“Word and Deed”

Sunday, December 08, 2024

Shortly after Jesus arrived in Jerusalem for his final showdown with the religious and political authorities, leading to his crucifixion and resurrection, he began deliberately making more of a nuisance of himself than usual. Of course, his murderers had been seeking an opportunity to kill him for quite a while by then, but Jesus always avoided or evaded them, saying on several occasions that the time wasn’t yet right. Now, the proper time was swiftly approaching, and Jesus therefore provoked them and allowed himself to be delivered into their hands, to fulfill not only the ancient prophecies, but his own recent prediction,

“See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.”

(Matthew 20.18-19)

Accordingly, he made his entry to the city a spectacle (Mt 21.1-11), and made a smaller but more shocking entrance to the temple (vv12-13), driving out the merchants and money-changers who were profiteering off the people’s sacrifices. These were, first of all, the right things for Jesus to do in those circumstances; but they were also intended to elicit a particular response from his enemies. The authorities came and demanded that he explain himself: “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” (v23).

This confrontation began a series of attempts by various authority figures to humiliate Jesus and diminish his standing with the crowds. Instead, they humiliated themselves, and Jesus took several opportunities to twist the metaphorical dagger in the wound. One technique was to tell parables.

“A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went.”

(Matthew 20.28-29)

These are pretty standard tropes for Jesus’ parables. It made sense to choose such an agrarian setting for these stories, since viniculture was one of the most important industries in his society. The man in charge represents God, and those whom he directs to work for him—in this case, his sons—are God’s people, the Israelites.

The first of the two sons is blatantly rebellious, telling his father to his face that he refuses to obey his instruction; but while we might expect the father to lash out in judgment, Jesus leaves his reaction to the imagination, and instead gives the rebellious son time to ponder his disobedience. Even though his father is no longer immediately present to see it, this disobedient son arrives at the decision to change for the better. But there were two sons, weren’t there? What about the other one?

“And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go.”

(Matthew 20.30)

When the father gives the other boy an instruction, he is vocally submissive, addressing his father respectfully and agreeing to do his will. Once again, Jesus doesn’t tell us the father’s reaction, leaving it instead to our imagination. We would expect him to be pleased with this son, who didn’t fight him and reject his will, like the other! But once again, Jesus jumps forward on the timeline and reveals that the supposedly good, obedient son actually changed his mind, too. He made a show of being dutiful when his father was around, but later, when his father is no longer there to see it, he not only disobeys his instruction, but breaks his own promise, too. At this point, Jesus comes to the crux of the parable:

“Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.”

(Matthew 20.31a)

It took no great intellect to figure that one out! The parable makes it plain that, despite appearances and professions, devotion to God is evident in action—in the fruit we bear.

Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go 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 the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.”

(Matthew 20.31b-32)

The second son, who agreed, then disobeyed, represents “the chief priests and the elders” with whom Jesus is speaking (v23). Even as they question Jesus’ authority and profess to uphold God’s, by their actions they reject it and go their own way—otherwise for one example, would they have allowed the seedy, money-grubbing stock exchange to keep operating within the temple grounds?

The first son, although he began as a defiant little snot, actually proved to be the more devoted of the two. He represents the obvious sinners, who didn’t even try to hide their guilt, and as a result were better prepared, upon reflection, to repent and do God’s will in truth.

In context, this parable rebukes the religious authorities for rejecting John the Baptist. They professed to honor God, but scorned his prophet’s message! For us, the lesson is simpler: word is not the same as deed!

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

(James 2.14-17)

Jeremy Nettles

Share