Parable of the Two Sons - Matt 21:28-32

Jesus is refusing to tell them who gave Him the authority to teach and cast out the sellers in the temple courtyard, just like the chief priests are refusing to answer Jesus’ question about John. Jesus continues by telling a parable about “a certain man had two sons” and he goes to each so and says, “Son, go work to day in my vineyard.” The first son just flatly refuses and I assume does whatever he wants, “but afterward he repented, and went.” The second son agreed to go work in the vineyard, “and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father?” Of the two boys, which one did what his father had asked him? The one who refused but then went later after changing his attitude, or the one who said he’d go but then never did.

It’s interesting to me that the Lord uses the analogy of the vineyard, especially considering that he just cursed that tree the day before and all the disciples had seen the effect that Jesus’ command had on the life of the tree. The vineyard is also likened many times to the gospel and those who have it compared to those who don’t. Another way we might understand this parable is in the context of the field is white already to harvest. If we imagine a wheat field instead of tree orchard, we can envision the man commanding each son to work in the field, and one won’t but then changes his mind and goes, and the other one promises to harvest the wheat, but then doesn’t go. the phrase “went not” is cross referenced with D&C 41:5 which says, “He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciples; and he that saith he receive it and doeth if not, then same is not my disciples, and shall be cast out from among you.”

The chief priests have to give an answer, and there is only one answer that doesn’t make them look like whiny babies, so “they say unto him, the first.” It’s interesting that the answer to this parable is so clear, but the simplicity of the gospel escapes them. Jesus agrees and says, “Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.” Jesus is answering his own question, who did John get the authority to baptize from? He states simply that John came in “righteousness,” and they rejected him because it didn’t suit their purposes. We know that priesthood power is contingent on righteousness. Like Jesus, John wasn’t given authority by the traditional Jewish means; therefore his authority couldn’t have come from man. If John was righteous, then he wouldn’t pretend to have the authority from God because righteous people don’t perpetrate that fraud. But those that were despised of society flocked to John to be baptize and to change their lives, and because they “repented,” they will be “go into the kingdom of God” before the so called believers, who say they’ll live the commandments, but then don’t.”

The chief priests have heard this message before, that they will be receiving their reward after those of lower social class, but what must have really gotten to them in that they were not guaranteed a place in the kingdom of God simply because they were born into their positions. When they demanded that Jesus clarify His authority, they were basing their own on their lineage, they were priests because they were born not only into the nation of Israel, but they were born into the most elite of the Levitical families. In an article written about this parable form bible.org, we read, “What does it mean to be a son in this parable? Does being a son= being saved? No. Many think when they read the parable and see that someone is a son or a servant that that means he is a Christ. But in this one and the prodigal son, being a son does not equal salvation.” We know now that every person is judged based on their own merits, but at the time of Christ, that wasn’t the general consensus within the Jewish community. There was a belief that they had been chosen as a people to be favored by God. Now this favoritism wasn’t all rainbows and sunshine, they believed that they were called to suffer as well, but the reward would be guaranteed entrance into the kingdom of God. So the concept of not automatically being saved because of nationality was no accepted by most Jews at the time.

The first son represents, as JTC explains those, “who in rude though frank refusal ignored the father’s call.” Their rejection of the offer to work in the vineyard was evident by their lifestyles, prostitutes, publicans (corrupt ones I assume) and others who did not keep the commandments. But once they realized the error of their ways, many “repented” and went to John for baptism, and by so doing became heirs of the kingdom long before the chief priests would, and that must have been infuriating.

The second son represents those in the Jewish leadership who would not accept John or Jesus because it would interfere with their political and financial agendas. The fact, as we discovered yesterday, that most of the Jewish leadership didn’t care whether John came from God or not, is the ultimate irony. The second son has agreed to perform the requested duties, but then doesn’t fulfill his obligation. I wonder if the chief priests saw in themselves the second son? I wonder if they recognized that Jesus was telling them that they had agreed to be leaders in God’s kingdom, but are not fulfilling their duties.