affirmative they would be in trouble.

If they affirmed that John’s ministry was authorized by God, then Jesus would rebuke them for their lack of faith in John’s message.

If, on the other hand they denied God’s hand in the ministry of John then the people were likely to revolt for they had a very high opinion of John.

Let’s consider their

The Hypocritical Response (vs.

25-27a)

The Executive Session

When I read about these men reasoning among themselves it reminds me of what is often call an executive session.

I was involved in one such session back in March as a part of the MARBC Council of 16 meeting.

We needed to discuss some things without the presence of our executive director.

It was an enlightening session to say the least.

The council of these men reminds me of a statement given during a prayer meeting that was held after Peter and John had been threatened for preaching in the name of Jesus.

These men took counsel together to try and decide how best to reply to Jesus’ answer.

They had three choices: they could affirm that John was sent by God, they could deny that John was sent by God, or they could plead ignorance.