Today’s Gospel - 09-25-11 - By what Authority

῾Η ἐξουσία τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀμφισβητεῖται

23 Καὶ ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν προσῆλθον αὐτῷ διδάσκοντι οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ λέγοντες· ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιεῖς, καὶ τίς σοι ἔδωκε τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην; 24 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· ἐρωτήσω ὑμᾶς κἀγὼ λόγον ἕνα, ὃν ἐὰν εἴπητέ μοι, κἀγὼ ὑμῖν ἐρῶ ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιῶ. 25 τὸ βάπτισμα ᾿Ιωάννου πόθεν ἦν, ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἢ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων; οἱ δὲ διελογίζοντο παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῖς λέγοντες· ἐὰν εἴπωμεν, ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ἐρεῖ ἡμῖν, διατί οὖν οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ· 26 ἐὰν δὲ εἴπωμεν, ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, φοβούμεθα τὸν ὄχλον, πάντες γὰρ ἔχουσι τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην ὡς προφήτην. 27 καὶ ἀποκριθέντες τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ εἶπον· οὐκ οἴδαμεν. ἔφη αὐτοῖς καὶ αὐτός· οὐδὲ ἐγὼ λέγω ὑμῖν ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιῶ.

῾Η παραβολὴ τῶν δύο υἱῶν

28 Τί δὲ ὑμῖν δοκεῖ; ἄνθρωπός τις εἶχε τέκνα δύο, καὶ προσελθὼν τῷ πρώτῳ εἶπε· τέκνον, ὕπαγε σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνί μου. 29 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν· οὐ θέλω· ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθε. 30 καὶ προσελθὼν τῷ δευτέρῳ εἶπεν ὡσαύτως. ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν· ἐγώ, κύριε· καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθε. 31 τίς ἐκ τῶν δύο ἐποίησε τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός; λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· ὁ πρῶτος. λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς·* ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οἱ τελῶναι καὶ αἱ πόρναι προάγουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. 32 ἦλθε γὰρ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ᾿Ιωάννης ἐν ὁδῷ δικαιοσύνης, καὶ οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ· οἱ δὲ τελῶναι καὶ αἱ πόρναι ἐπίστευσαν αὐτῷ· ὑμεῖς δὲ ἰδόντες οὐ μετεμελήθητε ὕστερον τοῦ πιστεῦσαι αὐτῷ. - Matthew 21:23-32

I leave the titles from the Orthodox Bible (http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/bible.asp?contents=new_testament/contents_mathaiou.asp&main=mathaiou&file=1.1.21.htm)  in this week to show that two distinct things are going on in today’s lesson.  Perhaps there are two lessons. The titles are not part of the text.

Jesus has come into Jerusalem and is teaching in the temple, when not to anyone’s surprise the religious authorities ask this important question “by what Authority do you say these things?”  We should always ask that question “by what authority”, and if we do repeatedly ask that question, we soon will realize that “authority” is not what we are looking for.  Do we in fact have to have authority in order to understand the truths of the message, which is already present in each of us?  Jesus’ answer is to compare himself to John the Baptist, but really is he not saying that the authority comes from within.  Is it not true οὐδὲ ἐροῦσιν ἰδοὺ ὧδε ἢ ἰδοὺ ἐκεῖ· ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν (Luke 17:21), we do not have to look here or there for it, it is within.  Some Neo-Barthians accuse me of being Gnostic with this statement, yet I think that the overall picture Barth gives of the Word of God is that it is not the text, but the Word as heard that is of consequence.  So where is that Word but within.  Since the religious authorities couldn’t answer Jesus’ question about John the Baptist whether John’s authority was from heaven or men, Jesus refused to answer the authority question. 

Of course Jesus realized that the religious leaders were trying to trap him into saying his authority came from heaven and hence accuse him of blasphemy.  But we need not put a Barthian twist to the story to realize that Jesus’ authority came from himself.  He was his own authority.  And if you follow it to a logical conclusion, so is our authority, perhaps in the Word as we hear it, perhaps act on it, but maybe just maybe it is the Word infused in us when God breathed into Adam the breath of life.  Perhaps the divine is within us and we only need to be reminded of it, and Jesus’ is doing the reminding.

Imagine our two brothers, who are asked to work in the vineyard, one is reluctant but eventually comes around to go and work, while the other says he will go and work, but doesn’t.  Jesus asks which one is doing the will of God, and the natural response is that it is the one who goes and works.  But Jesus surprises them (and us too) that the despised tax collectors and the harlots will get into the Kingdom of God before they who answered will.  It seems that repentance is of importance here, but is it?  The first repented and went to work, the latter did not, but do we compare ourselves to the former or to the latter?  That is the question now isn’t it?  Perhaps we are all asked to repent and labor in the vineyard.

But when one thinks about it, the repentance is nothing more than a change of heart (mind), a conversion (μετάνοια), if you will, and is that not an inner response by the individual?  One really needs to ask:  What is Jesus doing here?  Is he proclaiming his message, or is he doing as Socrates, reducing the theses of his disputants to an embarrassing absurdity?  I tend to think the latter.

*The Nestle-Aland text differs substantially in this, but the point is the same.