Matthew 21:28-32
At the beginning of the crucifixion week, Jesus had entered Jerusalem in the manner of a king (an event often described as the “triumphal entry”). By doing this, He openly acknowledged the legitimacy of His claim to the throne of Judah. He then cleansed the temple (for a second time, cf. John 2:15) by driving out merchants and moneychangers who were doing business in the courtyard. Jesus presented this parable in the temple the next day, to illustrate the hypocrisy and disobedience to God of the chief priests and elders. (They had openly challenged His authority to teach the people, vs. 23; He responded by asking them to state their “view” about John’s baptism.)
These spiritual “leaders” had refused to submit to John’s baptism, but were also too cowardly to challenge his authority as a prophet. By challenging them to explain the source of John’s authority, Jesus shows their hypocrisy for questioning Him (because they had not censured John). Since John had already denied that he was the Messiah (John 1:21), the Master’s words here could not be mistaken as anything less than a declaration that He was “the prophet” promised in Deuteronomy 18:15-19. Rather risk admitting that Jesus was the Messiah, these dishonest men simply refused to offer an honest answer to His question about authority. Only a few days later, they would bring Him to trial and secure His crucifixion.
This parable focuses on the contradictory responses and actions of two sons in response to their father’s request that they work in His vineyard. The first son initially rebuffs his father’s instruction, but later changes his mind and goes to work in the vineyard; the second son promises immediate action but fails to follow through on his words. Jesus then asks the chief priests and elders to identify which son actually obeyed the father, and they correctly select the boy who actually did the desired work. Whether or not they realized the implication of their answer as they were giving it is not clear; but by citing the humility and obedience of tax collectors and harlots to John’s message, Jesus turned a brilliant spotlight on their hypocrisy.
In context, the first son represented the tax collectors, harlots, and all the “socially unacceptable sinners” who were despised by the elders and chief priests. These people had denied the Father’s will through much of their lives, but could no longer resist His power when John (and then Jesus) appeared (cf. Mark 1:5). The second son represents the Pharisees, chief priests, and leaders of the people – the very ones who made a great “show” of serving God while actually serving themselves. They had scoffed at the preaching of John and Jesus. The Lord’s question to them (“which son did the father’s will”) emphasized the fact that they had not followed God’s commands. There are several very practical lessons we should see and apply from this parable:
The Father’s Call — The father in this parable speaks the same way to both sons, asking the same thing of each; both are told clearly, “Son, go and work for me.” The Heavenly Father likewise “calls” people today (through the gospel, 2 Thessalonians 2:14), seeking workers for His vineyard. We are brought to the “fountain” of His grace when we learn and submit to His gospel.
The Nature of the Call — Jesus shows the father calling his sons to work for him. God has work for us, too. The chief priests and rulers hadn’t wanted to “work” in God’s way because they preferred their own “wisdom” over God’s (in Romans 10:3, they tried to establish their own standard of righteousness in place of His). Many religious people today suffer with this same sense of “self-importance,” thus having little desire to work in the Father’s vineyard. We should always beware, lest we forget the demands of faithfulness! One who simply shelters from a rainstorm by standing in the doorway of a house does not receive the same “credit” as the one who built the house for shelter; the church, like the vineyard, is a place of work, and all who are in it should participate in that effort.
The Urgency of the Call — The father’s instruction to his sons also includes an element of time; “Go work today.” He needed the work to be done in that moment of opportunity; delaying might mean losing the harvest! Christ’s call is for us to work “while it is called today” (John 9:4), because yesterday is forever gone and we have no promise tomorrow will come (note Proverbs 27:1). The only moment we have to act in obedience to our Father’s instructions is the present one; if we delay, chances are we won’t get the work done.
The Workers — HERE lies the greatest contrast of the parable, and it has two distinct levels. Many Christians ought to identify with the second son:
- He was very polite, immediately agreeing to do what as asked:
- Perhaps he DID fully intend to go and work; but he did NOT actually go; he found doing the work harder than agreeing to it.
- Many Christians respond to God’s word in the same way, professing much but practicing little – and “profession without practice” is one of the greatest enemies of the cross ever seen.
On the other hand, many people in the world (and some Christians) are like the first son:
He bluntly refused the father’s command, and his “descendants” still refuse Jesus’ words while openly admitting their sins (and sometimes even reveling in their sinful condition). No comfort awaits this son in the last day if he remains in this condition, for “one is no less a sinner just because he admits he is no saint.”
This son, however, changed his mind about his course in life, and thus changed his actions for the better. Having begun the day wrongly, he saw no reason to continue in error, and therefore repented. (Note that he did not merely “feel a twinge of regret” as he continued in sin, but turned to a different course and went to work in the vineyard.)
Which son did the father’s will? Jesus asked which son was obedient; He did not concern Himself with promises or good intentions, and offered no “partial credit” for either. The focus of His question to the rulers was on “who DID the father’s will” – who obeyed the father’s commandment!
“Fine words can never replace fine deeds.”
0 Comments