How does Matthew 21:28 challenge traditional views on repentance and action? Canonical Text and Immediate Context “‘But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he went to the first and said, “Son, go and work today in my vineyard.” ’ ” (Matthew 21:28). The statement introduces Jesus’ short parable (vv. 28-32) delivered in the temple courts during His final week. It follows His authority-questioning dialogue with the chief priests and elders and stands between the cursing of the fig tree (vv. 18-22) and the vineyard tenants (vv. 33-46), all of which address fruit-bearing as proof of covenant faithfulness. Traditional Jewish View of Repentance (Teshuvah) First-century Judaism understood teshuvah as turning back to Torah obedience, publicly expressed in prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and ritual purity (cf. Joel 2:12-13; Tobit 12:8-9). The temple leadership saw outward conformity—offerings, calendar observance, and lineage—as adequate tokens of repentance. Jesus’ vignette disrupts this expectation by portraying a son who initially refuses yet ultimately obeys, contrasted with a son who respectfully agrees but never goes. Authentic repentance, He implies, is validated by subsequent action, not by initial words or pedigree. Link to John the Baptist’s Preaching John had demanded “fruit worthy of repentance” (Matthew 3:8). Jesus now echoes and sharpens that demand before the very authorities who had dismissed John (21:32). The parable reveals why tax collectors and prostitutes, though initially disobedient, enter the kingdom ahead of self-righteous leaders: they acted on John’s call, the elders did not. Faith and Works: Consistency with the Wider Canon Matthew’s emphasis harmonizes, not conflicts, with Pauline soteriology. Paul distinguishes saving faith that “works through love” (Galatians 5:6) from a dead, word-only profession. James will later argue, “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:17). Jesus, Paul, and James converge: genuine faith inevitably moves the will, proving repentance by obedience. Archaeological and Cultural Backdrop Excavations of first-century vineyard terraces near Ein Kerem and the Gennath Gate illustrate the labor Jesus references: pruning, stone-wall repair, and watchtower maintenance. Such immediacy underscores the father’s “today” (sémeron) command—work could not be deferred without risking crop loss. First-hearers knew that obedience “later” equated to disobedience, accentuating the parable’s urgency. Historical Reception Chrysostom (Hom. 68 on Matthew) highlighted “obedience is judged by outcome, not promise.” Augustine used the parable against Pelagian claims that mere willpower sufficed, insisting on grace-enabled doing. Reformers echoed the same, Calvin writing, “Repentance is not bounded by the lips but fulfilled in the life” (Inst. 3.3.16). Pastoral and Missional Application • Evangelism: Urge hearers not merely to “pray a prayer” but to yield tangible life-change as evidence of the new birth (2 Corinthians 5:17). • Discipleship: Measure growth by increasing conformity to Christ’s commands (John 14:15), not attendance or verbal profession. • Self-Examination: Paul’s “Test yourselves” (2 Corinthians 13:5) echoes the father’s summons—what have you done “today” with God’s call? Systematic Theological Integration Repentance (metanoia) and faith (pistis) are two sides of one coin in conversion. Both lead to sanctification, the Spirit-empowered life of obedience (Galatians 5:22-25). Matthew 21:28 reinforces that chronology: God’s call → human response → Spirit-enabled fruit. Eschatological Undertone The urgency of “today” anticipates looming judgment (Matthew 25:31-46). Deferred obedience risks eternal exclusion. Hence the parable serves as both invitation and warning. Conclusion Matthew 21:28 overturns any tradition—religious, cultural, or psychological—that equates repentance with words, intentions, heritage, or ritual. Authentic repentance is confirmed only when the hearer rises, goes, and works in the Father’s vineyard—today. |
    |