New Testament

Jesus told his disciples they will sit on twelve thrones and rule in the coming kingdom of heaven (19:28). The disciples served Jesus from the beginning and they may have thought of themselves as important to the establishment of the coming kingdom. After all, they have left everything to follow Jesus! Compared to the Pharisees, the disciples are late-comers to the messianic kingdom. The Pharisees have been looking for the Messiah for a long time and they have been preparing themselves for the messiah’s arrival. Jesus tells this parable about workers in a vineyard to illustrate what he means by “the first will be last and the last will be first (Matt 19:30).

Hiring Workers for the Vineyard (20:1-7). Jesus responded to Peter’s question about the disciples’ reward for leaving everything to follow Jesus (19:27) by promising them that they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (19:28) and that they will receive a hundred-fold what they have left (19:29). That sequence ended with the enigmatic statement: “the first will be last, and many who are last will be first.”

How does this relate to the kingdom of heaven?  The kingdom often reverses cultural expectations. Those who assume they are going to get into the kingdom are left on the outside, and people who have no expectation of entering the kingdom are welcomed. Even among those who enter the kingdom, those who expect to be in the first places are in the last, and those who are in the last places are welcomed to the best seats.

Like Matthew 8:11-12, at least some people in Second Temple Judaism may have thought of themselves as more worthy of entry into the kingdom than others. That Jesus would say people (diaspora Jews or Gentiles) from the east and west would sit at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob while the “subjects of the kingdom” will be cast outside where there is darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth implies some ranking!

Like most parables, Jesus describes a scene familiar to his listeners. These day laborers are not slaves, but men hired in the town agora for some project which required extra workers. Most modern readers overlook the fact slaves may have had an easier life than a free person. Day laborers were often hired for difficult work for low pay.

The owner agrees to hire the men for one denarius for the day, from sunrise to sundown. One denarius for a day’s work is a subsistence wage. (a coin with about 4 grams of silver, worth about $3 in December 2021, one gram is $.74). A person needed about a half-denarius to live and 200 denarius a year was the “poverty line” (Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 370)/. If the laborer had a family, a single denarius would barely feed his family. For skilled jobs, someone might expect to make more, but in rural areas (like Galilee), an unskilled day laborer might make only half this amount. Matthew uses the verb συμφωνέω, a word used when both sides come together (BDAG) and agree on the wage for the day. Luke used the word in Acts 15:15 to describe the agreement reached between the various parties at the Jerusalem council.

As the day progresses, the vineyard owner sees workers standing around idle in the marketplace and hires them to join the original workers. With the original workers, the owner went out to hire them, with these subsequent workers he sees them standing around idle and gives them some work. The owner does not need more workers, but the idle people need the work (Nolland, Matthew, 809).

The symbolism of the parable would also be very clear to a biblically literate Jewish audience. A vineyard is one of the key symbols for Israel in the Old Testament: “For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are his pleasant planting; and he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, an outcry!” (Isaiah 5:7). Jesus develops the metaphor of Israel as a vineyard in the parable of the Tenants (Matthew 21:33-46). In that parable, the workers in the vineyard are the religious leaders, from the Pharisees to the Temple aristocracy, all of whom are plotting to kill Jesus. These leaders understand the parable was spoken against them.

Those who were hired to work the vineyard would be immediately understood as the leaders of Israel; in the Old Testament the king, judges, prophets, priests, and sages. The people who were put in charge of Israel. This is a clear image for Israel and her leaders, similar to an American who sees a political cartoon with an eagle, a donkey, and an elephant. Everyone knows the eagle refers to America; the symbols for the Democrat and Republican political parties are quite clear to anyone who knows the culture.

Who are the laborers in the vineyard? The workers who toiled all day in the heat of the day sometimes are understood as the disciples since in the immediate context Jesus has promised them priority in the Kingdom of God. It is more likely the workers hired first are the Pharisees and the other “great men of the synagogue” who had been working very hard to keep God’s Law.

The people hired later in the day are those who have only recently come to understand Jesus as the Messiah: the disciples, but also the poor, the “tax collectors and other sinners” who have flocked to Jesus’s ministry.  Earlier in Matthew, when Jesus looked at the crowds, he said the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few; ask the Lord of the Harvest to send workers into this harvest field (9:37-38). Jesus followed that saying immediately by appointing his twelve disciples. After telling the twelve they would sit on thrones in the coming kingdom, Jesus tells this parable of a “lord of a harvest” sending workers into this harvest field.

After working all day in the “scorching heat” the owner calls his workers together to pay them for their work. Everyone is in for a surprise!

Following Jesus is not easy. When a wealthy man asked Jesus what he must do in inherit eternal life, he told him to sell all his possession and give it all away to the poor. In fact, Jesus says it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. The disciples are shocked by Jesus’s answer, “who then can be saved?” (19:25).

The disciples are astonished, a verb (ἐκπλήσσω) often translated “amazed.” The word was used for the crowd’s reaction to Jesus’s teaching (Matt 7:28; 13:54; 22:33). The word “amazing” has been watered down considerably in popular English (“this bottled water is amazing!”)  The disciples were stunned, overwhelmed, and unable to respond to Jesus. (BDAG suggests “dumbfounded,” so maybe “gobsmacked”?)

Jesus’s response is simple: what is impossible for humans is quite possible for God. This verse echoes Genesis 18:14 (referring to Sarah having a child in her old age). Referring specifically to the rich man who asked the original question, he might very well inherit eternal life and enter in to the kingdom of heaven, but if he does, it will be by the grace and mercy of God. To a large extent, this is true for everyone since no one enters their way into the Kingdom. In the parable of the Wedding Banquet none of the original invited guests were worthy and the replacement guests entered the feast by the grace of the king (Matt 22:1-14).

Peter reminds Jesus that the disciples have already done what the rich man could not. They have left everything behind. What will be their reward? (19:27) Peter points out to Jesus (as if he has forgotten) the twelve have already done what is necessary to enter the kingdom. In Matthew 8:22 a man wanted to follow Jesus but wanted to wait until he had buried his father. Presumably Peter and the other disciples left their family responsibilities behind to follow Jesus.

Since he has already confessed his belief that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, he now wants to know what reward a disciple who has completely sold out to follow Jesus as the Messiah can expect when they are rewarded. This might look forward to Jesus coming into his kingdom as a judge, condemning people like the rich young ruler and rewarding people like Peter and the other disciples (looking ahead, Matthew 25:31-46).

Jesus promises the disciples rich rewards in the coming kingdom (19:28-29). This is a very eschatological saying, drawing on theme from the Old Testament. In the new world (NRSV, NIV, “at the renewal of all things”) is an attempt to translation a noun which means renewal, rebirth (παλιγγενεσία). This is the word Paul uses in Titus 3:5-6 for regeneration by the Holy Spirit. This is the only place in the New Testament the coming age is called a rebirth, although the time prior to the coming of the Son of Man is called “the birth pains” (Matthew 24:8). Remarkably, Josephus used this word when describing Israel’s reestablishment after the exile (Josephus, Ant. 11:66). Philo used the word to describe the time of the flood, it was a reborn world (Moses, 2.65).

When the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne alludes to Daniel 7:9-14. Cf., 1 Enoch 62.5; 69.29 (cf. 1QpHab 5:3; 1QS 8:7).

1 Enoch 62.5 One half portion of them shall glance at the other half; they shall be terrified and dejected; and pain shall seize them when they see that Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory.

1 Enoch 69.29 Thenceforth nothing that is corruptible shall be found; for that Son of Man has appeared and has seated himself upon the throne of his glory; and all evil shall disappear from before his face; he shall go and tell to that Son of Man, and he shall be strong before the Lord of the Spirits.

The son of man will not be alone when the kingdom comes. Jesus says the disciples will also sit judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Like these passages from popular Second Temple apocalyptic, Jesus describes himself seated on a glorious throne in the kingdom. The disciples who are followng Jesus will also be seated on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Did Jesus mean to describe the political structure of the millennial kingdom? Maybe, but the point seems to be that the ones who have given up the most will be exalted the most when the messiah comes in glory.

Jesus concludes by telling the disciples the way to receive that great reward is to be the servant of all (19:30). To be qualified to sit on that throne in the glorious kingdom of the son of man, the disciples must give up everything in this life and serve others. This is exactly what the rich man was unwilling to do.

The final verse of this section is an enigmatic line: the first should be last! Who are the “first and the last”? Does Jesus mean the rich in this life are the first, and the poor are the last? This is a segue into the next unit, the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt 20:1-16).

Watching the rich man walk away sad, Jesus observes that it is very difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven, in fact, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (19:23-24).

The Jaffa Gate

For many pastors, there is a concern here. These verses appear to say rich people are not going enter heaven, since it is impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle! In most churches (at any time in church history), there are affluent people who are generous supporters of the church. If a pastor preaches this passage and declares the rich people are not going to get into heaven, they might anger those wealthy supporters!

The common way to avoid the difficulty of this saying is to describe a gate in Jerusalem called the Needle Gate, which was so narrow a camel would need to squat down and work their way through the gate to enter Jerusalem. The problem with this common explanation is that there was no Needle Gate. If you google Needle Gate, there are pictures of some modern gate in Jerusalem with a small open door. This is not “the Needle Gate” and there was nothing called Needle Gate in the first century. Even if there were, it would be silly for a merchant to try and push a camel through a narrow gate since there were other, larger gates nearby. How did this “Needle Gate” idea become so common? This is a good example of pastors and scholars quoting other pastors and scholars without examining the actual evidence. Checkout this post by Vincent Pontius tracing the origin of the Needle Gate (this is also the source for the picture of the gate above).

A second way to avoid the difficulty of this saying is to take a textual variant in this verse which reads “camel” (κάμηλος) as “rope” (καμιλον). The difference is only the middle vowel sound. To pass a rope through the eye of a sewing need is also impossible but makes some sense as a metaphor. There is some textual evidence for this variant, but it is not strong. It is more likely some ancient copyists struggled with the metaphor.

A third possibility is Jesus really did say camel and really meant the eye of a needle. A camel is proverbially large, the eye of a needle is well known as a tiny opening. This would be an extreme hyperbole, something which is completely impossible in every way. For me, this is the best explanation: Jesus is making an extreme statement intended to shock his listeners using a ridiculous metaphor. Jesus will make a similar statement in Matthew 23:24, the Pharisees try to strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

There are striking parallels in the Babylonian Talmud:

b.Ber. 55B I.22.D Said Raba, “You may know that that is so, for people are not shown in dreams [such impossibilities as] either a golden palm tree or an elephant going through the eye of a needle.”

b. Meṣ 38b II.3.M “Perhaps you come from Pumbedita, where they can pass an elephant through the eye of a needle.”

Although the animal is different, the metaphor is the same (a big animal cannot fit through the eye a needle). The “eye of the needle” is therefore another way of describing “the narrow way” (Matt 7:13-14).

Does this mean the rich cannot enter heaven? Defining “rich” from a global perspective, all Americans will be left outside in the darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth!

Jesus demands radical commitment from his disciples. They are called to give up everything for the kingdom of heaven. The twelve have given up a great deal to follow Jesus, and they will eventually give up their own lives. Yet Jesus’s words to the wealthy man were shocking to the disciples who have already given up everything to follow Jesus.

When the rich man claims to have kept all the commandments, Jesus shocks everyone by telling the young man he needs to sell all his possessions and give them to the poor (19:21-22).

If the rich man wants to be perfect, he must sell everything. He is to sell all his possessions, not just some of them. Jesus does not tell him to sell one valuable piece of property and give that money away.

Jesus and his disciples live a life of voluntary poverty. The twelve have left everything to follow Jesus. If you really want to be part of the kingdom of heaven, you need to radically follow Jesus! This demand may anticipate the call for early Christ-followers in Jerusalem to sell property to support the community. The demand is like the Community Rule at Qumran. If one was to live with the community at Qumran, they had to sell possessions and deposit that money with the leaders to support community. Davies and Allison also cite the “self-imposed poverty of Hanina ben Dosa (b. Ta’an. 24b–5a)” (Matthew, 3:46).

Did Jesus really want the man to give away all his possessions? Is this a test? In any case, the man “went away in sorrow” since he was very wealthy. Since the question was more or less “how much should I give in order to guarantee entry into the Kingdom?” Jesus responds by demanding everything!

In Second Temple Judaism, alms are called “deeds of living kindness” and considered equivalent to serving in the Temple:

m.Pirqe Abot 1:2 Simeon the Righteous was one of the last survivors of the great assembly. He would say: “On three things does the world stand: On the Torah, and on the Temple service, and on deeds of loving kindness.”

In any case, the man walks away upset. The word λυπέω can refer to physical pain, but also annoyance, irritation, or offense. In the previous parable, the other servants were upset the unmerciful servant was thrashing another servant who owed him some money, there the word may have had the nuance of offended or even grieved. In the next unit, Jesus tells a parable about workers in a field who are all paid the same wage regardless of how long they worked (20:1-16).

Jesus does not demand other rich followers sell everything. In Luke 19:1-8 Zacchaeus gave away some of his wealth. Lazarus appears to be a wealthy follower of Jesus, but there is no evidence Jesus told him to sell everything (John 12:1-3).

Is this demand to sell everything an anticipation of the early Jerusalem church? In Acts 4:32-5:11, the early Jerusalem community sells property while they wait for Jesus to return to establish the kingdom. In fact, it is quite dangerous to sell property and keep some back for yourself!  It is true Jesus’s followers continued to live a life of voluntary poverty, but the money they shared supported the community. Jesus tells the rich man to give his money to be given to the poor, not to Jesus’s community fund. The demand to give the cash to a poor person rather than to the church to distribute is radical!

Imagine a church that told its congregation to help the poor directly. Go into poor neighborhoods and give food and clothing directly to the poor! In a modern church context, there might be some resistance (Because we want a tax receipt? I want my name on the donor’s list? A nice plaque on the wall?) There are good reasons in a modern context to give money to non-profit organizations who distribute food and other needs to a particular community.

The radical idea in Jesus’s demand here is that the rich give it all away without any concern for the benefit they might receive for their donations.

In Matthew 19:17-20 is a dialogue between Jesus and rich man. The rich man asks Jesus what good deed he needed to do to inherit eternal life. Remarkable, Jesus tells the rich man to “keep the commandments” (19:17-20).

Jesus first wonders why he would ask Jesus what is good (or not). In Mark 10:18 Jesus’s response is slightly different, “why do you call me good?” It is possible someone misunderstand this as Jesus denying that he is good. Matthew clarifies, the man is asking what sort of thing he must do to inherit eternal life.

The man may be asking about what things qualify as good deeds which merit salvation, what do I have to heaven? The problem is this is more of a Christian, post-reformation question, “what must I do to be saved from hell”? A Jewish person would consider themselves part of the people of God because they were Jewish, God has chosen Israel as his people and his people keep the Law because that is what he wants them to do.

The response might be more like, “you are not one of my disciples, why would you care what I say about the good deeds which lead to righteousness?”

Before responding, Jesus quotes the shema in verse 17, implying the man needs to do what God has already told him to do to be right with God. Deuteronomy 6:6 commands the people to not only love the Lord with all the heart, but also to do what he commands, exactly what Jesus says in the next line.

When Jesus tells him to “keep the commandments” he asks, “which ones”? Jesus then lists the sixth though ninth commandments (v. 18), the fifth commandment (honor your parents) and “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18). Traditionally, the first set of commandments deal with loving the Lord your God and the second set of commandments (sixth through tenth) deal with loving one’s neighbor. This reflects the two greatest commandments.

The man claims to have kept these commandments since he was born (v. 20). Is this possible? He has kept the commands, but which ones? If you narrow the commandments of the Law to just the Ten Commandments, then you might say you were righteous. He would consider the command not to murder as kept perfectly since he had not actually murdered anyone. But Jesus demanded his disciples be perfect in the Sermon on the Mount, in the context of a discussion of the sixth and seventh commandments (Matt 5:48).

There are other examples of people who claim to be innocent. Job claims to be blameless and in Tobit 3:14-15, Tobit claims to be innocent:

Tobit 3:14–15 You know, O Master, that I am innocent of any defilement with a man, and that I have not disgraced my name or the name of my father in the land of my exile.

By narrowing the commands to Micah 6:8 (love justice, do mercy and walk humbly with God), or “Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself,” then you could potentially think you were keeping “all the commands.”

His wealth may have convinced him he was keeping the law right since he was blessed by God.  To be sure, the man asks if he has anything lacking. This is not a bad question; he really wants to be right with God and not overlook some act of righteousness.

This is how most people approach their commitment to God, what is the minimum I need to do to have eternal life? For modern Christians, we tend to ask, “What are the right rituals I need to perform?” or “Which are the right doctrines I need to believe?” Or maybe, “How much do I have to give in order to balance out my sin?”

Evangelicals are particularly interested in marking the boundaries of who is “in” and who is “out” based on doctrinal statements or (often unwritten) behavior codes. Real Christians, we are told, “do not do that sort of thing.”

This is what the rich man is doing. He is interested in marking out the boundaries of where eternal life begins so he can insure he has “done enough” to be on the inside, but perhaps only just enough.