Preaching Paths 24 Sept 2023

Sally A. Brown, Professor Emerita, Princeton Theological Seminary

Today’s gospel text, Mt 20:1-16, presents a parable unique to Matthew. Like other parables in Matthew, it features a person of power behaving in ways that violate our assumptions. (See 17 Sept; and upcoming, Mt’s emended version of the Synoptic parable of the wedding guests, Mt 22:1-14.)

Jesus’ parable presents us with a vineyard owner who behaves oddly. First, instead of sending his manager, he himself goes to the market to hire day labor for his vineyard. Then he repeatedly returns to hire more workers, all the way to 5 o’clock. These workers will work only an hour. The situation shifts from odd to outrageous when the manager hands out the pay, starting with the latecomers.  They get a denarius, which raises the hopes of the early arrivals who sweated out the midday hours.  Perhaps a windfall is coming their way!  But, no: they, too, get a denarius.  We are right in there with them when they complain!  This is not proportionate! Yet, says the landowner, they have gotten exactly what they asked for. Does his generosity anger them, make them envious?  Jesus’ disciples must have had trouble meeting his gaze. And we in our modern day pews simmer.

Some of the alternative interpretations ion offer in print or on-line commentary are these:

1. Some say we shouldn’t assume the landowner represents God. Might Jesus be calling attention to the plight of the “least” in society? Management’s arbitrary policies sow dissension among vulnerable workers, disempowering them further.  Yet, two features of the literary context make this approach questionable. First, scandalizing portraits of God are a common feature in Mt’s parables. (See for ex ch 22:1-14). Second, this does not account for Matthew’s deliberate bracketing of the parable with two versions of the logion, “the first shall be last/ the last, first” (19:30, 20:16)

2. Some have argued that this parable teaches that it is by grace, not works, that we experience the reign of heaven. This Pauline principle is unlikely here in Matthew, and makes the opening negotiation with the first workers meaningless.

3.  Others contend the parable simply showcases God’s scandalous generosity. This is appealing; yet, if God is so generous, why is God’s generosity so arbitrary? Why not be lavish with all?

4. Still others say the parable shows that God is committed to radical economic equality. This, I believe, strikes nearer the mark; yet I believe a slightly different angle of vision can shed new light.

If we pay attention to what’s going on with the first and last hired (as the “first/last” brackets seem to suggest we should), we discover this: God sees to it that all who join in cultivating the kingdom of heaven will have enough to meet their needs. Consider the landowner’s interaction with the first and the last. First, the landowner negotiates the rate of a denarius for a day’s work with the first workers hired. No doubt, these workers argued for enough to meet their daily needs, with a bit left over.  Then, the landowner asks the workers he gathers at 5 o’clock why they are still there. (Again, we are meant to pay attention!) “No one has hired us,” they say.  Why might that be? It is no secret among day laborers that the old and the disabled are the last to be hired, if hired at all. They are the town’s most vulnerable. The landowner gives them the dignity of work, and at day’s end, gives them what he gives all:  He gives what they need, which is (unsurprisingly) the amount the first arrivals said they needed. You and I answer the call to cultivate the reign of heaven in the world, not to gain status or wealth, but because we trust the Landowner.  At day’s end, we’ll find our needs are met.