The Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard

In Matthew 20, Jesus begins teaching a parable about some laborers who are hired to work in a vineyard. Tending to the harvest of a vineyard was an important job as grapes were among the most important crops in first-century Israel (Wilkins, 2002, p. 121). Following a bountiful harvest, the owner of the vineyard finds himself in need of extra help, so he goes out first thing in the morning and he searches the marketplace for some men looking to trade their time and labor for a denarius. A denarius was, in the context of the first-century Roman Empire, a silver coin that was worth the amount of a typical day’s work (Krause, 2016). Therefore, the laborers were hired for a full day’s work and paid accordingly.

Later on, the master discovers that he is in need of more help than he had originally anticipated. So, he goes back to the marketplace to find more workers. This time, he does not negotiate wages beforehand, but rather he tells the workers that he will pay them what is right. The workers, therefore, expected – as they were hired later in the day and therefore would not log as many hours as those hired before them – that they would receive a lower wage (Turner, 2008, p. 478). Apparently, the harvest at this vineyard was particularly bountiful, as this process happens several times over the course of the day (Wilkins, 2002, p. 121). The master continually finds new workers in the marketplace and tells them that they will be paid what is right according to the length of their shift, with the latest workers expecting only a pittance (Wilkins, 2002, p. 121; Turner, 2008, p. 478).

However, when the master of the vineyard calls his workers to him at the end of the workday, there is a surprise in store. The workers who were hired last receive their payment first, in full view of those who had been laboring hard all day. With everyone expecting these workers to receive next to nothing, emotions rise when the master gives the last workers a full day’s wage. Now expecting to be similarly surprised with a much greater pay than anticipated, the workers who had been laboring all day begin to grumble when they were paid the same as those who only worked an hour or so. It may seem as though those who worked the full day have a right to grumble. However, the master combats their complaints of unfair treatment by recalling to their memories the promise they agreed to upon their hiring. The workers agreed to a denarius, and so a denarius is what they received.

The master, being angry still with the grumbling of the workers, brings up two more points to invalidate the complaints of the laborers. Firstly, as the master of the house and the owner of the money which he has offered to give the workers, he has the authority to do what he wishes with his own money. If he wishes to compensate the workers proportionately with their work hours he may, if he wishes to pay them all the same, he may, and if he wishes to do anything else with his money, he has the legal right (Turner, 2008, p. 479). So long as he does not pay the workers less than what they originally agreed upon, he is within his moral right to do what he will with his own money. Even if he does maliciously refuse to pay his workers at least what they are owed, he is still within his legal right to do so, provided there was no binding legal contract signed upon hiring.

His second point involves completely flipping the script on the workers. The workers are complaining that the master is being unfair, but the master bites back saying that the laborers are in fact the ones being unfair because they are grumbling against him for being generous. How ridiculous, he says, is it to complain about a person being generous to some struggling day-laborers, especially considering that day-laborers in first-century Israel were almost always living in poverty. He rebukes the grumbling laborers for being jealous of the others, saying – in a more direct translation – “is your eye evil because I am good?” (Turner, 2008, p. 479).

The parable ends thusly, with the grumbling laborers being rebuked by the master of the vineyard. However, one more verse follows this parable. This last line is perhaps the most famous and oft-recited verse of the whole parable, despite the fact that the verse was probably not originally connected to the parable, nor does the line really fit the intent of Jesus’ teaching in this parable (Snodgrass, 2018). However, if 2 Timothy 3:16 is to be believed, and all scripture is God-breathed and divinely inspired, then the verse was clearly put in this place for the purposes of the Kingdom. The message of the last line is that the first will be last, and the last will be first.

The “first will be last, and the last first” line spoken by Jesus connects to his other teachings regarding those who are lost. There are three parables within Luke 15 that demonstrate this teaching: the parable of the lost sheep, the parable of the lost coin, and the parable of the prodigal son. Each parable displays great celebration over the finding of something that was lost (a sheep, a coin, and a son), despite the presence and lack of celebration for other things of the same kind which were not lost (the 99 other sheep, the 9 other coins, and the other son). The parables of Luke 15 demonstrate that priority is given to those who are lost and need to be found rather than being given to those who have already been found, and therefore that the last shall be put first, and the first shall be put last. Thus, even if the line does not fit within the original context for the verse, it still connects to other teachings of Jesus found nearby in Matthew.

Overall, this parable is perhaps one of the more complicated and debated parables in Jesus’ repertoire. It has been allegorized by the Church from Heaven to breakfast, with the five separate hiring times being interpreted as epochs of history (Adam to Noah, Noah to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to Christ, and Christ to the Present), or perhaps the five stages of life (childhood, adolescence, the prime of life, old age, and the point of death) (Snodgrass, 2018). While this parable certainly contains many lessons to learn and many allegorical elements, to allegorize each small detail seems silly, as there are no context clues that lead to this sort of reading.

It seems strange to think that Christ, a marvelous teacher, and excellent preacher, would include this sort of ultra-specific information within this parable without giving any clues as to the correctness or incorrectness of the allegories. Generally, the allegorical characters and objects within Christ’s parables are more obvious. To allegorize this parable with the stages of human history or the stages of human life is certainly an interesting way to interpret it, and it could perhaps make for a good sermon, but to expressly say that Jesus meant his parable to be interpreted this way is most likely not the case.

There are, however, plenty of allegorical elements that do seem to be obvious within this parable. For example, it is generally accepted in the Church that the denarius the workers receive is salvation, or eternal life (Snodgrass, 2018). The vineyard also seems to be a clear allegorical placeholder for Israel, the master of the vineyard appears to be God, and the laborers are representations of those who accept the gift of eternal life (Turner, 2008, p. 480).

As with anything, there is debate over the allegorical meaning of the laborers in this parable. Some scholars theorize that the workers who come later in the day (a.k.a. “the last”) represent the disciples, and the workers who begin early (a.k.a. “the first”) are those who have lots of earthly riches (Eubank, 2013, pp. 248-249). However, this view is likely not correct as the early workers are those who have done the most work for the vineyard/Kingdom, and the status of “the first” on earth does not correspond properly with the hard work done by the early workers (Eubank, 2013, p. 249). This view is also unlikely as the disciples would be closer to the description of the early workers than the late workers since they have done much for the kingdom yet were not appropriately compensated on earth. Using this interpretation, one teaching of the parable could be a warning to the disciples not to grumble and complain about not receiving earthly rewards for their hard work and dedication to Jesus.

Moving on from the allegorical workers to the allegorical denarius; it is typically believed that the denarius is representative of salvation or eternal life and not representative of rewards in heaven, as such a reading would assume that – no matter how one lived their life on earth – every person’s rewards in heaven are to be equal. This idea goes against the teaching in other places of the Bible, such as John 4:36, which puts forth the idea that one who reaps on earth builds up for himself rewards to sow in heaven, and 1 Corinthians 3:8, which teaches that each person will “receive his wages according to his labor” (Wilkins, 2002, p. 122). Other verses which teach differing levels of heavenly rewards based on earthly behavior include Revelation 22:12, Matthew 6:4, 1 Timothy 6:17-19, and Matthew 19:29.

This view gives way to the assumption that – in the Kingdom of God – grace trumps merit (Eubank, 2013, p. 242). Strictly speaking, God’s grace could certainly be extended to those outside of the Kingdom if He so wished for it to be. However, this is not a question of God’s ability, but rather a question of God’s will. God certainly does not want anyone to go unsaved, but unfortunately, in order to truly love God, we must also have the option to hate Him (free will), and therefore while some will be saved, many will also be unsaved at the end of days. To say that “love wins” and that – in the end – all will be saved no matter who they followed or what they did on earth is foolishness and contrary to the real teachings of this parable. This premise is also dangerous as it opens the door to a hedonistic lifestyle, supported by the belief that sin is acceptable since Jesus will forgive all sins and reward everyone equally anyway. But, as previously mentioned, this parable does not discuss rewards in heaven.

Subsequently, a second assumption that is often made about this verse (that the parable is the primary lens through which scholars should be studying the teachings of Matthew’s gospel and perhaps the rest of the New Testament) is also incorrect (Eubank, 2013, p. 242-243).

To continue the idea of heavenly rewards, context from the passages preceding the parable of the workers in the vineyard can also be examined. Before the parable of the workers in the vineyard, there is a rich young man who is discouraged after learning from Jesus that in order to build up treasure in heaven, one must give away their treasure on earth (Matthew 19:16-22). Following this interaction, a discussion ensues between Jesus and his disciples regarding wealth, entry to the Kingdom, and treasure (both earthly and Heavenly) (Matthew 19:23-30). During this discussion, Jesus astounds his disciples when he explains that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 19:24). However, he also teaches them that through God, all things are possible (Matthew 19:26), meaning that even though a rich man could never possibly enter the Kingdom by himself, through God even the rich can reserve for themselves a place at the Heavenly banquet.

Jesus then reassures the disciples that they will be greatly rewarded in Heaven for their willingness to forsake everything and follow Jesus, and he also teaches them that anyone (not just the disciples) who gives up all their earthly treasure will also receive untold riches in Heaven before ending the conversation with this line in verse 30: “But many who are first will be last, and the last first.” This line leads into the next passage, which is the parable of the workers in the vineyard. Perhaps this connection to the teachings which came directly before is why the all-too-familiar last line of the parable of the workers in the vineyard was included later on despite most likely not being a part of Jesus’ original teaching. This could have been done to create a narrative that “flowed” more smoothly.

Another danger regarding the interpretation of the denarius being an allegory for rewards in heaven is that some may hold that belief for more political purposes. It is too popular to read the Bible from the perspective which one already holds, rather than allowing the Bible to shape one’s perspective. In particular, a socialist reading of Jesus’ teachings has become increasingly popular. This parable appears to be, with certain interpretations, Biblical support of Jesus’ alleged socialist attitudes. However, this point has already been disproven as it has been shown that Jesus teaches that the system by which God orders the universe is a merit-based reward system. Not particularly capitalist in nature, but certainly not socialist. Jesus instructs his followers to give to the needy, but he never calls for government-enforced redistribution of wealth held by private citizens, nor does Jesus ever claim that those in heaven will receive equal rewards despite differences in earthly merit. Rather, as was previously shown in several Biblical examples, Jesus explicitly teaches of a merit-based system where rewards are given fairly, but not equally. To read Jesus’ teachings through any lens (socialist, feminist, conservative, fascist, etc.) is to open the door to misinterpretation and intentional ignorance. Rather, the Bible must only be read from a Biblical lens; the teachings of the Bible must only be interpreted through the lens of one’s eyeglasses.

Moving from the denarius to the parable as a whole, it is suggested that the primary purpose of the parable is to illustrate God’s generosity toward those who follow Jesus, as even those who enter the Kingdom later and do not do as much work for the benefit of the Kingdom will still receive the reward of everlasting life in Heaven (Eubank, 2013, p. 249). The parable also serves as a warning to those who have done much work for the Kingdom, showing that their whining about inequality is not justified as (1) they knew the terms and conditions of accepting Jesus, and they are rewarded properly as per the agreed-upon terms, and (2) the ability to accept or reject individuals from the Kingdom of Heaven is a privilege which belongs rightly to God alone, and therefore He has a right to reward individuals however He sees fit (Eubank, 2013, pp. 249-250). He has this right because He has ultimate authority.

God’s authority comes from His ownership of creation and His power to maintain control over creation. As the ultimate authority in the universe, God has a right to expect obedience from those beneath Him, and the ability to command action, determine custom and form reality into whatever He deems right (Webster, 1988, p. 64). In the parable, the master (who was already said to be representing God) tells the workers that he has a right to do whatever he wants to do with his own money. Similarly, God has a right to do whatever He wants with creation, and He has the right to give salvation and eternal life to whomever He pleases, just as the master chose to give a full denarius even to the workers who came last.

The final discussion point on this parable is the application of the teaching to the daily life of believers. First, a more literal reading of the parable includes instructions for how people should treat others who receive beyond what they deserve. The appropriate response is not jealousy, like the workers who labored all day, but instead, the appropriate response is to (1) realize that just because person X receives more than they deserve does not mean that person Y is receiving less than they deserve, and (2) to not be jealous of others.

Another lesson to be learned from a more literal reading of the parable is the realization of God’s authority and His right to do whatever He wants. Because God is the authority, He can do whatever He wishes, and mankind has no right to grumble or complain.

With an allegorized reading of this parable, there are more teachings to learn from. For example, understanding can be gained regarding who is able to enter into the Kingdom of God. This parable does away with any view that one must be a Christian for a certain period of time to gain full salvation. Instead, the parable enforces the reality that all believers, whether they convert in youth or on their death bed; whether they existed thousands of years ago or were just born yesterday, are able to enter the Kingdom of God, provided that at some point during their day of life, they perform labor for the master of the vineyard.

This parable also increases mankind’s understanding and appreciation for the generosity of God. God could have created “levels of salvation”, where those who have labored long are given full salvation, whereas those who were late to the party only have salvation for a limited time or some other level of partial salvation. Instead, those who labor in the vineyard – even if it is just for an hour – receive eternal life just the same as those who have been laboring all day, even though they do not deserve such a generous reward.

There are many other lessons that can be learned from this parable that will not be covered here. This parable, as was previously mentioned, is perhaps among the deepest, most complicated, and most hotly debated parables of Jesus. There are many ways to interpret the text, many of which are dependent on the lens and bias through which one interprets it. In the end, through many interpretations, the sure facts are that God is a generous master, rewarding even those who do not deserve it. As a result, Christians must live in a posture of thankfulness and humbleness, living as servants of God who are grateful for the blessings, He bestows upon them rather than expecting blessings and gifts from Him. After all, the master of the vineyard could easily have passed over the workers in the marketplace for others nearby, and he could have offered less pay, or perhaps no pay at all.

References

Eubank, Nathan. “What Does Matthew Say About Divine Recompense? On the Misuse of the

Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament

Volume 35; Issue 3 (2013).

Krause, Mark S. “Denarius,” Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. Barry, et al. (Bellingham:

Lexham Press, 2016).

Snodgrass, Klyne. Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus,

Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2018.

Turner, David L. Matthew, Baker Academic, 2008, pp. 474-481. Baker Exegetical Commentary

on the New Testament.

Webster, J. B. “Authority,” New Dictionary of Theology. Edited by S. Ferguson, et al. (Downers

Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988).

Wilkins, Michael J. Matthew, Mark, Luke, edited by Clinton E. Arnold, Zondervan, 2002, pp.

121-122. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary.