Preaching Paths 1 October 2023

Sally A. Brown, Professor Emerita, Princeton Theological Seminary

In today’s Gospel lection, the scene has shifted. The context of the dialogue and parable in Mt 21:23-32 is crucial to interpretation. Jesus’ triumphal entry has taken place amid shouts of the Messianic “Hosanna to the Son of David!”—much to the dismay of the Jewish Temple leadership. Jesus has overturned the tables in the Temple sacrifice market. Now, the next day, he has returned to teach there; crowds have gathered—a tense situation in Roman-occupied Jerusalem.  The chief priests demand to know by what authority Jesus acts and speaks. If he says “God’s authority,” he is blaspheming; if he says, “my own,” their authority will prevail; he’ll be cast from the Temple. But in keeping with rabbinic custom, Jesus counters their question with one of of his own: “Was the source of John the Baptist’s ministry divine or merely human?” This is a thoroughly strategic move. Jesus’ ministry was anticipated and validated by John; Jesus accepted John’s baptism and continued carrying the same message: “The kingdom of the heavens is at hand.” If these leaders admit to John’s God-given authority, they will have automatically validated Jesus’ authority, too. If they say, “only human authority,” they’ll alienate the masses and be ousted. Jesus’ critics are stymied.

Jesus follows with parable, honoring his interrogators with the introduction, “What do you think?” The parable’s symbols are traditional and clear. A vineyard stands for the chosen people; the father signifies God. The “two sons” (Gr. is “children”) is a familiar OT motif (Cain/Abel, Jacob/Esau, and others). The father sends both children to work in his vineyard. The rebellious, nay-saying child refuses, yet then does as the father has asked, while the typically obedient, compliant child says “yes,” but fails to go. Asked, “Which did the will of the father?” Jesus’ critics give the obvious answer: “The first.” Clinching the argument, Jesus declares that tax collectors and sinners will enter the kingdom ahead of his these sophisticated interrogators. They resisted John’s divinely-inspired summons to repent, while tax collectors and prostitutes took John seriously and changed their hearts. Jesus concludes, “You saw this; yet you did not change your hearts and believe.”

Preachers need to avoid two pitfalls in handling this text. First, it is all too easy to portray the Jewish leadership as prime examples of faithlessness, thus sponsoring tacit, but toxic, anti-Semitism. Jesus does NOT say that the Jewish leaders of his day would never enter the reign of God, only that notorious but repentant sinners would precede them (v 31). A second pulpit error would be to identify ourselves with Jesus and cross-examine the congregation. (“Which are you??”) In addition to coming off as self-righteous, I suspect that such interrogations are less effective than we imagine.

One might begin, instead, with the fact that religious leaders (preachers included) are under the microscope here. Hypocrisy on the part of leaders has done incalculable damage to the credibility of faith—all faiths. We might, then, acknowledge that this text prompts us to do some uncomfortable personal soul-searching. We recall being the “yes-Father” no-shows of the parable. And yet, by grace, at times we have been pressed toward a change of heart—indeed, overcome!—by the witness of ordinary Christians who take faith-inspired action—wholeheartedly, and with far more self-abandon than we. We are not one child or the other; we find both in ourselves. When we can acknowledge that our own record is mixed, we give our listeners space to identify with aspects of our struggle and thoughtfully explore parallels in their own experience. Jesus seeks to save, not condemn. By grace, our stumbling path will lead us home, the tax collectors showing us the way.