Smoodock's Blog

At this point in Matthew, we need to place ourselves in the context of the Apostles’ worldview during the days of Jesus’ public ministry. They had no idea what a spiritual Kingdom looked like. Only physical kingdoms made sense to them. Remember, they didn’t have the Holy Spirit, yet, to guide their understanding of Jesus’ words. Kingdoms were places of authority, over which kings ruled, kings like Caesar, or to a lesser degree, Herod. How would a spiritual Kingdom of God be understood during the first century AD, if all one had were his five physical senses? The Kingdom couldn’t be seen, vis-à-vis one couldn’t walk or ride to it, nor could one hear its commands, or feel its authority, or taste of its goodness, or smell the aroma of its attractiveness. If the righteous wealthy had no citizenship there, who could enter such a kingdom? Why couldn’t the rich young ruler enter this (physical) Kingdom (Matthew 19:23; cp. Luke 17:20-21)? Why would children be welcome (cp. Matthew 19:13), but not wealthy adults (cp. Matthew 19:23-25)? Nothing makes sense!

In the Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard, Jesus introduces us to a householder, saying the Kingdom of God was like him (Matthew 20:1). According to Jesus, this man went to the marketplace at the break of day to hire laborers for his vineyard.

Apparently, a discussion occurred between him and a group of men, concerning their wage, and they agreed to a “denarius” for a full days’ labor in the vineyard (Matthew 20:2). According to ancient custom, this agreement would have been a verbal “bilateral” contract or covenant, which means that each party had his part to do. The laborers must work the whole day in the householder’s vineyard and in return the householder would pay the men a wage of one denarius for their labor.

Three hours later, however, or about 9 AM according to modern reckoning, the householder went out to the marketplace and found other laborers standing idle. The householder told them, also, to go into his field and work, and he would pay them whatever seemed fair (Matthew 20:3-4). This was also a verbal contract, but it wasn’t like the first. The first was a bilateral contract, wherein both the laborers and the householder agreed to a definite amount for a day’s wage. This second agreement was totally in the hands of the householder. Whatever wage the laborer received was totally dependent upon the householder’s estimation of fairness.

When the day was half spent, at noon, the householder made another trip to the marketplace and found idle workers, and he hired them under the same terms he offered those he found idle at the third hour (Matthew 20:5). Moreover, at the eleventh hour, the last hour of the day, the household found idle workers in the marketplace. When he asked them why they spent the whole day idle, they replied that no one hired them. Therefore, the householder sent these, also, into his vineyard, saying he’d pay them, what he thought was fair (Matthew 20:6-7).

At the end of the day, the householder told his foreman to pay the laborers beginning with the last that were hired. Each man, no matter how long he labored, received a denarius, a full day’s wage (Matthew 20:8-9)! However, when those who were hired at dawn saw it, they believed that they should have received more than those who labored for only an hour. Nevertheless, they, likewise, received a denarius (Matthew 20:10).

Because they labored the whole day and received the same wage as those who labored only for an hour, they protested and murmured against householder, believing their labor should be worth more than those hired at the eleventh hour (Matthew 20:11-12). The householder retorted with the mention of the bilateral contract they made with him at the beginning of the day. They received what was theirs, according to the laws of that contract. These, others, were hired according to a unilateral contract, which allows the householder to dictate the wage the others would receive (Matthew 20:13-14). In other words, the first agreement was according to law, while the second was according to grace. The first reflects the integrity of the participants, while the second reflects the goodness of the householder (Matthew 20:15). The householder showed himself righteous under both contracts. However, the first laborers lost their integrity, when they demanded more than what they agreed to in the beginning. Under the first agreement, they had power to negotiate their reward. However, they had no authority to either change the first contract, once it was ratified by both parties, or to affect the outcome of the second contract. Only the householder had authority under both contracts.