Who are the first who will be last, and who are the last that will be first? I could also ask, “Do we know what we are asking for, when we ask that question? I don’t believe we do. Look at the commentaries. There are almost as many answers to that question, as there are scholars! Some say the gentiles are the last who become first, while the Jews who were first, have become last. Others believe it is the favor of God. God’s favor rested on some in the beginning (first), but later his favor rested on others (the last), so the last became first. But, what if the text isn’t speaking of time? What if the text points to something else?
If all this is true, what does Jesus mean, when he says, some who are first will be last and some who are last will be first? Notice the parable has the householder going out to the marketplace and hiring other laborers several times during the day, and he sent them into his vineyard to work, and he would pay what he considered fair. They went, and when the day was done, everyone received the same wage: eternal life! While considering this point it is often claimed:
“Any union leader worth their salt would protest at such employment practices. Anyone who took this parable as a practical basis for employment would soon be out of business.”[1]
However, this is actually an error, and a misunderstanding of the text. First, the error; I used to work for a very large corporation, and the workers were represented by several trade unions. In the contract year negotiations continued until all the trade unions were satisfied with the company’s offer. Often one or two would agree early but the other(s) held out for something more, but it was understood no union worker would cross another union worker’s picket line. So, some workers received different wages in different contracts, depending on which trade union did the bargaining. So, the idea that the parable isn’t practical is an erroneous idea.
Now, let’s consider the misunderstanding. It is obvious that two different contracts are in play in the parable. First, we have the bilateral contract, where both parties argue from equal positions. You do this for me, and I’ll do that for you and vice versa. This was the contract entered into by the laborers hired at dawn. All the other labors were hired under a unilateral contract. Its terms were dictated by the stronger party; in the matter of the parable, that would have been the householder. The laborers would receive what he (the householder) thought was fair, vis-à-vis there was no discussion over compensation, only an offer. The laborers simply agreed without any input on their parts.
Thus, the first laborers had absolutely no reason to complain. They received the agreed wage, and the others received what the household thought was fair. Two different contracts but the same reward. Anyone who thinks that the first laborers **earned** eternal life isn’t looking at the parable correctly. If you are working in a factory for $1.25 an hour (my first job by the way), but someone offers you $1,000,000 for doing the same thing, could anyone actually believe you **earned** the $1,000,000 on payday? Obviously, God’s promise of eternal life, if one was obedient to the Law was an offer of grace. Who can really **earn** eternal life by serving X number of years today, doing whatever? Obviously, the household treated everyone out of a graceful heart, and that’s the point.
The rich young ruler and the disciples had the wrong idea about the Kingdom of Heaven. One doesn’t **earn** his way in. Entry is offered with a graceful invitation: “Come!” Everything has to do with the heart. If one has the heart of a servant, whether under the Law or otherwise, that one is under grace and is given the “gift” of eternal life. Only those who don’t have the heart of a servant, would consider the gift (Romans 6:23), a wage that is earned (cp. Matthew 20:11).
I began this study asking, “Who are the first who will be last, and who are the last that will be first?” The disciples desired to be first in the Kingdom (Matthew 18:1), but Jesus tells them they would have to embrace being last (Matthew 19:30; cp Mark 9:35). If, indeed, they did make themselves everyone’s servant, vis-à-vis last, then truly they would have made themselves first in the eyes of God (Mark 9:35). This is the interpretation of the text, which Jesus explains in more detail later (Matthew 20:25-28; cp. Mark 10:42-45).
[1] See “The Gospel of Matthew” by R. T. France; page 748; cited in The Expository Notes of Dr. Constable.
Leave a comment