The authority of Jesus.

God bless my friends.

The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men?

In view of the situation, the Lord began to show his lack of spiritual coherence, for which he asked them a question about the baptism of John.

Some have thought that Jesus' intention was to seek a skilled way out of a difficult situation, but in reality he was not dodging the issue, but addressing it in its very origin.

Source

1.Did the Sanhedrin have the capacity to recognize divine authority?

First they had to show that they were able to fulfill their duty of knowing how to recognize when a person acted with divine authority. For this he asked them a question: "The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men?"

Notice first that just as the Lord presented the matter, there are only two possible sources of authority: God or men.
Now, would these spiritual leaders of the nation be able to determine such an elementary question? If they did not give a coherent answer, all their authority would be put into question, and therefore, they would not have the right to question Jesus and they would also be disqualified to guide the nation spiritually.

2.The testimony of John the Baptist.

If they accepted that John the Baptist was a prophet, this would necessarily imply that they would also have to give their approval to the mission of Jesus, since John gave testimony of him.

(Jn 1: 29-34) "The next day John saw Jesus coming to him, and said: Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world." This is he of whom I said: After me comes a man, who is before me, because he was first to me, and I did not know him, but to be manifested to Israel, this is why I came baptizing with water. "John also testified, saying: I saw the Spirit descending He did not know him as a dove, and he stayed on him, and I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me: On whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, he is the one who baptizes with the Spirit. Holy, and I saw him, and I have borne witness that this is the Son of God. "

As we have already pointed out earlier, John had not given any authority to Jesus; but he had claimed to be the forerunner prophesied by Isaiah (Is 40: 3-4). And with this authority that the Word of God granted him, he had called the nation to prepare to recognize and receive the Messiah, whom he clearly identified in the person of Jesus.

3. A problem for Jewish leaders.

The call that John the Baptist made to the nation to repent was obeyed by many in the town, who did not doubt that John was an authentic prophet of God. However, the priests, the scribes and the Pharisees had refused to be baptized by him (Luke 7:30) because they considered that they did not need his baptism of repentance.

But when Jesus asked them to define themselves publicly as to whether John's baptism was from God or from men, this created a very embarrassing situation for them. On the one hand, this would have involved a confrontation with the people, who did believe that John was a prophet of God, but on the other hand, how could they justify that they did not need repentance?

4.The Jewish leaders did not accept the authority of God.

Just as the Lord Jesus Christ raised the issue, it was clear that both John's authority and his authority came from God. If they had rejected John's preaching and baptism, they would also reject him as Messiah.
This is much more serious than what the naked eye may seem. What we are considering is that if a person does not believe the message of God's servants, they will not believe Jesus either, because deep down, what is being rejected is the authority of God. Although, of course, the responsibility of these Jews was much greater since they had before them all possible evidence.

(Jn 13:20) "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who receives the one I send receives me, and the one who receives me receives the one who sent me."

"We do not know ... Neither do I tell you with what authority I do these things"

To Jesus' compromised question, they answered with a "we do not know". In reality, his ignorance was a subterfuge for not accepting Jesus. They wanted to hide their disbelief on the pretext that they did not know, but this was totally irrational. In order to maintain this attitude, they had to close their eyes to all the evidence that had been presented before them, both about John the Baptist, as well as about the Lord Himself.

The truth is that this position is increasingly common in our modern world. For example, agnostics look at the universe and contemplate all the wonders of creation, but ultimately conclude with a "we do not know" if this will have been done by God. And then, who has done it? Well, we already know how in a desperate search to give some reasonable explanation, they want to convince us that all the immense universe owes its existence to chance.

But neither the modern agnostics, nor the Jewish religious leaders of the time of Jesus, can say that they do not know, when in front of them they have so much evidence. Finally, they can not escape from their responsibility before God. Let's see what Paul explained even from pagan societies.