A Sermon on
Matthew 21:28-31
preached in Life-way Christian Fellowship
Victory Mall,
Monumento, Quezon City
By Edilberto A.
Marasigan, Jr.
September 29,
2012
When it comes to words and action, there are four different kinds
of people. One is someone who says
nothing and does nothing; another is someone who says a lot of things, but does
not do anything; another is someone who does not say anything, but be careful
because he’ll do something; and the last one is someone who says something and
also does something. Of all the four, the most passive is the one who does
neither saying nor doing. What I like the most is the one who has something to
say does what he says. Indeed there are people who are action oriented. They are those who
are not contented of just seeing and knowing things around them. On the
contrary, there are also individuals who say a lot of things but do no action.
If I am to choose between I would rather have the person who does what he says.
In the Bible there is a parable that shows this picture-the parable of the two
sons.
After healing the two blind men in Jericho, Jesus and His disciples
went to Bethpage. There he instructed his disciples to make some preparations
for their entrance in Jerusalem. When everything was set they went to the city
and the crowd welcomed them by spreading their coats and some branches of trees
on the road as they were shouting “Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed is He
who comes in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest” (Mat 21:9 NASB). It
was a chant of deliverance and of “hope.”[2] The
city was stirred and the people were asking, “Who is this?” This can be an
indication that they were some who have not heard about Him yet. Then He
entered the temple and drove out those who were having business inside. Since
Jesus personality & His capability were already known to many that time, then
the people went to Him. Those who were sick were brought to Him and He
performed healing upon them. As a result the children were shouting “Hosanna to
the Son of David” (15). Because of how Jesus was welcomed by the people; what
He did in the temple; and what those children proclaimed, the chief priests and
the scribes were indignant.
The chief priests and the scribes asked Him, “Do you hear what
these children are saying?” They were
pertaining to the statement “Hosanna to the Son of David.” Jesus responded
quoting a portion of Psalm 8:2, “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies
you have prepared praise for yourself.” The Bible tells us that after saying
those words Jesus left them. But I believe that answer ignited anger on the
priests & scribes, because Psalm 8:2 was a Psalm of David which describes
about God. Jesus’ answer was a claim that He is God, something which they
considered blasphemy and punishable by death.[3]
Jesus left them after the conversation & went to Bethany and spent the
night there.
The following morning Jesus saw a fig tree with leaves but did not
have fruits on it. He said to it, "No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you" (18). Many
scholars think that Jesus was cursing the fig tree, but the way I see it, He
wanted to illustrate a very important fact to His disciples. Constable said,
“He cursed the tree to teach them the lesson, not because it failed to produce
fruits.”[4]
The nature of a fig tree is that when it has leaves it means it has fruits; but
that plant did not have. The fig was showing its leaves yet it remained
unfruitful. As Constable mentioned that it demonstrates about “the hypocrites
within the nation who show of bearing fruits but did not.”[5] He
was referring to the chief priests and the scribes who received the highest
respect in the temple. They were perceived to be very spiritual yet inside them
they were barren and in reality they were unfruitful.
After the fig tree incident, Jesus went back to the temple. The
chief priests and the elders of the people questioned Him. Remember that the
day before; He left them after He uttered a statement that they considered as
blasphemy. Now that Jesus is back they
were ready to face and challenge Him. They confronted Him with a question in
verse 23, “By what authority are you doing these things and who gave you this
authority?” This question reflects the perspective of the chief priests and the
elders. Jesus disrupted the business within the temple and performed signs and
wonders there. They were interrogating Him because they were the ones who were
regarded to have the highest authority in the temple. In our modern way of
saying it, “you should have passed through us before you did something in the
temple. You get first our permission for you to be able to do what you did.”
That question challenged the person of Jesus and the Father who sent Him. They
cannot question His capability or power to do marvellous things thus they
turned to His authority. Power &
authority are two distinct words. You can have power but no authority. For
example, I have the power or ability to preach, but unless I am authorized by
the pastor of the church to stand here, I cannot. Jesus displayed to them His
power but they refused to believe His claim. The Lord answered them by a
question also, “The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from
men?” This question placed them in the dilemma. If they will acknowledge that
it was from heaven, then they should also acknowledge that Jesus’ authority was
also from heaven. If they will say that it was from men, then the people will
rise against them because the people regarded John as a prophet from God. To
avoid losing face, they answered wisely but not wise enough, “We do not know”
(27). This prompted Jesus not to address their inquiry about His authority. He
then proceeded with a parable about the two sons.
One of the sons was given the order but verbally refused to abide. The
other son was given the order and agreed to do it but did not actually do it.
However later the son who said “no” did what his father wanted him to do.[6]
Jesus then asked them a follow-up question, “Which of the two did the will of
his father?” Obviously the answer should be the first one; the one who refused
but later abided with the father. What does this parable mean? Jesus blatantly
revealed to them what he meant. The tax collectors and the prostitutes were the
ones who were declared unclean, immoral, and sinful before the society. On the other
hand, the Pharisees, teachers of the law, scribes, the priests, and the elders
are the ones who were perceived as righteous and godly people. But in the
parable of the Lord the tax collectors and the prostitutes were represented by
the son who first refused but later accepted and did the will of the father. On
the contrary the religious leaders were represented by the son who said “yes”
but did not do the will of the father. Therefore before the eyes of the father
of the two sons, he will delight on the one who abided on his will. In the same
way these people whom they regarded as sinners did something wrong before God,
but they abided with the will of the heavenly Father, which is to believe in
the one that He sent-John & eventually Jesus. “John came to you in the way
of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax collectors and the
prostitutes believed him...(32)” Thus Jesus concluded that the tax collectors
and the prostitutes will inherit the kingdom of God instead[7] of
the chief priests and the elders of the people.
Matthew was trying
to show that the leaders of Israel who were supposed to know Him through the
Old Testament rejected Him instead. Their unbelief was a high contrast of what
they were supposed to do. In this parable it is clear that one can inherit the kingdom
of God only by abiding the will of the Father, which is by believing on the one
that He sent; and neither by the amount of scriptural knowledge nor expertise nor
by any position in the society and in the church. The chief priests, scribes,
and elders of the people were perceived to be the ones worthy of the kingdom of
God, but they were surprised to hear that in the eyes of the Lord those whom
they call sinners are the ones that will inherit it. The chief priests had great
knowledge and powerful position but these two are not considered an account of
righteousness; it is the obedience to the will of Father which is to believe in
the one that He sent.
Knowing something can never be
enough, but it is by doing that something that you know. Like the priests, the
scribes, and the elders of the people we might have acquired immeasurable
knowledge, but unless we live it out, it will not do anything good. I have a
question for you. There were ten frogs on the log, seven of them decided to
jump. How many frogs were left on the log? The answer is, ten. There is a gap
between potentiality and actuality. When the seven decided to jump it was
nothing more than a decision-a potentiality. If they jumped already that is
actuality. In the same sense, you and I have heard a lot of sermons and
Biblical teachings in the past. Some even committed to the Lord to do it; but
unless you really do it, then it remains only as a potential and it is nothing
more than just a mere knowledge.
[1] Sermon
Illustrations, “Action,” http://www.sermonillustrations.com/a-z/a/action.htm
(accessed 29 September 2012).
[2] Stephen M.
Miller, The Jesus of the Bible (Uhrichsville, Ohio: Barbour Publishing
Inc., 2009), 300.
[3] Wiki
Answers, “If capital punishment
for blasphemy is no longer enforced today by Jewish religion when did they stop
enforcing it?” http: wiki.answers.com/Q/If_capital_punishment_for_ blasphemy_is_no_longer_enforced_today_by_jewish_religion_when_did_they_stop_enforcing_it#ixzz27qDCzrX3 (accessed 28 September 2012).
[4] Thomas L.
Constable, Notes on Matthew (Sonic Light, 2010), 287.
[6] The ancient Greek texts of these verses contain variations that have resulted
in different translations. The NASB has the older son saying yes but doing
nothing. The younger son says no but repents and goes. The younger son does the
father's will. The NIV has the older son saying no but then repenting and going. The younger son says yes
but does not go. The older son does the father's will. Probably the
interpretation of the parable influenced early copyists. The better reading
appears to be the one represented in the NASB. (Thomas Constable, Notes on
Matthew, 291-292).
[7] “The Greek verb proago ("get into . . .before" or "entering . . . ahead of") here means "enter instead of."” (Thomas Constable, Notes on Matthew, 292).
