(Matthew 21:23-32)

23Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. "By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you this authority?" 24Jesus replied, "I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 25John's baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?" They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' 26But if we say, 'From men'—we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet." 27So they answered Jesus, "We don't know." Then he said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 28"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.' " 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. 30"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go. 31"Which of the two did what his father wanted?" "The first," they answered. Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

This incident happened immediately after Jesus had entered Jerusalem and thrown out those who were buying and selling in the Temple courtyard (Matthew 21:12-13). Jesus was asked to explain his actions. On whose authority had he acted, overturning the tables and clearing the Temple of the moneychangers and stallholders who did their business there? It was (after all) them who enabled the poor people to offer sacrifices in the Temple.

What right did Jesus have to create a civil disturbance during the Passover festival when the Roman authorities were at their most nervous as they watched pilgrims streaming into Jerusalem to celebrate God’s liberation of Israel from foreign oppressors? What right did Jesus have to interfere into the way that things were running? Could someone like Jesus declare God’s forgiveness and pronounce absolution?

The reality is that power protects itself. The chief priests and the elders of the people leaders in the Temple hierarchy were defensive wanting to protect their own system. It would be one thing if Jesus allowed himself to be caricatured as maverick and so to be marginalised. However this was not what Jesus was doing. He was claiming mainstream authority for his actions…this is the way of the God of Israel…The Jewish leaders would either have to agree and believe or else accuse him of blasphemy. There was no room for accommodation and the conclusion was Jesus’ crucifixion outside the city gate

Jesus’ reply was not immediately confrontational. He accepted, subverted and only then confronted the challenge made of him. Jesus ‘accepted’ that both he and the Jewish leaders claimed to act in the name of God.

He ‘subverted’ their stance by developing the logic of their position asking them how they understood the authority of John the Baptist? He was challenging their frame of reference – how they looked at the world. His question placed them in a quandary. They could not say that John’s authority came from God without undermining the Temple system they served, and they could not say that John’s ministry was not of God without losing the support of the crowd and so they kept quiet.

The authorities might have wanted to agree with the crowd that John's baptism was "from heaven" and thus keep face among the people. They could not do so for to concede to John divine authority was to concede the same to Jesus, thereby (a) answering their own initial questions concerning the nature of Jesus' authority and (b) publicly placing Jesus in a position of honour. The Jewish leaders were trapped and they parried Jesus' riposte with the statement, "We do not know" (11:33). These words would prove prophetic as they failed to grasp his message.

Jesus finally ‘confronted’ them saying that the tax collectors and the prostitutes would enter into the Kingdom of heaven before them. There is no room for pretence or pretentiousness in what he says. The righteous and the respectable find it the hardest to accept what he is saying. The tax collectors and the prostitutes get the point of what Jesus is saying because they allowed themselves to be vulnerable and affected by what they heard

He told them a parable of two sons. One son refused and the other son agreed to do what the father asked of them. The son who had initially said ‘no’ relented and the son who had said ‘yes’ changed his mind. It was a village culture, in which there is not really any such thing as privacy and the first son’s refusal would shame the father publicly making him the object of derision and gossip in the village.

The parable appears to refer to the Jewish leaders but the danger is no different for anyone who claims a religious faith. It is easy to say’ Lord, lord, but so easy not to do what is asked of us. The judgement in this story is directed at anyone who would call themselves a Christian. People in the church can find it hard to change because church represents stability and continuity in their lives. The more vulnerable the rest of their lives the more secure they want the church to be.