‘Last of all’ He sent His Son
“One problem that has been given
me considerable trouble,” explained Elder Stoddard, “is the parable in Matthew
21:33-39 about the wicked husbandmen who killed or stoned the servants who were
sent to them from the lord of the vineyard. The difficulty is this: ‘Last of
all he sent his son.’ Several people have asked me, ‘How can you get another
prophet in after last of all?’ The next verse explains that they slew
the son, having no reverence for the heir, but it is made clear that he was to
be last of all. This is the strongest argument I have heard against the
revelation that was given in this very place [the Sacred Grove].”
“You must remember,” cautioned the
instructor, “that the text mentioned is positively labelled a parable. Shall we
accept parables as perfect vehicles to express doctrine? Is the parable equal
with prophecy as a builder and defender of the faith, or might we err in following
a parable as an infallible determiner of creeds, a perfect guide in doctrine?
Is it possible that the Master would use a humble parable to predict such
important events as the plan of salvation, while His sermons and prophecies were
silent on the subject?
“Before you rush out with open
arms to welcome parabolic instruction on a par with prophecy, let me read you
what the best authorities in the field have to say on the subject. That popular
preacher and scholar, Abraham Mitrie Rihbany, who was reared in the Orient,
offers this explanation: ‘A parable is a word picture whose purpose is not to
construct a definition or to establish a doctrine, but to convey an impression.’
“Buttrick warns us that ‘A wise
interpretation of a parable will seek its salient truth. . . . Parables are not
armories for forging theological weapons. The purpose of a parable is not to
establish dogma, but to establish life.’
“This is but a sample of a vast
array of testimony of this nature. We do not depend upon parables to support or
predict a modern revelation, nor should we be eager to accept a portion of one
which contradicts all other teachings on that subject.
“My advice is that you call
attention to these problems and then go with them as far as they wish to go in
the matter of accepting and interpreting parables. If your opponent insists on
a literal interpretation, then you must meet this particular problem thus:
“Verses 40 and 41 make it clear
that after the son is killed the lord of the vineyard ‘cometh and will let our
his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.’
“This conclusion is thrust upon us
that the Lord of the vineyard came after He had sent His Son last of all,
that that His instructions were so complete and His supervision so thorough
that the vineyard finally produced for its owner ‘the fruits in their seasons,’
a thing that had not been done before the heir had been killed.
“Since you insist that this
parable be accepted as prophecy you can find no scripture which declares in
more specific terms that a restoration was necessary before the neglected
vineyard could be made to produce in abundance. If the frequent visits of the
Old Testament prophets and the personal visit of the heir could not inspire the
husbandmen to pay the lord of the vineyard his rental dues, how could the
negligent husbandmen be made to perform their duties unless even closer
supervision be given than had been provided before the heir was killed?
“This parable insists that the
husbandmen chosen after the heir was killed were more faithful in the
performance in their duties than the renters had been while servants were being
sent regularly to supervise their labor. Doesn’t it seem utterly ridiculous
that such profitable results could be achieved without personal visits from the
lord of the vineyard or ministrations from his commissioned servants? The
Saviour closed this parable with the promise that ‘The kingdom of God shall be
taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.’
“This glorious restoration is not condemned
at all by the parable you mention.” (E. Cecil McGavin, Cumorah’s “Gold
Bible” [Salt Lake City: The Deseret News Press, 1940], 15-18, comment in
square brackets added for clarification)
Further Reading
Not
By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
