When he had come into the temple area, the chief priests and the elders of the people approached him as he was teaching and said, “By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave you this authority?” 24 Jesus said to them in reply, “I shall ask you one question, and if you answer it for me, then I shall tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 Where was John’s baptism from? Was it of heavenly or of human origin?” They discussed this among themselves and said, “If we say ‘Of heavenly origin,’ he will say to us, ‘Then why did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ we fear the crowd, for they all regard John as a prophet.” 27 So they said to Jesus in reply, “We do not know.” He himself said to them, “Neither shall I tell you by what authority I do these things.
This exchange takes place as Jesus returns to the temple and teaches publicly. The chief priests and the elders confront him with a direct demand: “By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave you this authority?” (v. 23). In Matthew’s setting, they are challenging the right Jesus claims, by his actions and teaching, to act in the temple courts. The issue is authority in the full sense—what warrants his right to speak and act as he does (NJBC, 664, §127). Mark and Luke preserve the same confrontation in the temple, showing that this challenge is a recognized turning point in the Jerusalem conflict (Mk. 11:27-33; Lk. 20:1-8).
The setting also explains why the question is pressing for them. Jesus does not belong to the established priestly line that would make his authority easy for them to recognize “from the outside.” In their eyes, religious authority is usually validated either by a direct appeal to God confirmed by mighty deeds, or by an appeal to the received tradition of the ancestors (NJBC, 664, §127). Earlier in Matthew, Jesus’ teaching has already been presented as unusually direct and weighty: “he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes” (Mt. 7:29). That earlier note prepares the reader to understand why the leaders now demand a named source for that authority in the temple.
Jesus responds in a way that reveals the deeper problem. He does not give them the kind of credentials they demand. He sets a condition and asks his own question: “Where was John’s baptism from? Was it of heavenly or of human origin?” (v. 25). This is not a change of subject. John’s baptism stands as a recent and public example of the prophetic tradition at work among God’s people (NJBC, 664, §127). If the leaders answer honestly about John, they will also expose what they did with God’s witness.
Matthew then shows their reasoning, and it is driven by fear rather than truth. If they say John’s baptism is “of heavenly origin,” they know Jesus will force the consequence: “Then why did you not believe him?” (v. 25). If they say it is “of human origin,” they fear the crowd because the people regard John as a prophet (v. 26). Their deliberation is not about discerning what is true. It is about protecting themselves from being judged by Jesus on the one hand, or losing standing with the people on the other (NJBC, 664, §127).
This is where the prophetic dimension matters. Prophecy is real in Israel and continues in the Church, but it does not fit neatly into official categories of authorization (NJBC, 664, §127). Scripture itself recognizes the difficulty of testing religious claims, especially when leaders are unwilling to acknowledge what God is doing (NJBC, 664, §127). In Matthew’s scene, the leaders are not weighing John’s mission with a sincere desire to obey God. They are calculating the cost of any answer (NJBC, 664, §127).
So they say, “We do not know” (v. 27). In context, this functions less like ignorance and more like refusal. By refusing to make a judgment about John’s authority, they expose their incapacity—or unwillingness—to make a responsible determination in religious matters, even while presenting themselves as guardians of rightful authority (NJBC, 664, §127). Their answer is a kind of self-indictment, because it shows that their challenge to Jesus is not guided by reverence for God’s action but by a need to control the conversation.
Jesus replies with measured justice: “Neither shall I tell you by what authority I do these things” (v. 27). By throwing the question back to them through the origin of John’s baptism, Jesus skillfully avoids handing them a direct claim that would trigger the charge of blasphemy that will later be raised against him (Navarre, Mt. 21:23-27). Yet the wider Gospel witness also clarifies what Matthew will later state openly: Jesus’ authority is not self-appointed but given by the Father (Jn. 5:27; cf. Mt. 28:18). In the temple scene, however, Jesus refuses to hand opponents a weapon while also exposing the truth about their question. They want Jesus to name the source of his authority, yet they refuse to speak plainly about John, whose baptism publicly raised the same question—heavenly or human—and their refusal to answer exposes their unwillingness to judge honestly (vv. 25-27) (NJBC, 664, §127).
This brief dispute also sets the direction of what follows. Matthew places it at the head of a sequence that intensifies the conflict between Jesus and the Jerusalem leadership and moves the narrative toward his death (NJBC, 664, §127). Their refusal to answer does not end the conflict. It shows their failure as leaders: they will not tell the truth about John’s mission from God, even though they are responsible for guiding the people in matters of faith. They claim to be protecting right worship and right teaching in the temple, but in this moment, they choose fear and self-protection instead of honest judgment (vv. 25-27) (NJBC, 664, §127).
Lord Jesus, give me a heart that loves truth more than safety, and help me to receive God’s witness with humility.
___________________
Sources and References
- The Holy Bible, New American Bible, Revised Edition (2011).
- Faculty of the University of Navarre, The Navarre Bible: New Testament Expanded Edition (Four Courts / Scepter, 2008), commentary on Mt. 21:23-27.
- Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, eds., The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Prentice Hall, 1990), 664, §127.
Comments