Introduction (Context of Entering a New Section of the Gospel)
Here is a brief introduction as we enter into this new section of Matthew that gives an overview of what’s going on. You can skip to the context of this week’s commentary below.
We are about to enter into even greater conflict, but chapter 19-22 are jumping right into the deep end as Jesus is confronted and antagonizes several religious leaders that are trying to test him.
As we enter into this section, I think the reader has to make a few decisions. Are these arguments solely for conflict and creating rationale for the crucifixion? Are they pointing us toward the eschaton? Or are they directions for the early church?
Remembering that Matthew is using the rhetorical style of the prophets, Jesus is again reinterpreting the law and challenging the religious leaders to see differently. Now, Matthew is also using them in the same way that John and Luke use Pharisees and Sadducees as straw men. But Matthew is continuing this thread of prophetic voice.
The distinction here is that now that we have moved past the transfiguration, Jesus is walking towards the cross and is teaching knowing that the disciples are going to have to continue this ministry. This is not just widespread teaching; this is specific direction for those that will continue the movement. For example, in 19:10-12, Jesus turns a conversation about marriage and celibacy into a welcome of all persons into kingdom work. Jesus is asked about marriage but in response to the disciples (who struggle with the teaching), his conclusion relates to eunuchs who would have been excluded for who they are, and he uplifts their humanity.
Ironically (or very intentionally), the very next verse is about children (possibility insinuating that there is not a need to be celibate to be in ministry). And Jesus again affirms that all children should be welcomed to him. Whether this continues with previous references to “being like a child” or it is the welcome of literal children, this passage again opens our minds to see the diversity of the kingdom of heaven. In just 5 verses, the disciples are told that eunuchs and children are essential to the kingdom.
Critical Context for this Week (19:27-30)
In case you skipped above, this portion really is critical for setting up the parable.
You really have to love Peter for yet another critical human question to set up this parable today.
In chapter 19, after Jesus talks about how difficult it will be for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven, Peter asks this hard-hitting question, “Look, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?”
Again, Peter is not representing a fool here. This is a person in authority who thought that he might get something out of all of this. He thought he might be somewhat privileged for being one of the first ones to drop his whole life and follow.
What’s the point of all of this for us? Maybe a question that hits more at home for us preachers and for many of us in the Lutheran tradition: “What’s the good news?” Everything has been challenging to this point. So, what’s the good news?
As I look at the role of Peter in Matthew, I find Culpepper’s words here helpful.
Peter voices concerns that may reflect issues in the Matthean community: should they pay the temple tax (17:24-27); how many times should they forgive a brother or sister (18:21-22). What rewards can Jesus’ followers expect? The disciples have done exactly what Jesus told the rich man to do: Peter and Andrew: “left their nets and followed him” (4:20; cf. 4:22; 9:9). The implication is that they are due their reward. Jesus assures them of their reward, but it is not earthly of material.[1]
Each of these questions comes after the transfiguration. We are getting this emphasis on Peter (and the others) asking even more follow-up questions. Matthew is answering questions that his community is asking and having the disciples be the recipients of these answers. This is information that we should hear as disciples and hear that it is for us embrace in our continued work of the church.
As mentioned in other commentaries, Peter is not a foil. He is not portrayed as clueless like in other gospels. Peter represents the authority of the church at this point (see chapter 16). So, right before this week’s text, Peter says to Jesus, “Look, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?”
Now, here’s the astonishing thing. You thought Jesus’ handing over the keys of the kingdom was a big deal? Well, Jesus does it again.
19:8Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.
The twelve disciples will be the twelve patriarchs/judges. Culpepper helps to illustrate that Jesus’ answer is “Matthew’s distinctly Jewish Eschatology.” Culpepper writes,
Matthew 19:28, which probably goes back to Jesus, envisions the reestablishment of the twelve tribes of Israel in the eschaton, ruled by judges (as in the period of the judges [11th c. BCE]). This expectation seems to be based on Dan 7:9-27 and is reflected in Psalms of Solomon 17.26-27: “[The expected son of David] will judge the tribes of the people that have been made holy by the Lord their God. He will not tolerate unrighteousness (even) to pause among them” (cf. Ps. Sol. 17:28-32; Philo, QE 2.114; T. Jud. 25.1).[2]
While Matthew seems to be pointing the 12 disciples to the powerful seats at the eschaton, the last verse again puts it all in perspective, “But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.” If the disciples (or we) get too high on ourselves, if we bar the children (of God) from Jesus, if we rely on security of power and possessions, if we forget to rely on God and instead rely on ourselves, then we will be the ones who are last.
Subverting This Week
So, based on Peter’s question, we assume that this parable is going to be a lesson on “rewards.” And if you read it at face value, it is about God subverting the reward system, right?
We can easily preach on this being about God’s unfair grace. The grace is the same for those who came at the beginning of the day and those who only worked an hour. It is not about work or value. It is about grace for everyone. It’s a lovely message.
But it’s also one that broods resentment. And while maybe that is inevitable to a certain degree, I don’t think it gets to the whole subversiveness of this text.
Because when we preach unfair grace, I hear lots of discussion about laziness. ‘Well, where were all those folks that didn’t show up until the end of the day? Doing nefarious things? Why should they get the same reward? Did they sleep in? Were they hungover?’
And this absolutely could have been a discussion about salvation in Matthew’s community. Why should someone who only just hopped on board be entitled to the same grace and reward of God as me who has been in this for much longer?
If we preach on this text as unjust grace, then I don’t think there’s as much for us to take away from this text. There is little action for us to take other than, “don’t be jealous of your neighbor.” Particularly, because a denarius is not really a lot of money… it’s just the bare minimum.
In our Gospel text today, the landowner goes out and initially hires laborers and agrees with them to pay them the usual daily wage. This distinction of the agreement to pay a usual daily wage is critical information to the story. A usual daily wage or a denarius was the amount enough to provide one day’s food for a family (there are some scholars who nitpick about how many more meals this could have actually afforded a family, but Matthew is getting at this being a relatively basic/meager quantity). It’s representative of just enough money to put just enough food on the table for a family for one day.
Hopefully you can see where this is leading.
Why would it be so important that at the end of the day these workers who had only been working for one hour (or a few of them only three hours, or a few of them only six hours), why they would be paid the same amount as those who started at the break of day?
Because the life and well-being of these workers and their families matter as well. It was not about the amount of work that they did; it was about having enough to put food on the table for their family. It’s that they too had enough to live. The gospel text that we hear today is not about the value of work; it is about the value of life.
If the reward for working in the field was equally extravagant (a talent each), I think we would need to take a closer look at this being about salvation and reward of the eternal.
But this is enough to feed your family for a day. I do not think that Jesus is offering a commentary on salvation. This is a commentary of caring for our neighbor and recognizing their needs.
The first shall be last and the last shall be first. If we as the church aren’t looking towards those in the most need (a family who could be without food at the end of the day), then what is the use of our authority? Why would we scoff at someone receiving basic income to fulfill their basic needs?
Preaching Possibility
In this country and in so much of the world, we have associated value and worth of life based on a person’s productivity. You are valuable if you have something to offer. You are valuable if you can support yourself. You are valuable if you do not need help. You are worthy if you have worked.
And thus, the inverse must be true as well. Regardless of your circumstances, you are worth less if you don’t have something to offer. You are worth less if you don’t feel productive. You are worth less if you need help. You are worth less if you have not worked.
How radical would it be if we valued life the way that God values our lives? If we recognize the intrinsic value of ourselves and of another person regardless of what we can offer them or what they can offer us.
How radical would it be if we valued everyone’s life – regardless of work or productivity – in a manner that they could not only survive but thrive?
It is a beautiful image.
And I truly think, that here in this church setting, in hypothetical and theoretical sermons, we truly hope to believe this message. That God’s love and grace are for all. That everyone can have what they need.
But that’s not really what we believe. Based on our societal understanding, this action taken by the landowner is egregiously unfair. Our perceived system of economics dictates that those who work harder and longer get more. That those who have better connections get higher favor. The first laborers should have been paid more and the last laborers should have been paid practically nothing. That’s how it works.
And yet, God works differently. And God wants us to work differently.
God’s economy is not our economy. God’s grace looks like egregious unfairness in our capitalist society. The fact that the one-hour laborers get paid the same as the daybreak laborers is not fair by our standards.
But God cares about the one-hour laborers having food on the table. God cares about every person in this world having their basic needs met to survive. Food, water, clothing, and shelter. Why on earth would we think that someone isn’t valuable enough for just that? Especially we in the church who talk so much about Jesus going to help the poor and the oppressed.
In the church we are okay to hear when God or Jesus are radically generous. But we get really cagey when it’s expected of us. But that exactly what Jesus wants Peter and us to hear today. If we operated more on God’s economy, our lives and the lives of all would more radical and abundant and free.
Your life matters just as much as anyone else. And their lives matter just as much as yours.
The person working in the office is worth just as much as the person working from home.
The unemployed restaurant owner is worth just as much as the unemployed waiter.
The houseless person on the street is worth just as much as the billionaire in their 5th mansion.
The graduate from college is worth just as much as the newly retired septuagenarian.
The woman on welfare is worth just as much as entrepreneur.
The newly incarcerated convict is worth just as much as the judge who gave the sentence.
The alcoholic who walks in the door of a 12-step meeting for the very first time is worth just as much as the one with 30 years in recovery.
God’s love, God’s grace, and God’s care is for all people regardless of what we have done or what we have left undone.
Can we as the church, those with authority, believe and act on that too?
[1] R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew, 368.
[2] R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew, 368-369.
Micah Krey 
Leave a comment