I gave it a great deal of serious thought. I even sat through a fairly long sermon several months ago on this very topic. And was shocked how even my priest could get this wrong. My son (a man who was instrumental in my conversion to Catholicism) and I hashed this out at great length.
Consider. Jesus sets up a scenario, and asks the Priests and Elders to make a choice. They chose the first son, the one who went. It seems like a no brainer, and they went for it, even though they knew he was trying to get them to trip themselves up (read previous scripture).
Aha! Jesus says: "verily I say unto you, even the Publicans and Harlots will get into heaven before you."
Now, for your interpretation to be correct, that the Publicans and Harlots were going to heaven because they repented, but the Priests and Elders were not (because they were all hat and no cattle) we would have to have some indication that these Publicans and Harlots had repented. There is none, only your memory from reading Scripture that Jesus dined with same, and presumably saved some.
Did the priests understand this? No.
Was Jesus being straight with them? Of course.
He was saying, therefore, that Publicans, and Harlots--collectively, stereotypically, unredeemed, unsaved sinners, were higher up on the salvation food chain than anyone who thought that people who denied the authority of God were better, and more obediant, than people who merely failed to achieve what they wished to do, out of Loyalty, for their Lord.
He was saying, therefore, that the correct choice, that the Priests and Elders should have chosen, was the second son. Who failed, who did not go, who was so typically, humanly, imperfect, but who at least loved his Father enough to say "Yes"
v.
Maybe you should read it again and again consider which one satisfied Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Consider what was "the will of the father" in this parable. Remember, it is a parable. The "will of the father" was to "go work in the vineyard". Who met this condition? Who did not?
Well I can at least understand why the hierarchy doesn't allow its members to interpret scripture. :-)
So you would prefer people to be a hypocrite and a liar, as long as they gave you respectful sounding lip service.
Jesus was showing them that even they knew the correct answer as to which son did the right thing, so there was no excuse for them to be doing the same, to promise God yes, then when he was gone, said hell with you.
Did you consider the son checking on his little sister that I asked you about, and you didn't mention the fact that the fathers will was, that they go to work, not some psychological brain trap?
Do you know of anyone else in the world that has this same opinion?
JH :-)