Preaching Paths 20 Sept 2026

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 also 17 Sept; and upcoming, Mt’s 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. The last hired will work only an hour. When the manager pays the workers, he starts with the latecomers.  They receive a denarius—a full day’s wage. Early arrivals who sweated through the midday hours imagine a windfall about to come their way; but, no. They, too, receive a denarius. We share their dismay; this is not proportionate. It is not fair! Yet, says the landowner, the early arrivals have received what they asked. Why do they resent his generosity?  

Scholars have ventured various interpretations to account for the perceived inequity

1. Perhaps we shouldn’t assume the landowner represents God. Might Jesus simply be drawing attention to oppressive labor practices? Management’s arbitrary policies sow dissension among vulnerable workers, disempowering them further. Yet, scandalizing behavior by a king or landowner is not uncommon in Mt’s parables of the kingdom (see 22:1-14). Furthermore, the “first/last, last/first” logia that bracket the parable (19:30, 20:16) remain unaccounted for if we accept this interpretation.

2. Some have argued that this parable teaches that our inclusion in God’s kingdom is “by grace, not works.” This Pauline principle is unlikely here in Matthew. Here, too, we are at a loss to account for the “first/last” logia; and if grace is the core principle, why the negotiations with the first workers?

3.  Others contend the parable simply showcases God’s scandalous generosity. Yet, if God’s generosity is the point, why is it so arbitrary? Why not be lavish with all of these  poor laborers?

4. Still others suggest that the parable advocates for radical equality within the Christian communities of Matthew’s time.

The “first/last” brackets (19:30, 20:16) direct our attention to the landowner’s interaction with the first and last hired. First, the landowner agrees, after negotiations, to a denarius for the day’s work. In all likelihood, such workers would negotiate for enough to meet their daily needs, with a bit left over. At 5 o’clock, the landowner finds workers still waiting at the market. He asks why they are still there. “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. These are the town’s most vulnerable. The landowner gives them the dignity of work, and at day’s end, gives them what the first laborers said laborers such as themselves need. In other words, the landowner’s pay scale is prompted by a principle of “enough” for wellbeing. All who answer the call to cultivate the vineyard go home with what they need. This is good news!  Each of us—all of us—matter equally to this Landowner. No matter when or how we answer the call to cultivate the reign of heaven in this world, we will be cared for. The Landowner can be trusted. We shall have enough—and something to share.