Answering a question with a question is quite a common practice in a Jewish setting. But Jesus, of course, would not play with words. Evidently, behind the counter-question He asks lies something important, something on which His interlocutors' very ability to understand Him depends. And it apparently concerns John the Baptist. Jesus' interlocutors begin thinking hard: what can they say so as not to lose out? They clearly did not want to acknowledge John as a prophet; they probably still doubted his prophetic calling. On the other hand, the people saw John precisely as a prophet, while the Pharisees always played the role of spiritual leaders and teachers, so it was obviously not in their interest to come into conflict with public opinion. Hence the answer in the finest tradition of political manoeuvring: no comment, “we do not know,” although, of course, given the stature of John's personality, it was entirely impossible in Judea not to “know” or have an opinion about his activity.

And Jesus, of course, understands all this perfectly. In turn, He refuses to answer the question asked by the Pharisees. This is not because He wants to conceal anything, but because it is obvious to Him that answering is pointless: these people will not hear Him anyway; they want a predetermined answer that would confirm their own ideas. If the answer is different, it, just like the question that has just been asked, will remain without comment and without consequence.

In essence, it is not so important exactly what answer Jesus would have heard to His question. The main thing is that an answer should be given, an honest, sincere, and unambiguous one, whatever it might be. Any such step could have become the beginning of further discussion, perhaps a very tense one. But evading it immediately and completely cuts off every possibility of further communication.

The point is not even that Jesus' interlocutors are dissembling before Him; after all, it is not particularly difficult for Him to understand what they really think and mean. The point is that they are dissembling first of all before themselves: about the fact that what they need is not an answer but confirmation, and that what interests them is not the truth but their own preservation as spiritual leaders. This is a genuine spiritual dead end, and all discussion is useless here.

God's will becomes finally clear to the sorcerer Balaam: he leaves his divinations and goes into the wilderness to bless Israel. In his prophecy there is both the unearthly beauty of Israel, its many victories over its enemies, and the star rising over Jacob.

Two thousand years later other magi will see this star no longer by divination but openly, and they will cross the desert and rejoice when they see the true Beauty of Israel, and on behalf of all nations they will bring Him gifts. And after another two millennia, you and I will read this prophecy and worship this Beauty. History repeats itself, but its Center is always the same.

Today's reading consists of two parts that at first glance are not directly connected with each other. The first part is the account of the withered fig tree (vv. 18-22); the second gives the conversation of Jesus with the chief priests and elders in the Temple (vv. 23-32). And yet there is a connection between these two events, although it is not immediately obvious.

It is no accident that the account of the withered fig tree ends with a conversation about faith that, according to Jesus, can move mountains (vv. 21-22). Clearly, faith here is not only trust in God and in the One whom God sends into the world, but also a definite spiritual state. And the second part of the passage is devoted precisely to what prevents a person from acquiring and keeping that state.

The conversation with the chief priests and elders begins with the question, already discussed more than once, of who gave Jesus the authority to do what He does (v. 23). Jesus, as had happened before, answers a question with a question: was the washing ("baptism") with which John washed people true or false (v. 25)? Then Jesus' interlocutors begin thinking about how to answer Him (vv. 25-27). But they are clearly concerned not with the truth of John's ministry, but only with the possibility of getting out of a delicate situation without losing face. And in the end, as often happens in such cases, they avoid answering (v. 27).

Then Jesus also refuses to answer their question. There is no game here: in fact, with such an attitude toward the matter, trying to explain anything to these people is truly pointless. They are not interested in truth; their own opinion is more important to them - whatever they may say about spiritual life, purity of faith, and other things of that sort.

The parable Jesus tells about the two sons (vv. 28-32) characterizes the situation as well as possible: one can talk about faith and spiritual life as much as one likes, but if there is no sincere obedience to God's will, all of it is only words. And what prevents obedience is a lack of resolve and inner wholeness.

After all, Jesus' interlocutors cannot be called complete unbelievers. But this is not unconditional faith; it is faith with reservations and allowances. Such faith is worth little. It certainly cannot move mountains. The only thing such faith is good for is serving as self-consolation for those who would like to consider themselves believers without sacrificing anything. But such faith has nothing to do with the Kingdom.