Explanation:

To understand Jesus’ parable, we must look at the wider context. In Matthew 19:27, Peter explains that he and the disciples have left everything to follow Jesus, and he asks what their reward will be. Jesus explains that the twelve will sit on twelve thrones judging the tribes of Israel, and that everyone who leaves things behind for Jesus’ sake will be rewarded (Matthew 19:28–29). Jesus then explains that many who are first will be last, and the last first. Peter wants to know what reward the disciples will get, and Jesus assures them that they will be rewarded, but so will everyone else who follows him. Now the parable brings out what Jesus means by this.

Jesus explains that workers began work in the morning for an agreed-upon wage (Matthew 20:1–2). As the day goes on, the owner of the vineyard hires more workers, right up until the last hours of the day (Matthew 20:3–7). At the end of the day, the vineyard owner calls those who were hired last, and he pays them the amount that the workers who arrived first were paid (Matthew 20:8–9). This moment in the parable is an insight into the character of God and the nature of salvation. All the workers depend on the grace of the owner, and the owner decides to give them all an equal wage. To demonstrate their equality, the owner not only gives all the workers an equal wage, but he pays those who were hired last first, and those who were hired first last. Jesus finishes the parable with the terms that opened it, explaining that the last will be first and the first will be last.

Jesus’ point? Those who are faithful to God must learn that they are equal to those who come to God later in life. And those who come to God later in life, stand in awe of the God who treats them as those who have always been faithful. To both parties, the glory of God’s grace is beyond imagination.

Counterargument:

This interpretation is commendable except that it overlooks a grammatical point regarding the terms first and last. Specifically, in Matthew 19:30, Jesus says that many who are first will be last and the last first. It is important to note that the adjective many modifies the first and last. The adjective many is important because it seems to alter the meaning of the parable. Specifically, the adjective means that not all who are first will be last, but that many who are first will be last. This implies that there are at least some who are first who will not be last. Of course, if there are some who are first who will not be last, then the parable is not about the fact that all believers will share an equal reward.

Response to counterargument:

Unfortunately, this counterargument does not go through. The reason is found in Matthew 20:16 where Jesus drops the adjective many and for the definite article, the. Specifically, after laying out the parable, Jesus concludes by explaining that so it is with the last and the first.¹ He uses the Greek term thus to open Matthew 20:16. In other words, Jesus is about to summarize the parable with one final statement. Further, as mentioned, he drops the adjective many so that the parable is definitive. All who are last will be first, and all who are first will be last. So why does Jesus open the parable by saying that many who are first will be last, and then close it with the first will be last? A simple paraphrase can draw out the fact that there is no conflict between Matthew 19:30 and Matthew 20:16. In Matthew 19:30 Jesus says, Of all the people that will believe, many of them are first and many of them are last. In the end the ones who are last will be first and the first will be last.

Explanation:

Jesus offers the parable as a response to a question from Peter. So we need to understand the parable in light of Peter’s question.² What does he ask? He points out to Jesus that he and the disciples have left everything to follow him, and he wants to know what they will receive for this. Jesus explains that they will sit on twelve thrones in heaven, but that all those who have left things for Jesus will receive a great reward. He then explains that the first will be last, and the last first, before telling the parable.

So, the question is, what does the parable mean now that we understand it as an answer to Peter’s question about what reward the disciples will receive for following Jesus? The parable is about giving the same wage to the first and last ones to serve the owner of the vineyard. In other words, while Peter and the disciples will receive a reward for serving Jesus, so will everyone else who serves Jesus, and the disciples ought to accept this without grumbling.³

Counterargument:

While it might be that the parable is directed at the disciples, Jesus’ point is not that all are treated equal by God. Rather, he seems to be saying that because the disciples exclude some people from the kingdom, the disciples are first, but by denying grace to others they become last. Only once the first (the disciples) praise God for his goodness and stop denying other people grace will they avoid becoming last.⁴

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this counterargument is that there is no indication from the text that the disciples were denying people grace. Rather, Peter wants to know what reward he and the disciples will receive for following Jesus. Jesus explains that they will be rewarded but includes the parable to show that so will others, and all those who believe will be equal. The notion that the parable is a response to the fact that the disciples deny grace to others cannot be deduced from the text.

Possible weaknesses:

One weakness of this view is that there is an indication from Scripture that there will be varying rewards in heaven. Jesus even explains in Matthew 19:28 that the disciples will sit on twelve thrones, implying that they will have a special position in heaven.

Explanation:

When we first read the parable of the vineyard it seems as though Jesus is saying all believers are equal and will receive the same reward. Indeed, the workers who arrive first are paid the same amount as those who show up at the last hour. Still, Jesus’ point is not that all believers will receive the same reward. Rather, the point of the parable is that rewards in the kingdom hinge on God’s grace. It’s up to God what each believer will receive, even if that means each believer will receive the exact same reward.⁹ In other words, it’s not that each believer will in fact receive the same reward, but that it’s up to God what reward each believer will receive. The idea that the parable is about God’s freedom to deliver grace as he sees fit is supported by Matthew 20:23. There Jesus explains that it is up to the Father as to who will sit at Jesus’ right hand and left hand. In other words, the rewards for following Jesus are determined by God’s free grace.

Counterargument:

The problem with this interpretation is that while it can account for Matthew 20:23, it cannot account for Matthew 19:30 and Matthew 20:16. In Matt 19:30 Jesus explains that many who are first will be last and the last first. He then tells the parable of the workers, before concluding in Matthew 20:16, Thus the last will be first and the first last. In other words, Jesus is setting up a contrast between those who are first, or think they are first, and those who are last. The contrast between the first and last is resolved because in the end, each worker will receive the same wage so there will be no inequality. Thus, we must account for the fact that the parable is bracketed by the terms first and last, but this argument fails to do so.

Response to Counterargument:

While this counterargument might do a better job accounting for the terms first and last, it does not account for Matthew 20:23, when it seems clear that the rewards in heaven will vary depending on God’s will. Thus, this counterargument fails to succeed.

Response to response to counterargument:

This is a fair response. If we are to understand the parable in terms of equality, then how are we to understand Matthew 20:23? This interpretation takes it that Matthew 20:23 supports the notion that the parable is about grace, not equality, because it implies that there will be varying rewards, depending on God’s will. We want to take Matthew 20:23 at face value, so one way to solve this apparent problem is to suggest that the parable is about the general reward of eternal life, while Matthew 20:23 is about specific rewards. Many who are first will become last when they realize that although they were faithful to God their whole lives, many who came to Christ later in life will get the same reward of eternal life. Still, there will be other rewards related to responsibilities in the life to come based on God’s will. The parable is about eternal life in general, while Matthew 20:23 is about specific rewards.

Explanation:

When Jesus tells the parable of the workers, he begins with a typical scene.¹⁰ The owner of a vineyard finds people who are willing to work, and together they agree on a fair wage. As the parable progresses, Jesus begins to introduce atypical elements. For example, the owner continues to go back to the marketplace for workers, even until the last hour of the day, and brings them to his vineyard to work. Finally, the most atypical moment of all comes when the owner of the vineyard not only pays the men who were hired last first but pays them the same wage as those who were hired first. It is an extraordinary scene, meant to bring a sense of surprise and shock to Jesus’ audience. And what is the point of these shocking elements? Jesus wants the disciples to understand the generosity of God’s grace, and the best way to do with this is by introducing atypical elements for dramatic effect.¹¹

Counterargument:

While it is true that the parable contains atypical elements that bring surprise and dramatic effect, this does not mean that the atypical elements are exaggerations. Rather than conclude that the point of the atypical elements is to demonstrate that God is extremely generous, why shouldn’t Jesus include these elements to demonstrate that God is atypical? In other words, according to our human standards, God’s justice ought to govern his actions so that the wages are fair. But if God truly operated by his justice alone, no one would get a wage, because no has earned anything from God. Rather, we must understand that God is atypical from a human perspective. That is because God is not only perfectly just but perfectly gracious, and those two attributes always work in tandem.¹²

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that it does not give us a good reason not to take the shocking elements as part of Jesus’ point. That is, the parable is shocking not only because the vineyard owner is so generous but also because he gives the same wage to all the workers. That all the workers get the same wage seems to be more than a useful exaggeration to make a point but offers deep insight into the nature of the vineyard owner.

Explanation:

The parable of the workers is a story about the complexities of God’s character. On the one hand, the story portrays God’s justice.¹³ The vineyard owner looks for workers at the marketplace and hires some men at an agreed-upon rate. Those workers work hard all day, and the owner gives them their wage. That the owner pays the workers according to their original arrangement implies that the workers lived up to their end of the bargain, and so does the owner. In other words, God is just and lives up to his end of the bargain.

At the same time, there is a radical graciousness to the vineyard owner. Out of his mercy he goes back to the marketplace four times to bring more workers into the field. We get the sense from the narration that the owner does not need these workers, but he hires them because they need the wage. Then comes the most surprising element, as the owner gives all the workers the same amount. When the workers who were hired first complain, the owner asks whether he is free to do what he likes with what he owns. The rhetorical question amounts to the following: Don’t you think I’m free to be gracious?¹⁴

Thus, the parable is about the justice and graciousness of God. Jesus’ point is that God’s justice and graciousness always work in tandem.

Counterargument:

The problem with this view is that if we take the illustrations at face value, the parable suggests that the workers who were hired in the morning earned their reward. That is to say, if the parable is about the reward of eternal life, the illustrations imply that the morning workers earn eternal life. Since we know from other areas of Scripture, such as Paul’s letters (Ephesians 2:8–9; Galatians 2:15–16), that salvation is a gift of grace, we should not take the illustrations at face value.

Explanation:

Jesus was Jewish, and he spoke to a Jewish audience, so comparing the parable to Jewish ideas about God’s justice and grace can help us understand Jesus’ point. In fact, when we look at Jewish literature, we find that there was an emphasis on God’s justice along with his surprising grace. For example, there is account where God shows Rabbi Jose ben Halafta the treasures that the righteous will be rewarded in heaven, and there includes a treasure for those who had nothing. God explains that to those who have nothing he will give from the treasure that has been earned.¹⁵ In the same way, Jesus is saying that those who are righteous will be rewarded, and so will those who were not righteous.

Counterargument:

There are two problems with this argument. First, while Jesus was a Jew, it is far from the case that what he taught always aligned with the Judaism of his day. For example, the Jews of his day thought that only certain foods were allowed to be eaten, while Jesus taught that all foods are clean (Mark 7:19). Further, the Jews practiced an assortment of ceremonial washings and other laws, such as refraining from picking wheat on the Sabbath that Jesus ignored (Mark 7:2–5; Matthew 12:1–8). In fact, Jesus’ teachings were so counter (in some respects) to his Jewish contemporaries that they ultimately convicted him of blasphemy and had him crucified.

Second, the New Testament is clear that salvation is not earned but is a gift of grace (see counterargument a).

Possible weakness:

That the parable is about God’s justice and grace is to be applauded. The weakness of this view is that it is not informed from insights from the rest of Scripture. We know from other passages that salvation is a free gift of grace that no one is able to earn, so Jesus would not teach that the righteous earn salvation while the sinners receive grace.