Big Idea: While promising eternal reward to the first who have followed him, Jesus also warns against presumption of reward and status by telling a parable about the equalization of status that will occur in God’s kingdom.

Understanding the Text

Peter’s initial question in this passage about the rewards that he and the rest of the Twelve will have for leaving everything to follow Jesus (19:27) connects directly with the previous passage, in which a rich man chooses his wealth over the chance to follow Jesus (19:21–22). Although Jesus answers that there will be reward for leaving all to follow him (19:28–29), his words turn to warning at 19:30–20:16. His admonitions against status presumption echo across this section of Matthew (see 18:1–5; 20:20–28). The dual refrain about the inversion of the first and the last frames the parable of the first and last day laborers (19:30; 20:16) and will find an echo in 23:12, where the places of the humble and the exalted are reversed.

Interpretive Insights

19:28 at the renewal of all things. Matthew uses a word (palingenesia) that would be generally understandable in the Greco-Roman world but in a Jewish context would signal the eschatological time of the Messiah, when all things would be made new.

sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Jesus indicates that the Twelve, whose number signals the twelve tribes of Israel and so represents the reconstitution of Israel, will have a role alongside Jesus at the final judgment.

19:29 or wife. Some early manuscripts do not include “or wife” (e gynaika), and so a number of translations omit it (e.g., CEB, NRSV, NASB). Since the parallel text in Luke 18:29 has gynaika, it may be that its inclusion in Matthew is due to scribal harmonization with Luke. Yet it was relatively easy for scribes to omit an item in a list, so it might be that e gynaika was inadvertently left out and is therefore original to Matthew.

a hundred times as much. This descriptor hints at the metaphorical nature of the previous list, since receiving a hundred times as many fathers or children, for example, makes little sense literally. Although he may be signaling the reward of being part of God’s family, Matthew likely uses this list to express metaphorically what inheriting eternal life will look like; it will truly be life abundant. According to R. T. France, it is likely that “the hundred-fold receipt and the inheriting of eternal life . . . are effectively synonyms.”1

19:30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first. This saying is repeated (with inverse order) at 20:16, forming an inclusio around the parable of 20:1–15. The language of “first” and “last” is status language and will be used again at the climactic moment of the road to Jerusalem section to highlight the ways of the kingdom as contrasted with ancient status categories (20:25–27). The saying functions to qualify discussion of reward and to warn the twelve disciples against presumption of their own status and importance in the kingdom. The parable that follows provides a different picture about the kingdom, in which equality based on God’s generosity is highlighted.

20:1 For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out . . . to hire workers. Once again, Jesus provides a parabolic comparison to “the kingdom of heaven” (13:24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47; 18:23; 22:2; 25:1). This parable draws on the scenario of day laborers during harvest time hired to work in a vineyard.

20:2 a denarius. The offer of a denarius is equitable, given that a denarius is a day’s wage for a day laborer.

20:3–6 About nine in the morning . . . about noon and about three in the afternoon. The workers hired “early in the morning” (20:1) are followed by those hired at three-hour intervals, from nine in the morning to three in the afternoon. These workers fill in color for the story but are not the focus of the parable when it comes time for distribution of payment. There it will be the “first” and “last” workers who contribute to the meaning of the parable.

I will pay you whatever is right. The promise of a fair wage is important for the parable, since the original workers hired will accuse the landowner of being unfair (20:12), which the landowner will dispute (20:13).

About five in the afternoon. A final group of workers is hired when there is only one more hour left in the workday, which stretched from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. (sunrise to sunset [see 20:12]).

20:8 beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first. There is no historical reality that would account for the reversal of the order of payment. Rather, this detail is necessary for the story to work. The full-day workers must observe the payment of the single-hour workers to be able to respond to the perceived injustice of identical payment for different amounts of work.

20:10 they expected to receive more. The full-day workers, having observed those who worked only one hour being paid a denarius—the amount that they themselves were originally promised—now expect to receive more than a denarius.

20:12 you have made them equal to us. The full-day workers grumble (20:11) and complain about unequal amounts of work with equal pay. At this point in the parable readers often resonate with the complaint. Equal payment for those who have worked only one-twelfth the time does seem unfair. In fact, when the landowner claims that he is not being unfair (20:13), readers might struggle to agree.

20:13 I am not being unfair to you. The landowner claims that he has been fair precisely because he has kept his contractual obligation; he has paid the full-day workers what he had originally promised and what they had agreed to by coming to work in his vineyard. Fairness in this case is assessed not by comparison with other workers (as the full-day workers have done) but rather by the promised wage.

20:15 Or are you envious because I am generous? This rhetorical question provides the surprising twist to the parable and shifts the focus from the question of parity to the issue of generosity. The word “envious” appropriately renders the Greek idiom poneros ophthalmos (“evil eye” [see 6:22–23]). According to the landowner, the problem for the full-day workers is not his fairness (as they have framed it), but his extravagant generosity to the single-hour workers. This reorientation of the issue signals the thrust of the parable for Matthew’s readers and Jesus’ hearers. God is generous to a fault, and this generosity to those who seemingly do not deserve it can prove offensive to those who think they do. The parable’s central teaching focuses on God’s extravagant generosity, without reference to human earning.

20:16 So the last will be first, and the first will be last. The saying that introduces the parable (19:30) is inverted here for the sake of the story, in which the last workers are paid first. As noted at 19:30, “first” and “last” are status terms and would have been heard as such in the highly status-conscious Greco-Roman world.

With this repeated saying as an inclusio (19:30; 20:16), Matthew signals that the parable and the proverbial saying are mutually interpretive. The parable’s emphasis on the unsettling equality of the kingdom (“you have made them equal to us”) combines with the sense of the saying as a warning against presumption of reward and status (see 19:27–29) to communicate that the kingdom will upset human status categories and assumptions. God’s grand generosity may prove offensive to human sensibilities about fairness and worthiness.

Teaching the Text

1. The parable of the workers highlights the surprising equality of the kingdom. Matthew has been highlighting the reality of status categories in this part of his Gospel. Jesus’ teachings have emphasized that his followers, instead of presuming the same status categories that they are familiar with in their current experience, should renounce status concern, since the kingdom is not about status presumption and acquisition. This parable clarifies that the kingdom has a surprising and potentially disturbing equality to it. The central complaint of the full-day workers captures this affront: “You have made them equal to us.”

2. The parable of the workers confronts its hearers with the deep and potentially disturbing generosity of God. In the story of this parable the concluding words of the landowner signal the message of the parable in its metaphor: “Are you envious because I am generous?” (20:15). Biblical theology rightly emphasizes God’s generous nature. God’s self-revelation in the covenant with Israel is marked by grace from the start: “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God” (Exod. 34:6). This parable emphasizes that same quality and indicates that God’s deep generosity toward others can actually trip us up if we think of the kingdom in terms of limited amounts of grace being distributed based on “deservedness.” Moving beyond the details of the parable (which should not be pressed into service for its metaphorical meaning), we learn that God’s grace is effusive and is based not on what humans deserve but on God’s own nature.

If the parable proves troubling, we would do well to capitalize on that response for our preaching and teaching of it. It disturbs us probably because we have identified in some way with the full-day workers, andwe feel the affront of the landowner’s generosity to those who seem less deserving. We, and our audience, will likely feel a certain lack of fairness in this scenario (as the full-day workers did). We might helpfully use the question of the landowner at the end of the story recast for ourselves and our audience: “Are we envious of God’s great generosity when it is given to others who seem to deserve it less than we do?” By casting the question in this way, we might help people to hear the ways in which we, against the theology that we claim to hold, actually think we have earned God’s goodness and generosity to us. But, as Scripture affirms, God’s grace and mercy always initiate relationship and covenant.

Our responses to God are truly that—responses. We respond to God’s prior work of covenanting by returning to that relationship. We respond to God’s saving work of redemption by participating in salvation in Christ. We respond to God’s daily leading with dependent discernment. And in those moments when we more fully realize all that God has worked to return us and love us, we fall on our knees in gratitude for such goodness and grace.2

Illustrating the Text

The parable of the workers highlights the surprising equality of the kingdom.

Children’s Book: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, by Roald Dahl. This popular book tells of a fantastical world of trained squirrels and chocolate waterfalls. When factory owner Willy Wonka announces thathe is opening up his factory to five lucky children, people begin snatching up Wonka chocolate bars in hopes of winning one of the five golden tickets. Each of the winning children, except for Charlie, comes with some particular sense of entitlement that ends up disqualifying him or her from Willy Wonka’s true purpose, which is to give his factory away to a deserving child. He is looking for a child without any such entitlement because he wants to give his factory to someone who will simply respond in wonder and joy at a gift freely given.

The parable of the workers confronts its hearers with the deep and potentially disturbing generosity of God.

Reflection: We can claim that we, as believers, are saved only by the grace of God, but our true assumptions are exposed by this parable. You might ask the people in your audience to think about the most unworthy person they can imagine. Then have them imagine God ushering that person into the kingdom side by side with the most faithful of saints. How would it feel to see that unworthy person being showered with God’s grace apart from doing anything to earn it?

Quote: Brennan Manning, in The Ragamuffin Gospel, speaks of God’s lavish grace that neutralizes human distinctions of “first” and “last” in the kingdom.

The gospel of grace nullifies our adulation of televangelists, charismatic superstars, and local church heroes. It obliterates the two-class citizenship theory operative in many American churches. For grace proclaims the awesome truth that all is gift. All that is good is ours, not by right, but by the sheer bounty of a gracious God. While there is much we may have earned—our degree, our salary, our home and garden, a Miller Lite, and a good night’s sleep—all this is possible only because we have been given so much: life itself, eyes to see and hands to touch, a mind to shape ideas, and a heart to beat with love. . . . My deepest awareness of myself is that I am deeply loved by Jesus Christ and I have done nothing to earn it or deserve it.3