PARABLE OF THE TWO SONS (MATTHEW 21:28-32)

One could say that the meaning of this parable is summarized by the popular customer service slogan: "Under promise and over deliver." But Snodgrass notes: “This simple parable has caused considerable disagreement.”

Most of us, even those without children, have experienced something similar. My first chemical technician at work was much older and experienced in laboratory operations than I was coming straight out of school. I saw him carrying out a common procedure and casually mentioned to him a better way to do things. His immediate reaction was to cuss me out for thinking that I knew more than he did. I left and went back to my office, but noticed that soon afterward he was actually trying it my way. On the other hand, there have been numerous times when I have had to wait for weeks or months for workmen to show up at my house when they promised to be there within a few days. Unfortunately, the same thing happens within the church.

It may be controversial to suggest it, but even Jesus on two occasions acted like the first son early in his ministry when family members urged him to do something. In both cases, he refused but then went ahead and did it anyway. The first occasion was when Mary asked him to do something about the lack of wine at the wedding celebration at Cana, and the second was when his brothers urged him to accompany them to Jerusalem and impress the people there. In each case, he complied but in his own way, keeping in mind God's mission and timing, not theirs. There may also be a relationship to Paul's later teaching about those who do naturally what the law requires without knowing the law vs. the hypocrites who know the law but refuse to follow it (Romans 2:12-15).

Immediate Context

Some critics have expressed doubt that Jesus' words in verse 32 were original to the story. However, the repeated words “finally repented” at the start (v. 29) and end (v. 32) show that it belonged with the parable from the first. Similarly, the mention of John the Baptist's authority in verse 32 harkens back to the original dialogue in verse 25. That is the clue that Jesus' parable is his way of answering the question posed back in v. 23 regarding his authority.

This parable is the first of three grouped parables in Matthew dealing with the refusal of the Jewish authorities to believe. Verbal tie-ins between the three include man (21:28; 22:11), vineyard (21:28,33,39,40), finally (21:29, 32, 37), likewise (21:30,36), sir (21:29,40), Jesus said to them (21:31, 42), kingdom of God (21:31, 43), slaves killed (21:35; 22:22:6) and “he sent other slaves” (21:36; 22:4). “All three parables speak of a radical and unexpected reversal of roles.” (France) They are progressively stronger in their condemnation dealing respectively with indictment, sentence and execution. Subsequent chapters in Matthew will go further in their prediction of destruction of the temple, Jerusalem and Judea. (France)

Starting with St. Jerome, the church allegorized the two sons as standing for the Gentiles and Jews, but also allowed that it could refer to any sinners who accepted Jesus vs. the Pharisees who rejected him. Snodgrass excludes the idea that the sinners are metaphors for believing Gentiles and says that the most simple interpretation is to show the difference between saying and doing. He adds, “How did people ever get the idea that obedience to the will of God is optional?” Blomberg echoes this by saying, “In the kingdom, performance takes priority over promise.”

There is a strange textual variant some early manuscripts in which the Jews purposely give the wrong answer and say that the second son who didn't go is actually the one who did the father's will. Metzger says that even though as a general rule the most difficult reading is usually to be preferred, in this case it “is not only difficult, it is nonsensical.” He feels that the original reasoning behind such a variation was probably to point out even more how perverse the leadership is. They purposefully give the wrong answer just to spoil the point of Jesus' parable. Ellison (International Bible Commentary) agrees that that this was done “as a refusal to be heckled by a Galilean artisan” and actually feels this is the preferred reading. That is doubtful for two reasons: poor manuscript attestation and the fact that Jesus would have certainly corrected them.

It is uncertain whether Jesus' words in v. 31 indicate that the high priests and elders are excluded from the kingdom or will only go in after the “low-lives.” “First” can mean “instead of” or “before.” (France).  Snodgrass adds that although “first” doesn't necessarily imply exclusion, that is the case in the next two parables. Matthew holds out hope here for repentance, but the sinners and tax collectors who have already responded will have to show them the way.

Interestingly, Matthew doesn't use his usual designation "Kingdom of Heaven" but substitutes "Kingdom of God." There has been much controversy concerning what if anything is implied by this change, but it is best not to get too hung up on it or whether it refers to the present kingdom or the future one.

As a final note, Mann and Albright remark that in both Matthew 7:21 and 21:30, it is the disobedient son who says, “Lord” (or sir) to the father.