Sermon Notes 1st October 2023
Doug Bannerman

Exodus 17.1-7 Matthew 21.23-32

Warren Carter[1] reads Matthew’s Gospel as a work of resistance written mainly for a Jewish religious group who survived Rome’s defeat of Jerusalem in 70 CE … although we may note in passing that this gospel does indicate some openness to Gentiles (Matthew 2.1-12; 8.5-13; 15.21-28; 28.19-20).

Carter locates the gospel’s audience in Antioch, the capital of the Roman province of Syria. Consistent with Roman practice, the city was a key unit in maintaining control over a much larger area. Also typical of the empire’s practice, Rome cooperated with, and utilised, the local elite in exercising control. The Legate or Governor was responsible for the administration of Roman law, and appeal to him, at least in theory, meant access to legal process and rights; but as numerous ancient authors have stated, judges and verdicts could be bought.

The city’s social structure comprised a small elite (5%-10% of the population) who controlled city life to their advantage. The non-elite, who served the needs of the elite, included a spectrum of the very poor to somewhat wealthy. In this structure, the elite’s social dominance rested essentially on economic and political power, considerable wealth derived from the land at the expense of day labourers, and public repute.

Chapter 21 begins with, in Carter’s words, ‘Making an Ass out of Rome’ as Jesus enters Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21.1-11). Then follows ructions in the Temple (Matthew 21.12-17) and the episode of the cursed and withered Fig Tree(Matthew 21.18-22); thence to our gospel reading for today – Jesus’ Authority and the Parable of the Two Sons.

Grand entrances in the Greco-Roman world expressed the imperial mind-set, a demand for public recognition of brute power gained by military or political means. Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, the centre of power, is in contrast, a prophetic sign, a choreographed piece of street theatre. He adopts some of the trappings of Greco-Roman entrance processions and triumphs but reframes them in a very different context – an empire that seeks not to dominate, but to serve.

Similarly, the Fig Tree episode. A fig tree with fruit signified God’s blessing (Numbers 20.5; Deuteronomy 8.7-8; 1 Maccabees 14.12) a withered fig tree symbolized judgement (Isaiah 34.4; Jeremiah 8.13, 29.17; Hosea 2.12, 9.10, 16). The withered fig tree is an omen that represents the judgement Jesus has pronounced upon the Temple, upon the religious leaders, and on their Roman allies.

We already know that the chief priests and the scribes are allied against Jesus; but here, there is a different alliance. The elders are members of wealthy powerful lay families allied with the priestly elite and Pharisaic scribes in the Sanhedrin. This is the ruling body in Jerusalem, which has religious, economic and legal jurisdiction under Roman sanction. These dudes want to kill Jesus, by whatever means.

Now, the Temple is a place of worship, not teaching, which normally happens in the synagogue. Yet here is Jesus in the Temple, bold as brass, teaching. The religious elite interrupt, asking who gives him authority to do so. Their authority stems from their social status and power over others, and is based on birth (chief priests), training (scribes), wealth (elders), and political alliances.

And their question is a trap. If he claims his own authority, Jesus admits to having no institutional or cultural legitimacy, and appears to act against God’s purposes; if he claims God’s authority, he blasphemes (9.3) and violates the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin.

Jesus, however, outwits them. The questioners become the questioned. Jesus says to them, ‘I will also ask you one question: if you tell me the answer, then I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?‘

This question about John’s baptism evokes John’s whole ministry and his challenge to the religious and political elite (Matthew 3.1-12; 14.1-12). From heaven, the abode of God (Matthew 5.34), denotes God-given authority; human origin means its absence. So, asking about John is astute. In Matthew, John and Jesus are closely linked (Matthew 3.1-12; 3.13-17).

Their answer ‘We do not know’, is not the fruit of genuine ignorance – it is avoidant – and by choosing a path of non-commitment, they unwittingly betray their real commitment. By refusing to say that John’s ministry comes from God; they reject the idea that John and Jesus have God given authority. Again, that refusal reveals their own lack of validation. Like the Pharisees and their tradition, they are not God’s planting (Matthew 15.1-9, 13-14), but are of human origin.

Jesus thus exposes and discredits the whole religious leadership, saying, ‘Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.’

He then introduces the parable of the Two Sons. The use of the word son invokes household relationships in which children honour their father by obeying him in all things. The first son declares that he will not obey, but in the passing of time, he changes his mind and does his father’s bidding. The second son declares that he will go to work, but in the passing of time, he changes his mind and does not go.

‘Which of the two did the will of his father?’ The religious leaders answer correctly. The first son does what his father wants; the second son does not. But the focus on father and the father’s will calls to mind God and God’s will (c.f. Exodus 20-23; Deuteronomy 5; Matthew 6.9-10; 7.21; 12.50) and, with that answer, they condemn themselves for not doing God’s will.

Not only have the elite rejected the justice and righteousness for which Jesus stands, but even when they have been offered time to change their mind, they do not – like the second son.

Now, all of this should not be generalized as condemnation of the various movements supposedly represented by members of the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin, elites of the prevailing religious culture, were a race apart. The main body of pharisees, scribes and priests devoted themselves faithfully to their craft, and as best they could, represented God’s will for justice, mercy and peace.

To conclude, we might ask ourselves if anything has changed? We also live in a world in which social and political power is exercised by wealthy, corrupt elites who do not have a clue about the lot of those who serve their purposes, who do not listen. And we are faced with the same conundrum faced by the early Christians – how do we effectively proclaim the values enunciated and lived out by Jesus?

The short answer to that is to enunciate and live out those values. Not so easy. But each individual effort to do so matters and is augmented when we do so from within the body of a like-minded community.

Doug Bannerman © 2023

[1] Warren Carter Matthew and the Margins: a Sociopolitical and Religious Reading (New Delhi: Rekha Printers 2007)