Pentecost 19 – 2026
Matthew 21: 21-32
Marian Free
In the name of God, Source of our Being, Eternal Word, Life-Giving Spirit. Amen.
Sometime ago, probably when I was in my forties, I came to the uncomfortable realization that I was not one hundred percent consistent. Despite having strongly held and articulated values I came to see that on occasion I would say or think something that was inconsistent with those same values. This, let me tell you, was a salutary and humbling experience, but one which I hope has made me more self-aware and consequently much less judgmental. I cannot think what led me to this conclusion but the tendency to inconsistency is probably most evident in current debate in migration. In every age and nation migrants are a convenient flogging horse – outsiders who can be blamed for the lack of housing and jobs the increase in crime and so on. People can speak vehemently on the subject while at the same time being best friends with their neighbour, local grocer or other whom they see as an exception to the rule rather than evidence that their argument does not stand.
The meaning of this morning’s parable of the two brothers is apparently self-evident. At some time or other we may well have been one of the two brothers, or at the very least we will have known someone who, having said, “no”, then actually does the task and vice versa. These things happen, and in and of themselves don’t necessarily make a person good or bad. The brother who said: “yes” wasn’t lying or trying to make a good impression. Almost certainly he thought he would go and work in the vineyard, but then maybe his friends dropped in, he got caught up in the book he was reading, or was distracted in some other way. Time passed and then it was too late to go into the vineyard. The other brother, who may have said “no” because it was too hot, or because he had already made plans, later realised that his filial duty was to work in the vineyard. Neither brother did what they said they would do, but they almost certainly weren’t lying when they said “yes” or “no”.
So, the parable is straight-forward enough, but to whom does it relate and where do the tax collectors and prostitutes fit in?
As might be expected, the clues are in the context. If we hadn’t skipped over a chapter or two, we would have seen that between the parable of the labourers in the vineyard and today’s confrontation with the Chief Priests and elders, Jesus has triumphantly entered Jerusalem, has overturned the tables of the money changers and has been healing the blind and lame within the Temple complex. It is no surprise that the Chief Priests and elders (appointed and elected guardians of the faith) want to know by what authority Jesus does such things. This, plus the fact that Jesus quite clearly has the ability to draw people to him, is a threat to the leadership of the Chief Priests and elders.
Their questions: “By what authority do you do these things? And who gave you this power?” are designed to catch Jesus out, to make him blaspheme by saying that his power comes from God. Jesus is not so easily ensnared. He has a question of his own regarding the baptism of John the Baptist. Unfortunately, his opponents are not as nimble as Jesus – if they answer one way they will be condemned for not believing John, and if they answer another, they risk an uprising from the crowds. Jesus has avoided their trap, but he is not done. He goes on to tell not one, but three parables – the parable of the two sons, the parable of the tenants, and the parable of the banquet – each of which is an attack on his questioners.
The parable of the sons is sandwiched between the argument about authority and the parable of the tenants who kill the owner’s slaves and finally kill his son, so that they might inherit the vineyard. It both refers back to the question about John the Baptist and forward to the parable of the wicked tenants.
Having silenced his critics, Jesus continues by attacking them. “I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will enter the kingdom of God ahead of you”. The parallel is not a neat one, but the implication is that the Chief Priests and elders prevaricated when it came to John the Baptist. To them John represented both a religious and political threat. John’s popularity could have the effect of reducing their ability to influence the people and there was always a risk that the crowds would riot. Whatever they thought of John the Baptist they could not publicly endorse him. On the other hand, the tax collectors and the prostitutes, who by their professions and through their collaboration with Rome made them unsuitable candidates for the Kingdom of God, believed in John the Baptist and therefore demonstrated that they were worthy of the Kingdom.
Jesus identifies the Chief Priests and elders as the second son – the one who said yes, but who did not go into the vineyard. The implication is that the Chief Priests and elders have not lived up to their commitment to care for the people of Israel. They may have believed that by aligning themselves with Rome that they were in some way protecting the people – by keeping the peace and ensuring that their religious traditions could be honoured. In in fact they have sold out. They are not advocating for the people, and by protecting their own position, they are definitely not tending the vineyard that God has entrusted to them.
That Jesus is identifying the Chief Priests and elders with the second son, is made even clearer in the parable that followers – the parable of the wicked tenants who kill the owner’s servants and then his son in order that they might have the vineyard for himself.
At best the Chief Priests and elders have deluded themselves about how they are fulfilling their role. They have convinced themselves that by colluding with Rome they are serving God and God’s people but they are unable to see that their compromises are causing more harm than good. Jesus exposes their hypocrisy and through parables illustrates the ways in which they have not only neglected their duty, but in which they have demonstrated their utter lack of concern for the vineyard (which is Israel).
Though this parable is told against the Chief Priests and elders it still has something to say to us. Do our own interests get in the way of serving Christ? Having said yes to Jesus, do we follow through? Is the way we live our life always consistent with our faith?
When we are asked to go into the vineyard, let us say: “yes” and then follow through.
Tags: attempt to trap Jesus, conflict, consistency, John the Baptist, Two sons
Leave a comment