The Two Sons of the Parable, and the Other Two

Gospel – Twenty-Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time

I – Introduction: Innocence and Inerrancy

How beautiful is an upright life, in all of its phases, when analysed through limpid, impartial, and innocent eyes! In old age, it is shaded by fragility but vigorous and enriched in experience. In youth, it shines in strength, determination, and daring, whereas, crossing the threshold of maturity, it blossoms into reflection, elucidation, and prudence. But, perhaps nothing so draws our attention, over the course of human existence, as the development of the primordial instincts in a child, from its first cry until the attainment of the age of reason. It can be noted that the child’s soul, as it gradually begins to set acts of the intelligence or will in motion, progressively accumulates a considerable store of experiences based on the first innate principles.

The human soul searches for the truth

It is fascinating to observe the complete certainty with which animals and even insects seek the nourishment that is right for them. It is not difficult to discern the hand of God behind these activities, although He evidently does not orchestrate them from moment to moment in a direct manner. God creates living beings with their own instincts, according to their needs and characteristics. Man, too, as a rational being, is born with incipient and spontaneous inclinations that will guide him securely in the pursuit of the ends for which he is destined. In this regard, St. Thomas¹ explains, with his unfailing clarity, that when the soul is created at the moment of conception, it is already equipped with a sense of being that will prompt it to move towards its perfection throughout life.

If we draw near to an infant’s cradle and show the child an assortment of balls of varied colours, its reaction reveals the marvel of these human instincts, which are active long before the use of reason. The child will reach for the ball whose colour it finds most pleasing, later going on to play with another, and so on, successively. Here we see the instinctive search for the good, the beautiful, and the true, which prompts the child to select a particular ball as the primary one of that set. These are reflections that presage the capacity to judge in a clearly rational fashion, according to well-established principles.

Sin robs us of the ability to judge well

The affirmation of a great Dominican theologian of the last century, Fr. Santiago Ramírez, serves admirably in this matter; in classes and lectures, he used to describe the human soul as essentially aristocratic, because it always seeks the best.

If human beings have these instincts, how can the existence of error, of evil and of ugliness be explained? Although this topic is a broad one, it suffices to say, for present purposes, that the inerrancy of these instincts depends on the preservation of innocence. This means that sin robs us of the ability to judge well. It can be inferred from the Thomistic doctrine of transcendentals² that the sense of truth, goodness, and beauty is aristocratic, since only the innocent possess it in its maximum vigour. By the same token, it is not difficult to conclude that, given the small number of innocent people in the world, few fully enjoy it.

The present Gospel revolves around this wonderful theme.

II – The Sanhedrin’s Exasperation With Jesus

A society fond of parables and enigmas

For a better understanding of the Liturgy, we must go back to the customs in place at the Divine Teacher’s time. We will find a more rural, pastoral and organic civilization than ours, one devoid of current technological advances. Moreover, the practice of reflection had not yet been replaced by machines. Without radio, television, telephones, computers, and other such devices, one of the most enjoyable aspects of human society at that time was conversation, which often featured the use of riddles and parables. Moral maxims were commonly used to resolve a variety of questions arising in everyday life. Employing metaphors for teaching purposes was, therefore, not an innovation introduced by the Messiah; He was simply making use of prevailing customs. Sacred Scripture is replete with examples of disputes that were settled by means of riddles and enigmas (cf. Jgs 14:12-19, 1 Kgs 10:1-3, 2 Chr 9:1-2, Prv 1:5-6; Wis 8:8, Sir 47:17-18, Ez 17:1-24; Dn 2:1-47). Intelligence was honed in this way, as was moral, rational, and aesthetic sense.

The envy and arrogance of the Sanhedrinites

The parable of the two sons, which emerges from within a framework of animosity against Jesus, was delivered shortly after Palm Sunday. The scribes, elders of the people, the chief priests—among others—were conscious of the fame that the Master had garnered over the course of His public life, including the latest episode of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. When they saw “Jesus Christ entering the Temple with great pomp, […] they seethed with envy; […] and thus, unable to bear the burning envy that invaded their hearts, they raised their voices” ³ and with exceeding arrogance, they interrupted His preaching, asking: “By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?” (Mt 21:23).

A dialogue ensues between Jesus and the religious authorities. Calling it to mind will aid us in plumbing the full meaning of the parable under consideration.

Awaiting an opportunity to discredit Him

As Fr. Manuel Tuya,⁴ renowned exegete of Salamanca, comments, the Sanhedrinites acted with malice, for they had already secretly condemned Jesus to death. They were only waiting for an opportunity to carry out the sentence. They hoped to compromise and discredit Him before the public, which would expedite their plans. The accepted idea in rabbinic circles was that it would be necessary to request signs of the Messiah in order that He be recognized as such. It was true that no one could teach in the Temple without first having undergone the laying on of hands of another rabbi. However, in questioning Jesus concerning His authority to preach, their intention was also to demand an explanation for the events of Palm Sunday, for the Messianic acclamations with which He had been received into the Temple, and even for the miracles performed there. The question, therefore, was essentially about His Messianic powers.

Jesus responds: “The baptism of John, whence was it?”

Jesus answered them, “I will also ask you a question; and if you tell Me the answer, then I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? From Heaven or from men?” (Mt 21:24-25a). The Evangelists relate the deliberation of the Sanhedrinites: “If we say, ‘From Heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ But if we say ‘from men,’ we are afraid of the multitude” (Mt 21:25b-26).

Fr. Manuel Tuya⁵ notes that, in questioning them about the baptism of John, Jesus kept within Messianic terrain, for the Baptist only announced the Messiah. And this they understood perfectly, which is why they answered: “We do not know” (Mt 21:27a). They feared the multitudes who considered St. John the Baptist a true prophet. Or, more to the point, they feared that all the people would stone them (cf. Lk 20: 6). Religious offences merited stoning, and the people were accustomed to impulsive and blind reactions in such cases. The fear of the Sanhedrin was indeed well founded!

The Sanhedrin’s embarrassment

Their response amounted to a declaration as to their own inability to pronounce a verdict on matters of this sort. Truly, if after all that John the Baptist had done, they were unable to form an opinion of him, all the less should they venture to do so with regard to Jesus, Who had given them countless signs of being the Messiah. The discomfited response of the Sanhedrin opened the way for the Divine Teacher’s rejoinder: “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things” (Mt 21:27b).

III – The Two Sons of the Parable

This passage from the Gospel of the Twenty-Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time contains the follow-up to this contention between Jesus and the chief priests and elders of the people. Despite the mildness and almost familiarity with which Jesus introduces the parable—“What is your opinion?” a formula used with certain frequency by the Saviour (cf. Mt 17: 24; 18:12)—we should not forget the envious fury of Jesus’ interlocutors, manifested in the discussion described just previously, and rendered ineffectual by the divine diplomacy. In the awkward silence to which they had been reduced, they sharpened their attention and their wits to avoid a blunder in their pronouncement on the parable to come.

In the course of the ordinary, everyday events of life, it is not difficult to apply one’s sense of being with accuracy and to choose that which is true, the best, or the most beautiful. Factual evidence in these instances lends inerrancy to our judgment. And that is precisely the intention of the Divine Teacher: that His listeners discern and point out, immediately and almost spontaneously, which of the two sons acted righteously.

The father in the parable represents God. Who are the two sons?

Ancient commentators are unanimous in giving the first place to the son who ultimately goes into the vineyard, despite having initially refused. They also concur in interpreting the disobedient son, or the one who failed to keep his word, as representing the Jews—more specifically the Pharisees and the chief priests—while the obedient son would represent the Gentiles, tax collectors and sinners.

One of the most interesting analyses is of Fr. Juan Maldonado’s⁶ authorship. According to him, the ancients writers—such as Origen, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Jerome, Bede and Euthymius—thought that one of the sons represented the Gentiles, whom God had sent to work in his vineyard, by subjecting them to natural law. And although they did not want to comply at first, inasmuch as they did not observe natural law, they later repented and came to obey it, and to embrace, moreover, the precepts of the Gospel. The Jewish people, conversely, replied that they would work in the vineyard, through obedience to the precepts of Moses—“All that the Lord has spoken we will do” (Ex 19:8)—but in the end, they did not.

However, Fr. Maldonado⁷ proceeds to point out, it is more likely that these two sons represent two types of Jews. One belonged to the common set of people, with their tax collectors, harlots, and sinners. These, at first, had answered “no” to God, at least by their deeds, for they did not observe divine Law. But later, moved by the preaching of John the Baptist, they repented and accepted the Gospel. The second type included the priests, scribes, and Pharisees, who had responded affirmatively to God, but in fact neither obeyed the Law nor believed in John, of whom the prophets had spoken.

IV – The Third Son: the Pharisees

An apparently ingenuous parable

The Pharisees had refused to respond to the question that Jesus had previously put to them, but now they promptly choose the first son. Indeed, this would be the assessment of anyone with a glimmer of common sense when presented with the same question. Jesus’ contenders, however, could not have imagined that they themselves were the accused party. After having most likely spent hours on end in their covens, contriving cunning snares for the Messiah, they suddenly find themselves in a worse position than that which they had desired for their victim.

The method employed by the God-Man was a classic one among the Jewish people; it consisted in proposing a seemingly ingenuous parable, one that was easy to decipher, without arousing the interlocutor’s suspicion who, letting down his guard, in short order pronounced his own condemnation (cf. 2 Sm 12:1-7).

The tax collectors and the prostitutes will go before you

At the end of the verse, the parable’s application comes in the words of the Divine Master Himself. To the Pharisee, there was nothing more contemptible than a publican or a harlot; these were taking the lead, however, pointing out the path of salvation. No humiliation could have been greater, because the men of the Law ought to be at the vanguard of those who would enter the Kingdom of God. The tax collector Zacchaeus (cf. Lk 19:1-10), as well as the sinner (Lk 7:37-38), had, at first, resisted entering upon the pathways of the Kingdom, but ultimately did so. The Pharisees had already heard this reproach in even more blatant terms on the occasion of the healing of the centurion’s servant (cf. Mt 8:11-12).Therefore, Jesus does not declare in this verse that the Pharisees and chief priests would also be saved. This will become even clearer in the next passage.

They refused to hear the call of the Precursor

With this categorical conclusion, the Saviour clearly shows that the state of those Pharisees was, in a sense, far worse than that of both sons of the parable. They had heard the call of the Precursor but had refused to follow his counsel; and when the Messiah appeared, they had become even more entrenched in their lack of faith: “I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the Kingdom of God is greater than he. When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John; but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him” (Lk 7:28-30). In this way, they not only refused to work in the vineyard, but also actually failed to go in the end. Theirs is the attitude of a third son, with the most disgraceful conduct toward the Father!

A radical warning

The warning contained in this verse is so radical that some exegetes deem it to be a contrived insertion of Matthew’s authorship. We disagree with this hypothesis. In reality, had the metaphor used by Jesus also contained the figure of this third son, his adversaries would have become wary, rendering His efforts futile. And if this were not so, how could we explain the next two parables following that of the two sons (cf. Mt 21:33-46, 22:1-14)?

V – The Fourth Son

There is still a fourth son to be mentioned, whose moral profile, although not explicitly outlined by the Divine Teacher, is easily discerned by contrast. He would have enthusiastically heard the Father’s invitation to work in the vineyard and would have dedicated his life to cultivating it, in order to give Him joy. Today’s parable invites us to follow this example.

Most importantly, the Father has the full right to give orders to his son. Since God is my Father, He will only demand what is fair, reasonable, and feasible. However, His precept—to love Him, serve Him, fulfil His commandments, flee from sin, desire perfection, and control my passions—fully harmonizes with my sense of being. To this end, He set in place the Sacraments, grace, the Angels and even His own Mother to attend me. In any necessity, we need only turn to Him: “Truly, truly, I say unto you, if you ask anything of the Father, He will give it to you in My name” (Jn 16:23).

Examination of conscience

At this point, a question is appropriate: what has my response, and what have my actions been in face of this invitation? Which of the four sons best characterizes me?

This is an excellent examination of conscience for the Twenty-Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time.

Indeed, we might also ask which of these sons corresponds to humanity as a whole, within the current historical context. Is it not an insult to God, our Father, to collectively reject His invitation to tread the paths of innocence and holiness? Is this not utter insolence?

Invitation to repentance and to gratitude

Since we have been endowed with the sense of good and evil, truth and error, beauty and ugliness, and we have every supernatural aid and support within our reach, if we turn our back on the Supreme Majesty, would it not be logical for God to intervene, calling us to accounts for our response to so many favours and benefits? When we fall into the misfortune of sin, we know—even in a collective sense—that we have crossed the limits that God established by His Law. Our conscience incriminates us.

Let us thank God for opening our eyes through today’s Liturgy, granting us the opportunity to more deeply understand the state of our present spiritual life, and for placing means at our disposal to measure the future of the present historic era in all its weight and depth. ◊

Notes

¹ Cf. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS. Summa Theologiæ, I, q.5, a.1; q.12, a.8, ad 4.

² Cf. Idem, q.14, a.4, ad 2; q.5, a.4, ad 1; I-II, q.27, a.1, ad 3.

³ ANONYMOUS. Opus imperfectum in Matthæum. Homilia XXXIX, c.21, n.23: MG 56, 817.

⁴ Cf. TUYA, OP, Manuel de. Biblia Comentada, vol. V: Evangelios. Madrid: BAC, 1964, p.464-465.

⁵ Cf. Idem, p.465-466.

⁶ Cf. MALDONADO, SJ, Juan de. Comentarios a los Cuatro Evangelios, vol. I: Evangelio de San Mateo. Madrid: BAC, 1950 p.750.

⁷ Cf. Idem, p.751.