Gospel Notes by Michael Whelan SM
“What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ He answered, ‘I will not’; but later he changed his mind and went. The father went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I will go, sir’; but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; and even after you saw it, you did not change your minds and believe him” (Matthew 21:28-32 – NRSV).
.
.
.
Introductory notes
General
This parable is unique to Matthew.
“With the debate about John’s authority (21:23–27) Matthew presents the first of five controversies between Jesus and his opponents in Jerusalem (see also 22:15–46). The series of debates is interrupted by three parables (21:28–22:14)” (Daniel J Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007, 300).
Following the observation by one scholar that “the Gospels are passion narratives with extended introductions” (M Kähler – cited by Walter Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ, Crossroad, 1986, 189), we note the mounting tension in Matthew’s Gospel at this point. Firstly, Jesus has given his third prophecy of the passion (20:17-19); the Messiah has made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (21:1-11); Jesus has expelled the dealers from the temple (21:12-16); the religious leaders challenge Jesus’ authority (21:23-27). Then we have the three parables dealing with the theme of Jesus’ rejection by the Jewish authorities, the very ones who should have led the way in receiving him and his message: today’s parable of the two sons who are asked to go and work in the vineyard (21:28-32), followed by the parable of the wicked husbandman (21:33-46) and the parable of the wedding feast (22:1-14).
Specific
he changed his mind: The Greek word is metamellomai. This word metamellomai shares an etymology with the verb metanoeō and the noun metanoia, both of which carry the idea of an inner transformation that leads to a different way of being in the world – different thinking, different attitudes, different expectations. Matthew has used the verb metanoeo to describe the message of both John the Baptist (3:2) and of Jesus himself (4:17).
The background to this reference to John is found in the popular enthusiasm with which he was received. “Josephus (see Ant. 18:118) describes it as follows: “When others too joined the crowds about him, because they were aroused to the highest degree by his sermons, Herod became alarmed. Eloquence that had so great an effect on mankind might lead to some form of sedition, for it looked as if they would be guided by John in everything that they did” (Harrington, op cit, 300).
This willingness/unwillingness to enter this process of metanoia is central to the Gospel of Matthew and this parable in particular. Jesus levels a strong accusation at the religious authorities: “you did not change your minds and believe him (John)”. As a result “the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you”. Everything is turned on its head! We can assume that the religious authorities would have felt very uncomfortable with this message.
I will go, sir: The response of the second son (verse 30) – who said “Yes” but then refused to go – is very formal and polite. There is a not so subtle irony in this polite formality. By way of contrast, the response of the first son – “Don’t want to,” – is utterly lacking in politeness and formality; in fact it would have been offensive for the son to speak to his father in that way. Jesus wants to leave the religious authorities in no doubt as to the point of this story. Again the riff raff are seen to be more real and faithful to the Covenant than the religious authorities.
We are reminded of the blunt words in Matthew 7:21-23: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers’”
Yet Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus is thoroughly Jewish, utterly at one with the tradition the religious leaders claim to identify with and teach. Matthew calls Jesus “Servant of God” (12:18-21 – from Isaiah 42:14), “Shepherd” (9:36; 10:6; 12:9-14; and so on) and “Son of Man” (see Daniel 7:11-14). “All the major Christological titles in Matthew’s gospel have deep roots in Jewish tradition and contribute to the picture of Jesus as thoroughly Jewish” (Harrington, op cit, 18).They said: The reference is to the chief priests and the elders who are in the audience. “The chief priests and elders constituted the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem, with the Temple as its symbolic center. They worked alongside the Roman officials and Herod Antipas to maintain the peace and security of the people. John’s movement posed for them not only a religious threat (because it was not Temple centered) but also a political threat (because it promised to get out of hand). Therefore they would have been slow to approve John’s baptism as coming “from heaven” (because it would harm their relations with the Romans and Herod Antipas). On the other hand, they could hardly dismiss it in public as a purely human invention (because it was apparently so popular with Jews)” (Harrington, op cit, 300).
Is our “No” really “No,” our “Yes” really “Yes”?
In today’s Gospel – Matthew 21: 28-32 – we have the parable of the Two Sons who are asked by their father to work in the vineyard. One of the sons says “No” but changes his mind and goes to the vineyard. The second of the sons says “Yes” but does not go to the vineyard. Jesus is telling this parable in response to a challenge from “the chief priests and the elders of the people” (21:23) concerning his authority. It takes place in the temple. The context is important.
Matthew repeatedly makes references to the ongoing story of the Covenant made with the people long ago. The story of Jesus is a continuation of that Covenantal story. For example, Matthew begins his Gospel with the genealogy of “Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1). We note also that the name Jesus (Hebrew Jehoshua) means ‘Yahweh saves.’ Matthew clearly sees Jesus as the fulfilment of the promise of old when he speaks of “the birth of the Messiah”: “Look, ‘the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,’ which means, ‘God is with us’” (1:23 – referring to Isaiah 7:14 and Exodus 3:12).
Clearly the presence of Jesus as Messiah represents a significant challenge to the structure of religious belief and practice represented by the chief priests and elder. The temple is the symbol of their belief and practice. Ironically, as Matthew is pointing out, that belief and practice leads to Jesus.
If Jesus is to explicitly announce that he is the Messiah, he will be arrested for blasphemy. Indeed, that moment will come soon enough, but not yet. Instead, he approaches the matter indirectly by asking the religious authorities where John the Baptist’s authority comes from. The religious authorities are trapped. If they say his authority comes from God, Jesus is going to ask why they did not believe him. If they say his authority is only human, the people will turn on them. So, they lie: “We do not know.”
In this context Jesus tells his enigmatic parable of the Two Sons. We might read the parable in this way. In real life, an initial “No” might easily be set aside to reveal “Yes.” It is amazing how people can change. Further, in real life, “Yes” might be a pretence, concealing “No” which emerges when the pressure is on.
Is our “No” really “No,” our “Yes” really “Yes”? If the truth be told, none of us can know with absolute certainty whether our “No” or our “Yes” is negotiable. Our moral integrity, our commitment to what is good, true, real, may only become known when life puts us to the test. Reality invites humility. Our fulfilment is not to be found in our mastery or achievement but in grace. Jesus’ gift to us is not a moral project but the gift of himself.