A Parable regarding Attitude & Action

'But what do you think?'

—Matthew 21:28a

Short and to the Point

This short parable of 'two sons' (Matthew 21:28) is introduced with a question: 'But what do you think?' It is an engaing question, stimulating, or perhaps provoking, thinking. Being a thoughtful person is important in life if we want to understand life and how to best live it. Many people just follow the masses and do what everyone else does. Jesus encouraged thinking. He challenged norms and pointed people back to God and His word as He intended it. He stripped away layers of religious interpretation and tradition that had distorted God's word. His parables were short and to the point, and they strike, still today, at the heart of those who listen.

As we read this parable and reflect on its meaning, do it with Jesus' question in mind: what do you think? It is an invitation to think in order to understand what Jesus is communicating. It is not a free pass to interpret the parables in any way we wish or force our own interpretation on the biblical text (see Introduction to the Parables). The meaning is pretty straight-forward and makes perfect sense in context with the application Jesus Himself gave. The parable is introduced with a question, and followed by a question. Answering the second question is crucial!

A Parable regarding Attitude and Action,

or regarding Obedience and Disobedience

As we stated elsewhere (see P6), titles for parables are debatable, unless we can deduct them from Scripture, like in 'the parable of the sower' (Matthew 13:18; see P1). Thinking about what title might best fit a given parable is a useful exercise. Here we have already given two options; let's consider what Jesus said.

The Parable

A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, "Son, go work today in the vineyard." And he answered, "I will not"; but afterward he regretted it and went. The man came to the second son and said the same thing; and he answered, "I will, sir"' but he did not go.

—Matthew 21:28b-30

Based on this contrasting parable of two sons, Jesus asked a question: 'Which of the two did the will of his father?' (Matthew 21:31a). The audience got the point: 'The first' (v 31b). But note the scenario in detail: the first son is the obedient son, although he initially refused to go. The words of directly defying the instructions of his father are offensive, disrespectful and outrageous: 'I will not.' In a culture where honouring your parents was of utmost importance, these words would have shocked the audience. How horrbile of a child to refuse his father's instructions. In a society of 'family business,' each and every family memeber had to his or her part. The livelihood of the family depended on it. But his final decision to go, after regretting his wrong words, attitude and action, changed everything. He rectified his original disobedience and shocking response.

But equally shocking was the response of the second son: 'I will, sir' where his words, but as we all know, actions speak louder than words: 'he did not go.' Both had an attitude; both showed action; inaction is also a form of action. The first son had a bad attitude, yet changed it and showed thta he meant it by his action. The second son spoke the right words, but denied them by his inaction. Both were disobedient, yet one changed and became obedient. Taking this parable indepent of its context speaks volumes about attitude and action, obedience and disobedience. It teaches us, that words don't matter unless they are followed by action (second son), and that even if we make a wrong decision, we can change to do the right thing (first son). In context, the force of the parable is even stronger. Jesus applied it to His audience.

The Interpretation and Conclusion

The interpretation of the parable comes in the form a strong confrontation of Jesus against those listening to Him: the chief priests and elders who had just challenged his authority (Matthew 21:23). Jesus' brilliant response was a counter-question regarding John the Baptist: by whose authority did John call for a baptism of repentance? If the religious elite were to answer His question, Jesus would answer theirs (v 24). They knew they were trapped: 'If we say, "From heaven," He will say to us, "Then why did you not believe him?" But if we say, "From men," we fear the people; for they all regard John as a prophet' (v 25b-26). Hence their answer to Jesus was, 'We do not know' (v 27a). Jesus took the freedom not to answer them either (v 27b). They couldn;'t acknowlede the baptism of John as from God, else they would have to acknwledge Jesus' authority in the same way. They couldn't deny that it was from God, else the people would object. They seemed more concerned about their own religious power and public opinion than knowing the truth about John and Jesus.

What was at stake? They questioned Jesus' authority; Jesus challenged them about the authority of John, implying that both had the same source of authority. If John was truly a prophet (as most of the people believed) and his baptism was 'from heaven' (that is, ordained by God), the chief priests and elders would look foolish for not being baptised and hence rejecting the divine authority of John, who was also the one who pointed to Jesus was the Messiah and Saviour (John 1:29). He was the voice in ther wilderness preparing the way for the Lord (Matthew 3:1-6), as foretold by Isaiah (40:3). Note that the title 'LORD' here stands for the personal Name of God: Yahweh. This clearly affirms the divinity of Jesus. John was the messenger of God foretold by Malaich (3:1; see Matthew 11:10). Denying John's baptism as being sanctioned by God, would get them into trouble with the people; acknowledging John's baptism as being 'from heaven,' they would look foolish before Jesus, as they had to accept His divine authority, too.

Jesus' words after the parable He shared to illustrate their attitude and action, or inaction, struck at the heart of their wrong attitude. Jesus said to them:

Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him; and you, seeing this, did not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe him.

—Matthew 21:31-32

The 'two sons' in the parable represent the two groups of people Jesus spoke about: sinners, on the one hand, and the religious elite ('chief priests and elders'), on the other. Although the sinners lived sinful lives in disobedience to God (echoing the words of the first son: 'I will not'), they heeded the call of John to repent and were baptised and 'confessed their sins' (Matthew 3:2, 6). They believed that John was sent by God and that his baptism was 'from heaven.' They showed 'fruits worthy of repentance' (v 8). That son, initially disobedient, 'regretted' his disobedience, changed his mind and attitude and took corresponding action: he went to work in the vineyard and thus 'did the will of his father.' Repentance, a turning to God and leaving sinful ways behind, is doing the will of the Father in the context in which Jesus applied the parable. Responding to John's baptism was acknowledging divine authority, something the religious elite refused to do.

The second son, however, representing the religious elite who rejected John's baptism, did not 'feel remorse' despite seeing the repentance of the sinners; they refused to believe what God was doing through John, and by extension, rejected Jesus, God's Son and Saviour. The sinners (first son) did the will of the father, but not the religious elite (second son), hence their entry into God's heavenly kingdom. For a second time, 'two sons' represent two groups of people to illustrate contrast (see Luke 15; P6). Have you considered which 'brother' or 'son' you are?

This was a genius way to convey a message that struck at the heart of people's attitude and challenged them towards right action. The parables that followed (Matthew 21:33—22:13), reenforced the issue.

'What do you think?'

P14 >