Matthew 21:28 to Matthew 22:14. A trilogy of parables, perhaps from Q, enforcing the implicit teaching of the fig-tree incident.
Matthew 21:28-32. The Parable of the Two Sons. Mt. only. With Matthew 21:32 cf. Luke 7:29 f. Wellhausen points out that in Mt. the religious relationship between man and God is usually service, not sonship. God is King or householder; and though here He is Father, the sons are His servants. The parable is clear, its application (Matthew 21:31 f.) obvious and pointed. Yet early interpreters like Origen, Chrysostom, and Jerome took the two sons to be Jews (professing righteousness but rejecting Christ) and Gentiles (disobeying the Law but accepting Christ), and this led to the inverted order of the sons which we find in many texts (esp. B followed by WH and Moffatt). Another curious reading (D and Syr. Sin.), while supporting the more likely order, makes the priests and elders reply (Matthew 21:31) the last. If this is the correct reading, we must suppose that they deliberately gave an absurd answer, in order to spoil the argument, or (Merx, very unlikely) that the whole story is meant as a deadly but most accurate satire on the morality of the Scribes who keep the letter and neglect the spirit (Montefiore, p. 711). RV no doubt gives the right order, for if the first son had said Yes the second would not have been asked. And the reply of the second, I, sir, (will go) emphasizes both the contrast with the first and his submission to his father. The parable reminds us of the Prodigal Son and his brother, and is an effective illustration of Matthew 7:21 (cf. Matthew 23:3). Note the advance made by Matthew 21:32 on Mark 2:17. Came in the way of righteousness, i.e., he inaugurated the right way of life, salvation through repentance; or, he stood for the manner of life which righteousness demands (Allen).