Why did the early workers expect more in Matthew 20:10? Text of Matthew 20:1-16 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard…” (full passage quoted through v. 16). Verse 10: “So when those who were hired first came, they expected to receive more. But each of them also received a denarius.” Historical and Economic Background A denarius was the standard daily wage for a common laborer in the Roman world. Ostraca from Masada and papyri such as P.Mich. II 121 (c. A.D. 75) record vineyard workers receiving precisely one denarius. The sum was neither stingy nor extravagant, but exactly what a laborer reasonably counted on for subsistence. The Day-Labor System in First-Century Judea Day laborers gathered at dawn (≈ 6 a.m.) in village squares (cf. Matthew 20:1). Employers were legally obliged (Leviticus 19:13; Deuteronomy 24:15) to pay before sunset. Hiring at subsequent hours (≈ 9 a.m., noon, 3 p.m., 5 p.m.) reflects documented agricultural practice during a ripening or harvest crisis, when extra hands were urgently secured to prevent crop loss. Early Workers’ Psychological and Cultural Expectations 1. Merit Calculus: First-hired men labored twelve hours under the Middle-Eastern sun. In honor-shame cultures, length of toil equated to status and reward. 2. Social Comparison: When later hires received a full denarius, the earlier cohort applied linear extrapolation—“if they worked one hour for one denarius, we merit twelve.” 3. Lexical Insight: The verb ἐνόμισαν (v. 10, “they expected”) stems from νοµίζω, “to suppose based on normative custom.” Their assumption was custom-based, not contract-based. Contractual Agreement versus Generous Gift Verse 2 states the landowner “agreed” (συµφωνέω) with the first workers. A συμφωνία was a binding covenant; legally, the workers had no claim beyond the stipulation. Those hired later received not a συμφωνία but χάριν—pure grace (“whatever is right,” v. 4). The story contrasts law and gospel: covenant of works versus covenant of grace. Old Testament Parallels and Jewish Legal Framework Isa 55:1-3 invites the unqualified to receive reward “without money and without cost.” Likewise, Jonah’s irritation at equal mercy for Nineveh (Jonah 4) foreshadows the vineyard complaint. Rabbinic halakha (m. B. Meṣ. 7:1) insisted on wages matching agreement, validating the landowner’s justice. Grace Illustrated: Soteriological Implications The denarius symbolizes eternal life, uniform for Jew and Gentile, apostle and penitent thief (Luke 23:43). Romans 4:4-5 affirms that wages credited as grace rather than debt epitomize justification by faith. The early workers’ mis-expectation exposes self-righteousness that resists sola gratia. The Kingdom Reversal Theme in Matthew Matthew repeatedly stresses role reversal (19:30; 20:16). The parable immediately follows Peter’s question, “What then will there be for us?” (19:27). Jesus answers: reward is certain, but grace precludes hierarchical boasting. Envy, Merit, and the Fallen Human Condition The landowner asks, “Is your eye envious because I am generous?” (v. 15). Behavioral science labels this equity aversion; Scripture labels it φθόνος (envy), a work of the flesh (Galatians 5:21). The early workers’ expectation was not arithmetical error but moral envy springing from a sin-bent calculus of worth. Responses in the Early Church and Patristic Commentary Chrysostom, Hom. on Matthew 64, notes that the first group “claimed more on the ground of having labored more, yet all received life alike, for eternal life is not measured by time but by Christ’s righteousness.” Augustine (Tract. in John 3) stressed the parable’s application to Jews (early) and Gentiles (late). Application to Modern Discipleship and Evangelism Believers laboring “all day” must reject resentment when latecomers—death-bed converts, unreached peoples, former antagonists—receive the same salvation. Kingdom service flows from gratitude, not pay scale. For skeptics wrestling with divine “fairness,” the parable reframes justice: God is just to His word and free to be lavishly merciful. Concluding Synthesis The early workers expected more because fallen human hearts default to earning and comparison. Historical pay norms, covenantal agreements, and psychological equity aversion converged to create their assumption. Jesus employs this realistic scenario to unveil divine grace that upends human merit systems: “So the last will be first, and the first last” (v. 16). |
    |