Matthew 21:23-27 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, and said… Perhaps we shall best gather up the lessons of this incident if we look first at the form it assumed, then at the underlying substance. I. THE FORM. 1. The question of the rulers. (1) An insulting question. What right had they thus to challenge One before whom they should have bowed in humble adoration? Technically, they were in the right in so far as they acted as guardians of the Law and religion of Israel. Yet they had proved themselves false to their trust by their permission of the desecration of the temple, and by the too common hypocrisy of their religion. Some people put the same question today without a shadow of the claim of the Jewish leaders. The human intellect has a right to search for truth; we all ought to look for good grounds of faith. But the attitude of humility will be that of an inquirer, not that of a judge. (2) An irrelevant question. The charges Christ made were true; the things he denounced were wrong. Why, then, care so much about the question of his authority? People raise technical questions and abstract difficulties, but often these only obscure the plain moral truths which cannot be denied. (3) An insincere question. Did these rulers thirst for knowledge concerning the mission of Christ? Were they troubled with grave doubts? We know that they were only anxious to entrap our Lord. Flippant doubt is culpable, but the most deadly doubt is that which hates the light. 2. The counter question of Christ. He postpones his reply to a question he desires to have answered by the rulers. (1) Showing his skill and wisdom. Christian apologists have acted too much on the defensive. It would be wiser to follow the example of Christ, and carry the war into the enemy's territory. (2) Proving the weakness of the rulers' position. They challenged Christ's status. What was theirs? People who reject Divine revelation, and the larger number who simply ignore it, will have to account for their conduct. At least they should be prepared to justify themselves. (3) Turning from a formal to a. moral inquiry, John the Baptist was an embodiment of the national conscience. How was such a man to be treated? We make too much of questions of rank and office, and too little of those that touch right and wrong conduct. II. THE SUBSTANCE. That was indeed an important question which the rulers put to Christ. If it were asked humbly and sincerely, it might be regarded as most just and reasonable. When it is so asked, Christ does answer it. Indeed, if the rulers had not been blind, they would have found a twofold reply close at hand. Christ justifies and confirms his claims: 1. By the authority of conscience. When he startled the people in the temple by an unwonted exercise of authority, they submitted without an attempt at resistance, because their consciences confirmed his action. Christ speaks to the conscience, and the conscience echoes what he says. 2. By the authority of knowledge. Who are the authoritative teachers? Surely the only teachers who can speak to us with authority are those who know the subjects they undertake to teach. Jesus "spoke with authority" (Matthew 7:29), because he spoke out of knowledge. There was a self-evidencing truthfulness and clearness of vision in him. 3. By the authority of God. The rulers could not see this. If their blindness had not been morally culpable, they would have been excused for rejecting the claims of Christ, because those claims were so great that no mere man could have a right to put them forth. When we perceive the Divine nature of Christ, all his words and deeds are justified, and his authority comes upon us with more than kingly power. - W.F.A. Parallel Verses KJV: And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? |
    |