26th SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME
Philippians 2: 1-11
Matthew 21: 28-32
the kingdom of God
before you.”
Today, Matthew narrates to us the parable of Jesus about the two sons. At the outset, we must admit that neither of the two is the ideal son. In one way or the other, both of them gave or made something quite displeasing to their father. The ideal son – the “third son” is he who says and does one thing and the same thing. And this “third son” is Christ. --- Anyhow, since the parable concludes that one of them really did the will of the father, what the story most likely wants to establish are the inconsistencies of the two sons, and who between them – despite their inconsistencies – seems to be “more right” as to do their father’s request. With this we reap the following lessons.
1. All of us in this world are victims of our own inconsistencies. And we could be inconsistent either like the first son or like the second son.
a. The inconsistency of the first son lies on the fact that he said to his father, “No, I won’t,” but went. What he said did not jibe with what he did. Inconsistency of this kind may have various causes, from the simplest and lowest degree as laziness to the most complicated and serious one as rebellion. However, the elder son’s inconsistency seems neither because of laziness nor rebellion. His inconsistency is more likely caused by rush judgment. Without thinking a little deeper the better rewards he gets if he goes to the farm and without even minding of hurting or disappointing his father, he outrightly said, “No, I won’t.” In many and more similar and familiar settings, we too hurt and disappoint others – our neighbors, friends and even loved ones – by our rush judgments. And sometimes, it would just be tool late for us to realize how uncharitable we had become because we judge people, things and events so outrightly and unreservedly. Unfortunately, rush judgments are often harsh judgments, too.
b. On the other hand, the inconsistency of the second son consists in saying to his Father, “Yes, I’m going.” But did not go. Again, his words did not jibe with his act. But this time, he is giving an impression of doing the request of his father by his affirmative answer. Perhaps, the second son had that intention when he said “yes”. But his good intention was not enough. In human affairs, there are just so many who die with their good intentions. Or else, another reason for the son’s “yes” would perhaps be his “too much concern” of not hurting his father face to face. He might not have had any intention at all to go to the farm, but he had to say “yes” in order to please his father. He could not afford to be frank, lest he might disappoint his father so badly right before his face. His concern was only right then and there. He forgot that by not actually going to the farm he would disappoint and even offend his father all the more. Or worse, he might not have forgotten at all about the sadder consequence and was completely aware of it. Yet, he insists with his own inconsistency.
In many occasions, we too behave in the same way. Although we really mean “no”, we cannot just say it directly and clearly. We have too many fears, many hesitations and many reservations. We don’t want to appear bad. We smile and let others smile too, at least for the day! And worse, although we maybe fully aware that our “yes” actually means “no”, we still insist in our own stubborn ways.
2. “When John came to you in the way of righteousness, you did not believe him…even when you saw that, you did not later change your minds and believe him.” The inconsistency of the second son portrays that of the scribes and Pharisees. Looking a little closer at the gospel, inconsistency seems to be just another soft word for hypocrisy. But both words seem to mean the same. “Saying one thing and doing another thing”, seems to be the common denominator of both words. It is saying, “yes” while meaning “no” or saying “no” while meaning, “yes” and insisting in it. This last element is quite important. The first son, too, was inconsistent, but did not insist. And that exempts him from hypocrisy. The case of the second son is very much different. It is inconsistency in order to appear pleasing to other people’s eyes. And that’s precisely the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees. And although there could have been opportunities for amendments, they still insist in their stubbornness of heart. No wonder, hypocrisy is quite a big sin. It comes from the heart. It is the heart’s unfaithfulness to truth and goodness.
3. “Which of the two did the father’s will? They answered, ‘the first.’” By the parable’s conclusion, we see that the first son, although he was inconsistent was the “more right” between the two. In fact, Jesus himself would agree with his listeners that his son really did the will of the father. At least two lessons are given here. First, the parable teaches us that there indeed is an objective morality, which judges what is good or bad according to the act itself. The son did the will of his father not because he said “no” but because he indeed went. True, in any moral evaluation, the intention of the person carries its own weight. But it does not suffice at all. In fact, the parable seems to suggest that the “yes” of the second son, no matter how coated it could have perhaps been with his best intention, does not deserve any moral merit. It was the actual “going to the farm” and not the “saying yes” that makes the whole thing. It is the doing and not the saying that makes the moral lesson. A house, no matter how beautifully planned, as long as it is not built, will never be a place to live in.
Second, the parable also teaches us that what compliments objective morality is that subjective norm, which is found in man’s heart. This seems to be the much heavier lesson of the parable. The first son becomes deserving of praise because he was able to realize his shortcoming and amend it. “He said in reply, ‘I will not’, but afterwards he changed his mind and went.” The gospel’s word for conversion is “metanoia”, which literally means a radical change of hear and mind. The first son did not insist with his “no”. Despite his initial refusal, there was still a reserved “real yes” in his heart that simply waited for an opportune time. That is why this son best represents the tax collectors and the prostitutes and all those considered as public sinners during Jesus’ time. For many varied reasons, these people would say “no” not only once but many times. And yet, at the innermost part of their hearts they had that reserved “yes”, which just finally outburst when the most opportune time comes.
Indeed
the first son’s inconsistency is highly repairable. And as told, it is
perfectly repaired by conversion, by a sincere and radical change of heart. “Amen,
I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God
before you.”