Parable of The Two Sons [Matthew 21:28-31]

Upvote:-1

I think that the parable in Mathew 21 should be read in its context. In my opinion the clue is in the question at the start of the parable. It is the quest 'what do you think?' the context of that question determines whether there is any predefined order in the sons.

Upvote:2

These are three entirely unrelated passages. The first two do not explain or qualify the third.

Matthew 19:30, which says that many who are first shall be last and the last shall be first, should be read in conjunction with the parable that follows, in which the householder paid first those who began their hire last, then paid those who began their hire first, paying all an equal amount (Matthew 20:9-10). In this account, Jesus then says that it is lawful for him to choose those he will (presumably for salvation).

In Romans 2:9-10, there is no dichotomy of first and last. Paul simply mentions the Jews first in both cases, perhaps because he himself was a Jew and he often expresses concern for the spiritual welfare of the Jews. Paul then says (2:11) that God is impartial, in other words favouring neither Jew nor Gentile.

The parable of the two sons, in Matthew 21:28-31, is about the importance of repentance. It says that just as the repentant son found favour, so will publicans and harlots enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus explains this parable in Matthew 21:32, saying that the publicans and harlots believed John the Baptist and, because they believed, repented. And just as the lying son deserved less than his repentant brother, so also those who did not believe John, and have not repented, are less deserving than the publicans and harlots. Here, Jesus is simply saying that even those of the lowest social standing will come first if they have faith and repent.

More post

Search Posts

Related post