The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 2 — Section 328

Vers. 23-46.-The controversy in the temple. I. TBE Loan's AUTllORITY CALLED IN QUESTION. 1. The intervention ef the chief prie.sts. St. Luke tells us that they had resolved to destroy our Lord. He h9.d now allowed himself to be saluted openly as the Christ, the Son of David. He had accepted the hosannas of the multitude in the ci_ty, in the temple itself. He had assumed a paramount authority in the temple. The chief priests regarded themselves as rulers there; the market in the court of the Gentiles was held by their licence; it was a source of profit to them. They now determined to interpose publicly. They sent an official deputation, composed of members of the three, classes of the Sanhedrin-chief priests, scribes, and elders-to demand the Lord's authority for his conduct. What right had he thus to intrude, as they deemed, into their province, to interfere with the ad.ministration of the temple? What right had he to teach publicly in the temple courts without licence from the rabbis? What right had he to the titles of "King of Israel," " Son of David," which he had accepted from the people as his due? 2. The Lord's reply. His enemies had hoped to ensnare him. They expected, doubtless, that he would openly assert his Divine mission, and they might then make his claims the basis of a formal accusation. But in that wonderful calmness and self-possession which we note so often in the history of our Lord, he answered at once with another question, "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven., or of men?" They could not deny his right to ask this; it was closely connected with their question. John had repeatedly asserted in the strongest terms the authority, the Divine mission of him whose way he had come t.o prepare. They dared not deny openly the prophetic character of the Baptist; they feared the people, for the belief in John's sanctity was universal and enthusiastic. "All the people will stone us," they said. They ware completely foiled. They could only say, in confusion and disappointed malice," We cannot tell." It was a bitter humiliation. They were masters of Israel, and yet could not guide the people in a matter which had so profoundly stirred the religio11S thought of the time. They could only answer, "We cannot tell" to a question of such great spiritual importance. They were as ignorant as "the people of the earth," whom they so much despised. Alas for a country whose spiritual rulers are like those priests and scribes I Let us pray that our teachers may be taught of God. II. TBE PARABLE oF THE TWO SONS. 1. The story. It is very simple. One of the sons, when bidden to work in the vineyard., ru<lely refused to obey his father; the other respectfully promised obedience. The first afterwards repented anJ went. The second broke his promise and went not to the vineyard. 2. The spir-ltual meaning. There are open and notorious evil livers, who make no profession of religion, and exhibit in their lives an open and wilful disobedience. Some of these are brought to repentance by the grace of God. They learn to see the guilt, the awful danger,of disobedience; a great change is wrought in their souls; they do their best to redeem the time; they go at la.J;t and work for God; and God, in his sovereign grace and generous bounty, accepts their service, though, it may be, they have wrought but one hour in their Father's vine- yard. Ti,ere are others, brought up, perhaps, in Christian families, among good examples and surroundings, who maintain a respectful attitude towards religion, and rcgule.rly observe all the outward ordinances of the Church. But, alas I there are oH. :u:r. 1-46.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. 333