THE PARABLE OF THE TWO SONS

Which Son
Obeyed his
Father? The
Textual Problem
in Matthew
21:29-31
 Related Media
21:28 “What do you think? A man had
two sons. He went to the first and
said, ‘Son, go and work in the
vineyard today.’ 21:29 The boy
answered, ‘I will not.’ But later he
had a change of heart and went.
21:30 The father went to the other
son and said the same thing. This boy
answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but did not go.
21:31 Which of the two did his
father’s will?” They said, “The first.”
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the
truth, tax collectors and prostitutes
will go ahead of you into the kingdom
of God! 21:32 For John came to you in
the way of righteousness, and you did
not believe him. But the tax
collectors and prostitutes believed
him. Although you saw this, you did
not later change your minds and
believe him.” — NET Bible
Matthew 21:29-31 involves a rather
complex textual problem. The
variants cluster into three different
groups: (1) The first son says “no”
and later has a change of heart, and
the second son says “yes” but does not
go. The second son is called the one
who does his father’s will! This
reading is found in the Western
manuscripts. But the reading is so
hard as to be next to impossible. One
can only suspect some tampering
with the text (e.g., that the Pharisees
would indeed give lip-service to
obedience and would betray
themselves in their very response) or
extreme carelessness on the part of
the scribe. (Either option, of course,
is not improbable with this particular
texttype, and with codex D in
particular.) The other two major
variants are more difficult to assess.
Essentially, the responses are sensical
(the son who does his father’s will is
the one who changes his mind after
saying “no”: (2) The first son says
“no” and later has a change of heart,
and the second son says “yes” but
does does not go. But here, the first
son is called the one who does his
father’s will (unlike the Western
reading). This is the reading found in
C* L W D Byz and many itala and
Syriac witnesses. (3) The first son
says “yes” but does not go, and the
second son says “no” but later has a
change of heart. This is the reading
found in B Q f 700 and several
versional witnesses.
Both of these latter two readings
make good sense and have
significantly better textual support
than the first reading. The real
question, then, is: Is the first son or
the second the obedient one? If we
were to argue simply from the
parabolic logic, we would tend to see
the second son as the obedient one
(hence, the third reading). The first
son would represent the Pharisees
(or Jews) who claim to obey God, but
do not (cf. Matt 23:3 ). This comports
well with the parable of the prodigal
son (in which the oldest son
represents the unbelieving Jews).
Further, the chronological sequence
of the second son being obedient fits
well with the real scene: Gentiles and
tax collectors and prostitutes are not,
collectively, God’s chosen people, but
they do repent and come to God,
while the Jewish leaders claimed to
be obedient to God but did nothing.
At the same time, the external
evidence is weaker for this reading
(though stronger than the first
reading), not as widespread, and
certainly doubtful because of how
neatly it fits. One suspects scribal
manipulation at this point. (One
might even conjecture that the
Western reading originated from
some attempt to smooth things out,
but the scribe got confused along the
way and created a worse blunder,
just as several Georgian witnesses
seemed to do.) Thus, the second
reading looks to be superior to the
other two on both external and
transcriptional grounds.
When one comes to the
interpretation of the parable, it is of
course possible that we ought not
overinterpret. Jesus didn’t always
give predictable responses.
Chronological sequencing was not
necessarily a part of the parabolic
package. For example, in the
eschatological parable of the wheat
and darnel ( Matt 13:24-30 ), it is the
darnel that is gathered first and
thrown into the furnace; but in the
eschatological parable of the sheep
and goats ( Matt 25:31-46 ), the sheep
go into the kingdom first, then the
goats receive their punishment (vv.
34, 46). We must be careful not to
make parables walk on all fours; that
is, not every point in the parable has
interpretive correspondence.
However, in this instance, the
sequencing seems to be intentional—
and many scribes, though trying to
improve on the logic of the
presentation, missed the rhetorical
power of Jesus’ message. The Lord
seems to have painted a picture in
which the Pharisees saw themselves
as the first son. They would have
regarded themselves as in a place of
privilege, the first ones chosen by
God, and those who actually obeyed
the Father’s will. (One is reminded of
the ancient rabbinic prayer: “I thank
you, Lord, that you did not make me
a woman or a Gentile”!) Then came
the O’Henry twist: The Pharisees are
not the first son, but the second. They
are not the ones who have obeyed
their heavenly Father, but the tax
collectors and prostitutes are! In
some respects, this chronological
reversal is reminiscent of Nathan’s
approach to King David when he
pointed out his sin with Bathsheba
( 2 Sam 12:1-7 ). Both Nathan and
Jesus ‘set up’ the hearers to elicit a
certain response (that of indignation
at the disobedient one in the story),
only to show that those very hearers
were not on the side of
righteousness.
Thus, when one looks at the internal
coherence of the story, it seems
evident that the Western reading
flattens out the mystery and presents
the Pharisees as not only unrighteous
but blithering idiots. But such a lack
of subtlety was probably not a part of
the story or the historical situation.
And the third reading improves the
text—at first glance—but in reality
seems to unravel the rich tapestry
that is being woven by the Master
Teacher himself.