Podcast: Play in new window | Download
In this powerful episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony and Jesse return to their parable series with an in-depth examination of the Laborers in the Vineyard from Matthew 20:1-16. This often-misunderstood parable confronts our natural inclination toward merit-based thinking and exposes the scandal of God's grace. The hosts unpack the covenantal language embedded in the text, particularly the workers' "grumbling"—a loaded term echoing Israel's wilderness rebellion. Through careful exegesis and theological reflection, they demonstrate how this parable dismantles religious entitlement while celebrating God's sovereign freedom to bestow mercy according to His purposes, not our calculations. The discussion offers fresh insights into grace, election, and the radical generosity that defines God's kingdom economy.
The parable's opening establishes a formal agreement between the landowner and the first workers: one denarius for a day's labor. This contractual arrangement is crucial for understanding what follows. Unlike marketplace haggling, this represents a covenant—the landowner binds himself to provide what he has promised. Tony emphasizes that even this initial contract is an act of condescension and grace, as the master had no obligation to employ anyone at all.
As the day progresses, subsequent workers are hired with increasingly less formal agreements. By the third hour, the landowner promises only "whatever is right," and by the eleventh hour, no wage is even mentioned. These later workers enter the vineyard based entirely on the landowner's character and trustworthiness. This progression mirrors the movement from law to gospel—from contractual obligation to trusting promise. The theological implication is profound: those who relate to God based on His gracious word rather than calculated merit are actually in a more secure position than those who attempt to earn their standing through works.
The hosts make a critical exegetical observation about the Greek word for "grumbling" (γογγύζω) used in verse 11. This is not casual complaining but the identical term used throughout the Septuagint to describe Israel's covenant rebellion in the wilderness. When the workers grumble "upon receiving" their wages, they're not merely expressing disappointment about pay inequality—they're filing a covenant lawsuit against the master, accusing him of unfaithfulness.
This connection to Numbers 16 and Exodus 16-17 is devastating. The Israelites' wilderness grumbling wasn't about logistics or comfort; it was fundamentally about doubting God's covenant fidelity. By employing this loaded terminology, Matthew signals that the first workers' complaint is nothing less than accusing God of covenant violation. The landowner's response ("Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius?") is a covenant defense—he has fulfilled his obligations precisely. The workers' real offense is not miscalculation but begrudging God's freedom to show mercy beyond what is contractually required.
The final rhetorical question—"Or do you begrudge my generosity?"—contains another Jewish idiom often lost in translation. The Greek literally reads, "Is your eye evil because I am good?" This "evil eye" imagery appears throughout Scripture as a metaphor for envy, stinginess, and resentment toward another's blessing. The landowner's question cuts to the heart: are you cursing me for being generous?
This directly parallels Jonah's response to Nineveh's salvation. Jonah had just experienced miraculous deliverance through the great fish, yet when God showed identical mercy to the Ninevites, Jonah's response was essentially, "I knew you were gracious—that's why I ran!" The parable exposes the same perverse logic: those who have received covenant mercy begrudging that same mercy extended to others. For the Pharisees listening to Jesus, this was an indictment of their resentment toward tax collectors and sinners receiving the kingdom. For Christians today, it challenges any sense of spiritual superiority based on how long we've been in the kingdom or how much we've sacrificed.
Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity? That 'or' is a logical connector—either I'm not allowed to do what I want with my belongings, which is ridiculous, or if I am allowed, then you must be mad at me for being generous. Those are the only options. — Tony Arsenal
The grumbling in the Old Testament in this context is a covenantal accusation. These workers aren't just complaining about not getting what they thought they would—they're questioning the veracity of the covenant that was made. — Tony Arsenal
Most of us are this eleventh-hour call. It's much better to be in the place of that younger brother who comes in and repents than to be the older brother who is stubborn and finds some reason to come before God with self-righteous grievances. — Jesse Schwamb
[00:01:05] Jesse Schwamb: Welcome to episode 488 of the Reformer Brotherhood. I'm Jesse
[00:01:13] Tony Arsenal: and I am still Tony, and this is the podcast where Tony comes back. Hey brother.
[00:01:19] Jesse Schwamb: Hey brother. The band is back together again, man. It's reunited and boy, do you feel it? It feels good, doesn't
[00:01:26] Tony Arsenal: it? I do, I do. I'm excited to come back. It was nice to take a break.
[00:01:29] Jesse Schwamb: Good.
[00:01:29] Tony Arsenal: I, uh, I've been, you know, texted with you a couple times. Just it was, I did my best to sort of not think about the podcast because that's sort of defeats the purpose of taking a break from something if you spend a lot of time thinking about it. Um, so I'm back. I'm refreshed. I'm ready to go.
[00:01:44] Tony Arsenal: I appreciate the listeners' patience.
Uh, it's been sort of a weird, crazy busy time at work. Uh, there's a lot going on. I, I lost like. 60% of my staff in the course of like three weeks. And, um, I'm still kind of in the thick of it, but we're coming out of it. So took a little bit of time to just make sure that I was having a, an appropriate space to de-stress from that and take care of my family and attend to worship.
And, um, it was really a, a blessing to have that. Uh, sort of sabbatical. Ironically, the sabbatical wars were going on at the same time on Twitter, and Jesse is blissfully unaware of that 'cause he's not involved in in the Twitter. That's true. Um, but yeah, just took a little break and it's kinda like overblown it, to call it a sabbatical.
Like this is a podcast, it's a hobby, but, but it was nice to have, uh, a little bit of extra time, you know, couple hours extra week, uh, uh, each week of extra time to just decompress and, uh, play with the kids and spend time with my wife and clean the house a little bit, which was good.
[00:02:36] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, it is always good to have a clean house.
You look great. You seem refreshed. The voice sounds good, and I'm like, I don't know, in year seven or eight of my Twitter sabbatical, it's going great so far. I feel like I haven't missed a whole lot. The world still seems wild and I'm sure, or X, right? We gotta go X on this. It's
[00:02:53] Tony Arsenal: always Twitter. It's always gonna be Twitter.
I don't care what Elon Musk
says.
[00:02:56] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, I'm listen. I'm totally fine with that.
[00:02:58] Jesse Schwamb: And I teased this in the last episode, but we can't be stopped. I mean, people should know this by now, we have an inexorable march through the parables of Jesus's true. That will not be stopped. We're always gonna come back until there are no more.
And on this episode, we're gonna be hanging out in Matthew 20, talking about laborers in the Kingdom of Heaven.
[00:03:17] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. I'm stoked. I'm, I'm, I'm excited to get back into it. I'm excited to get back into the word together with everybody. I'm excited to clear whatever that was on in my throat out
[00:03:27] Jesse Schwamb: emotion,
[00:03:27] Tony Arsenal: live on the air.
Uh, but yeah, it'll be good. I'm, I'm stoked. I mean, I love this stuff and it's good to be back.
[00:03:32] Jesse Schwamb: Listen, you had the rest. Now let's talk about labor. So speaking of labor, it's, it's time for you to work up here, Tony. Are you affirming with or denying against on this episode?
[00:03:42] Tony Arsenal: Uh, I'm affirming something and I'm hopeful, uh, that just a little behind the scenes activity here.
Jesse recorded episode 487, like an hour and a half ago. I have not yet listened to it, so I don't know if you did an affirmation and I I did. If you did. I hope it's not the same one.
[00:03:58] Jesse Schwamb: I did not. You're
[00:03:59] Tony Arsenal: safe. Uh, good. So I'm safe.
[00:04:01] Tony Arsenal: So, um, I'm affirming the Artemis two mission. Um, oh, nice. Have you been, I mean, I know you're not on Twitter, but I'm sure there's news elsewhere.
Uh, this amazing mission around the moon, um, for astronaut, for astronauts, I think, um, the furthest man space travel, um, since the Apollo program. Um. Pretty intense, pretty amazing pictures, right? The camera technologies amazing. Increased exponentially, uh, since we were there last. Um, this is ostensibly in preparation for an actual moon landing, which who knows when that will be?
Um, but as far as I've seen, the mission was a resounding success. There was no right. I think they had, they ran into a few little hiccups early on with some technical things, but nothing crazy. I have not heard. Um, I know they did touch down and they did reentry. Um, I've not heard anything one way or another, but I'm assuming since I have not heard terrible, tragic news that they made it through, did they do the reentry?
I'm really, apparently I'm not actually paying as much attention to this as I thought I was. I saw a lot of information about reentry, but I guess, I don't know for sure when that happened or is happening.
[00:05:05] Jesse Schwamb: I mean, by this point, when people listen to it, it'll be old news anyway, right? So
[00:05:09] Tony Arsenal: For sure. Yeah. And either, either it went terribly wrong and I'm gonna feel awful, or it went fine and I'm gonna feel a little silly for.
Throwing a caveat that it went terribly wrong out there. But, um, it's cool. It's, it's amazing. I mean, I, I commented to my wife the other day and she's kinda like, yeah, maybe we should like, spend that money on people who are on the planet. I was like, okay, I can, I can buy that wisdom. But, um, there's something very cool and very Genesis, uh, one, ask Genesis one and two, ask about flying out into space and taking dominion over Yeah, for sure.
Over a, a little ball of rock, uh, you know, uh, 25,000 miles away or whatever it is. Um. And, you know, I'm like an engineering nerd. I, I don't know anything about engineering, but I love watching YouTube videos that explain stuff like this. And
[00:05:52] Jesse Schwamb: me
[00:05:52] Tony Arsenal: too, all of the videos that have cropped up now about free return and how, like they're able to basically like do minimal burn on the thrusters to get into the right trajectory and then just like meet the moon in the place it's gonna be.
And then the, you know, the moon's gravity captures it and whips it back around and then shoots it back towards Earth. And for the most part, they're able to do all of that with relatively minor, um, relatively minor energy output because they're just utilizing physics and gravity and math, um, to fly to the moon and come back.
Yes. It's pretty crazy amazing. So, yeah. Amazing. And the photos of like the, the sort of like new versions of the Earthrise photos are really, really phenomenal. Um, they're crisp, they're clean, they're obviously like the best, the best actual pho photographic images we've had of the lunar surface. Um. And the, the far side of the lunar surface, which we get all sorts of like telescopic photos and things of this side of the lunar surface because it's tightly locked and is facing us at all times.
We don't get a ton of really great photography of the far side of the moon, which is a big part of what this mission was, so,
[00:06:56] Jesse Schwamb: right.
[00:06:56] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. If you haven't seen the photos, I mean, they're out there, they're amazing. There will be even more available once we get back. You know, they, they're transmitting only the most stellar, amazing ones.
Um, and, but they're taking, I'm sure thousands and thousands of photos and, um, so yeah, it's pretty cool. I'm affirming the Artemis two mission. Um. It's just amazing what, what people can do with common grace, you know? That's right. In insight into nature. Um, I don't know anything about the astronauts. I don't know anything about their religious faith or their spiritual life or anything like that.
But, um, the people who design this, the people who fly it, they're just tapping into the truth that's present in God's creation. So good on them. Uh, either I'm glad they got home, wish they have a safe home coming, or something along those lines, I guess. I don't know.
[00:07:40] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, you'll be happy to know that NASA is reporting that the four astronauts are an excellent condition after they landed in the Pacific Ocean.
So
[00:07:47] Tony Arsenal: good.
[00:07:47] Jesse Schwamb: All, all appears to be well. And it says they have a giant SD card of pictures that's they've been taking. Yeah. And saving. I'm sure. They were just, they were just too big to send to over wifi.
[00:07:58] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Like massive wideness. Yeah. I mean, I'm sure they have a ton that they didn't send because you know Right.
Data rates to the moon are pretty high. Yeah.
[00:08:05] Jesse Schwamb: Ex. Yeah.
[00:08:05] Tony Arsenal: This economy is crazy. So
[00:08:07] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly. In this economy. Really In this economy. Yeah, exactly.
[00:08:11] Jesse Schwamb: I think you're right. This is good. I haven't talked about this at all. It's hard not to get just stoked, even in the amateur way about the science, the technology, the physics of all this stuff, and then even the astronauts just being overwhelmed by what they're seeing.
[00:08:24] Tony Arsenal: Mm-hmm.
[00:08:25] Jesse Schwamb: It's hard not to get pulled into that and think about the universe that God has created and find that there is something transcendent just, uh, by observing all of these things. Yeah. Like even casually, which I think shows, again, this is literally the, the heavens and the earth crying out for God, showing his immeasurable power and, you know, immortal nature.
It's incredible that we can even see and be a part of some of these things. Just wild.
[00:08:49] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, and I think it's crazy that they can get signals to the moon. I mean, I drive home from Dartmouth College and I go through half of the spot there, and I don't have a cell signal, but we can get images from the moon.
Um, so yeah, it's great. It's great. Check it out if you haven't seen it. If you haven't heard about it, I don't know what you're doing. Uh, this is probably the largest major scientific advancement in our generation. Um, in terms of like big scale scientific enterprise projects. There's been a lot of really amazing technology that's been developed.
But this is like the first big. Almost like risky kind of scientific,
[00:09:30] Jesse Schwamb: right?
[00:09:30] Tony Arsenal: I dunno. Gambit or I dunno, gamble that we've done in a long time. Big deal. I mean, big a lot. Deal of things. Deal. Nothing went wrong. Nothing ma major went wrong. Praise God that they all got back to the planet safely. Right. But, um, a lot of things could have gone wrong, uh, and they didn't.
So check out the photos, check out the scientific data they're gonna get. I mean, I'm sure they've got all sorts of information about the way the, the, the space ship moved, all of that stuff. It's gonna be really interesting to see kind of how this all comes about.
[00:09:56] Jesse Schwamb: Get some worship on, right? Yeah. I mean this is what a one, a thing to be reminded about how big and how glorious God is.
[00:10:01] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.
[00:10:01] Jesse Schwamb: And, and to realize, like you said, the risks of this exploration. And this is God again, creating all of this outta nothing. Why? Yeah. Just absolutely wild. Incredible.
[00:10:12] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, for
[00:10:12] Jesse Schwamb: sure. Blown away.
[00:10:13] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. What about you, Jesse? What do you have for us?
[00:10:15] Jesse Schwamb: I got affirmation. It's equally nerdy, and actually this is as is always the case.
This is why one of many reasons I miss you is it, it dovetails so nicely, so I'm affirming with a book. It's called Everything Is Predictable, how Esy and Statistics Explains the World. It's by a guy named Tom Chivers. I know this sounds super nerdy, but hear me out on this because Thomas Bayes, if you don't know this guy is first kind of like a wild and interesting guy, but this whole theory he put forward is super interesting.
And this book is not like a mathematics book. It's like reads almost like a statistical thriller, which as it came outta my mouth, realized it was not maybe more ingratiating. I could have chosen better words than statistical thriller. But Thomas Bayes was alive in the 17 hundreds. And what's interesting to me at least about him, is he was an English statistician, who was a Presbyterian minister actually.
He was a non-conformist and his, this whole theorem that he developed was actually published after his death. And the non-conformist part is super interesting. It's all in this book, even some of his different theological ideas. But because he was non-conformist, it basically meant like he couldn't learn.
He was kicked out of all the English universities. He had to go to Scotland. Even all of that shaped how he came up with this particular theorem. But the gist of it is. Rather than treating like probabilities, as we think about it as this fixed frequency, you know, how many times does this thing occur? He argued and realized that it should represent a degree of belief and then you would update that belief rationally as new evidence comes in.
And I know that sounds super quaint, but this is like what machine learning is based on medical diagnosis. A lot of like space travel is based on this in terms of understanding uncertainty and systems spam, all of that stuff. Here's an example, I think Tony, because we are, we have to carry forward with the top 50 medical podcast thing, right?
We've got going on here. Lemme just give everybody an example of why you need this and why you automatically think this way. So. Statistics is really important, especially in medical testing. This was really prevalent in during COVID. So there's two ways that you can describe how a medical test performs you.
You know this already, Tony, you're an expert. So one would be like sensitivity. So like how AIG
[00:12:19] Tony Arsenal: not an expert.
[00:12:20] Jesse Schwamb: Oh, you're definitely an expert in testing. Here we go. So one would be like sensitivity. How good is the test at catching people who are sick? So if you're sick, you, you want the test to identify that, that you're sick.
That's sensitivity. So a test with a 99% sensitivity is gonna correctly identify 99 out of a hundred people who are truly sick. It always gonna miss one person. It's a false negative. The other half of that coin is something called specificity. So if sensitivity is all about catching the people who are sick, specificity is gonna say, how good is the test at clearing people who are not sick?
And so a test with 99% specificity, you might have correctly guessed, is gonna identify or clear 99 out of a hundred healthy people. Now if you have a test. Both of those 99% sensitive and 99% specific, you might be thinking, that is the dream. That's exactly what I want. That that test is gonna be so precise and accurate.
How could my intuition fail me? But this is the thing. It actually fails all the time, and here's why. Let's say that. You go out and you screen a group of people, a general population for a rare disease that affects one in a thousand people. One in a thousand people, rare disease. So if you screen 10,000 people from the general population, that means that truly only 10 of them are going to have the actual disease.
I'm not gonna do all the math 'cause it'll, oh, this is already making for amazing podcasting. But here's the bottom line. That test, which sounds so good on the face, is going to identify 109 people as truly sick or truly having disease. But the problem is that only 10 of them actually have it. That means that only there's, it only has a success rate of 9%.
There's only 9% chance you actually have the disease, but it's falsely identified. The short end of this is Bayes corrects that problem. He fixes it with his theorem so that we get to the right number of people. That's what's called like a base fallacy rate. It's not taking into account that really only 10 people should have this particular disease or this sickness.
So I know that's sounds super nerdy, but so much of our lives are based on this. We have a prior belief or a prior set of things that we understand about the world. And then as evidence comes in, we refine that. That sounds so normal and normative, but it's revolutionary in this book actually. Bayes versus what's called like frequentist or frequent, um, probability is like hotly debated.
People actually throw down over this theorem. So it's a really fun read. Go check out. Everything is predictable. Al Bayesian statistics explains our world. It really is for everybody. And then you can impress your friends with all the statistical pross you're gonna have when you're done reading it.
[00:14:56] Tony Arsenal: Like the medical administrator hat that I can't always take off is like, why would we screen 10,000 people?
Are, are they all symptomatic? Are none of them symptomatic? But suppose it doesn't really
[00:15:08] Jesse Schwamb: matter for the example. That's a great, so generally what happens here is, let's say it's like some kind of rare form of cancer, unless you use Bayesian statistics, what you'll find is you'll get these false positive rates.
So these tests do use Bayesian statistics. It corrects, in other words, for this problem. So there might be a lot of people that are gonna screen for this because if you, you wanna know if you have it, but you don't wanna get it wrong and say that you do. So this ensures his approach ensures that you get it.
Right. It's wild. Fascinating stuff.
[00:15:34] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, and I would think actually, you know, there's probably, there's other mechanisms as well where they would, where they would sort of screen out. People that shouldn't be tested or help identify false negatives, false positives. Um, but yeah, that's, that's interesting. I probably won't read that book, but it sounds like an interesting read.
I just don't have a lot of room on my A TBR shelf.
[00:15:55] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, listen. That, that's fair.
[00:15:57] Jesse Schwamb: By the way, here's like a, a side affirmation. I think you and I both share speaking like books and cataloging books. If you use Good Reads, good Reads. Right. Finally adding a list of the Do Not Did Not Finish book. That's fantastic.
This, this might be an example for some people, so pick it up and even if you don't have a place for it, guess where you can put it on the did not finish list. Yeah. Good Reads.
[00:16:16] Tony Arsenal: That's finally, that's one of those like, like why didn't they add that 15 years ago? Kind of an updates and you get the email and they're like, we're so excited to introduce the did Not Finish thing.
And we're like, yeah. Like of course. Like, duh. It's likes, like, we're proud to introduce that. Your keypad now has a zero on it.
[00:16:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right. So
[00:16:37] Tony Arsenal: yeah. I'm, I'm excited about the DNR, um, the DNF, um, I'm so excited. I can't even remember what it's called. Yeah. The shelf. But, uh, very, very useful. The DNR list
[00:16:47] Jesse Schwamb: is a diff it is a different list.
Speaking of medical things, it's a different
[00:16:50] Tony Arsenal: list. Yeah. Yeah, that's definitely a different thing. Usually it's not a list. It's a list of one in most cases.
[00:16:56] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly,
[00:16:57] Tony Arsenal: yeah. You can't put other people on your
[00:17:00] Jesse Schwamb: DNR
[00:17:00] Tony Arsenal: This,
[00:17:00] Jesse Schwamb: I suppose. Yeah, I should clarify that. You can really, you can only really put yourself, or I suppose somebody for whom you have that kind of authority over on that list, but I was thinking that more from like a medical perspective, that somewhere there would be a database in which there might be a list of DNR.
I don't know.
[00:17:15] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, maybe. I don't know. I'm not sure. Probably there was at some point, but I think with medical chart technology now, that's probably like a. A moot point. Yeah. They don't need to be able to like cross reference a master list anymore. They just look in the patient's electronic record. We're really like in the weeds here.
You can tell it's been a while since I've, I've podcasted. I don't really remember how to do this.
[00:17:35] Jesse Schwamb: This is great.
[00:17:36] Jesse Schwamb: I think at this point we try to make some kind of awkward segue that is mildly successful. Again, probably has statistically like a 20 to 27% chance of being successful and really hitting the mark.
Yeah. So do you have anything that's gonna move us into this?
[00:17:49] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, I mean, I feel like you've been podcasting for the last several weeks without me and I've been working hard and now I'm kind of coming in as Johnny come lately and we're gonna get paid the same amount so. Even though you've worked harder for longer and I'm coming in late to the game here.
[00:18:03] Jesse Schwamb: Oh man. Ple loved ones. Please tell me you got that. Please tell me you got all of that. That's, that's what you show up for here. Yeah, that was
[00:18:10] Tony Arsenal: a deep cut.
[00:18:11] Jesse Schwamb: That, that was beautiful. And I think leads us right into Matthew 20. So I think we've got at least 16 verses to get through here. Maybe again, if we're gonna keep a statistical theme here, something about engineering and math, all that stuff, we'll let everybody else pick the over under and whether or not we're gonna get through this and how many verses that's going to be.
But at this point, we might as well begin.
[00:18:32] Tony Arsenal: Yes. Yeah.
[00:18:33] Tony Arsenal: I'll start by reading. Uh, we're here in Matthew chapter 20, the first 16 versus this is the parable of the laborers in the vineyard and it reads. For the Kingdom of Heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborer laborers for his vineyard.
After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into the vineyard and going out about the third hour, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace. He said to them, you go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right, I will give you. So they went, going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same.
And about the 11th hour, he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, why do you stand here idle all day? They said to him, because no one has hired us. And he said to them, you go into the vineyard too. And when the evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, call the laborers and pay them with their wages, beginning with the last up to the first.
And when those hired about the 11th hour came, each of them received a denarius. Now, when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. And on receiving it, they grumbled at the master of the house saying, these last worked only one hour and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.
And he replied to one of them, friend, I'm doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me? For a denarius, take what belongs to you and go, I choose to give the last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you beg, do you begrudge my generosity? So the last will be first and the first will be last.
Now I just wanna head this off. I did bite my tongue earlier and I probably am lisping and this is like a running gag. We thought that we'd resolved it. Uh, so if you hear me stumble over my words a little bit, it's just, it's just the struggle bus today.
[00:20:24] Jesse Schwamb: Listen, this is the, these are like the real things we have to deal with when the podcasting, like the real threats, the real injuries.
I appreciate you like working through it. Like you just get back up and you walk it off with your tongue.
[00:20:35] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, my, my, uh, my podcasting hiatus was actually just a recovery of the last time I bit my tongue. I just needed a couple weeks to, no, I'm just kidding.
[00:20:43] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, we didn't wanna say.
[00:20:44] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.
[00:20:44] Tony Arsenal: So, Jesse, this is a, this is a parable that follows right on the heels, um, of kind of everything we've been talking about.
And I think as we go through these parables and we look at them and we, we sort of pick them up and we look at the different facets of them, we sort of compare them to each other. We kind of, we kind of place them in their context really. They all have basically the same theme, right? Like they're all kind of circulating around these same topics.
In this parable, it's circulating around this idea that, um, the, the owner of the vineyard, the master of the vineyard, is allowed to pay the people he employs whatever he wants. And as long as the payment that is due to an individual is received by that individual, then what other people receive and how they receive it and how hard they've worked and how hard they didn't work.
That's really not germane to whether or not the, the laborer received a fair wage, uh, in the first place. Right. So we're, we're circling around themes of kind of fairness of, uh, of sort of resentment, I think for resentment at the master's generosity, which has been a big theme in previous ones. So this will be good for us to expand on.
There's always little nuggets and kernels of things that are different from other parables, and then it's interesting to always see the ways that they kind of line up and, and tell us similar things.
[00:21:57] Jesse Schwamb: And this parable is unique to Matthew. Yeah. And it does function as this exposition or expansion of what Jesus says in chapter 19 where it says, but many who are first will be last.
And the last first, which is repeated with this lovely like inverted emphasis in, at the end of this as you just read. So it belongs to this like interesting cluster of teacher teachings on discipleship and reward nature of the kingdom of God. And we've, we've spoken a lot about that. I think I was just reminded of this as you were, you were.
Reading this, I feel like I remember this from some teaching, like this parable is kind of like a unique chiasm that's anchored on the landowner, sovereign generosity, which you brought up. And then there's the complaints of the first hired, which is mirrored by the late comers vulnerability. And then the landowners, two speeches which divide everything, kind of provide sandwich and the like, the theological climax.
It does start in that really familiar way, which we've gotten accustomed to thinking about that introductory formula of the kingdom of heaven is like, and it signals of course that what follows is not gonna be a lesson in economics, but it's gonna use all this economic language as theological disclosure for how God's kingdom operates.
And it starts again, like you said, with this master of the house, which to me seems. Pretty clearly like a, a God figure himself. Yeah. It's, that's kind of like a reoccurring mathian image. I think. So we've got this vineyard, which of course has all this symbolism, steeply rooted in Israel's covenant imagination and evokes God's people and his redemptive labor among them.
So, man, now that I'm saying this all loud, is this thing like super pregnant with all kinds of like imagery and meaning?
[00:23:27] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. And you know, it's, it's always good to remember, although parables have kind of some parables, most parables have sort of distinct discreet, symbolic elements where like, this represents that this represents that almost in an allegorical form.
And, and in some cases, like purely in allegorical form, where it's like pilgrim's progress where each, each individual, each entity, each location each represents some sort of symbolic value. But we have to remember that when, when it says the parable of the kingdom of heaven is like the master of the house, it's not just like the master of the house.
Yes. Right. It's like this whole scenario. Yes. It's, it's like. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It's like everything that follows, it's like the entire, um, the entire paree here. That's what the Kingdom of Heaven is like. And one of the things that I think is striking about this is the kingdom of heaven is like some people complaining, like the people complaining about, some people are getting the same wage for less work.
Um, that is part of what the Kingdom of Heaven is like. So I think we sometimes think of, of. The kingdom of heaven in, um, in the parables, we think of it as though God is just saying, this is what heaven is like. Right? Jesus Just saying like, this is what heaven is like, but the kingdom of heaven, that language is broader than what we normally would say, uh, is.
We're thinking of heaven, like in the, the spiritual abode where God lives and the angels live. Um, where, where the departed saints are waiting for the resurrection, the kingdom of heaven is, is also inclusive of the, the sort of like. Time now between the victory of Christ on the cross and the consummation of the kingdom and the last day, the kingdom of heaven is inclusive of that time period too.
And so this parable sort of situates us. I think it situates us in that pre consummated state where we're talking about what it's like to be a part of the kingdom of heaven here and now in our fallen state, but still solidly in the kingdom of heaven. 'cause there's not gonna be any complaining or grumbling about God's justice in God's fairness once we're in the final resurrected state.
Right? Sure. Nobody's gonna be looking back and be like, yeah, you were way too gracious for that guy. Nobody's gonna be playing the Jonah part when we're all resurrected and we're worshiping for, for all time going forward. So this parable, because there are elements of. Dissatisfaction or elements of grumbling or complaining similar to like the, the parable of the prodigal son.
There's this sun figure, the, the older sun figure who like is just a bonehead and doesn't get it. Well, that can't be talking about the people who are in the resurrection kingdom in the final kingdom. It's gotta be talking about people who are still awaiting the resurrection of the body and who are still not yet.
Uh, and even in, in that parable, the, the older son doesn't even seem to be a figure who's, who's regener. Maybe he does become regener at some point in the future, but he doesn't seem to be. In, even in God's kingdom, he doesn't seem to be, even among God's people, he's consistently placed outside of the field.
You don't even know he exists until Nick halfway through the parable. This is similar in that there are these workers, they're receiving their wages and some of them are, are outwardly dissatisfied and grumbling against the master of the house. Um, so I think if we think about parables as describing heaven rather than the kingdom of heaven, we can lose sight of, of what's actually being said in a lot of them.
[00:26:50] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that's really good stuff because it strikes me that there are like, strangely, two groups here mentioned, I, I find this really kind of fascinating. We, I think we should talk about this, like the first group has like the most formal agreement, it's almost a legal contract, right? Various was like a standard day laborers wage sufficient mostly for subsistence.
And so that detail seems theologically loaded to me. These workers relate to the landowner on the basis of a contract and what is owed. And so their claim at the end of the day will be exactly that. They're owed something and they know it, and that sets up Then this contrast with a second group, which is mostly all about grace because by the time we get to that third hour, like.
Approximately like 9:00 AM then we're beginning this pattern repeated at the sixth and the ninth hours. And crucially, for those workers who go out, go out and get recruited, there's no wage that's specified for them. Only the promise of like whatever is right. And so they enter the vineyard, not on the basis of a contract, but on the basis of like the owner's word and character.
And that seems to be like more of a picture of trust and not, not calculation. Yeah. Separate than like the first group. And that marketplace, idleness, as I read this, doesn't imply like laziness because verse seven clarifies like they just had not been hired. Right? They were overworked, they were unemployed.
They were marginalized. So it does set up, like you said, everything you just talked about, about the kind of this, I like that. Like the Jonah, the Jonah whiners or whatever, like yeah, they want to complain about this, right? There are, and there are two, two separate groups that have kind of been brought into the fold, not under different terms or pretenses, but differently.
[00:28:17] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. And I think too, bear's saying, um. Although there are elements of parables that are very, very directly applicable. Mm. We shouldn't read this as though every, every specific thing in the parable is not a parable. Right. Right. I think we can look at this and we can go, you know, you can read this in a way where, oh yeah, there's some people actually earn their, earn their wage, they earn ary.
Right. It's a fair contract. And they work all day and he says, well, I'm gonna give you what's right, what you, what I owe you.
[00:28:45] Tony Arsenal: The reality is God doesn't owe any of us anything. Right? Right. He owes us wrath and judgment and destruction. And so even, even the people who are the hard workers in the kingdom of God don't merit and never could merit, um, to, in a certain sense, in a strict sense and stick with me before you send your, your angry emails in a real strict sense.
Even Adam couldn't merit. What was, well, it was guaranteed to him, according to the Covenant of Works, God had to condescend to make the covenant of works in order for Adam to have any sort of fruition of his blessedness. So there there's no natural obligation, strict obligation that God has to reward the work of his creatures because nothing they could do could ever be sufficient enough to obligate him.
So the, the obligation of himself, and that's, this is where I do think this is strong, the fact that he obligates himself to these workers to give them their denarius after a hard day's work
[00:29:37] Jesse Schwamb: exactly
[00:29:37] Tony Arsenal: is itself. A covenantal, um, contractual, yes. But I actually read this as sort of a covenantal thing and the, the strange part is that the people don't recognize the sort of semi gracious covenantal nature of this.
Yes.
[00:29:50] Tony Arsenal: I think, um, you know, there have been times when I, where I've been unemployed, um, not for very long. Now, I know some people face unemployment for a lot longer than I ever have, but I know there was times where I was, I was looking for work and someone would say to me like, Hey, you know, my, my, my lawn needs to be mowed.
Could you come over and I'll, I'll give you 25 bucks to mow my lawn. It's a small lawn. Um. That's a gracious act in most cases. Right, right. Um, yes, I'm performing a task. Yes, they're paying me, but they didn't have to offer me that work. They didn't have to offer me that job, especially when it's something that like they could have accomplished themselves.
They could have just done it themselves. Um, so I think there's an element of that here, that there's, there's a condescension of the master to these workers, to these laborers who are not part of his household. These are not, they're not slaves. These are not people who are part of his household, who are regular employees.
These are people that he goes out into the market to, to find and to hire. And as we see some of, some of these mark, like the difference between the ones that are hired and the ones that are not hired until later in the day, the parable's not super clear about what it is. Just that they're not hired, it doesn't say the lazy ones were left there.
The ones were exactly, that were ugly or had like limp legs or like just couldn't cut it. It just says like there was some that didn't get hired. Um, so there's a gracious element of this, and that makes the recognition at the end or the lack of recognition at the end by these full day laborers, the, the sort of like recognition, this, this entitled ness, um, that actually makes it all the worst.
It's like the people who are outwardly attached to the covenant of grace. Um, I know all the Baptists in our, our group, their heads just exploded, but like are outwardly attached to the covenant of grace, um, who wanna somehow complain about like the graciousness of the covenant of grace that they're outwardly attached to it.
It's just sort of like a form of, of theological and temporary insanity, I think. And that's what we see on full display here.
[00:31:40] Jesse Schwamb: It's definitely all grace. You're right that nobody's gonna get injustice right in this parable. And I think that's definitely exemplified the further out you go in this hiring order.
[00:31:49] Jesse Schwamb: So by the time you get to 5:00 PM which is pretty extraordinary, right? Only really like one hour remains before sense, right? It's the end of the working day.
[00:31:56] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.
[00:31:56] Jesse Schwamb: You can imagine like these guys who are being hired at the hour probably can contribute very little in the last hour of the day, right? But this owner goes out and hires them and no agreement is stated whatsoever.
It's just pure grace. The landowner's question, why do you stand here idle all day? I think to your point, underlies their vulnerability. They were not idle by choice, presumably. And so I think we rightly here in this, like a foreshadowing of those who are called the late in redemptive history, Gentile sinners, the seemingly least qualified for kingdom membership.
All of that I think is at play and it's all, it's getting this lovely setup of all these groups to help us understand what that kingdom is actually like.
[00:32:33] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.
[00:32:35] Tony Arsenal: And then we have this, um, this is where the sort of dramatic tension turns, right? The end of the day comes and, uh, the master calls the, the people that he brought last, right?
He calls the people who'd only been there for an hour and he starts to go down the list of the people who, the people who were last, and the people who came in next. And the people who came in next, right? And the workers who had contracted at the beginning of the day. Um, they're watching this happen and they're kind of going, oh, this is gonna be good.
Like, that guy's only been here for an hour and he got a denarius. You know, the logic is probably like, I'm gonna get 12 denarius, like I'm gonna go 12 days worth of work. Um, because I think there's an assumption on their part, um, that the master's fair that he is, he's providing an equitable wage. Um, of course the master is fair, but he's providing an equitable wage that's commensurate with the work delivered.
A delivered, delivered, right? And that, that's the key to this parable.
[00:33:26] Tony Arsenal: I think the expectation that God. Helps those who help themselves. Right? God rewards those who put in the hard work. God. God provides blessing or salvation according to the merit provided by the one who's being saved. That perspective is what's on full display here.
Yes. By the people who are, uh, the ones who contracted for the full day. They're not thinking about the covenant that they have with this person or the contract they have with this person. They're not thinking about the fact that they agreed to work for the day in order to earn a day's wage. They're thinking about how this actually is gonna work out great in their favor.
They're looking at this as a strictly merit-based kind of a, a thing. And you would think that like when the, the one hour people come in, they get a denarius, and then the three hour people come in and they get a denarius. You'd think they would pick up on it at some point, but then in the course of the payroll, it doesn't seem that they do.
They still get to the bottom of the list and think they're gonna get more compared to the other people who all got the same.
[00:34:22] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that display piece is critical to this. It is like complete setup. Like you can imagine he, the landowner calling everybody together at the end of the day and they're all standing around.
Some of them are exhausted because they've again born all their work in the heat of the day on their backs. They're tired, they're dirty, maybe they're exhausted. And he starts in this reverse order. And by the way, we should note that there is something here that's beautiful in that the law, the landowner is law abiding because right evening payment is mandated in the Torah.
So we see all this taking place as to fulfill the law in some ways. But the reversal of the order that last of first is like such deliberative and good narrative storytelling and staging, isn't it? 'cause it ensures that the first hired workers are going to witness the payment of those who work the least.
And if without that order, if you just did it the other way around, the more a crisis of the parable disc like completely goes away.
[00:35:10] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.
[00:35:10] Jesse Schwamb: So this execution of the payment at the owner's will, it just shows that he has. He's completely independent. His sovereignty belong. The sovereignty belongs to the master alone.
And so this 11th hour workers receiving a full day's wage for one hour of work, that's like an act of sheer generosity. It's not proportional justice. And I think as reform, people, maybe all of us at some point have had this conversation about predestination and justice and mercy. And again, really I think putting a crowbar between this idea that nobody is receiving injustice, but some are receiving mercy and grace.
And here these first hired workers seeing this form, like you said, this expectation that they're gonna receive more, like you said, where that came from. Yeah, it's just them, right? It's purely manufactured in their own reasoning. It's not anchored in the covenantal promise and certainly not witnessed in the grace that they should be receive, like perceiving as the payments get doled out, like sequentially moving in their reverse order toward those who have worked the longest.
But their expectation reveals that they have fundamentally misread like the landowner's character. They're still operating in the register of a contract and not grace.
[00:36:16] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. And you know, I think to sort of lock this covenant covenantal frame and sort of like lack of recognition of the covenant into place too, when you look at the language of this parable, um, and especially kind of what it's following up on, it's coming on the heels of this interaction with this rich, rich young ruler who comes in and he thinks that he's gonna earn eternal life by keeping the commandments.
Um, and, and he, he has this outward sense or this outward display of pty. He's calling Jesus good. He's saying he, you know, he keeps the commandments, Jesus doesn't even disagree with him actually, that he has connect. Yes. You know, I think it's implied that, well, of course you haven't, but he, he still is graciously trying to like, convince this guy, no, you actually need to abandon your self righteousness and, and pursue and follow me.
Um. But this is a parable where like other people are listening, right? There's other witnesses. This isn't like the rich young ruler came to him in the middle of the night, like Nicodemus. This is something that's happened on PO on in the public. So we can anticipate that the Pharisees and the Sadducees and the scribes and the lawyers were all aware of this.
They may have been there, but they were at least aware of this happening. And I think there's some language in here that is actually directed at those people.
[00:37:30] Tony Arsenal: And, and here's where it comes in, is you get to verse, um, we'll start reading again at verse nine. It says, when those hired about the 11th hour came, each of them received a denarius.
Now, when those hired first came, so we're referring to the people who are hired at the beginning of the day. Now, when those who were hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius and on receiving it, right? So this is as, this is, um, uh, just unbelievable as they're receiving the denarius on receiving it, they grumbled at the master of the house.
Now, just the way that I read that and said the word grumbled tells you that that word is really important here. Yes. If you look at this Greek word. And you compare it to the, the word, the usage of this word in the, the, um, Sept. Yes. Which of course is the Greek translation of the Old Testament. This word most commonly appears in the wilderness wandering accounts.
[00:38:22] Jesse Schwamb: Yes.
[00:38:23] Tony Arsenal: Right. And the, the primary sin of the Israelites during the wilderness wandering was grumbling against the Lord. And this grumbling against the Lord in that context is not just a general complaining, right. It's not just like a, a sort of like a, a general dissatisfaction or like murmuring. This isn't like water cooler frustration about your boss.
The grumbling in the Old Testament in this context is a covenantal accusation, right. So this is tied to the, the accounts where Moses first is told to strike the rock, and he does so when the water comes out, and then second is told to speak to the rock, but he strikes it. I won't go into all the details, but the scene that's being, being displayed there is the people come, they accuse the Lord of abandoning them into the wilderness.
And this scene where Moses is set up on the rock and he strikes the rock, that scene is a judicial scene. The people have filed a covenant accusation against the Lord, and in reality, it's the people who have been unfaithful. But the Lord standing in the place of the rock is the one who is struck, right?
Jesus was the rock in the wilderness from which the water came. Paul says that in First Corinthians, right? So this language of grumbling in this is not just, they're not just complaining about the fact that they didn't get what they thought they were going to, they're questioning the veracity of the covenant that was made.
So they're, they're still locked into this merit-based. This merit-based idea even more than it seemed at first, right? There's a logic to the idea that like, oh, if the, the master is actually paying a wage of one denarius for per hour, like there's a logic to that. But it's not just that they're saying, and this is, this explains the response of the master.
It's not just that they're saying like, Hey, wait a second, like the wage rate that you're paying is not right. They're saying you have violated the terms of our covenant in the way that you have paid us. 'cause it's upon receiving it that they complain or they grumble and the master says more or less like, Hey.
You agreed with me for one Denarius, I'm giving you what you've earned. I'm giving you what you agreed on. Why don't you take it and go. So the answer is not to try to justify why he is free to pay these other people more, or why he's free to pay these people a perceived less. The answer is, again, they're complaining against the covenant.
He is bringing it back to the covenant saying, well, here's what the covenant relationship was. You work for the day. I give you Denarius. We're square here, we're on the same page. We've fulfilled our covenant obligations, and you've received your reward for that. So I, I think that's another thing we have to lock in here is this is not just a general idea of like unfairness that's being presented.
This is not just a general idea that people are saying the master of the house is unfair. They're saying he's covenantal. Unfaithful. Right? That's a pretty big accusation.
[00:41:09] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that is, thank you by the way, for completely stealing the whole tugen thing from me. Like I was just going hot to Tugen to find that reference.
And now all I can do is add to it. So that is from at least one of those occasions, a number 16, and I just wanna read the verse. This is 16 six. So Moses and Aaron said to all the sons of Israel at evening, you will know that Yahweh has brought you outta the land of Egypt. And in the morning you will see the glory of Yahweh for he hears your grumblings against Yahweh.
And what we are that you grumble against us. So I'm totally with you. This is not subtle. The workers first complaint here, the first workers' complaint is like theologically serious. Uh, I think that's what you're hitting us on. Like it charges the owner with injustice. Right. And as I read it, the grievance has like two layers or two parts, I would say.
One is this comparative part, which is basically saying, you made us equal to them. Right? And the second be like a meritorious part, they have worked harder and in worse conditions. And that's why they say things like, it's, it's all inflammatory language, isn't it? Like the scorching heat emphasizes like the real bodily cost and their complaint.
I think if we're honest, it's not irrational, but it's spiritually revealing at least because Right, they believe their greater effort, mayors greater reward and they resent that grace shown to others. So like you said, they're bringing forward a very serious grievance and it's, it's not just like, Hey, we think maybe could you give us a bonus?
Right. But that is a matter of faithfulness. And in fact, like as I'm looking at this tugen here, shout out to logos Bible software. And I'm saying that that verb that we're talking about in Exodus 16 is in the imperfect tense. So this is, they kept on grumbling and it is like an an echo of Israel's murmuring in the wilderness, which I presume like Matthew certainly had intentionally used there or had that view in part casting these workers as the same types of those who relate to God through entitlement rather than gratitude.
So it's like insults upon insult here, but it is to emphasize this fact that it's no small accusation, it's not subtle, it's meant to be in your face. They're coming in hot with this and they're making a big deal about it.
[00:43:16] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, and again, I think like underscoring the covenantal nature of this is so key.
And I think, you know, when we look at this, we really have to land that this is not just saying. Your wage structure is not right. 'cause and, and we gotta remember, they weren't there when the master went and made this bargain, or, you know, brought these other workers into the vineyard. They weren't there to hear what covenant or contract he did or didn't make.
And as we've commented, they didn't, he didn't even make a covenant with them. He basically just said, I'm gonna put you to work and I'll pay you what's fair. I'll pay you what's right. Um, and they went, okay, you need the work and thank you. Like, I think, I think that's kind of like the, the scene here is they're standing there.
They recognize they're not gonna get a wage for the day, especially these ones that he's coming in at the 11th hour, they're not gonna get a wage for the day. And as you said, these are subsistence workers. Right. These are people that if you don't get a wage, and this is the, the grounding of the Old Testament, um, the Old Testament command of, of paying at the end of the day is that if they don't get their wage, they're not gonna eat.
They're not gonna have food, they're not gonna have the money they need to survive. Um, so he comes in and he basically says like. You don't have a job that's not gonna be good for you. I'll take care of you. I'll, I'll give you a job and I'll take care of you. And the ones who are complaining and grumbling, they have no line of sight to that process.
That, that's right. They make a lot of assumptions about the, and this is, goes back to, um. The parable of the talents, which we haven't really talked about yet. The, the, there's a lot of assumptions about the nature of this master that the, the contracted or covenanted day laborers are making that don't turn out to be accurate.
Right. They, they assume that he's working, as you've said, that he's working on this one-to-one, you know, quid pro quo. You do this, I do that kind of a, a methodology and he's actually operating on a basis of a much more. Basic, uh, grace principle. Uh, and again, even, even the principle of hiring these original workers and covenanting with them is gracious in the sense that he didn't have to hire them.
Right. So, so all along the way they're, they're, it's like the epitome of looking a gift horse in the mouth.
[00:45:24] Jesse Schwamb: Yes.
[00:45:24] Tony Arsenal: They've been hired, and so yes, it is right for them to expect their, um, to expect their wage, whatever that wage might be. But they, they are misinterpreting the idea of what the wages are and how the wages are to be delivered.
They're, they're applying, this is actually a lot like job's, friends, right? Their, their logic is not actually all that bad, but they have, they have missing parts of the picture that makes the logic. Apply differently in this particular situation. They think that this, this master works on a strict merit-based.
You do X amount of work, you receive X amount of money. And this master is actually more functioning on this covenantal principle of, I'm gonna pay you what's right, regardless of what, what work you've done, which, what work is actually owed to you. And the master makes these, this agreement with these other workers to just say, go into the vineyard and then when the evening comes, I'll pay you.
Right. Well, he intended to pay them what they needed to survive, regardless of how much work they provided. Right? So they're all, even though there's a formal contract to say these, this group works for the whole day and this group, you know, and, and they receive one day's labor, at the end of the day, he's graciously providing another day of survival for all of these people, for the work that they're, they're putting forward regardless of how much they actually contribute to his bottom line.
[00:46:41] Jesse Schwamb: And we see that in verse 13, where the landowner gives his defense, you know, it says. He and he replied, friends, I'm doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for Denarius? Now the address, because now I'm deep in the Greek Tony. Here we go. So the address I'm seeing in, uh, again, shout out to Locus Bible software, it, this use of friend is not like the warm fellows, but like a more formal or distance term of address.
It's used elsewhere in Matthew. But I think the point here is that the owner's first line of defense is this contractual point, which you're saying. I have not wronged you. He's kept his agreement precisely. No injustice has been done. And that's crucial. The owner doesn't re appreciate justice. He actually fulfills it.
He obligates himself and he fulfills that obligation. And what the worker receives is exactly what was promised and exactly what is due. And so by the time he gets to verse 14 where he says, take what belongs to you, and go, I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you here. I think this is like the theological beating hide of this whole bad boy.
Yeah.
[00:47:37] Jesse Schwamb: The landowner explicitly invokes his will, his sovereign freedom to do and to give as he pleases, which is exactly how God behaves. It's not a negation of justice, but this declaration of something beyond justice, it is grace. He exercises his freedom and generosity to those who had no claim, and the command, take what belongs to you and go is, is kind of like a world dismissal, like, like you were saying.
Yeah. We're in the courtroom. He's like, I, I've ruled on this already. Like, bring Brian, bring your grievance. Here's my ruling. Take what you have and go. Their grumbling has revealed that they're not celebrating the kingdom. They're actually grieving it. So yeah, you know, I think original invocation of like Jonah is right on the money.
It's basically like, are are you mad enough? Yeah, I'm mad enough to die. Like, how dare you give me, give me this great shade and then take it away from me. Yeah. And in some ways this is even worse because what they have been given has been that were promised to them, was given to them, and they get to retain and God says, go, or the landowner as God says, go now and take what is yours.
Take what I've given to you graciously. But your point that like what supersedes that, the antecedent to all of that is still God's covenant keeping, covenant making promise, making, right? That sets the whole thing up. But I love this idea that, you know, I will choose, it's my desire, it's language of divine volition.
And of course the reform theology, this single verb resonates with the entire doctrine of election. It's God's free, sovereign, and gracious will to bestow blessing without reference to merit, like praise his name.
[00:49:00] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. And then we come to kind of the close of this parable, right? And this is, this really is like the punchline of the parable.
Like not every punchline or not every parable has like a real specific, like punchy punchline, but when he says, am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity? Right? That or is a logical connector, right? It's he's saying like, these are the two logical options you have.
Either I'm not allowed to do what I want with my belongings, which of course is a ridiculous thesis, right? He's clearly allowed to do what he wishes and they would want him to do that because what he's done is he's provided them with a job and giving, giving them the labor.
[00:49:40] Jesse Schwamb: That's right.
[00:49:40] Tony Arsenal: He says, or if I am allowed to do with what I want with my belongings.
Then you must be mad at me for being generous.
[00:49:47] Jesse Schwamb: Yes.
[00:49:47] Tony Arsenal: Right. Those are the only options. And there's kind of a ridiculous, there's kind of, this is one of those like arguments to absurdity, right? Are you really this small and petty that you're gonna be mad at me for being generous to somebody? Right.
[00:50:00] Tony Arsenal: This, and this is, this is the Jonah effect.
This is exactly what happens in Jonah, is Jonah, um, comes from this, I'm, I'm actually preaching in Jonah too here in a couple weeks. So I've been studying, um, Jonah's prayer in chapter two, and Jonah, Jonah is rescued by the whale, right? We, we think of the whale sometimes as the judgment that God sends, and there may be an element of that.
But, but Jonah, Jonah views the whale as a vessel of salvation, right? He thanks the Lord for rescuing him from the deep of the ocean and from the, the bars of the earth and the mountains under the sea. And the, there's a lot of reasons textually to see not just Jonah's prayer, but in, in the actual narrative itself, that the, the whale is the way that God saves Jonah from drowning in the sea, not the way that he punishes.
Right. And so he comes from this, this regenerative SVA salvation process, right? He comes outta the whale, he's been praying and praising God in the whale, and he's been thanking God for his salvation, for rescuing him from the deep. And then he gets to Nineveh and he proclaims this message, and then he goes right back to like, I knew you were gonna forgive those chumps.
Right? And you can almost see God saying like, am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Am I not allowed to save all of these people and all of these cattle from destruction? Am I not allowed to do that? Or Jonah, do you begrudge my generosity with the implication of, do you begrudge the generosity that I showed you when I didn't let you sink to the bottom of the ocean and drown to death?
Or do you begrudge the generosity that I showed you where the whale was a vehicle of salvation that brought you to safety rather than digesting you and killing you? Right? Right. And that, that's the same force I think that we have here at the end of this parable. He's looking at the people and, and there's an element of like.
Put yourself in those shoes. It's almost, it's almost like a subtle retelling of the parable of the Unforgiven servant, right? Put yourself in the shoes of the people who needed a day's labor. Were not getting paid, were not being hired, and then all of a sudden, someone generously gives them the very survival that they need for the following day.
You're gonna begrudge me. That kind of generosity. If you were that person, you certainly wouldn't do that. Then there's also the, like, you're gonna begrudge me. My generosity with the implication of like, the generosity of having hired you in the first place could have hired anybody else. Um, he's really this, it's really this rhetorical master move.
And then again, then this is exactly what Jesus does. The people who are listening to him in many, many instances identify that the parable is told against them. They identify that the parable is actually a form of judgment against them. Right? I have to think that the Pharisees and the scribes, especially the Pharisees, um, and the Sadducees who only had the, only had the, um, the Pentateuch only recognized the Pentateuch.
I had to think, I have to think. They're coming out of this, looking at it and going, he just called us the grumbling Israelites. Can you believe this guy?
[00:52:43] Jesse Schwamb: Right?
[00:52:43] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. He did. Like, that's exactly what you are, you are the grumbling Israelites, and, and that's the force of this parable on the heels of this young man who walks away sad.
I didn't look at the Greek yet, but walks away disturbed at the fact that he's not going to get the salvation he believes is, is guaranteed to him because of his love of obedience to the law. He's like, I have to do one more thing. I have to, I have to work one more work to get the salvation. I'm gonna walk away sad at that.
Well, the answer is that he's begrudging the generosity of the Lord in providing salvation apart from his mar and apart from his works.
[00:53:18] Jesse Schwamb: That's right. That's right. Yeah. That's, that's beautiful. By the way, just so like you said, Tony, we should giving it a warning so people don't like at us or send a bunch of random messages to our inbox, our form brotherhood.com.
Uh, we know great fish whale. We're using that interchangeably. Everybody calm down. It's true. Just in case. Could have been a whale. Yeah,
[00:53:35] Tony Arsenal: I mean,
[00:53:36] Jesse Schwamb: one of, doesn't matter. One
[00:53:37] Tony Arsenal: of the, one of the gospels uses the word whale, so I think we're fine.
[00:53:40] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, we're, we're covering all bases there.
[00:53:42] Tony Arsenal: Yeah,
[00:53:42] Jesse Schwamb: I totally agree with you on that.
[00:53:44] Jesse Schwamb: 'cause the climax of this is like something interesting I think in the orientation of the final statement. So this idea of the, the, so the first, so the last, see I already got it twisted. So the last will be first and the first last. It actually does reverse the formulation that we were just looking at in chapter 19 where Jesus says the first will be last and the last first man say that like six times best.
[00:54:04] Tony Arsenal: I know it's tough.
[00:54:05] Jesse Schwamb: So it, but it doesn't complete, it does complete like this kind of a, I inclusio, I guess around the parable. The inversion I think is not merely like a social statement in light of what's unfolding in this drama, but it is so te logical. So those who approach God on the basis of this accumulated merit like you've been saying, or.
Religious piety or even like, dare I say, covenant superiority or seniority. We'll find that those calculations are totally irrelevant in the kingdom economy. And those that receive the grace of God with empty hands, the gentile, the sinners, the 11th hour called if you want to, those are gonna stand fully on equal footing before this sovereign owner and the saying then resists any kind of triumphalism or celebrating over somebody else the last, or not exalted because of their lateness, but because of God's great grace, or the owner's great grace.
And so I think that's the thing that we get to kind of settle in. Like you take a deep breath at the end of this because really most of us are this 11th hour call. And again, it's, it's like understanding and putting yourself in the place of the humble, the place who is the sinner, because you know, that's.
Whom God has come and condescended to save in His loving kindness, like His has said, is for those people who recognize that they're exactly the kind of ones who need that. And so here we find it's much better, like you're saying, to be in the place in some ways of that younger brother who comes in repents than to be the older brother who is stubborn and find some reason, some justification to come before God with self-righteous grievances or what you believe to be self-righteous complaints in his kingdom and in his courtroom, because you do not wanna stand in that place.
You know, even, even, I remember there are times like in Israel's history, when they're in the wilderness, where they come against Moses and Aaron, even for like their relationship with like foreign women, and they complain to God and God basically says, stop complaining about. My servants. You know, even there like you must be very careful, I guess.
If you wanna come against God with what you think are your self or righteous grievances, you better not miss. Yeah. And so here now saying it's better for you to humble yourselves that he avenges this kind of behavior. He comes hard against those who are prideful, but instead the humble, he lifts up the humble, he comes and he rescues.
Like I said, even in Jonah, what we find there is the whale. The great fish is God's formation of Jonah as a loving father who disciplines and chastises not as one who punishes. And so here too, we find some of that echo, that it's better to understand that we don't want to be among the complainers. What we want to be is among those who are willing to recognize and receive God's gracious provision for us.
[00:56:33] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.
[00:56:34] Tony Arsenal: And one last, one last little bit of nerdy Greek here that I think underscores this covenantal, um, covenantal aspect of this that we're talking about when he says to them, or do you begrudge my generosity? Um, if the, if the, um, video caught my perplexed look, it's, 'cause I was trying to figure out why the word I was related to this.
Uh, the, the phrase here is actually, do you give me the evil eye for my generosity?
[00:57:01] Jesse Schwamb: Yes.
[00:57:01] Tony Arsenal: This is good. Good. And I think what it's getting at here is he's saying like, do you curse me?
[00:57:05] Jesse Schwamb: Yes.
[00:57:06] Tony Arsenal: Because of my generosity. So that does, that ties into this covenantal language. He's basically saying either I'm allowed to do what I want with what I, what it belongs to me.
Or are you gonna curse me in a, probably in like a covenantal sense, are you gonna call down the covenantal curses because I was generous to somebody else.
[00:57:23] Jesse Schwamb: Right.
[00:57:23] Tony Arsenal: And it's, it's in this way. That so is not, it's not, therefore it's a demonstrative. So it's in this way, in, in this way where those who are, um, those who receive God's generosity, recognize it.
Um, and those who fail to recognize God's generosity are. Are dismissed because of it. It's in that way that the last will be first, right? Yes. The people who, who are sold out to the generosity of God and they trust him, and they, they, yes, they come and they work, right? But the, the response of a day laborer at the 11th hour when someone comes and says, look, I've still got work to do it.
It's one of overjoyed response. It's not, it's not thinking they're gonna earn a lot of money. It's not thinking they're gonna, they just get to work and they're thankful and they trust that person. Uh, and, and that's what we see is salvation in the Christian faith is we turn to Christ. We recognize his generosity.
We trust that he's going to, he's gonna do what's right. He's gonna take care of us. And in that way, the last will be first, those who are, are late to the party. Those who not necessarily like this isn't necessarily a parable with saying like. You know, like the people who have deathbed conversions are somehow the, the, the first, um, it, it's, it's not temporal in the sort of idea of like those who've been saved for the longest are represented by the day laborers and those who are sort of new converts are represented by the 11th hour people.
It's saying those who are, are, um, those who abandoned themselves to the mercy and generosity of God, those people will be first in the kingdom of God. And those people who are so like, tied to and connected to and, and, um, sort of locked into this idea of covenant merit as the primary EE economy of how God operates, um, those people will be last.
I'm not entirely sure, you know, like, this is still all operating within the Kingdom of Heaven, within this is what the kingdom of heaven on earth appears like. Um, so I think we, you know, I don't think we're gonna do another episode. I think we, we probably have covered this sufficiently, but it'd be interesting to sort of tease out like, what does that mean for the people who are in God's kingdom?
And let's just say it like, sorry, perform Baptist, like in God's kingdom, um, who are not. Apparently not actually sold out to the grace of God here. Um, what does it mean for those people who are in God's kingdom and are now the last? Are they the last, the last in terms of the last who will still be saved?
Are these the ones Paul talks about who are saved as though through fire? Or, or is there something else going on here? Um, I would love to hear people sort of theorize and think about that as they've listened to this. And Jesse, how could they do that if they wanted to talk to us about this little question I've dropped?
[01:00:01] Jesse Schwamb: Man, that was like so smooth. So smooth. Yeah. Listen, people you already know, do I, I know I don't need to say it, but like I'm contractually ally by way of the podcast obligated to tell you. That there's a little corner of the internet in this messaging app that's called Telegram, where we all hang out.
And by all of us, I mean all of us, except for you who's listening right now, that's not in it. Why are you not in it? So here are the instructions on how to find your way there. Go to your browser, type in t.me back slash reform brotherhood t me Back slash reform Brotherhood Do. Link will take you to that corner of the world.
And you can see we have a bunch of channels set up where people are conversing from everything to just general topics, to the episode, to prayer requests, to food reviews, to just good plain Christian reform, theological fun. I said, it's just fun. So come hang out, go to t.me/reform brotherhood.
[01:00:50] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. And for those of you who are sick of us promoting the Telegram channel, I'll just ask you, are we not allowed to do what we choose with our airtime or do you begrudge us our free podcast?
[01:01:01] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. Listen, do you have an evil eye? And, and do you said that so well, Tony. I love a good Jewish idiom. Like for instance, I love that when we read of God being long suffering, the text literally says he's long nosed.
[01:01:13] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.
[01:01:14] Jesse Schwamb: And here this idea of the evil eye is like this Jewish idiom, connoting like envy or stinginess or like, uh, miserliness or parsimonious.
So because I, I just happen to look that up by Proverbs 28 22 says, A man with an evil eye hurries after wealth and does not know that want will come upon him. That's so good. Yeah. So don't, don't have the evil eye. Come hang out, come hang out with us.
[01:01:39] Tony Arsenal: Well, Jesse, I'm glad to be back. I feel like, uh, I'm back in the saddle or Yeah, you are.
I dunno. Back, back in, I dunno. In the field. I dunno what the right analogy is.
[01:01:48] Jesse Schwamb: Backstreet's back.
[01:01:49] Tony Arsenal: I was backstreet's back. Yeah, I, I was trying to figure out whether I was gonna go with a Backstreet back joke or a slim shady joke. Um, in my mind they sort of merged together, like if I had good technical audio skills, I might make a sweet mashup of some really awesome out of date, like white boy semi hip hop or something like that.
Uh, but I'm not gonna do that 'cause. If anything is worse than I think so. Well, slim Shady, it's me trying to synthesize slim Shady, so I'm not gonna do that. Uh, but I'm glad to be back and it is the real slim shady. I'm the real slim shady something, something. Um, but yeah, it's gonna be great. We're gonna keep going in the parables.
We don't know how long it's gonna take. Uh, we didn't even know we were gonna do this parable tonight. We sat down let's, we were like, what are we talking about tonight? We're like, let's just keep going in the parables. So we're gonna keep at it. So stick with us. Um, pick up a good commentary, read ahead, pick up a good, you know, a good Bible translation and follow along with us.
Uh, and join us in the telegram chat so we can kind of keep talking about this and having these conversations long after the episode ends.
[01:02:50] Jesse Schwamb: You got it. Well, listen, everybody's been hearing me say it, but man, are they gonna be glad to hear you say it? Honor everyone.
[01:02:56] Tony Arsenal: Love the brotherhood.