Monday, March 30, 2020

A Father’s Two Children

According to the Synoptic Gospels the voiceprint of Jesus was characterized by the aphorism and the short narrative. The synoptic evangelists dubbed these short narratives "parables" because they found them enigmatic; that is to say they could not easily get a religious meaning out of them by reading them as the fictional stories they were. Hence they assumed that the stories were, for the most part, figurative1 and that enabled the evangelists to get a religious meaning from them that suited their own idiosyncratic theology. There is a residue of only 43 short narratives preserved in early Christian literature attributed to Jesus.2

One of the shortest and least studied of these brief narratives, titled by its first line, is "A Father's Two Children."  A synopsis of the story is as follows: the narrative depicts the different responses of two children to their father's instructions to go and work in the family vineyard (Matt 21:28b-30). The general subject of the story is obedience/respect, as Matthew rightly understood (21:31). It is an enigmatic story and two versions of it exist among the various manuscripts of Matthew's Gospel.

Here are translations of the two versions of the story excluding the literary context (21:31-32), which in my view constitutes the evangelist's interpretive strategy. Version one:

A man had two children [tekna,3 not uios], and coming to the first he said "child, go today; work in the vineyard." But answering s/he said, "I don't want to." Later, however, having second thoughts, s/he went. And coming to the other, he said the same. Answering s/he said "I am [going],4 Sir; yet s/he did not go.

Version Two:

A man had two children [tekna,3 not uios], and coming to the first he said, "child, go today; work in the vineyard." Answering s/he said "I am [going], Sir; yet s/he did not go. And coming to the other, he said the same. But answering s/he said, "I don't want to." Later, however, having second thoughts, s/he went.

The answers of the children are reversed in version one and version two.

            Basically the story compares and contrasts the responses of the children and by that contrast invites the reader's judgment on their responses, particularly in view of the fact that the story has no conclusion. The lack of a conclusion seems to be the design of Jesus' stories5 and makes Matthew's introduction to the narrative ("What do you think, 21:28?") plausible as an introduction to the story.

Matthew's interpretation (21:30-32) describes the conflict between the chief priests and elders of the people (Matt 21:23), the antecedents of "they" in Matt 21:31. Their response to Jesus' question in Matt 21:31 ("the first") only works with the first version of the story, where the youth later did as instructed; in the manuscripts several answers are given by Jesus' interlocutors—the last, the second, the latter, depending on the sequence of the children's answer and actions. These answers do not work with the version chosen by text critics to whom we owe the credit for the version that generally appears in your translation.6

Would you attach a religious meaning to the story? If you would, why would you do so?

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

1Some stories they read as examples such as An Injured Man on the Jericho Road (Luke 10:30-35).
2Hedrick, Wisdom of Jesus, 121. That is not to say that Jesus originated all of the stories. See Meier, Probing the Authenticity of the Parables (Yale: 2016).
3Teknon is a Greek neuter noun which is translated by the English "Child" with no emphasis on gender. Uios is a masculine noun and is translated "son." In Luke (2:48, 15:31), however, uses the term child as an affectionate parental title for a son. Interestingly the only way that the reader knows that the parent is male is by the use of the Greek kurie, "Sir," which is vocative of address for the masculine noun kurios.
4A later manuscript adds after "I am" (egō) the Greek upagō (going). For the use of the Greek egō alone to mean "I am going" see Judges 13:11 LXX.
5See for example the analysis of The Unjust Judge and The Pharisee and Toll Collector in Hedrick, Parables as Poetic Fictions (Hendrickson, 1994), 187-235.
6See Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (UBS, 4th ed., 2000), 44-46.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Charlie,
To answer your question, I see it as having a religious meaning.

The anecdote speaks to hypocrisy and repentance. When I read it it leads my thoughts back to the story of Jonah and also the hypocrisy cited in some of the prophetic writings, especially the minor prophetic writings. The hearkening to Jonah, if indeed it is a conscious effort, also directs me back to Matt. 12.38-42, with Ninevah condemning the “present generation.” It keys on the notion that the “sinners” had a change of heart while the “religious” did not, which reminds one of the “woes” of Matthew 23. This is based on images I form when reading it from my perspective. What about the author’s? Could it be part of the supercessionist theme of Matthew?

I see it as didactic, moral instruction. The pair of “children” present two polar choices. The response to the two rhetorical questions is obvious to the audience. Obeying, even after being disobedient is superior to hypocrisy. The style, with rhetorical questions, given mutually exclusive options in which the audience will only choose the one the author seeks is found in ancient Greek letters. (For more of that, Nina Livesey points out the use of this in Demonsthenes, Cicero and Paul in “Galatians and the Rhetoric of Crisis.”) The lesson the author wants learned is that repentance by those who “follow Jesus” is desired, whereas the hypocrisy of those the author calls “chief priests and elders,” religious leaders in Jerusalem, is not pleasing to God. It is also a point Matthew makes elsewhere. Though “hypocrite” isn’t used in the anecdote, the author of Matthew uses the term 14 of 18 times used in the New Testament, primarily in the “woes” section (Matt. 23). The lesson the author wants the one hearing it to learn is that repentance is more pleasing to “the father in heaven” than hypocrisy, giving his “real life” examples, the “sinners” as entering the kingdom before the hypocrites. In other words, the good son “cleans the inside of his cup” while the other “cleans merely the outside. ”

Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.

Elizabeth said...

Good Mild, Balmy Evening Charlie,

I certainly cannot add to Dennis's analysis of the passage- I think his insights were spot on and well documented. I guess from my personal point of view (I'm not a scholar or a teacher), I look at the father's two children and think of my own experience. I do relate more to the child that initially said she didn't want to- but ended up doing it anyway... I do that all the time. I'll say no, and then feel guilty about it and end up completing the task for my friends and family. Personally, I think it's "worse" to make a commitment to perform a duty and then back out of it at the last minute with people depending on you... I do have a certain person (not in my immediate family) who has left me high and dry multiple times. It became tiresome to depend on this person keeping their word and have them back out at the last minute from their agreement. So I do relate to this parable in a personal (but not religious) way.

But as a child, I would never have dreamed of saying "no" to my parents- that was unheard of. However, my question to you is this: Is saying no to one's parents an act of disobedience? Is it sinful to say no? If I asked my son to do something, and he said no, I never considered him to be "disobeying" me. (I'm not talking about drugs or drinking or life threatening situations, just everyday chores and tasks and non-serious issues) My son is very well mannered and conscientious and he is the joy of my life- but he was allowed to say no at certain times and it was never a problem. I'm not a forceful person and I don't like imposing my will on other people, especially my son. Do you think it's ok to let kids say no to parents? Some Christians think it's sinful for a child to say no ever at any time for any reason- what are your thoughts?

Thank you as always! Elizabeth

Charles Hedrick said...

Good Morning Elizabeth,
In answer to your question: I assume that it would depend on the nature of what you told him to do and his reason for saying "No." But a one-size-fits-all response to a no from a child to a parent seems unusually harsh and unwise. In no case would I consider it sinful for a child to tell a parent "no."
Cordially,
Charlie

Elizabeth said...

To clarify, Charlie, I'm not talking about being disrespectful, rude, or ill mannered... However many Christian parents (including my own) interpreted any form of no, even the act of disagreeing with them, to be disobedient and disrespectful. Little innocuous things like "Go give aunt so and so a kiss" or "eat every scrap of food on your plate" or "don't listen to rock and roll music." You may be surprised to hear this, but some parents never allow disagreement of any kind. It sounds like you were reasonable and level headed, so your kids were lucky to have some measure of personal freedom. Even at this blog- it is refreshing to be able to disagree and have a differing opinion... I guess that's why I do it so much to make up for those younger years ;-) Elizabeth

Anonymous said...

Hi Charlie,

Don't know the age: 5, 10, 15? Issues of authority would be different at each level.

So I find myself thinking, what are the authority psychological dynamics in these scenes of family communication?

Does the Child who ultimately says no do so to escape an over-controlling parent, or as an expression of Oppositional Defiant Disorder, or as an expression of a Passive-Aggressive personality or an Anti-Social personality disorder, etc.

Does the Child who ultimately says yes do so by overcoming a temporary spat of anger, or by respect for the need of an all hands on deck attitude in a family business, or by an inability to overcome Dependent personality traits, or by fear of parental punishment, etc.

The story fits into Matthew's chapter 21 authority theme:

1.Jesus enters Jerusalem to shouts of "Look, your king is coming..."

2.If one has sufficient faith the authority to move mountains follows.

3.Jesus cleanses the temple, and the chief priests and elder's ask, 'By what authority are you doing these things?'

4.The tax collectors and prostitutes, not the religious, accepted the authority of John the Baptist and will avoid "eternal fire."

5. The vineyard laborers revolted against the authority of the owner and suffered death.

So, better shout out 'yes' to "Look, your king is coming; go and work in the vineyard." Matthew's interpretation was religious with a strong reward/ punishment motif. Is this psychological manipulation?

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.

Anonymous said...

Gene, I’m probably wrong, but it seems that the author of Matt may have tried to make this distinction in age. If one compares Mt. 21.28-32 with Mt. 19.13-14 and 18.1-7, it seems the author has an age division between teknon (child) and paidia (small child). The “small child,” as a symbol of humility and piety in chapters 18 & 19, belong to the kingdom of heaven, whereas the “child” is capable of making decisions, as found in chapter 21 and, copying Mark 31.12 in 10.21. “Huios” for son seems to apply generically to male offspring and specifically to either the circumlocution “son of man” or a few times as “son of God.”

Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.

Anonymous said...

Hi Dennis,

Looks to me like your age observations are accurate. Thanks!

Gene

Elizabeth said...

Hi Gene,

If you were preaching a sermon on Matt. 21:28-32... Which "child" committed the worst sin, the first or the second? (the one who said yes initially and then backed out or the one who said no initially and then had a change of heart) Is there enough material there for a sermon in your opinion? Or do you see the two children's responses as equally immoral?

I must admit, I do not understand the point that Jesus was driving at with this particular parable/narrative. Many thanks, Elizabeth

PS: Charlie, if you have an opinion- your voice is welcome even though you're not a preacher or a theologian.

Anonymous said...

Hi Elizabeth,

As a psychologist I don't think of the interactions as sin but as natural interpersonal dynamics.

If I were to preach a sermon, since Matthew gives the entirety of chapter 21 an authority interpretation with heaven or hell consequences, I would have to explore with the congregation if that's an effective way to persuade folks to work in God's vineyard and an appropriate respect for personal autonomy.

The Jesus Seminar voted that Two Sons was not a story authentic to Jesus, but it was nearly a 50/50 split. Many looked on 21:31b as authentic, "I swear to you, the toll collectors and
prostitutes will get into God's domain but you (priests and elders) will not." (similar to rich/poor) Two Sons also creates a Jesus style dilemma: In this ancient culture, both sons shamed their father by saying "no". (p.230-232, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say?)

I'm betting that Charlie has done a ton of preaching and theologizing across his 80+ years (smile)!!!

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.

Charles Hedrick said...

Good Morning Elizabeth,
I don't think that any of the stories of Jesus of Jesus have an identifiable single point that rules out other points (except for extreme reactions and allegorical interpretations, which rule themselves out of bounds). I try to get into the story and ponder the situation and characters in the context of Jewish antiquity. The further away one gets from the story in terms of language while explaining it, the less one is engaging the story and giving a personal response to the story. In this case, I would title my analysis "the Case of the Impotent Parent" and would proceed to look at parallels to parents who failed with their children like the father of the Two Sons portrayed in Jesus's story (usually called the Prodigal Son) and perhaps King David and his son Absalom. In any case, since we have no idea how Jesus used his stories (at least I do not), one cannot rule out reasonable descriptions of the story as story. So there could be a number of explanations that do justice to the story.
Cordially,
Charlie

Charles Hedrick said...

Hi Gene,
To confirm your observation of my preaching and theologizing: I was ordained in 1956 by the First Baptist Church in Greenville, Mississippi. Served on the Youth Revival Team as preacher during my first year at Mississippi College (then a Baptist College); Pastored three years at the First Baptist Church of Needles, California and interim minister for one year of a Congregational Church in Staten Island, New York; and I am a retired U.S. Army Chaplain with over 30 years of active and reserve status.--so yes a bit.
Cordially,
Charlie

Elizabeth said...

Gene and Charlie, thank you both! I got a lot out of what you both shared- I read the Jesus Seminar many years ago but did not remember the fact that this particular parable didn't make it into the "authentic to Jesus" category. Aside from that, there is much to learn here. First, what Gene pointed out when he stated that both sons shamed their father by saying no. That was extremely revealing and enlightening to me. I believe that mentality exists today with some fathers and that was a succinct way to capture the sentiment of the parable. So thank you Gene. That applies to many cultures- not just Jewish. But I hadn't formulated that thought yet and I think it explains many troublesome situations that arise in families, even today. (It certainly helps explain my own family issues, in some ways)

I do remember the fact that Charlie served as army chaplain years ago- but I did not know (or I forgot) that he pastored three years at First Baptist in Needles CA and was an interim minister in Staten Island NY! That was new information. I really think Charlie has lived a fascinating life and I'm going to keep bugging him to write his memoirs!! :-)

I haven't attended church in far too many years but if either Gene or Charlie were preaching, I'd be in the first row of the pews... I love the title Charlie came up with: "The Case of the Impotent Parent." That's very revealing and full of potential examination- I'd love to hear more about how to cope with the challenges and struggles that "impotent parents" faced in ancient times and how we can learn from them today.

Many thanks to you both and Happy Quarantine Easter!! Elizabeth

Anonymous said...

The notion of “shame” in disobedience and differences in developmental age in discipline led me down another “rabbit hole.” This might be relevant or irrelevant, but it was certainly interesting! I thought of Deut. 21.19-21 and wondered how it was (idealistically) applied in the second century, so I toted out my Mishnah (Neusner’s translation) to see what it said. It addressed the rebellious & incorrigible son in Sanhedrin 8 and set boundaries. To summarize, a child was considered exempt from the law before he produced two pubic hairs and after he had grown a full beard (8.C). This developmental period distinguished a minor child from an adult man. There are other clauses. For instance, if one was rebellious before the trial and ran away until after his beard was full, he was exempt from judgment (8.4p) if the trial was not over, but if he ran away after the trial and his beard filled out before he returned, he was liable for the judgment rendered. He was also exempt if the parents couldn’t agree that he was rebellious, unless the wife was “unworthy of his father “ (8.4.e). Another exemption for the son is if either parent were physically disabled (lame, dumb, blind, deaf, maimed in the hands) (8.4.a-l). There also first was a warning before three judges first. The next misbehavior resulted in a flogging, and the third resulted in possible stoning. 8.5 gives the rationale, which is not so much shame but for the good of the world: “For when evil folk die, it is a benefit to them and a benefit to the world. But [when the] righteous folks [die], it is bad for them and bad for the world” (d, e).

Josephus (Ant.4.260-265) gave rationale for the Deut. 21.19-21 law. His analogy was that God is the father of all mankind and to be disrespectful to one’s parents is analogous to being disobedient to God. He did say that it was “reasonable to forgive the sins of those that are young,” and that “reform” should be a goal, but if this doesn’t work, stoning them will. (There is also an interesting story in Book 16.361 ff about Herod and two sons.)
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.

Charles Hedrick said...

Thanks for sharing this report of Josephus and the Mishnah. It provides more context for Jesus's story about a Father's Two Children. I am inclined to think that it originated with Jesus.
Cordially,
Charlie

Anonymous said...

Charlie,
Using different criteria than you explained in "When History and Faith Collide," Geza Vermes came to the same conclusion in his Authentic Gospel book. I don't know, but my main concern was the son's negative remark and whether it was really an emphatic "I will not" (or something similar) or less emphatic, more of an "I don't want to," as found in the same construction earlier (15.32), not that it would make much difference.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.