In our previous study, we saw how the Jewish authorities came to Jesus to challenge his right to cast out those who bought and sold in the Temple, which they did with the authorization of the chief priests (Matthew 21:23). Jesus, however, refused to reply to their inquiry, unless they told him whether or not John, the Baptizer, was sent by God (Matthew 21:24-25). Of course, they refused to admit John was a prophet, because that would only authenticate what Jesus did, for they feared him and wanted to kill him. The Jewish leaders were entrenched in their own ways and didn’t want to be corrected by a prophet of God.
As I claimed in my previous post, once one knowingly embraces error, he cannot believe, unless he repents. Thus, the Lord’s face was hidden from the Jewish authorities, and this forced them to rely only on their own understanding (Matthew 15:14). Thus, they were driven to find out their error by bringing their desires to their ultimate conclusion, which was to crucify Jesus (cp. Deuteronomy 32:20).
In this context, then, Jesus asked them what they thought about a certain parable, which he was about to put to them. It was the Parable of the Two Sons, and their father came to the first son, telling him to work in his vineyard for the day (Matthew 21:28). His son refused, but later repented and did as his father asked (Matthew 21:29). Next, the father went to his second son, asking him to work in his vineyard for the day. The second son agreed to do so, but he didn’t do as he promised (Matthew 21:30)
At this point Jesus asked the Jewish authorities about the parable: which of the two obeyed their father (Matthew 21:31). Of course, the chief priest and elders agreed that the first son obeyed the will of his father. At this point, Jesus disclosed the meaning of the parable, saying the first son represented the publicans and harlots who were admitted sinners, while the second son represented the elders and the chief priests, who covered their sins in order to appear righteous (Matthew 21:31). Jesus proved his conclusion by saying John came preaching righteousness, and the publicans and harlots repented, but the Jewish authorities didn’t repent, even after they witnessed John’s work in the publicans and harlots. Instead, they disputed the method used in John’s ministry (cp. John 1:19-26; and 3:25), and later had him cast into Herod’s prison (John 3:24; cp. 4:1 and Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14).[1]
The Jewish leaders were bent on removing their enemies by whatever means possible. Instead of considering the message preached by both John and Jesus, the Jewish authorities condemned themselves, vis-à-vis opposed themselves (cp. Acts 18:6; 1Thessalonians 2:14-16; 2Timothy 2:25). In doing so, they were fated to fulfill their evil intentions and thereby be judged for their great errors (Matthew 15:14; cp. Deuteronomy 32:20; John 12:36).
[1] It seems evident that John’s imprisonment resulted from the purification controversy. The official reason for John’s imprisonment, of course, was his accusing Herod and Herodias of practicing an adulterous affair (Matthew 14:3-4; Mark 6:17-18). Yet, this official cause, was probably the result of entrapment. The Jewish authorities had often used the Herodians to get their enemies in trouble with the political leaders of the land (Matthew 22:16-17; Mark 3:6; 12:13-14). John was already an enemy of the religious authorities, and it is probable that they were the instruments in getting John arrested, because, when both Jesus and John were baptizing in Judea, Jesus hurried to return to Galilee by way of Samaria, because the Pharisees heard that he baptized more than John. Why would this be of interest, unless the purification controversy they had with John (John 3:25) ended with John being incarcerated?
Leave a Reply