01.23. Chapter 3. The Two Sons
Chapter 3.
The Two Sons Or, Israel’s leaders charged with the vice of insincerity.
During the conflicts of the Passion-week Jesus spake the following parable, one of the three directed one after the other against the ecclesiastical leaders of the Jewish people, now become His relentless adversaries: But what think ye? A man had two sons; and coming to the first, he said, Son, go work to-day in the vineyard. And he answered and said, I go, sir; and went not. And coming to the second, he said likewise. And he answered and said, I will not; but afterwards, repenting, he went. Which of the two did the will of his father? They say the second. Jesus saith to them, Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not; but the publicans and the harlots believed him; and ye, when ye saw it, did not even afterwards repent, that ye might believe him.—St. Mat 21:28-32.[1]
[1] We give the parable as it stands in the text of the Vatican Codex, and as given in Westcott and Hort; the order in which the two sons are named being the inverse of that in the T. R. For remarks in vindication of this order, see the exposition. This parable, like that of the Children in the Market-place, is also a parable of moral criticism, associated here as in the earlier instance with the name of the Baptist. It arose naturally out of the preceding discussion in which Jesus, put upon His defence, with controversial tact made use of John to put to silence His opponents. John’s career was finished; his name belonged to history; and public opinion had pronounced on him its final verdict, to the effect that he was a true prophet of God, entitled to speak in God’s name to his fellow-countrymen. This judgment the religious heads of the people could not afford to gainsay, and as prudent men of the world they bowed to it But they did not recognise the claims of the Baptist while he lived and carried on his work. Then they found fault with him, not less than with Jesus, though on different grounds. Of this fact Jesus, interrogated concerning His prophetic authority, takes care to remind them now, putting them in an awkward dilemma by asking the question: "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or from men?" The effect of the question was to rob their doubt or unbelief in regard to Himself of all moral weight. It meant: "You bow to the opinion of the public now, concerning John, but you know how you thought and spoke of him not long ago. Your adverse opinion against a man does not count for much. He may be a genuine messenger of God, and yet be evil spoken of by you. I do not think it worth while to answer your question about my authority. If ever you recognise it, it will be after the world has done so, for your way is not to lead but to follow opinion."
Having first used John in self-defence, Jesus next proceeded to turn him into a weapon of attack against His foes by relating in parabolic form the treatment which His fellow-prophet received at their hands. The parable and its interpretation amount to a charge of insincerity against the Pharisaic class, as manifested in their behaviour towards the Baptist Animadversion on this Pharisaic vice was natural in the circumstances; for the opponents of Jesus had just shown themselves guilty of it by their evasive answer to His question concerning John’s baptism and its source. "We know not," replied they, because it was inconvenient to give a more distinct answer. Had they spoken according to the thoughts of their own hearts they would have given one answer; had they followed their inclination to echo the voice of the nation they would have returned an opposite answer. They in fact said both yes and no to the assertion that John was a prophet; yes, by their deference to the vox populi; no, by their deepest sympathies. The design of the parable is to declare that what these men did then they had been doing all along—assuming a yes-and-no attitude towards the Baptist’s public vocation and ministry, seeming to approve his general aim yet utterly out of sympathy with his spirit. The parabolic discourse seems to charge a twofold insincerity against the parties animadverted on; one of the past, and one of the present They had said yes and no while John exercised his ministry, approving of his way so far as it was a way of legal righteousness, disapproving of his spirit; they say yes and no still, saying with the general public, ’John is a prophet,’ and so appearing at length to believe in him: yet all the while disliking his moral temper as much as ever, so retaining their secret conviction altogether unrepented of.
Insincerity, then, deep, habitual, incurable, is the vice with which the Pharisaic character is here branded. It is a much more serious charge than that brought in the earlier parable of moral criticism. There the fault animadverted on is simply childish caprice and whimsicality, which can be pleased with nothing, and regards with equal dislike the most diverse moral tendencies. There also the censure is mitigated by the employment of children as an emblem of the objects of censure, for who is much surprised at the peccadilloes of children, however naughty? Here the emblem of an evil generation is a son grown to man’s estate, who may be expected to realise the responsibilities and to address himself seriously to the duties of life. And what is charged against this son is that he recognises his responsibilities in word or sentiment only, not in deed, and so trifles with and wrongs those to whom he owes relative duties. Yet the vices exposed in the two parables are more closely connected than at first appears. The child of the earlier parable is the father of the young man of the later. The child’s fault is playing at religion; the man’s fault is still that of playing at religion, only in a theatrical, hypocritical sense. The two parables, while linked together by the common reference to John in the interpretation, have this difference, that, whereas in the earlier both John and Jesus are alluded to in the interpretation, in the latter John alone comes in. This is easily explained by the difference in the didactic drift. The earlier parable, having for its aim to convict the contemporaries of Jesus and John of unreasonable caprice, naturally employs for this purpose both prophets, so diverse in their way of life and work, yet equally disapproved of by the men of that generation. The present parable, being intended to establish a charge of insincerity, could not with effect refer to the behaviour of the parties censured towards Jesus. For they had never even pretended or seemed to side with Him. From the first they had regarded Him and His ways with surprise and distrust, which as time went on deepened into disgust, hostility, and hatred. He and they lay too far apart, not only in spirit but in fundamental principles. They might be wrong and He right, but their dissent could not convict them of insincerity, but only of spiritual blindness. Reference to the case of John, on the other hand, was peculiarly apposite in connection with an attempt to establish such a charge. For John and the Pharisees and Scribes had much in common. Their ’way’—using the term as it is sometimes used in the New Testament, in the sense of a religion[1]—and John’s was essentially the same. John came neither eating nor drinking—that is, practising ascetic fasting[2]—observing the rules regarding purification,[3] and teaching his disciples forms of prayer;[4] just as the Pharisees did, who fasted oft, scrupulously attended to ceremonial washing, and said many prayers. The watchword of both parties was righteousness, and their professed aim to keep the law in all its parts. This agreement in principle and aim is what is referred to in the expression, "John came unto you in the way of righteousness."[5] The phrase is not employed to express the common-place truth that John was a righteous man. It means: "John came in your own way; the way you loved and professed to walk in, the good old way as you might think it, comparing it with mine which might appear to you a new way involving objectionable innovations: neglect of fasting and ablutions, Sabbath desecrations, and the like." The implied assertion is that they had no excuse for not believing in John such as they might plausibly allege for not believing in Himself. If they disbelieved in John it could not be on account of his principles or his practice; it must be solely on account of the earnestness with which he proclaimed his principles, and insisted on their being carried out in conduct.[6] [1] Vide Acts 9:2; Acts 19:9, &c.
[3] John 3:25.
[4] Luk 11:1.
[5] Mat 21:32.
[6] So Olshausen. Trench refers in general terms to his view, without naming him, and explains its import without saying whether he approves it or not. "An emphasis," he remarks, "has been sometimes laid" on the words, ’in the way of righteousness.’" This is a most unsatisfactory way of disposing of a view which is either a conceit, or the key to the interpretation of the parable. We have no doubt at all that it if the latter.
Yes! the earnestness of John was his one grand offence in the eyes of his contemporaries. He came in their own way of righteousness and that they approved of, but he came with such consuming earnestness that, zealots though they were, they were repelled and shocked. The man seemed out of his senses: possessed, so to speak, with a demoniac zeal for holiness. Such zeal was unwholesome, and also uncomfortable, for it attached supreme importance to moral law, while scrupulously attentive to ritual. It rebuked vice in kings; yea, even in Pharisaic zealots themselves. So they condemned the Baptist, and in doing so convicted themselves of insincerity; exhibited themselves playing the part of the son in the parable, saying to his father bidding him go work in the vineyard, "I go, sir," and after all not going. They said, "I go, sir," by agreeing with John’s general aim, and busying themselves about righteousness. They "went not," by disapproving of John’s spirit of downright moral earnestness and behaving as moral triflers, attending seriously to minutiae, neglecting the great matters of the law.
It would have been possible to represent the religionists of Judaea in this light, in parabolic form, without introducing a second son. The parable might have run, "A certain man had a son, and he said to him, ’Go, my son, work to-day in my vineyard;’ and he said, ’I go, sir, and went not;’" and the interpretation: "John summoned you to walk in the way of legal piety, and ye affected great zeal for that way; nevertheless ye walked not in it." But the introduction of a second figure serves several good purposes. The picturesque interest of the parable is immensely increased by contrast. The character which it is the chief object of the speaker to describe is more exactly defined and estimated by comparison with another type, also faulty but not so criminal. Then by this device it is made possible to present to view the whole behaviour of the Pharisaic class towards John, from the days of his appearing in the desert till now. They are exhibited not only as giving a hypocritical response to the Baptist’s summons, but as persisting in their first mood when the course of events seemed to demand a change of mind. When the class represented by the publicans and the harlots had responded to John’s call and repented, and when by general consent he had been accepted as a prophet, their inmost thoughts remained unaltered. For prudential reasons they might have changed their tone, and ceased to complain of the Baptist’s extreme and unreasonable temper as an excuse for keeping aloof from his movement, but they had not changed their heart. Finally the use of comparison gave a natural occasion for the question by which the auditors were drawn unwittingly into self-condemnation. In these remarks we have virtually assumed that one of the two sons—the one who represents the degraded classes—is introduced as a mere foil to the other, that representing the religious leaders of the people. If this assumption be correct, then we should expect to find the latter first mentioned in the parable. The principal character naturally takes precedence of the foil; the main object of censure of the figure introduced merely to give point to the censure. For this reason we have without much hesitation adopted the order in which the two sons are named in the Vatican text. Our chief feeling indeed is one of surprise that there should have been any considerable variation in the manuscript readings of the passage. The difficulty is not so much to decide which is the more probable reading, as to account for the variations from the Vatican text which exist, that, viz. of Codex Bezae which puts the son who represents the publicans first, but retains the Vatican reading in the answer to Christ’s question, "Which did the will of his father?" and that of the Textus Receptus, which puts the same son first, and gives the answer as that order naturally demands, the first.[1] Yet on reflection we see several things which might mislead copyists and tempt them to try their hand at ’rectifying’ what we regard as the true text. In the first place it might easily be assumed that the father wanted only one son to go to work in the vineyard, in which case the first asked must refuse in order to supply a motive for asking the second Then the solemn manner in which the interpretation commences with a verily I say unto you, might be supposed to imply that Christ was not merely confirming a right answer, but correcting a wrong one given impudently in flagrant contradiction to common sense: the answer, viz. that the son who said, I go, sir, and went not, did the will of the father. This idea would account for the text of Codex Bezae, which places first the son who said, I go not, and afterwards went, yet puts into the mouth of the audience the reply to Christ’s query who did the will of his father—the second. A third misleading element probably was the expression, go before you (
[2] Tregelles (on the printed text of the ’Greek Testament,’ pp. 106-8) suggests as the meaning of
While these considerations seem to explain the deviations from the Vatican text as errors not unnatural on the part of mechanical copyists, that text itself is recommended by all the probabilities of the case. It was natural that the Pharisees should be mentioned first, not merely as the more important class socially, but because they are the direct object of animadversion. It has indeed been suggested that the Vatican order had its origin in the fact, that the current interpretation of the parable made it refer to Jews and Gentiles.[1] But the suggestion is gratuitous, because the order in question is equally congruous to the narrower reference. Whether we apply the parable to Pharisees and publicans on the one hand, or to Jews and Gentiles on the other, it was most fitting that the son who answered insincerely should take precedence of the son who answered rudely. And that this was the actual order seems to be certified by the fact that it is in this order the parties are spoken of in the interpretation. "John came unto you," said Jesus to the men whose conduct He was criticising, "in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not, but the publicans and harlots believed him." It only remains to add, that the order which we defend corresponds to that in which the same parties are introduced in the parable of the Great Supper.
[1] So Trench.
If the introduction of a second son representing the lowest class of society as a foil to the first representing the higher orders added greatly to the literary and moral value of the parable, it also very manifestly enhanced immeasurably its offensiveness. To tell the proud self-satisfied zealots for righteousness that the moral scum of society was nearer the kingdom of God than they, was to offer them a mortal and unpardonable insult. Publicans and harlots! Why the phrase was proverbial to denote all that was vile, loathsome, and alien to the feelings of the pure, the respectable, and the patriotic. The analogous phrase in Corea, another Judaea in exclusiveness, is "pig-stickers and harlots."[1] In either case the words are so unsavoury as to be unfit to be spoken to polite ears. Barely to use the phrase was a sin against conventional good taste. But to speak of such people, and to add, "bad as they are in their moral rudeness and licentiousness, they are better than you, for they have repented, and that you, with not less need, have not done;" what a deadly offence, surely provocative of bitter resentment and murderous intents!
[1] Vide ’History of Corea, Ancient and Modern,’ p. 311, by the Rev. John Ross.
Even so, Jesus knew it; and yet He felt constrained to speak this parable and its interpretation. The truth must be spoken, however it might offend, because it concerned more than those to whom it was first addressed. For while mercilessly severe as towards them, this utterance is full of precious truth as regards the kingdom of God, and the depraved members of the human family. It tells us what we have already learned, but what we cannot hear too often, that the kingdom of God is open to all comers irrespective of their moral antecedents; that there is hope even for the most depraved; nay, that so far from their case being desperate, there are great possibilities of good in them. In telling us so much, it implicitly tells us more: viz. that the kingdom of God is not for Jews only but for mankind. For a kingdom that can go so low as publicans and harlots, must be prepared eventually to go to the ends of the earth in quest of citizens. In this parable, as in so many others, there is latent Christian universalism: a parable of judgment in its bearing towards the insincere and hollow-hearted, it is a parable of grace in. its bearing towards the sinful everywhere, whom it makes welcome to all its privileges on the one condition of repentance.