BEMA Episode Link: 125: Are You Talking to Me?
Episode Length: 32:36
Published Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 01:00:00 -0700
Session 3
About this episode:

Marty Solomon and Brent Billings see Jesus go on the offensive, confronting the corrupt priesthood that rules in Jerusalem.

Discussion Video for BEMA 125

BEMA 80: Silent Years — Pharisees

BEMA 76: Silent Years — Sadducees

BEMA 51: 1 Isaiah — Vineyard

Transcript for BEMA 125

Notes

*Note: The following notes are handwritten by me, Adam, and I reserve the right to be wrong.

BEMA Episode 125: Are You Talking to Me? - Study Notes

Title & Source Summary

Episode: 125 - Are You Talking to Me?
Hosts: Marty Solomon and Brent Billings Focus: Matthew 21:28-22:14 (The Parable of Two Sons, The Parable of the Tenants, The Parable of the Wedding Banquet)

This episode examines Jesus’s final week in Jerusalem, focusing on his direct confrontation with the corrupt Sadducean priesthood. After three years ministering primarily among the Pharisees, Jesus enters Jerusalem and spends one intense week confronting the religious power structure that controls the temple. Through three pointed parables, Jesus exposes the corruption of the chief priests who have hoarded God’s blessings for themselves rather than shepherding God’s people. The episode explores how these parables reference Isaiah’s vineyard imagery and Zephaniah’s prophecies to forecast the doom awaiting Jerusalem and its corrupt leadership.

Key Takeaways

• Jesus spent three years working with the Pharisees but only one week confronting the Sadducees - and that week got him crucified
• The Pharisees did not kill Jesus; the corrupt Sadducean priesthood orchestrated his execution
• Jesus enters Jerusalem knowing he will confront religious corruption and that it will cost him his life
• The three parables (Two Sons, Tenants, Wedding Banquet) are directed specifically at the chief priests, exposing their corruption
• The priests initially misunderstand the parables, thinking Jesus is criticizing Rome rather than them
• God’s “party” (the Kingdom) is already happening, but religious people often miss it because they expect God to work on their terms
• The vineyard imagery from Isaiah 5 is transformed - now the vineyard IS producing fruit, but the priests are hoarding it
• Jesus references Isaiah 61 to show that foreigners should be tending God’s fields while Israel serves as priests to the nations
• The “strange clothes” in the wedding banquet parable connects to Zephaniah’s prophecy against corrupt priests
• Jesus clearly foresees the coming destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 CE

Main Concepts & Theories

Distinguishing Between Pharisees and Sadducees

A critical distinction emphasized throughout this episode is that Jesus’s ministry involved two very different approaches to two very different groups. For three years, Jesus worked within the Pharisaic world as a kind of internal reformer. He operated as a Pharisee himself, offering critique and attempting to deconstruct self-righteous religiosity while never giving up on this community. The Pharisees represent devoted religious people who Jesus patiently works with in the “redemption cycle” pattern seen in Judges.

In stark contrast, Jesus spends only one week confronting the Sadducees - the corrupt priestly aristocracy controlling the temple. This is not the patient, repeated engagement he showed the Pharisees. This is direct confrontation of a corrupt power structure. The Sadducees represent not Judaism itself, but a specific “religious mafia” - seven families who monopolized the high priesthood during the Second Temple period and used their position for personal enrichment and political power.

Understanding this distinction prevents the tragic misreading that “the Jews killed Jesus” and helps us see Jesus confronting religious corruption and abuse of power - themes relevant to any religious tradition, including Christianity.

The Parable of Two Sons (Matthew 21:28-32)

This brief parable asks which son truly honored his father: the one who said “no” but later obeyed, or the one who said “yes” but did nothing. The priests answer correctly - the first son - without realizing Jesus is describing them as the second son.

The historical reference likely points to Zadok and Abiathar, the two priestly lines in David and Solomon’s time. Zadok was chosen to establish the priesthood, and the Sadducees (Zadokim) claim descent from him. Jesus suggests that God would rather have the “wrong” son who actually does the work than the “right” son who merely claims the position. The reference to tax collectors and prostitutes entering the Kingdom ahead of the priests reinforces this theme - those who initially rejected God but then responded to John the Baptist’s message are more faithful than those who claim priestly authority but don’t serve God’s purposes.

The Parable of the Tenants (Matthew 21:33-46)

This parable directly quotes Isaiah 5’s vineyard imagery - the watchtower, the winepress, the wall. The priests would have immediately recognized this as representing God’s people Israel. However, they initially misunderstand who the “tenants” represent.

The priests assume the tenants are the Romans - foreign occupiers who have taken control of God’s vineyard while God is away. They likely hear this parable as condemning Roman oppression and promising that when the rightful heirs (themselves) arrive, the Romans will be expelled.

Jesus’s twist is devastating: the priests themselves are the corrupt tenants. The critical detail is that unlike Isaiah 5 where God came looking for fruit and found none (betushim), in this parable the vineyard IS producing fruit. The Jewish people are bearing fruit for God. But the tenants - the priests - are hoarding this fruit for themselves rather than giving God his due. When God sends representatives to collect, the tenants beat and kill them. When God sends his son (the ultimate heir), they kill him too, thinking they can seize the inheritance.

This parable exposes the fundamental corruption: the priests have turned what should be a shepherding role into exploitation. They’ve made the temple system about enriching themselves rather than serving God and his people.

Isaiah 61 and the Mission to the Nations

Jesus may also be referencing Isaiah 61, which describes foreigners and strangers working Israel’s fields and vineyards while Israel serves as “priests of the Lord” and “ministers of our God” to the nations. This is the second time in two chapters Jesus has referenced this passage.

The implication is profound: the priests have the mission completely backwards. Instead of recognizing that God’s ultimate plan involves foreigners/Gentiles being included in tending God’s vineyard while Israel serves a priestly role to the nations, the priests have made it about maintaining their exclusive power and privilege. They see foreigners (Romans) as the problem when actually foreigners are supposed to be part of God’s solution.

The Parable of the Wedding Banquet (Matthew 22:1-14)

This parable escalates the confrontation. God throws a wedding banquet for his son and invites his people first - they are the original guest list. But they refuse to come. Some ignore the invitation to tend to their own business; others actively mistreat and kill the servants bringing invitations.

The king (God) responds by destroying these murderers and burning their city - a clear prophecy of Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Then he sends his servants to invite anyone they can find from the streets - good and bad alike. The banquet hall fills with unlikely guests, the mamzers (outsiders, illegitimate ones), reflecting Matthew’s consistent agenda.

At the p’shat (plain) level, this is a powerful image of God’s Kingdom as a party that religious people often miss because they’re too busy with their own agendas or because God’s party doesn’t look like what they expected. The challenge for modern readers is to ask: Are we missing God’s party because we insist he throw the kind of party we would throw?

The Strange Clothes (Matthew 22:11-14)

The parable takes an odd turn when a guest appears without wedding clothes and is thrown out into darkness. This “weird” detail signals a remez (hint) pointing to deeper meaning in the Hebrew scriptures.

The reference is to Zephaniah 1, which prophesies against corrupt priests and leaders. Zephaniah specifically mentions “all those clad in foreign clothes” or “strange clothes” - those who want to be part of God’s work but insist on doing it their own way rather than God’s way. The prophecy goes on to describe judgment against those who “fill the temple of their gods with violence and deceit” - exactly what the Sadducees are guilty of.

The imagery of being thrown into darkness where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth” connects to Zephaniah’s description of the day of the Lord as “a day of wrath, a day of distress and anguish, a day of trouble and ruin, a day of darkness and gloom.”

The point at the drash (interpretive) level is that the Sadducees want to be part of God’s party and claim priestly authority, but they have no interest in doing things God’s way. They want the position and privileges of priesthood without the service and sacrifice it requires.

The Cultural Context of Wedding Garments

There is a tradition (though Marty notes he hasn’t been able to fully verify it) that when a king threw a banquet, he would provide appropriate clothing for guests. Attendees would arrive early and be bathed, groomed, and dressed by the king’s servants. This preparation was part of accepting the invitation - you showed honor to the king by allowing him to prepare you properly.

If this cultural practice is accurate, the man without wedding clothes represents someone who wants the benefits of the celebration without submitting to the king’s authority or accepting the king’s provision. He wants to participate on his own terms.

This connects to a recurring theme: religious people often want God’s blessings while maintaining their own autonomy and refusing to do things God’s way.

Examples & Applications

Modern Religious Corruption

Jesus’s confrontation with the Sadducees speaks directly to religious corruption in any era, including contemporary Christianity. Whenever religious leaders use their position for personal enrichment, power, or privilege rather than serving God’s people, they follow in the Sadducees’ pattern. This includes financial exploitation through religious manipulation, abuse of pastoral authority, or creating systems that benefit leaders at the expense of the community.

The parable challenges us to examine: Are we hoarding God’s blessings for ourselves or our in-group? Are we using religion to maintain power rather than serve God’s purposes?

Missing God’s Party

Brent’s example of the Easter dinner is perfect: he and his wife prepared a feast, their invited guests canceled, so they went to a university fraternity and invited random students. Only one person came, but they had a meaningful dinner together. This embodies the wedding banquet parable - the “proper” guests didn’t come, so the hosts went to the streets.

Marty’s example from a university campus is equally important: students asking “How do we make an impact on campus?” were challenged to recognize that “God’s already doing stuff on your campus.” The Kingdom isn’t something we create; it’s something we join. God is already throwing parties - in social justice movements, in acts of kindness, in communities of care - and religious people often miss them because they don’t look like “our kind of party.”

This challenges the assumption that we need to start Christian initiatives to do God’s work. Sometimes faithful participation means recognizing and joining what God is already doing through people who may not use our religious language.

Doing Things Our Way vs. God’s Way

The wedding garment detail speaks to a perennial religious temptation: wanting to be part of God’s work while maintaining our own authority and preferences. This shows up when we:

• Insist on certain worship styles or expressions
• Limit who can participate based on our cultural preferences rather than God’s invitation
• Want the benefits of being “God’s people” without the sacrifice and service it requires
• Judge others for not approaching faith the way we do

The question becomes: Are we willing to be “consecrated” - set apart and prepared according to God’s standards - or do we insist on showing up to God’s party in our own “strange clothes”?

The Elder Brother Syndrome

Both the parable of the tenants and the wedding banquet reflect the “elder brother” pattern from the prodigal son story. The religious insiders - those first invited, those who should be tending God’s vineyard - miss the party while the outsiders come in. This is a warning to anyone who considers themselves part of the “in-group” religiously: proximity to God’s work doesn’t guarantee participation in it.

Prophetic Confrontation

Jesus’s one week confronting the Sadducees models how to address corruption and abuse of power, even when it’s costly. After three years of patient work with the Pharisees, Jesus knows that confronting the powerful Sadducean establishment will get him killed. He does it anyway because corruption that harms God’s people must be named and opposed.

This challenges modern believers to consider: When do we speak prophetically against religious corruption, even when it’s costly? What injustices in our religious communities require confrontation rather than patient reform?

Potential Areas for Further Exploration

The Five Party Structure of Second Temple Judaism

Review BEMA episodes on Pharisees and Sadducees to understand the complex religious landscape of Jesus’s time, including Essenes, Zealots, and common people (am ha’aretz).

The Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE

How do these parables function as prophecy? What happened when Rome destroyed Jerusalem? How did this vindicate Jesus’s warnings?

Matthew’s Mamzer Agenda

Trace the theme of outsiders/illegitimate ones being welcomed throughout Matthew’s gospel. How does this shape Matthew’s presentation of Jesus?

Isaiah’s Vineyard Imagery

Study Isaiah 5 and Isaiah 61 in depth. How does Jesus’s use of vineyard imagery transform or fulfill Isaiah’s prophecies?

Zephaniah’s Prophecy Against Corrupt Priests

Explore Zephaniah 1-3 for fuller context on the “strange clothes” reference and the broader prophetic condemnation of religious corruption.

The Redemption Cycle in Judges

How does the pattern in Judges (God’s patient, repeated pursuit despite Israel’s repeated failure) inform Jesus’s three-year ministry among the Pharisees?

Priestly Corruption in Second Temple Period

Research the historical Sadducean priesthood: the seven families, their wealth accumulation, their political maneuvering with Rome, their control of temple commerce.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son

Study the elder brother motif and how it relates to these parables about religious insiders missing God’s party.

Jesus’s Use of Remez

Explore other examples of Jesus using “weird” details or unexpected turns in stories to point to Hebrew scripture references.

Kingdom as Party/Celebration

What does it mean theologically that Jesus repeatedly describes the Kingdom of God as a feast, banquet, or celebration? How does this challenge religious solemnity?

Comprehension Questions

1. Why is it crucial to distinguish between the Pharisees and the Sadducees when understanding who killed Jesus? What are the key differences between these groups and Jesus’s approach to each?

2. In the Parable of the Tenants, the priests initially misunderstand who the “tenants” represent. Who did they think Jesus was talking about, and what is the significance of Jesus’s actual meaning? How does the detail about the vineyard producing fruit (unlike in Isaiah 5) change the parable’s message?

3. What is the significance of Jesus referencing Isaiah 61 regarding “foreigners will work your fields and vineyards”? How does this relate to the priests’ fundamental misunderstanding of their role and God’s mission?

4. The Parable of the Wedding Banquet contains the strange detail of a guest without proper wedding clothes being thrown out. What is the remez (hint) Jesus is planting, and how does it connect to Zephaniah’s prophecy? What does this detail teach about participating in God’s Kingdom?

5. Marty challenges listeners with several questions about God’s “party”: “Am I insistent that God throw the kind of party I would throw? Am I blinded by the fact that God’s definition of a party isn’t my definition? Am I too distracted by my own agenda to even see the party God’s throwing?” Choose one of these questions and reflect on how it applies to your own life or faith community.

Personal Summary

This episode marks a crucial shift in Jesus’s ministry as he enters the final week of his life. After patiently working for three years within the Pharisaic world, Jesus confronts the corrupt Sadducean priesthood head-on, knowing it will cost him his life. Through three masterfully crafted parables, he exposes how the chief priests have perverted their calling - hoarding God’s blessings for themselves, exploiting the people they should shepherd, and fundamentally misunderstanding Israel’s mission to be priests to the nations.

The Parable of Two Sons challenges whether we claim God’s work but don’t do it. The Parable of the Tenants reveals how religious leaders can corrupt their stewarding role into exploitation. The Wedding Banquet shows God’s relentless pursuit and his willingness to fill his Kingdom with unlikely guests when the “proper” invitees refuse to come.

Perhaps most challenging is the episode’s persistent question: Are we missing God’s party? Religious people across history - and today - often insist God work on our terms, throw the kind of parties we approve of, and operate within our comfortable boundaries. Meanwhile, God is already at work in unexpected places, through unexpected people, in ways that don’t fit our religious categories.

The corruption Jesus confronts isn’t just historical - it’s a warning to any religious community. Whenever we use faith for power, privilege, or personal gain rather than service, we follow the Sadducees. Whenever we miss what God is doing because it doesn’t match our expectations, we’re the guests who refused the invitation. Whenever we want to participate in God’s work but only on our terms, we’re showing up in “strange clothes.”

The call is to humility, to watching for where God is already throwing parties, and to willingness to participate on God’s terms rather than our own.

Edit | Previous | Next