Matthew 21:28-32 · Bible study
Matthew 21:28-32 Commentary: Who Did the Father's Will?
Greek · 11 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Jesus uses a parable to show that repentance and obedience matter more than empty promises, rebuking religious leaders while welcoming tax collectors
Research Summary
- Meaning: Jesus rebukes religious hypocrisy by contrasting repentant sinners with those who only profess obedience.
- Key words: metamelētheis (changed his mind/repented), different from metanoia but implying genuine reversal; emphatic egō (I myself) in the second son's empty promise.
- Main debate: Whether metamelētheis denotes full saving repentance or a lesser change of mind; the consensus reads it as genuine obedience-producing sorrow.
- Theological theme: God values actual obedience over verbal profession; repentance is the path into the kingdom, available even to the worst sinners.
- Best use: For teaching on repentance, hypocrisy, and the surprising scope of God's grace; ideal for evangelism and self-examination.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
28But what do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first one and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’
29‘I will not,’ he replied. But later he changed his mind and went.
30Then the man went to the second son and told him the same thing. ‘I will, sir,’ he said. But he did not go.
31Which of the two did the will of his father?” “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.
32For John came to you in a righteous way and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.
WEB World English Bible 2000
28But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first, and said, ‘Son, go work today in my vineyard.’
29He answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind, and went.
30He came to the second, and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I’m going, sir,’ but he didn’t go.
31Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said to him, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Most certainly I tell you that the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering into God’s Kingdom before you.
32For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you didn’t believe him; but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. When you saw it, you didn’t even repent afterward, that you might believe him.
KJV King James Version 1769
28But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
29He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
30And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
31Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
32For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
28But what think ye? A man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to-day in the vineyard.
29And he answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented himself, and went.
30And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
31Which of the two did the will of his father? They say, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
32For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not; but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye saw it, did not even repent yourselves afterward, that ye might believe him.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
28`And what think ye? A man had two children, and having come to the first, he said, Child, go, to-day be working in my vineyard.'
29And he answering said, `I will not,' but at last, having repented, he went.
30`And having come to the second, he said in the same manner, and he answering said, I go , sir, and went not;
31which of the two did the will of the father?' They say to him, `The first.' Jesus saith to them, `Verily I say to you, that the tax-gatherers and the harlots do go before you into the reign of God,
32for John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye did not believe him, and the tax-gatherers and the harlots did believe him, and ye, having seen, repented not at last--to believe him.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
28But what think ye? A man had two children, and coming to the first he said, Child, go to-day, work in [my] vineyard.
29And he answering said, I will not; but afterwards repenting himself he went.
30And coming to the second he said likewise; and he answering said, I [go], sir, and went not.
31Which of the two did the will of the father? They say [to him], The first. Jesus says to them, Verily I say unto you that the tax-gatherers and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
32For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not; but the tax-gatherers and the harlots believed him; but ye when ye saw [it] repented not yourselves afterwards to believe him.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
28But what think you? A certain man had two sons: and coming to the first, he said: Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
29And he answering, said: I will not. But afterwards, being moved with repentance, he went.
30And coming to the other, he said in like manner. And he answering said: I go, Sir. And he went not.
31Which of the two did the father's will? They say to him: The first. Jesus saith to them: Amen I say to you that the publicans and the harlots shall go into the kingdom of God before you.
32For John came to you in the way of justice: and you did not believe him. But the publicans and the harlots believed him: but you, seeing it, did not even afterwards repent, that you might believe him.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Koine Greek)
New Testament · Koine Greek · Matthew 21:28
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across traditions agree the parable draws a sharp contrast between two kinds of people: those who initially refuse to obey God but later repent and act, and those who make a show of obedience but never follow through. The first son represents tax collectors and prostitutes, people whose lives were a flat refusal of God's ways, yet who repented at John's preaching and entered the kingdom. The second son stands for the religious leaders, who professed devotion to God but rejected the Messiah and his forerunner.
Key to the parable is the Greek verb metamelētheis (changed his mind, repented). Vincent's Word Studies notes this is a different word from the usual New Testament term for repentance (metanoia). While metanoia refers to a fundamental change of heart and life, metameleia can denote an afterthought or regret. Yet in this context, as Adam Clarke observes, the first son's change of mind was genuine: "He afterward thought on his ways, and returned to his duty." The religious leaders, by contrast, said "I go, sir" with emphatic egō in the Greek, a self-important promise that produced no action.
The parable forces the chief priests and elders to convict themselves: when asked which son did the father's will, they correctly answer "the first." Jesus then applies the verdict directly to them, showing that the despised outcasts are entering the kingdom ahead of them because they responded to John's call to righteousness.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Two types of sinners: The most common reading: the first son represents repentant sinners (tax collectors, prostitutes); the second, religious hypocrites (Pharisees, chief priests). Supported by the immediate context and most commentators (Barnes, Clarke, JFB).
- National allegory: Some interpreters (e.g., certain early fathers, and reflected in Calvin's comments) see the two sons as representing the Gentiles (who initially were not in the covenant but later believed) and Israel (who had the law but rejected the Messiah). This reading leans on the broader biblical theme of Jew/Gentile inclusion.
What is clear: It is beyond dispute that the parable condemns a mere outward profession of obedience while honoring those who, despite a bad start, truly repent and obey—and that this message was a direct challenge to the religious leaders of Jesus' day.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| The meaning of 'repented' (μεταμεληθεὶς) | All traditions see it as a change of mind that leads to obedience, contrasting with the second son's inaction. | Some argue this is a distinct, lesser form of regret (Vincent, Trench) compared to μετάνοια (saving repentance); others contend that in context it implies the full repentance John preached, since the tax collectors and prostitutes believed and entered the kingdom. |
| The identity of the second son | He represents those who profess obedience but do not act, specifically the Jewish religious leaders in the immediate context. | Some commentators (e.g., Calvin, Matthew Henry) apply the second son to all Israel who had the law but rejected the Messiah; others focus narrowly on the Pharisees and chief priests as the direct targets of Jesus' rebuke. |
| What 'enter before you' means | It describes a reversal: those considered outside the kingdom are entering while the religious elite lag behind. | Some see it as temporal priority (they enter first, but the leaders may still enter later); others read it as exclusion (the leaders are left out because they did not repent). |
| The role of John the Baptist | John's ministry was the catalyst: his call to righteousness exposed both groups, leading some to repent and others to resist. | There is minor variation in whether 'the way of righteousness' refers to John's personal righteousness (his lifestyle) or the content of his message (the way to be righteous before God). |
Historical & Cultural Context
This parable takes place in the temple courts during Jesus' final week before his crucifixion. The narrative in Matthew 21 opens with the triumphal entry, the cleansing of the temple, and then a direct confrontation with the chief priests and elders, who challenge Jesus' authority (v.23). Jesus responds by asking them about John's baptism, was it from heaven or from men? They refuse to answer, fearing the crowds who held John as a prophet (vv.24, 27). So Jesus turns the tables with a parable that forces them to answer their own case.
The vineyard was a potent symbol for Israel in the Old Testament, especially in Isaiah 5, where God's vineyard yields wild grapes and is judged. By calling the sons to work in the vineyard, Jesus evokes Israel's calling to bear fruit for God. The father's command is urgent: "Go work today in my vineyard." The word sēmeron (today) stresses the immediacy of the call to repentance and obedience, a theme echoed in the parable's application to John the Baptist's ministry.
John came "in the way of righteousness" (v.32). The Greek phrase en hodō dikaiosunēs likely means both that John taught the way of righteousness and that he lived righteously. Matthew's Gospel consistently uses "way" to describe a pattern of life (cf. Matthew 21:32; 22:16). Tax collectors and prostitutes, people considered ritually and morally impure by the religious establishment, responded to John's call. The religious leaders, who knew the Scriptures and saw the change in these sinners, still refused to repent. The parable thus rebukes hypocrisy and celebrates the surprising openness of those society had written off.
This setting gives the parable its edge: it is not a general moral lesson but a specific indictment spoken to men who had just refused to answer Jesus' question about John. By making them condemn themselves, Jesus exposes the gap between their profession and their actions.
Textual Notes
No significant textual variants appear in the supplied commentaries for this passage. The Greek text is stable across the major manuscripts, with only minor scribal differences such as the order of words (e.g., ἑτέρῳ vs. δευτέρῳ in some later manuscripts) that do not affect the meaning.
Reception History
Early church fathers such as Chrysostom and Augustine used this parable to illustrate the reversal of the gospel: Gentiles and sinners entering the kingdom while the self-righteous are left out. The parable was frequently cited in debates about repentance and the role of works, with Augustine emphasizing that genuine obedience springs from grace, not from human promises. During the Reformation, Calvin and Luther saw it as a sharp critique of hypocritical religiosity and a defense of justification by faith alone, the first son's repentance was a gift of grace rather than a natural human effort. In modern evangelical preaching, the parable is a favorite for challenging nominal Christians and for illustrating that God can save anyone, no matter how far they have strayed.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The parable of two responses. The father calls both sons, one refuses but later obeys, the other promises but disobeys. The point is not that initial refusal is acceptable, but that what matters in the end is actual obedience.
- The verdict that condemns the hearers. The religious leaders correctly identify the first son as the one who did the father's will, not realizing they are pronouncing judgment on themselves.
- The application to John's ministry. Jesus names the real-life counterparts: tax collectors and prostitutes are the first son; the chief priests and elders are the second. John's call to righteousness was rejected by the religiously devout but embraced by the openly sinful.
Five-point outline
- But what do you think? Jesus engages his opponents with a question, inviting them to reflect rather than argue.
- The father's call to work. Obedience to God is not optional, it is a call to labor in his vineyard today.
- Two sons, two responses. The first son is honest in his refusal but later repents; the second is polite in his promise but fails to act.
- Which did the will of his father? The religious leaders are trapped by their own answer, admitting that the repentant sinner, not the hypocritical professor, did the will of the father.
- The shocking reversal. Those society considered furthest from God, tax collectors and prostitutes, are entering the kingdom ahead of the religious elite, because they believed John's message and repented.
Illustration hooks
- A teenager who angrily shouts "I hate you" to a parent but later comes to apologize and help with the chores, contrasted with a child who sweetly says "Yes, mom" then ignores the request.
- A job interview where one candidate brags about qualifications but never shows up for the second round, while another candidate admits they lack experience but then studies and earns the position through consistent work.
- The contrast between someone who loudly professes their faith in church but lives with apathy toward God, and someone who once rejected all religion but is now quietly and faithfully serving others.
Questions your congregation is asking
- "I know I should obey God, but I keep putting it off, does that mean I'm like the second son?"
- "Can someone who has lived a sinful life really be accepted by God, even if they have no religious background?"
- "How do I know if my faith is genuine obedience or just empty words?"
Leading a Discussion
This parable hits close to home for anyone who has ever made a promise to God and failed to keep it, or who has seen the surprising turnarounds in people they least expected. As you discuss, let the text challenge you to look honestly at the gap between your words and your actions.
Discussion questions
- What is the father asking his sons to do, and what does the vineyard represent in Israel's history and in this parable?
- Why do you think the first son says "I will not" so bluntly? What does that response reveal about his attitude at first?
- The second son calls the father "sir" and says "I go", but the Greek puts the emphatic pronoun egō ("I myself"). What does this polite but empty promise say about his character?
- Jesus asks the religious leaders which son did the will of his father. Why is their answer so damaging to them? What does it reveal about their self-awareness?
- In verse 31, Jesus says the tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before the religious leaders. What does "before you" mean, are they entering ahead of them or instead of them?
- Verse 32 mentions that the religious leaders "when you saw it, did not even repent afterward." Why is seeing the change in others not enough to produce repentance? What else is needed?
- How can this parable help us examine our own lives for hypocrisy? What would it look like to be a "first son" or a "second son" in your current circumstances?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Matthew 17:25 | He said, “Yes.” When he came into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth receive toll or tribute? From their children, or from strangers?” |
| Matthew 20:1 | “For the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who was the master of a household, who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. |
| Matthew 20:5 | Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. |
| Matthew 20:7 | “They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ “He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and you will receive whatever is right.’ |
| Matthew 21:33 | “Hear another parable. There was a man who was a master of a household who planted a vineyard, set a hedge about it, dug a wine press in it, built a tower, leased it out to farmers, and went into another country. |
| Matthew 22:17 | Tell us therefore, what do you think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” |
| Mark 13:34 | “It is like a man traveling to another country, having left his house and given authority to his servants, and to each one his work, and also commanded the doorkeeper to keep watch. |
| Luke 13:4 | Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them—do you think that they were worse offenders than all the men who dwell in Jerusalem? |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
10 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke sees the two sons as emblems of two groups. The disobedient son who later obeyed represents repentant sinners who entered the kingdom.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes highlights that the Pharisees condemned themselves by correctly picking the son who actually obeyed the father, yet they missed the same lesson in their own lives. The first son stands for sinners who initially refused God but later repented and obeyed. The second son represents the Pharisees, who professed willingness but ultimately refused.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin emphasizes that Christ uses this parable to strip the mask from the hypocritical scribes and priests, exposing their boastful claims as empty. Their pretended zeal and promises of obedience count for nothing, because they actually rank lower than the publicans and harlots who genuinely repented and believed.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
This commentator sees the parable as part of a series dealing with the immediate present rather than the distant future. The two sons represent groups within Israel itself, both still called sons, with the point being the separation and judgment already beginning. The Pharisees, outwardly triumphant, are hurrying toward destruction while Christ, seemingly vanquished, is winning an eternal victory.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva Notes point out that the son who refused but later obeyed did his father's will, while the son who promised but disobeyed did not. The vital matter is not the words spoken but the actual obedience that follows. This exposes the hypocrisy of the religious leaders who heard John's call but refused to repent.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB draws attention to the stark contrast between outright defiance and polite hypocrisy. The first son’s blunt "I will not" reflects reckless rebellion, yet he later repents. The second son’s emphatic "I go, sir" masks a lie that, as Stier notes, is even more abominable to God than open refusal.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange emphasizes that Jesus turns the Sanhedrin's official challenge into a trap, forcing them to condemn themselves by their own refusal to answer about John's baptism. Through the three parables, He then compels them to unwittingly pronounce their own guilt, their displacement from leadership, and the transfer of God's kingdom to others.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry treats the parable as a reproving parable that traps Christ's adversaries into condemning themselves. The two sons represent two kinds of people: those who prove better than they promise, and those who promise better than they prove. The point is that open sinners who repented shame those who refused John's message.
Vincent's Word Studies Evangelical 1887
Vincent draws a careful distinction between two Greek words for repentance. The word used here, metamelomai, implies regret over consequences or chagrin at not having known better, rather than the deep change of heart and life that metanoia describes. He suggests the passage may carry this different shade of meaning.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley points out that the scribes and Pharisees, like the first son, professed eager obedience but never acted on it. In contrast, notorious sinners who initially refused later repented. He warns that mere profession without corresponding action is still disobedience, a pattern he sees repeated in his own day.