Jesus' Parable, "Laborers in the Vineyard"

Matthew 20
Laborers in the Vineyard
1"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.
2"When he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius for the day, he sent them into his vineyard.
3"And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the market place;
4and to those he said, 'You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.' And so they went.
5"Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did the same thing.
6"And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing around; and he said to them, 'Why have you been standing here idle all day long?'
7"They said to him, 'Because no one hired us.' He said to them, 'You go into the vineyard too.'
8"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last group to the first.'
9"When those hired about the eleventh hour came, each one received a denarius.
10"When those hired first came, they thought that they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius.
11"When they received it, they grumbled at the landowner,
12 saying, 'These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.'
13"But he answered and said to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius?
14 'Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you.
15 'Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?'
16 "So the last shall be first, and the first last."

Few parables of Jesus have been as misunderstood as the parable of the workers in the vineyard. Francis Beare calls it "The Eccentric Employer." The common reaction of modern Western readers is to denounce the landowner as "unfair." In fact, when the parable is correctly understood it answers Peter’s question in Matthew 19:27 though it does so quite indirectly.
The parable reflects the economic conditions and practices of small rural villages in Galilee at the time of Jesus. Most of the property was owned by wealthy landowners who leased land to tenants to farm. The landowner would keep a large section of the best farmland for himself. Though he would have owned servants, the labor demands were seasonal. Only during planting and harvest would he need to hire additional workers. Tenant farmers who had already brought in their small harvest and the unemployed would gather early each morning in the village marketplace hoping a wealthy landowner would need harvest help. If the landowners came by and they were not hired these would-be workers would go to the next village marketplace hoping for a job later in the day. The standard day’s wage was a denarius.

So, when the landowner agreed with the first workers for the usual daily wage they were expecting a denarius. When the workers hired later in the day agreed to work for "whatever is right" they expected some proportionate fraction of a denarius. It was also customary to pay the workers at the end of the day. Many were so poor that the denarius enabled them to buy flour on their way home from which would be baked the bread they would eat the next day.

The literary skill of Jesus as a parable teller also appears in this parable. The opening verses of the parable exactly reflect the way of life in Galilee at that time. Listeners would have nodded in agreement at each detail of the parable as Jesus told of the hiring of workers and the agreements that the landowner made with each group. Even the fact that the manager had the job of paying the workers was part of the customs of that time. The familiarity of all these details enticed the listeners into the story. Everything was so familiar that they became emotionally involved in and committed to this story.

The first "clue" of the surprise ending came when the landowner ordered the manager to pay first those who had come to work last. The custom was to pay those who had worked all day first so they could go home first since they would be the most tired. Thus, this unusual instruction alerts the listener to pay close attention. When those who had "signed on" at the last hour received a full day’s pay, a denarius, a murmur passed through the crowd of Jesus’ listeners. What would the rest be paid if those who worked only one hour received the full reward?

Here we see Jesus’ purpose in having the landowner order the manager to pay those first. Everyone will see and will wonder. Everyone will see and will develop their own expectations of what the rest of the workers should be paid. By constructing the parable so that all the workers are paid the same, Jesus pushes every listener into a response. The nature of the response reveals a great deal about the heart of the listener. Will they rejoice with the workers who received a full day’s pay for one hour’s work or will they grumble with the workers who complained?

Verses 13-15 explain the viewpoint of the landowner. He has done no wrong. The workers who worked all day received the denarius for which they had agreed. Everybody else received more, in some cases much more, than they had expected. No one received less than he had expected. As owner, the landowner had the right to be generous with some if he wished. Only the most perverse logic would refuse him that right.

In its original historical setting in the ministry of Jesus, the parable spoke specifically of the generosity of God’s grace. Christ may well have first spoken it in response to Pharisees and scribes who objected to his (Jesus’) invitation to the sinners and tax collectors to enter the kingdom. From that original historical context, we learn important lessons about God and about grace. None of us deserve the benefits of the kingdom. Others have worked longer and harder than we have. Some have suffered incredible persecution, but the reward of the heavenly banquet is offered to all without regard to our work(s) or the price we have paid to be part of the kingdom.

While all of that is true, in the context of Matthew’s gospel there is another function of the parable. That is to answer Peter’s question in Matthew 19:27.Peter had first made a claim and then asked his question. The claim was, "We have left everything and followed you." The question was essentially, "What reward are we going to get for our special loyalty and love?" Peter’s assumption is that he and the other disciples deserved a greater reward because of the greatness of their commitment to Christ. Jesus’ reply makes it clear that God does not judge based on what is deserved, but on the basis of grace.

Peter’s question shows that he had not understood the parable of the unforgiving servant. The parable of the workers in the vineyard gave him another chance to comprehend the incredible grace that characterizes the kingdom of God and characterizes God himself. The saying with the reversed clauses in Matthew 19:30 and 20:16 mark the boundaries of the parable. The saying also reveals the mind-boggling reversal of values that is part of the kingdom of God.