The gospel reading for Sunday, October 1st is Matthew 21:28-32. In the first line, it sounds like the Prodigal Son Story. And then it doesn’t. But if you really think about it, it does again.
It helps to know
The other parable where a man had two sons. It reads slightly differently, but I don't discern a meaningful difference between the two. The prodigal son story starts, anthropos tis eichen duo huios (lit: sons, Luke 15:11). This story starts, anthropos eichen tekna duo (lit: children, Matt. 21:28). For Luke, the exemplary son is the festal son, who repents of his way of life and boldly enters the joy of his Father's house. For Luke, the exemplary son is the obedient son, who repents of his vowed disobedience and, in turn, obeys. Knowing Matthew as we do by now, we shouldn't be surprised to see Jesus promoting obedience.
The Context: Vineyard stuff and John the Baptist stuff. Consider a few other passages right around this one:
Last Sunday (today?), our gospel discussed "working in the vineyard," ergazou en to ampeloni (Matt. 20:1-16), and called all such workers to ungrumblesome unity, and appreciation of the dogged generosity of God.
In the passage previous to today's, Jesus asks the chief priests and elders about the source of John's baptism (21:23-27).
This Sunday, our gospel also addresses "working in the vineyard," ergazou en to ampeloni (21:28). And Jesus picks up the John the Baptist thread: "John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him" (21:32).
The next passage (21:33-46) tells another parable about the same vineyard (ampelon, 21:33), but introduces new characters: servants and land-renting vine-growers. A message-bearing, land-inheriting son is also introduced. He dies.
The next passage (22:1-10) completes the three-parable cycle. The landowner is now a king (22:1), and the son is back from the dead (22:2), as are the servants. This time, the antagonists are neither bad servants (20:1-16), nor bad sons (21:28-32), nor bad lessees (21:33-46), but bad buddies (22:1-10) who don't come to the party he throws for his son.
In this cluster of vineyard parables, the servants clearly figure the prophets, and John the Baptist is a real good one, even "the greatest" (Matt. 11:11). If the Big Problem™ in 21:28-32 is that the chief priests and elders, didn't listen to John the Baptist, then we can see them in three different roles in these three parables:
They are the disobedient son, who fails to change his mind and obey their father (21:28-32).
They are the cunning lessees, who kill the servants (the prophets, incl. John) and the son (Jesus) in order to steal the son's inheritance (21:33-46).
They are the busy neighbors, who won't attend the son's wedding feast (22:1-10).
What "the way of righteousness" (21:32) is. I checked everywhere, and it doesn't appear to be a known phrase. Rats. It's just as ambiguous as the last time Jesus and John were "in the same room," as it were, when Jesus explained, with a wave of the hand, that it was fitting for him to be baptized by John, "to fulfill all righteousness" (3:15).
What I know is that (a) Jesus speaks vaguely about righteousness whenever John comes up, (b) Jesus' sonship usually comes up around the same time, and (c) the best way to understand righteousness in Matthew is by attending more to images than to vocabulary.
To the chagrin of the Rich Young Ruler, who prefers his abstract discussions of goodness, righteousness in this part of Matthew (roughly, Ch. 19-22) is depicted in household roles:
Land-owning, kingly fathers tend to their vineyards fastidiously, compensate kindly, punish severely, party lavishly, and insist passionately that their constituents understand and comply with their management decisions.
Sons obey, inherit, and get celebrated.
Servants bring unpopular messages and usually die (i.e., "persecuted for righteousness's sake," 5:10).
Laborers work, and they're satisfied with what they get.
Neighbors attend parties when they're invited.
This is the way of righteousness. This is the kind of house(hold) that Jesus is building on Peter the Rock (cf. Matt. 7, 16).
Matthew 21:28-32
"What do you think? 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. And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, 'I go, sir,' but did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?"
They said, "The first."
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."
What I'm noticing
Matthew begins this passage conversationally, "What do you think?" This is the start of a discussion.
At first glance, you'd think that the first son figures the tax collectors and prostitutes (TC&P), and that the second son figures the chief priests and elders (CP&E). But that's not the logic of the text.
Clearly "the first" is the good guy. The real question is, Who does the first son signify?
The significant action which the first son does is changing his mind (metamellomai, 21:29).
Before articulating his criticism of the CP&E in 21:32, he hones in on two missed chances of theirs. First, they didn't believe John the Baptist. Second, having seen the repentance of the TC&P, they didn't change their mind (metamellomai, 21:32).
On a closer read, this story resonates with the Prodigal Son Story (Luke 15:11-32) more than I thought. For Luke, the CP&E refuse to attend the party out of jealousy and pride, distracted by the constancy of their own obedience. For Matthew, the CP&E refuse to learn repentant, mind-changing obedience from the TC&P.
Matthew will also say his piece about refusing to go to a party, but just as Luke saves that story for the third in a series of three parables (Luke 15:1-7, 8-10, 11-32), so Matthew saves his for the third in a series of three parables (Matt. 21:28-32, 33-46; 22:1-10).
May I state the obvious? Matthew and Luke don't disagree. They just unroll their stories at different paces and relate obedience and festal joy, which they both deeply affirm, in different ways.
But again, the point of the story: The CP&E ought to have been inspired by the repentant, mind-changing obedience of the TC&P, whose righteousness now surpasses their own (cf. "unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees...").
Lectionary resonances
Ezekiel 18:1-4, 25-32. We can hear him clearly now: "When a wicked person turns away form the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he shall save his life" (v. 25). He also upholds the household images, and he may help us understand the way of righteousness: "O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?" (v. 29) We would do well to attend to Matthew's images of the Lord's house and his call to repentance.
Psalm 25:1-14. Lots of repent-y lines, like this one: "He instructs sinners in the way" (v. 8). The reward of this obedience is son-like inheritance ("his offspring shall inherit the land," v. 13) and friendship ("the friendship of the Yahweh is for those who fear him," v. 14). Can't you hear an echo of St. John's exalted view of friendship, in household terms: "No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you" (15:13). This is a path: From sinners, to servants, to sons, to friends. I mean, these aren't distinct rungs, but they're certainly ascending concepts within our texts.
Philippians 2:1-13. The obvious connection is obedience. Jesus, our model, "became obedient to the point of death" (v. 8). But there's another option I prefer. Paul, talking about the mind (v. 2, 5), exhorts the Philippians to look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others (v. 4). This Sunday, let "looking... to the interests of others" mean admiring and imitating the repentance of people who are your moral inferiors. Another summary of our texts: Learn repentance or die.
How I might preach this
I do like the ascending rung idea, rising the ranks in God's house as we continue to change our minds (Matt. 21; Phil. 2) and obey him: from sinners (Matt. 21; Ps. 25), to servants (Phil. 2), to sons (Matt. 21), to friends (Ps. 25). Paul doesn't say "friend" here, but he says exalted, renamed, and glorified (Phil. 2:9-11), which is also great. I just love the concept of friendship so much that I like tugging on that thread wherever I see it.
There's also simply following the thrust of the gospel: When you see repentant obedience, no matter where you see it, use that as an opportunity to develop your own art of repentance. Shoot higher (cf. Phil. 3), aim for a deeper righteousness (cf. Matt. 5-7).