The Two Sons — (Matthew 21:28-32)
This parable is in direct response to the Pharisaical questioning recorded in 21:23-27. John the Baptist’s work had created a great controversy in Israel. By it, the common man was receiving truths which the Pharisaical community was both incapable of receiving and unwilling to propagate. Jesus caught the Pharisees in their own trap (verses 25, 26). He then proceeded to offer this parable to illustrate what was happening as the Jewish Age was giving way to the Gospel Age.
21:28, 29. The “man” of the parable likely is Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel, and who, consequently, has the two classes of sons of Israel reflected in this parable. As the parable concludes, the “father” grows to represent the standards of God, which become the end-of-the-age extension of Jacob’s faith in the Abrahamic covenant.
Jesus poses a question to the Pharisees as he begins the parable. When we finally get to verse 45, we see the Pharisees’ realization that they were the unfavorable objects of two parables. They wanted to apprehend Jesus, but their fear of losing a grasp on the multitudes made them desist.
The first son is the Pharisaical class. Jesus summarizes their deficiencies by showing that they gave lip service to God, but never really served God’s cause.
21:30. The second son represents that class of Israelites who clearly were not living up to the Law — publicans, sinners, harlots, etc.
[NOTE: Because better manuscript evidence has surfaced since Bro. Russell’s day, his comments (R. 4678) regarding which group is which, end up being backwards! Thus, the interpretation here offered (based on the NAS and better manuscripts) looks to be different from Bro. Russell’s. IT IS NOT DIFFERENT. The lesson of the parable remains as he interpreted it; only the numbering of the groups is changed.]
The common people of Israel openly lived in defiance of the minutiae of the Law. But when John came along and created mass reformation and repentance, this class “afterward regretted” their conduct, “and went” after John, Jesus, and the incoming Gospel movement.
21:31. The parable has ended; but Jesus continues the question begun in verse 28. He now adds: “Which of the two did the will of his father?” — which is exhibiting the faith of Jacob in God’s will?
The Pharisees don’t hesitate to give the correct answer — at this point probably not realizing that they are condemning their own position.
Jesus, of course, then explains that it is the formerly openly-rebellious, but now-repentant, sinners who are finding acceptance.
21:32. Jesus clarifies the point in order to connect his lesson to their tricky questioning regarding John (21:25). He answers that John’s work was of God, but that they (the Pharisees) had rejected it despite its power; but the sinners believed and were converted to a righteous course.
The Vineyard And The Husbandman: (Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-11; and Luke 20:9-18)
We have here a great shortcoming in the NAS version of this parable. A proper interpretation necessitates our understanding that this parable is about the entire Jewish Age and its transition into the Gospel Age. The NAS says “HARVEST” in Matthew 21:34. THIS IS INCORRECT! This passage is about the entire Jewish Age, not only its Harvest. The NAS margin (for “Harvest”) at least acknowledges that the literal Greek is “the season of the fruits.” It is easy to see why this might imply “Harvest” to the translators; but “Harvest” ruins the interpretation. The ENTIRE AGE was supposed to bring forth fruitage. The same is true of the Gospel Age. All saints throughout the age must bear fruitage. The point is this: Harvest is to REAP the whole matured crop. So, if the Greek had said “the season of the reaping of the fruits,” then “Harvest” might have been justified. But, instead, this is the age of fruitage and “receiving the produce” (appreciating and aiding the growth of others). With this stipulation in mind, most of the difficulties of interpretation disappear.
[It might be noted here that “Harvest” in Mark 12:2 and in Luke 20:10 are italicized (NAS). The word has been (unfortunately) interpolated by the translators. The KJV does not use “Harvest” in any of the three passages.]
21:33. The basic scene for the Jewish Age is set in this verse. God planted a vineyard. (Isaiah 5:7 identified this vineyard as the “house of Israel” — the fleshly house as this parable begins. Eventually, of course, the spiritual house of Israel becomes the same vineyard, except that Jesus instead of Jacob is the root of the vine, and we instead of Jews are the branches.) The fact that the parable begins with planting emphasizes that the parable covers the whole age.
We must be prepared to have what seems like a dichotomy of symbolisms. Just as in the Gospel Harvest
(Matthew 24:31), the “angels” and the “elect” both represent saints, in this vineyard the branches, the fruit, and the vinegrowers are all the same; they are Israel.
Thus, God plants the vine which will ultimately produce the seed of Abraham. He walls it in for the age with the Law Covenant; He provides a “winepress” to extract the desired results; He builds a tower for the “watchmen” — the prophets — to keep an eye on progress. In other words, He provided everything necessary for the purpose of the age.
The “vinegrowers” (the keepers of the arrangement) well represent the Jews who were supposed to manage the arrangement — i.e., the Priesthood, Kings, etc.
The planter “went on a journey.” He left the arrangement in charge of those who were commissioned to produce fruit and who had vowed to do so. As was said in oath to Moses, “All these things we will do.”
21:34. When enough time elapses to produce fruitage, God expects that Israel should have grown toward Him and His ways as would be illustrated by a faithfulness toward the Law. This would probably be early in Israel’s history — likely the time of the Judges whom “He sent…to receive His produce.”
An Important Aside
Before we can catch the lovely details implied in this parable, we must review the history of Israel as shown in Leviticus 26. In that detailed overview of Israel’s history- to-be, we find that Israel has its pre-Gentile-Times experiences (Leviticus 26:1-17), and it has its during- Gentile-Times experiences (Leviticus 26:18-39). In Jesus’ reference to this prophecy (Luke 21:20-24), he shows the END of the JEWISH AGE due to the fall of Jerusalem just after his death. Thus we have THREE clear references which fit the details of this parable:
- Matthew 21:34 and 35 represent Israel’s rejection of the Lord’s prophets BEFORE 606 B.C.
- Matthew 21:36 represents Israel’s rejection of the prophets from just before 606 B.C. through John the Baptist.
- Matthew 21:37-39 represents Israel’s rejection of Messiah and the consequent end of the Jewish Age.
21:35. This verse is probably a reference to the judges and a few prophets in the time leading up to the days just before the Babylonian captivity.
21:36. This verse is probably a reference to the multitude of great prophets just before the Babylonian captivity, through that captivity, and on to the time of John the Baptist.
21:37. In this verse, Jesus appears on the scene. Considering the miracles worked by him in Israel, God could well expect (even considering the foibles of human reasoning!) that “They will respect my son.” Actually, many did. But the point of this parable is to focus on why the Jewish Age is abandoned. The focus is on the rejectors of the son.
21:38, 39. The keepers of the arrangement (basically the priests, Scribes, and Pharisees) had become so corrupt they truly thought they owned the place — owned the right to determine everything for Israel. They were fighting for their very existence as well as their dominance because they realized that Jesus’ teachings would “ruin everything” they were holding on to. So, they “threw him out of the vineyard” — they excommunicated him as a blasphemer. And they killed him.
21:40, 41. The parable is over. It has encapsulated the Jewish Age into even a shorter summary than Leviticus 26 had done.
Jesus asks a question of the Pharisees and then comments on their response. It leaves them with the realization (verse 45) that all in these parables was about them.
The question justifies the end of the Jewish Age. Their answer is prophetic. What will God do? He will bring a “wretched end” to the Jewish Age and He will bring in new tenders of the vine — the Gentile-based Gospel Age.
21:42-44. Jesus then uses the occasion to quote Scripture to establish what he had said. He tells (from Psalm 118:22ff) that he would be REJECTED, but that the rejection would eventuate in his being placed as ruler over all. He plainly states that the heavenly Kingdom opportunity would go to a “nation” that would produce fruitage.
Verse 44 shows a long-term forecast. Jesus would be a “stone of stumbling” not only at the end of the Jewish Age, but also for Christendom at the close of the Gospel Age.
Stumbling, of course, is not fatal; it only changes your future. But Jesus adds that this “stone” would ultimately crush the very existence of all institutions and individuals who refuse the new edifice, of which he will be the chief cornerstone.
When we look at the Mark and Luke accounts, there is nothing with much significance that differs. Matthew’s account fits better the Leviticus profile of Israel’s divided history. Mark’s and Luke’s accounts of varying waves of prophets might not seem as clear.