Challenging the Challengers

Notes for the Ekklesia Meeting
Sundays @ 10:00 a.m. Info: (651) 283-0568 Discipleship Training Ministries, Inc www.dtminc.org Today’s Date: February 12, 2006

Challenging the Challengers
by Dan Trygg

"What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work in the vineyard today.' 29 And he answered, 'I will not,' but afterward he changed his mind and went. 30 And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, 'I go, sir,' but did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?" Matthew 21:28-31

When Jesus came into Jerusalem on the day following the cleansing of the temple, He began teaching the people. Soon He was approached by a group of chief priests, scribes and elders (undoubtedly members of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish High Council), who interrupted Him and said, "By what authority do you do these things, and who gave you this authority?" They were, of course, referring to the events of the previous day, where Jesus took charge and drove the moneychangers and those buying and selling sacrificial animals out of the Court of the Gentiles, and turned the courtyard into a healing and teaching meeting. That was outrageous enough, but now, He is again in the temple area, with a crowd of people who have gathered to hear Him teach. He is conducting His ministry right in the temple courts, under their very noses, …and He never even asked for permission! They were the priests and leaders of the people. They had authority over the temple, not Him. Jerusalem was their town. He was an outsider, a carpenter from Galilee, …from Nazareth of all places. He wasn’t even a true rabbi. He had never been to a rabbinical school, or studied under one of the recognized rabbis of the day. Now, He boldly comes in and disrupts their established temple practices, and sets up shop in their temple. Enough was enough! Now He has gone too far! They assembled their most prestigious men and went straightway to confront Him, and put a stop to this outrageous lack of propriety and respect.

Jesus coolly responded, "I will ask you one thing also. If you answer Me, then I will tell you by what authority I do these things. Was the baptism of John from heaven, or from men?"

This rejoinder put them on the spot, and they knew it. He had turned the tables on them, and now they were under scrutiny by the crowds. They knew that the people had believed John to be a prophet from God. They, however, had not been receptive of John’s ministry, since he also had criticized them. They realized the dilemma Jesus had put them in. If they said, "From God," then He could say, "Then why did you not believe him?" If they said, "From men," they feared that the multitude would be outraged and stone them. They cautiously took the "politically correct" course of action, "We do not know." Jesus then responded, "Then I will not tell you by what authority I do these things."

That was not the end of the encounter, however. Jesus did not allow them to just slink away. While He had them at an advantage, He took the opportunity to hold their feet to the fire, a little, and talk about their spiritual condition. "But what do you think?", He said, throwing the ball back to them. He then told the story of a man who had two sons. He asked the first to go up to work in the vineyard. He said that he would, but did not go. The father approached the second son, and asked him if he would go up to work in the vineyard. He flatly refused, but afterward he regretted his disregard for the father’s wishes, and he chose to go up and work. The punch line was, "Which of them did the will of his father?" The answer was obvious, and inescapable. "The latter son", they said. Jesus’ application was a stinging rebuke, "Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and harlots will go before you into the kingdom of God." Why? "Because John came in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe in him, but the tax collectors and harlots did believe. But you, seeing this, did not even feel regret later so as to believe in him." In other words, if they had initially not recognized John, certainly by now they know he was a prophet from God. Instead of feeling regret and acknowledging they were wrong, they continue to be more concerned about "saving face". They continue to be non-committal, …which means that they remain outside of God’s will. Unlike the second son, who repented and did his father’s will, they remain unrepentant, and therefore disobedient.

Jesus immediately went into another parable. He told about a landowner who had planted a vineyard, put a wall around it, dug a winepress, and built a tower in it and then let it out to tenant vine-growers. He went on a journey, but, when it became time, he sent his servants to collect his share of the crop. The tenants sent away, beat, abused and even murdered the owner’s slaves, rather than pay what was owed. Finally the owner sent his son, thinking that they would respect him, but instead the tenants killed him and threw him outside of the vineyard, supposing that they would obtain the property if they killed the heir. Jesus then asked His opponents, "Therefore, what will the owner of the vineyard do when he comes?" They clearly perceived the inescapable conclusion, "He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to others, who will pay him the proceeds at the proper times." Jesus then asked them, "Have you never read the Scripture, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, has become the chief corner stone; this came about from the Lord and it is marvelous in our eyes’ ?" (This was a quotation from Psalm 118:22,23.) "Therefore, I say to you that God’s kingdom will be taken away from you, and will be given to a nation producing the fruit of it. And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever this stone falls, it will scatter him like dust." (This last comment would have brought their minds back to Daniel 2:33,34,44, where Daniel saw in a vision a stone, cut out without hands, which crushed the other pieces of the statue which Nebuchadnezzar saw. It crushed these kingdoms to dust in the vision. In the interpretation, Daniel was told that God would set up a kingdom which would fill the earth, one which was eternal and could not be destroyed.)

This would have been extremely offensive to the chief priests, scribes and elders. Not only was Jesus claiming that they were hypocrites, but also that God was going to take the kingdom away from Israel and give it to a gentile nation. This was like blasphemy to the Jews. Their whole claim to fame was that God had chosen to work through them, the Jewish people. Now Jesus is saying that if they do not pay God the fruit He is looking for, He will take away their privileges and give them to others. [By the way, this is a warning to us, as well. Just because we know and believe correct information about God does not mean that God is pleased with what we have done (or not done) with the insights He has given. He is looking for fruit.] In Isaiah 5, God used a similar word picture for Israel. They were the vineyard, and He had done everything necessary for them to grow well and succeed in producing good fruit. He placed it on a fertile hill, dug it all up, removed the stones, planted it with the choicest vines, built a tower in the middle of it, and hewed out a wine press. He expected them to yield good grapes. They, however, produced bad fruit. As a result, He let them be overrun by their enemies and be destroyed. It had happened to Israel before, and they had been not only destroyed, but led into exile. Jesus is warning them that this, or worse, would happen to them, if they continued to not bear the fruit God required of them. God was more interested in justice and mercy than in religious rituals or sacrifices (Isa. 1:10-15; Hos. 6:6).

He moved to yet another parable. This story was about a king, who prepared a wedding feast (actually, the noun is plural, since the feasting lasted for several days) for his son. When the time came, he sent out his servants to call those who had been invited to the celebration, but they did not wish to come. The king sent out other slaves to invite these guests, telling them to describe the sumptuous feast that was ready and waiting, calling them again to come to the wedding celebration. The guests cared nothing for the king’s celebration, and paid no attention, each one going about his business. Some even mistreated and killed the slaves which the king had sent to them. The king was enraged at this, and sent his armies to destroy those murderers and set their city on fire. This being done, the king regathered his slaves and gave them another assignment. Since the wedding celebration was ready, but the original guests had been unworthy to attend, he sent them out to the highways and streets to invite and gather in as many guests as they could find. The slaves carried out their master’s wishes, and gathered in all they could find, both evil and good, and filled the wedding hall with guests. When the king came in to inspect the guests, however, he found a man not dressed in the wedding clothes he had provided. (It was not uncommon for a host to provide wedding garments to his guests to make them feel refreshed and festive, after traveling on the dusty roads. These garments also served to remove any class distinctions in order to make the poorer guests feel more comfortable communing with the more well-to-do, and vice versa. It also enabled the host to color co-ordinate the entire entourage of the party, one more way to create a festive and celebratory environment.) The king asked him, "Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?" To disregard the host’s wishes in this matter would be a serious breach of protocol, even an insult to the host. The king’s question was designed to see if there was some mistake, to give the man an "out", in case he had somehow wandered into the hall, accidentally missing the area where he could wash and change clothes. The offender was speechless. He had nothing to say, because he had chosen to disregard the king’s wishes, desiring to come in his own clothes, which he must have thought were superior to those the king provided. Probably he wanted to stand out from the rest of the crowd because he thought he was more important and wished to receive extra attention from others. He probably thought that even the king would appreciate his finery, and would be honored to have such an important guest at his son’s wedding. Or, he may have simply not wanted to be bothered with the foolishness of changing clothes, and determined to enter the hall in his own, thinking that no one would notice or care. To his horror, the king himself confronted him, and he had nothing to say, for he had chosen to disregard the wishes of the king, dishonoring and insulting him. The king commanded him to be bound and thrown into the "outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Jesus had introduced this story as being similar to the kingdom of God. The punch line was, "For many are invited, but few are chosen."

The application was clear. The king represents God. He has invited many to come to his banquet, but many show they are unworthy by disregarding Him and the messengers (e.g., prophets) He sent. They will be rejected and destroyed. Those who do come to the kingdom-feast, both the "evil and the good", must come covered in the King’s grace, not their own merit. To try to preserve status, or to think of themselves as better than others, will not be acceptable there. Those who are "chosen" are those who accept God’s grace, and are willing to truly live for Him.