Early in the Vietnam war, a section of jungle called War Zone D was one tough stretch of enemy-infested ground. It was a “secret” zone about which allied intelligence knew almost nothing, except to stay away. Conventional allied infantry units never went near it. Finally, allied intelligence decided to invade the enemy’s sanctuary.
But no ordinary unit would do. This operation required another level of intensity and experience. This was a mission which would demand the best. Chosen were thirteen handpicked American Green Berets and a company-sized element of their highly trained and trusted Cambodian guerillas.
Through several weeks and dozens of firefights without artillery support or any chance of reinforcements, these noble warriors fought fifty-one combat engagements, directed tactical air strikes on twenty-seven critical targets, and raided numerous base camps of much larger enemy units. They focused on their mission and stayed at it until it was accomplished.
Life if like that. When it is crunch time, it is time to step up the intensity. The mission requires it. Whether it is seasoned championship team in the finals, a gifted musician on a farewell tour, or the Army Rangers at Point du Hoc on June 6, 1944. When the mission faces its most critical moments, the seasoned veterans know what to do. Jesus and his disciples had come to crunch time.
Jesus now is turning the tables and going on the offensive, indicting the Jew¬ish leaders on three counts with three parables.
First, while they claimed to be doing God’s will and discharging their responsibilities, they were actually in blatant disobedience (21:28-32 this week). A person’s actions speak more convincingly than his or her words.
Second, the Jewish leaders had gone beyond neglect of their spiritual responsibility to the point of abuse and persecution of those sent by God, including God’s own Son (21:33-46 Next week, November 18th).
Third, in refusing their God-given responsibility, the Jewish leaders were also refusing to accept God’s gracious blessing—the privilege and honor of serving as his instruments and the eternal reward to follow This was the final insult to God. They were throwing his gift back into his face (22:1-14 November 25).
Each of the three parables also served to answer the question of Jesus’ authority (21:23). Those with ears to hear could have heard Jesus’ answer in the parables. In the first parable (21:28-32), Jesus was the unmentioned (third) Son who promised to obey and then followed through faithfully. In the next parable (21:33-46), Jesus was the Son sent by the landowner and killed by the stewards (21:37-39), as well as the capstone of God’s people and his plan of redemption (21:42-44). In the third parable (22:1-14), Jesus was the Bridegroom, in whose honor the entire celebration was being held.
Jesus can be seen as a Son in all three parables: a Son who is obedient, a Son who is rejected, and a Son who is honored. Let dive in this parable in Matthew 21:28-32
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.’
29 “‘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, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32 For 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.
Jesus’ main point was to show that those in the current Jewish leadership had disqualified themselves from being Israel’s leaders. What do you think? was a common introduction by a teacher when he wanted the students to engage their minds in solving a problem.
Jesus would provide the interpretation of this parable in 21:31-32. Note that the father (representing God) gave both sons the same instructions. There was no prejudice or favoritism on the part of the father. Both sons started on a “level playing field,” having the same opportunity to obey or disobey. The two sons both ended up doing the opposite of what they said they would do. The emphasis is not on the initial statement of intention, but on the actual actions.
Jesus’ question emphasized that God’s bottom-line concern was not a person’s verbal claims but what he actually did: Which of the two did what his father wanted?
Actions are more significant than words. This was so obvious that even Jesus’ opponents answered correctly. It was the first son, the one who initially said no but who ultimately obeyed, who did the will of the father.
Jesus introduced the interpretation and application of his parable with I tell you the truth. Tax collectors were considered traitors by the Jews because they sold out to the Roman oppressors, collecting taxes from their fellow countrymen and usually demanding extra money to line their own pockets. This often left families destitute. Prostitutes were similarly despised. For Jesus to say that the tax collectors and the prostitutes would have greater claim on the kingdom of God than the religious elite must have been a shock. Sinners were being welcomed into the kingdom, while the hypocrites only pretended to know God.
Jesus referred to the ministry of John the Baptizer. In a sense, John served as the barometer by which Jesus judged the spiritual climate. Jesus used people’s responses to John as a test of their spiritual receptiveness. These references by Jesus gave great significance to John’s ministry.
In 21:32, Jesus made three statements. The first statement indicted the religious believers for their disbelief in God’s prophet John. The second statement, by contrast, vindicated the tax collectors and prostitutes by their belief. The third statement returned to the religious leaders, indicting them again for not taking the second chance God had given them. The leaders should have been humbled by the example of faith in the tax collectors and prostitutes. They should have been shamed by the faithful response of the tax collectors and prostitutes. They should have repented or changed their minds regarding John (and Jesus). But pride won out over humility.
Jesus’ wording made it clear that the religious leaders were left with no excuses. God had made the opportunity for faith available to them. John came to you; that is, God took the initiative in sending his prophet. And John came in the way of righteousness; he lived and taught righteousness. There were no grounds for rejecting him. He should have received a hearing from all who claimed Yahweh as their God. His message was the way to righteousness before a righteous God.
Jesus had struck the first of three blows against the credibility of the leaders of Israel—against their qualification to serve as the shepherds of God’s people. In spite of the religious show they put on and their claims to be obedient to God, they had rejected the mission God had given them. They were guilty of neglect and abuse of God’s flock.