Meditations in Matthew Twenty: The First-Last Parable

In Matthew 20:1–15, Jesus told about a group of workers. Some worked all day, others only one hour. Yet their employer paid them the same.¹

The Lord placed this story inside bookend statements. Before the parable, he said, “many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first” (Matt 19:30). Then he gave the parable, “For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard… (Matt 20:1–15; emphasis added). After the parable, Jesus said, “So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen” (Matt 20:16). The story—let’s call it the first-last parable—explains the bookend statements.

But this is a challenging passage. The “parable almost rivals that of the Unrighteous Steward in the number of difficulties which have been found in it, and in the number of interpretations which have been suggested for it.”² What does it tell us about the opening and closing statements?

Lenski mentions Melanchthon, one of Martin Luther’s associates. He believed he had “found the solution.” The parable shows temporal blessings and life eternal.³ 

Other writers reject the penny as a symbol of “eternal life and salvation.… That this is wrong [they say] needs hardly to be mentioned. The salvation of the sinner is here not at all in view.…”⁴ These writers believe the parable is about rewards. “The great principle which [Jesus] teaches is, that God will give the rewards in His own sovereignty, as it seems best to Him.”⁵ “Some of the rewards are temporal, but the implication is that the full reward awaits the end of the day, reward in heaven.”⁶

Writers in a third group say the parable deals with neither eternal life nor rewards. “This parable has nothing to do with salvation … for nobody works for his salvation. Nor is the parable talking about rewards, for we are not all going to receive the same reward. ‘And every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor’ (1 Cor. 3:8).” The central idea is “we must obey him unreservedly.”⁷

These writers say little about the exchange Jesus is illustrating. They do not explain how the “first” become “last” and vice versa. They also give scant attention to how the parable illustrates that “many be called, but few chosen” (Matt 20:16).

Our prophetic model, inmillennialism, suggests a different explanation.

The Meaning of the First-Last Parable

Our understanding of the first-last parable springs from its historical context. Jesus gave it on his final trip to Jerusalem. He said, “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again” (Matt 20:18–19).

Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection would serve as the foundation for the kingdom of heaven (cp. 1 Cor 15:1–6). The Temple would fall in that generation. This would end the Mosaic age (Matt 24:1–3, 34). The messianic age—the time of Christ’s parousia (presence) with his churches—would follow.

Before giving the first-last parable, the Lord had spoken about the coming kingdom. He had used four images in Matthew 19: eunuchs, little children, eternal life, and the regeneration. Each said something about the soon-coming kingdom of heaven (cp. Matt 16:27–28). We saw this in a previous post (here).

After giving the first-last parable, Jesus continued to speak about kingdom transition. Israel’s fruit-bearing days were almost over (Matt 21:19). God was about to cast her Temple-mount into the sea (Matt 21:21). The publicans and harlots would go into the kingdom of God before the apostate Jews (Matt 21:31). God would take the kingdom from apostate Israel and give it to a holy nation (Matt 21:43).

Jesus’s first-last parable (Matt 20:1–15) was also about this kingdom transfer.

That this parable involves a vineyard (Matt 20:1) supports this suggestion. God had from ancient times used this image to describe Mosaic-age Israel. “The vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry” (Isa 5:7).

After giving this parable, Jesus continued to compare Mosaic-age Israel to a vineyard. God was the householder. The time of harvest had drawn near. The servants in the vineyard would soon kill the householder’s son (Matt 21:33–40). 

Jesus was not speaking about a kingdom in the distant future. He was speaking about a kingdom the rich man could have entered had he forsaken his riches (Matt 19:23). Some had already made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of which Jesus spoke (Matt 19:12). The first-last parable was not about life or rewards in eternity. It was about entrance into the kingdom in Jesus’s generation.

Mark’s context for the first-last saying (Mark 10:31) also makes this clear. Some would “receive the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:15). The rich would fail to “enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:23–24). The Mosaic age was “this time” and the messianic age was “the age to come” (Mark 10:30 NKJV). The age transition involved “the things about to happen to him” (Mark 10:32 YLT).

So, Jesus’s first-last parable (Matt 20:1–15) was about the end of the Mosaic age and the start of the messianic age.

The Jews expected to be “first” in the new age, just as they had been in the Mosaic-age kingdom. Jesus said they were wrong:

I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matt 8:10–12)

John Gill explained it this way:

The Jews, who were first in outward privileges, would be rejected of God for their unbelief, and contempt of the Messiah; and the Gentiles, who were last called, should be first, or chief, in embracing the Messiah, professing his Gospel, and supporting his interest.⁸

The first—Israel as defined in the Mosaic-age—would be last. The last—Israel as defined by Christ—would be first. The latter would comprise sinners made righteous by the blood of Christ (cp. 2 Cor 5:17–21).

At the end of the Mosaic age, God would not be unfair to Israel. Alfred Plummer observes that in the parable,

no one receives less than he has been promised, but many receive more; and in these un-covenanted awards there is much that, in man’s eyes, seems to be unfair.… We have, therefore, only two classes to consider: those who came early, and those who came later; or, those who grumbled, and those who did not.⁹

God would deal with Israel according to the covenant he made with her at the start of the Mosaic-age “day.” They had no basis for complaint.

Confirming Details

Some details in the parable confirm our interpretation. We must not press these details too far. Parables teach one central lesson. Still, their features can show we are on the right track. 

Grumbling

In the parable, the householder waited until the end to pay the workers he hired first. Jesus said, “And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house” (Matt 20:11). 

The order of payment is important. “If [those who worked all day] had been paid first and sent away, there could have been no murmuring; and the murmuring is needed to bring out the lesson.”¹⁰ Jesus is making a key point about their grumbling.

Such murmuring characterized the apostate Jews who opposed Christ. “Their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples” (Luke 5:30). “The Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them” (Luke 15:2). “They all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner” (Luke 19:7). Etc.

The Jews opposed God’s work of establishing the kingdom of heaven. They “murmured against the goodman of the house.”

Grace

Our interpretation explains Jesus’s second bookend statement. He said, “So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen” (Matt 20:16). 

The messianic age forced Jewish Christians to rethink three major points of theology.¹¹ What were they to make of Israel’s monotheism? How could the church have one God since she now knew three divine Persons—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? 

The second point involved eschatology. What was God’s plan for the world after the Temple fell? What was Israel’s role in that plan?

For the first-last parable, our main interest is in the third category, election. Ethnic Israel was God’s “elect” during the Mosaic age (Deut 4:37; 7:6–7; Ps 33:12; 105:6; Isa 41:8; et al.). How would that change?

God’s choice of ethnic Israel had been a type.¹² As the messianic age began, God revealed he had chosen a people in Christ before the world began (e.g., Eph 1:4).

Regarding the typical chosen people, God said, “I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts” (Isa 65:2). Paul quotes this verse in Rom 10:21. Then he says, “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace” (Rom 11:5). By “this present time” he means the “last days” of the Mosaic age (cp. Heb 1:2). During that period, God had a few chosen people in ethnic Israel (cp. Rom 9:6).

This explains the election part of Jesus’s bookend statement. He meant, “many [in ethnic Israel] be called, but few [of them are] chosen [in Christ]” (Matt 20:16). Those chosen were Paul’s “remnant according to the election of grace.”

John Gill agrees with this analysis. He says, “for many be called; externally, under the ministration of the Gospel, as the Jews in general were, by Christ and his apostles; but few chosen; in Christ from all eternity, both to grace and glory; and in consequence, and as an evidence of it, but few among the Jews.”¹³

The View of Another Old Baptist

Other commentators have taken similar approaches to the first-last parable. Benjamin Keach (1640–1704), for example, wrote a commentary on the parables that is still in print. Here are some of his comments on our passage:

The man refers to the great God (who is sometimes compared to an householder, and sometimes to an husbandman).… By the Lord’s going early in the morning to hire labourers … is meant, his calling the Jews in the early age of the world, the vineyard of the Lord then, was the Jewish church. ‘For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts, is the house of Israel,’ &c. Isa. 5:7.”…

The calling these at the eleventh hour … refers to the calling of the Gentiles at the closing, or evening of the days of the Jewish church-state; the latter days, or the evening of days, not that the Gentiles were called into the Jewish church, no, but into the gospel church, the date or standing of the first being expired; and indeed the Gentiles, until the gospel-dispensation came in, might say, God, had not hired them; that is, had not called or offered grace to them, nor ever received them to be a distinct church; but then they were hired, called, and accepted as labourers in the gospel vineyard, and partook of equal privileges with the Jews that believed. “That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partake of his promise in Christ by the gospel,” Eph. 3:6.¹⁴

We seek to base our opinions on the Scriptures alone. But, such comments are gratifying.

Conclusion

The deficient interpretations at the beginning of this post make a foundational mistake. They view the parable from a modern time perspective. This is an anachronism—“a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other.”¹⁵ This mistake puts the parable’s payment of wages in our future.

Inmillennialism seeks to refocus our attention on the last days of the Mosaic age. The first-last parable pertains to things about to happen in Jesus’s generation. This allows us to explain it in a way that conflicts with neither eternal life nor rewards. It also makes the parable illustrate Jesus’s bookend statements (Matt 19:30 and Matt 20:16).

We believe Jesus’s key point was this. The Mosaic age was about to give way to the messianic age. During this transition, God would honor his covenant with Israel. Her vineyard-servants would receive proper payment. Some would receive more than they deserved under the old covenant, but none would receive less.

We can make many applications of this truth in our day. For example, all saved people, whether Jew or Gentile, should still praise God for his electing grace. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ … According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:3–4). Many are called but few chosen even in our day. 

But Jesus had a specific situation in mind when he spoke this parable. It pertained to Israel after the flesh (1 Cor 10:18) at the end of the Mosaic-age day.

1. The image in this post is Gleichnis von den Arbeitern im Weinberg by Jacob Willemsz de Wet (fl. 1632–1675). This file (here) is in the public domain (PD-US).
2. Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910; repr., Minneapolis, MN: James Family, n.d.), 272.
3. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1964), 765.
4. Arno C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of Matthew: An Exposition (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1982), 409.
5. Gaebelein, Matthew, 411.
6. John F Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Chicago: Moody, 1974), 149.
7. Warren W. Wiersbe, Meet Your King (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1980), 144.
8. John Gill, An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, 9 vols. (1809–1810; repr., Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1989), 7:220.
9. Plummer, Matthew, 273. Emphasis added.
10. Plummer, Matthew, 274. Emphasis added.
11. N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, vol. 4 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 46.
12. We discussed typology here.
13. Gill, “Exposition,” 7:226.
14. Benjamin Keach, Exposition of the Parables in the Bible (London: 1856; repr., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), 502–3. The original has Eph. 2:6 by mistake.
15. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1996), s.v. anachronism.