Matthew 21:28

But what think ye? A man had two sons; and he came to the first and said, Son, go work today in the vineyard. And he answered and said, I will not; but afterward he repented himself and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Which of the two did the will of his father?

THE PABABLE OF THE TWO SONS

ANALOGIES IN THE PARABLE

The man who had two sons is God.

The first son represents the publicans and harlots.

The second son represents the self-righteous Pharisees.

The vineyard stands for God's true religion.

The man's equal treatment of both sons suggests God's impartial dealings with all people.

The two sons are also typical of two types of persons in all ages.

It is noteworthy that God recognizes only two classes of persons, both shamefully delinquent in one way or another, thus attesting the universal sin and wickedness of man. There is a sense in which this parable stands for the Jews and the Gentiles as represented by the two sons; but the immediate and primary application of it was made by Christ himself who referred it to the publicans and harlots on one hand and the Pharisees on the other. There are two destinies revealed for the two classes of men, heaven and hell (Matthew 25:34,41); and the two classes are set forth under a number of figures in the New Testament, such as: the wheat and the chaff (Matthew 3:12), the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:25), the rejects and keepers (Matthew 13:48,49), the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:32), builders on rock, or on sand (Matthew 7:24-26), etc. The two sons of this parable represent the grand moral cleavage in humanity, which in God's sight forms two and only two classes, the good and the bad.

THE FATHER'S INVITATION: "Son, Go work today in the vineyard," is a marvel of tenderness and reasonableness. It is IMPARTIAL, being addressed to both alike; it is loving and tender, being prefaced by a term of endearment, "Son." It is REASONABLE, since nothing could be more proper than for a son to work in the vineyard he himself may inherit; it is SPECIFIC, not any vineyard, but THE vineyard being indicated; it is URGENT, work being required not tomorrow, but today; it is NECESSARY, because without work which was commanded, the vineyard would perish. All of these characteristics of the father's command have an application today in God's command, or invitation, for men to work in his vineyard, the church.

THE FIRST SON'S RESPONSE: "I will not." This is typical of the response of publicans and harlots whom Jesus made the heroes of this parable. Theirs was an open, frank, rude rejection of the Father's command. This should not be glamorized. Some are tempted to do so, boasting that they do not attend church, having no time for such things, are not the religious type, etc.; and, although frankness has merit under some conditions, there can be no merit on the part of that son who wounded a loving father, rejected an altogether reasonable commandment to work in the vineyard, and who flouted the father's authority. He refused to accept any responsibility to honor and obey the one who had given him life, nourished him in infancy, supported him in weakness, and who was entitled to his respect and obedience. All who refuse to serve God in his church are guilty of the same thing.

Let it be further observed that the first son's response did not cancel or remove any of his duties or obligations. His duty did not derive from his commitment (if he had made any), but it sprang from the father's inherent right and authority to lay upon him such a requirement as working in the vineyard. Some in the church do not see this. They "won't promise anything," "will not make a pledge," etc., as if such refusal would cancel or diminish any duty. However, all of man's duties in the church derive their authority, not from man's voluntarily accepting them, but from God who has the right to command his creation. The fact that the first son later repented and went to work did not make his first refusal any less wrong. This suggests that Christians, even after they have begun to accept the Lord, are still unprofitable servants.

THE SECOND SON'S RESPONSE: The second son said, "I go, sir," but went not! Such a response was proper and correct as far as it went. The fact that he was a smooth hypocrite who did not follow his profession with valid obedience cannot negate the correct nature of his verbal response. He said exactly what he should have said. His later failure cannot change the righteous character of his words. Those who profess to serve God are right in such a profession, and it ought to serve as a stimulus to perform deeds consistent with it. In the parable, the second son's response represents that of the Pharisees and their crowd who professed a holiness they would not exhibit.