The parable of the two sons is short, and we do not need to guess its meaning. The Lord Jesus Himself provides the application. He addresses this parable to the chief priests and the elders of the people (:23).
They had asked Him by what authority He was doing these things. Jesus answers with a counter-question regarding John the Baptist: was his baptism from heaven or from men? They refuse to answer, as any response would land them in trouble: if they say John’s baptism was from heaven, Jesus will ask why they did not believe him; and if they say it was from men, they fear the people, who regarded John as a prophet (:24-27).
The father’s instruction
Immediately afterwards, Jesus tells the parable of the two sons. It concerns two sons who are both called by their father to work in his vineyard. One says he does not want to, but goes anyway. The other says he will go, but does not do it. Jesus then lets His opponents draw the conclusion themselves.
Matthew 21 ISA
28 But what do you think? A man had two children. And he came to the first and said: Child, go, work today in the vineyard.
Jesus begins with the question: “What do you think?” With this, He involves His listeners in the parable. Later, they will have to give an answer themselves and, in doing so, effectively judge themselves.
Two sons
There is a father with two children. The Greek word tekna literally means children, although it becomes clear from the rest of the passage that they are two sons. The father sends them to his vineyard. In Scripture, the vineyard is a well-known image of Israel (Isa. 5:1–7).
The instruction is simple: “Go work in the vineyard today.” The father has authority, and the son is called to do what his father commands him.
29 But he answered and said, “I will not.” Yet later he regretted it and went.
disobedient at first, then obedient after all
The first son is clear: “I will not.” He openly refuses to do what his father asks of him. But it does not stop there. Later, he has a change of heart. The Greek word metamelomai carries the meaning of regretting something afterwards or changing one’s mind. That a real change takes place within him is evident from what he does next: he goes to the vineyard after all.
His initial answer was wrong, but ultimately, he does his father’s will.
30 And he came to the second and said the same thing. And he answered and said, “I will, sir!” But he did not go.
saying it, but not doing it
The father gives the second son the exact same instruction. His answer stands in stark contrast to that of his brother. Literally, he answers: “I, sir!” The implication is: I will go, sir. His words sound good. He even addresses his father as “sir.” Yet, he fails to do what he says. The first son said no but went; the second said yes but did not go. The contrast is clear. Ultimately, it is not about what someone says, but about what he does with the word that comes to him.
31 Which of the two did the father’s will? They say, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I tell you that the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the Kingdom of God ahead of you.”
who did the father’s will?
Now Jesus lets the chief priests and elders answer for themselves. Which of the two did his father’s will? The answer is obvious: the first one. In doing so, without realizing it, they pass judgment on themselves.
Jesus then applies the parable directly. The tax collectors and prostitutes are like the first son. Their way of life did not initially bear witness to obedience to God. But when John came, they believed his message.
The religious leaders, on the other hand, resemble the second son. With their words, they professed to serve God and do His will. But when God sent John, they did not believe him.
John believed and rejected
Jesus says that tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the Kingdom of God ahead of them. The Greek word used, proagō, means to go before or lead the way. Those whom the religious leaders looked down upon are going ahead of them.
32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him. But the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And although you saw this, you did not even later repent and believe him.
Here, Jesus Himself explains what the parable is about. John the Baptist had been sent by God. In doing so, Jesus refers back to the question He had just asked the chief priests and elders: “Where did John’s baptism come from? From heaven or from men?” (:25).
The tax collectors and prostitutes believed John. They are therefore like the first son: at first there was disobedience, but when God’s word came to them, they changed their minds.
no repentance
The leaders had actually seen the effect John’s preaching had on others. Yet, they did not change their minds. Here, Jesus once again uses the same word, metamelomai, as in verse 29. The first son later felt remorse and went after all, but the chief priests and elders — even after witnessing everything — did not feel remorse or come to believe John.
This brings the meaning of the parable into sharp focus. The contrast is not simply between good people and bad people. The contrast is between those who are initially disobedient but ultimately believe God’s word, and those who claim to serve God but do not believe His word when it comes to them.
a deeper layer?
Beyond the immediate meaning of this parable, a deeper layer can also be discerned. The second son tells his father he will go, but then fails to do so. This calls to mind Israel at Sinai. When YAHWEH speaks His words to the people, Israel answers: “Everything that YAHWEH has spoken, we will do” (Ex. 19:8). Thus, Israel said yes to God, yet history shows that the people were disobedient.
With the first son, we see the reverse. He initially says, “I will not,” but later changes his mind and goes after all. Here, a parallel can be drawn with the nations. Paul states that they “were once disobedient to God” but have now received mercy through Israel’s disobedience (Rom. 11:30). They were without God in the world and alienated from the citizenship of Israel (Eph. 2:12), yet have now been called by God.
However, this is not the primary meaning of the parable. Jesus Himself provides the direct meaning of the parable. The first son represents the tax collectors and prostitutes who believed John, while the second son represents the religious leaders who did not believe him (:31-32). Both groups belong to Israel.
Yet, in these two sons, one can discern a pattern that later becomes visible on a larger scale in Israel and the nations. Israel said it would obey God but became disobedient. The nations were disobedient but are now receiving mercy. And it does not stop there. Paul makes it clear that Israel’s current disobedience does not have the final word. God will show mercy to them as well (Rom. 11:31), for “God has shut up all in disobedience, that He might show mercy to all” (Rom. 11:32). However, the restoration of Israel is not the subject of this parable.