This is a copy of a talk I gave on Sunday 1 October 2023 at the 8.30 am service at Emmanuel, Billericay. The Bible Reading was Matthew 21:23-32.

The reading from Matthew 21:23-32 is another incisive discussion between the Pharisees and Jesus. It occurs just after Jesus has chased the money changers and merchants from the temple.

Animals that were offered for sacrifice had to be free of blemishes as determined by the temple authorities. Only temple currency could be used so foreign currency had to be converted to temple currency – albeit at outrageous rates of exchange. This had evolved into a profitable enterprise as they needed the approval of the religious authorities to operate in the temple. So, it’s not surprising that the chief priests and elders were upset. They wanted to know who gave Jesus the authority to do what he did.

Jesus’ actions in the Temple not only broke the powerful connection between money and religion but sought to redirect the tradition of Israel away from ritual legalism toward a more meaningful trust in the gracious and forgiving love of God.

Whilst we know the answer to the question, the Chief Priests and Pharisees did not. The Pharisees and Chief Priests were Rabbis, and they refused to believe that Jesus’ authority was greater than theirs, but they forgot the One who gave them the Ten Commandments, is the ultimate authority.

But because the Religious Leaders were obsessed with not breaking any of the law, they expanded them their own rules and regulations. And, in doing so, they considered themselves to be so righteous they thought they were doing God’s work, but as Jesus pointed out in the parable of the two sons in Matthew 21:28-32 they were sadly mistaken.

Jesus, as he so often did, uses a question to teach the Religious Leaders about the Kingdom of God. They were living examples of the second son in the parable. Self-righteous Jews who always gave the appearance of serving God. They followed all the picky religious rules; rules about what they should eat, and what they should wear, and how they should say their prayers. They looked and sounded very religious.

But when it came to issues like loving their neighbour, or showing kindness to the poor, or showing compassion to the marginalised they never showed up in the vineyard! They said they would; their religion was very impressive when they were at the Synagogue/Temple, but they did not live it out in their daily lives.

If we profess to follow Jesus, we must live our lives in such a way to show this to others. It wasn’t the unbelievers who were a problem for Jesus it was the religious people who were the problem. They just didn’t get it. They did not see that God was not so much interested in pious rhetoric and ceremonial formality but in people’s hearts.

In the parable of the two sons, the older son represented the Religious Leaders and the younger son represented outsiders such as tax collectors and prostitutes – those who were prepared to change their ways, compared to the Religious Leaders who were not.

When Jesus asked the Religious Leaders if the baptism of John came from heaven or from man, he was really asking them if they thought John was a true prophet or a false prophet. They were caught between the proverbial ‘rock and a hard place.’ If they said that John’s baptism came from heaven, they would be faced with John’s witness to Jesus ‘Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world’ and their failure to respond to John’s preaching.

If they said that it was from man, they would risk upsetting the crowd, many of whom believed in John. The Religious Leaders had the responsibility to know who ‘was and who was not’ a false prophet. They had the duty to protect the people from false prophets. Jesus also indirectly asked the Pharisees if they thought that his authority came from heaven or from man. If Jesus’ authority was from heaven, then his messianic claim is valid and they must him as Lord and Saviour – Jesus, too, was popular with the people.

Their final decision, which was the refusal to answer Jesus, compromised their own authority – they were meant to know every minute detail about the law, but they admitted they didn’t know! Imagine what the people around listening must have been thinking when they heard this.

The faithful son represents the faces of people such as a recovering alcoholic, a church that reaches out to the needy in the community. The second son is the church member who refuses Jesus’ entry to the deepest recesses of his or her heart; a church that ignores issues of justice and mercy. In other words, they are the people who appear to be faithful but, deep down, are not.

The parable of the two sons means that those who are not religious may sometimes respond to the good news of God’s forgiving love more readily than those whose are religious.

Jesus’ parable asks us how we will respond to the Gospel. Will we change our minds and believe, or not? Will we be the son who says he will obey and does not, or will we be the son who turns around and changes his mind? The parable is an example of the old adage that ‘actions speak louder than words.’ We will be judged not by what we say, but by what we do. The Religious Leaders wrongly thought that they were better than they really were, and they imagined that they did not need to repent.

How many times have we made commitments to God, only to fail on the follow through? How many times have we made promises that, for one reason or another, we have not kept? How often do we find ourselves responding to God’s prompting to do something when we have already told God No! What we believe should be evident in the way we live and relate. There must not be a disconnection between our words, actions and faith. We must be able to discern God’s voice in those expected and unexpected places. We must not only listen but be willing to change as we grow in our personal and corporate faith.

There are those whose religion seems to be lovely when they are surrounded by other religious persons. They can quote scripture verses by memory. They know all the religious language, all the religious rituals. But they don’t go to work in the vineyard. And all the love, and all the kindness, and all the compassion that they speak of in church … tends to stay at church.

But there are also those whose lives are laced with sin, whose language would make a sailor blush, and who wouldn’t know a bible from a dictionary if it were handed to them, but they are kind, and generous, and compassionate. They don’t get it when it comes to religion, and yet they are walking examples of the very people Jesus came to love – and we have much to learn from such people.

So, which son is doing the will of the Father? It’s a trick question because neither of them is. But which one of them is the Father’s son or daughter, which one of them does God want to nurture, and mould and change into walking examples of righteousness in the vineyard? All of us.

Jesus says that it isn’t the religious folk who are first in the kingdom of heaven. It is those who are most open to turning their lives around who are first in line, those who take action when Jesus says, “follow me”. That applies to all of us: Sunday school teachers, clergy, MU members those in our church family. Our hope for heaven is based on one thing and one thing alone – and that is the grace of God.

This parable quickens our resolve to change what needs changing. We have hope that this time change is possible because we have heard God’s word and experienced the living Jesus through it.

When we look over our recent past and notice the trend our lives have taken, with the thoughts and deeds that we have done, we want the second chance this parable offers us. We want to be able to change our minds, repent and do the good things we know we are called to do – and do them with the wholehearted “Yes” the gospel requires of us.

Let each one of us do that and not be like the Pharisees and Chief Priests who missed the point altogether.

COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: The text contained in this sermon is solely owned by its author, Revd Paul A. Carr. The reproduction, or distribution of this message, or any portion of it, should include the author’s name.