Matthew Chapter 20

The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard

1 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a

landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard. 3 “About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went. “He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6 About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’ 7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered. “He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’ 8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’ 9 “The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These men who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’ 13 “But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ 16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

1. Why does Jesus tell this story and who do the main characters represent?

This story starts off with the word “for” which means it is connected to the end of the previous chapter.

Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”28 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first. Matt 19:27-30

It would appear that Jesus is continuing to illustrate a biblical principle that he began teaching on in the previous chapter. The landowner would be God, the hired workers are us, the called and chosen to enter the vineyard which is the Kingdom of God as it exists in the world. The pay would be the rewards, salvation, as well as blessing both now and in heaven for faithful service.

2. What kind of a labor contract is this?

The grape harvest ripened towards the end of September, and then close on its heels the rains came. If the harvest was not ingathered before the rains broke, then it was ruined; and so to get the harvest in was a frantic race against time. Any worker was welcome, even if he could give only an hour to the work.

The pay was perfectly normal; a denarius or a drachma was the normal day’s wage for a working man—Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)

This was typical during harvest. Day laborers stood in the market place from dawn, hoping to be hired for the day’s work. The work day began at 6:00 a.m. and went to 6:00 p.m.

3. Why didn’t he just hire all the workers at the same time?

The landowner made a decision to hire a certain number of workers early in the day. We might ask, why did Jesus call only 12 disciples why not 47 or 532?

F0r various reason some enter the vineyard, the Kingdom of God, at different times. Some are saved and begin their service as children, some in their middle years, some on their death bed. Why this is the case, only God knows. Either predestined or freewill, Gods sovereign election or mans rebellious freewill, all do not either hear the call or they hear and ignore or maybe they will never respond or were never called. We just don’t know for sure.  What we do know for sure is that people come into a relationship with God at different ages and for different durations.

   4. Why did some expect to be paid more?

They worked longer and in comparing themselves to those hired later it seemed fair to them that they should get more

5. Is grumbling appropriate?

“These men who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.”

They got paid exactly what they had been promised. Their agreement was an individual one and did not depend on what the others got. If they had not known what the others were paid, they would not have been upset.

6. What theological point is being illustrated by this story?

Two possible points:

The parable teaches that service for Christ will be faithfully rewarded, and that equal faithfulness to one’s opportunity will be equally rewarded. However, only God can adequately assess faithfulness and opportunities, and thus human judgments may be reversed. WBC

                                                              

last shall be first …first last. In other words, everyone finishes in a dead heat. No matter how long each of the workers worked, they each received a full day’s wage. Similarly, the thief on the cross will enjoy the full blessings of heaven alongside those who have labored their whole lives for Christ. Such is the grace of God. MSN

Jesus Again Predicts His Death

17 Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, 18 “We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death 19 and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!”

7. Why did Jesus have to die? Couldn’t God just forgive our sins without this trouble?

And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission. Heb 9:22(NKJV)

 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. Romans 5:18-19 (NIV)

15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance–now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. Heb 9:15 (NIV)

8. How did the disciples react to this news?

They totally disregard or do not understand what Jesus has just said. It’s like they are oblivious to these many statements that Jesus makes with regard to the cross and his death.

A Mother’s Request

20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him. 21 “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.” 22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they answered. 23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.” 24 When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. 25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave– 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

9. Isn’t it normal for a mother to want the best for her sons?

Mark presents the request as coming from the sons. Matthew shows that they at first asked through their mother, but that later they personally joined the conversation. 20. Mother of Zebedee’s children.Salome, apparently the sister of the Virgin Mary, as shown by comparing Mt 27:56 with Mk 15:40 and Jn 19:25. 21. The request for seats of highest honor in Christ’s kingdom may have been prompted by his previous revelation about the twelve thrones (19:28). Though it arose from the idea that the kingdom would very shortly be established (Lk 19:11), and betrayed a spirit not altogether humble, it should be noted that it was based on a firm faith that Jesus was the Messiah and his kingdom a reality. —WBC

It does show great faith in the fact of Jesus being the Messiah, but show a complete misunderstanding of the principles of the Kingdom as outlines by Jesus during His sermon on the mount.

It’s like they had not even been there , and they were expecting to get there new places of honor next Tuesday.

10. What? “whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,”, what kind of a deal is that?

Pride is what motivates the natural man to become great among his brethren. The Kingdom reflects the character of Christ who was entirely other centered. Is was pride and the issue of Adam and Eve wanting to “be like God”that got us in this fine mess.

Two Blind Men Receive Sight

29 As Jesus and his disciples were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed him. 30 Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was going by, they shouted, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!” 31 The crowd rebuked them and told them to be quiet, but they shouted all the louder, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!” 32 Jesus stopped and called them. “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked. 33 “Lord,” they answered, “we want our sight.” 34 Jesus had compassion on them and touched their eyes. Immediately they received their sight and followed him.

11. What can we tell from these two blind guys?

This scene is also in Mark and Luke with other details Mark 10:40-52Lu 18:36-4319:1—

These two blind men were waiting, and when their chance came they seized it with both hands. No doubt they had heard of the wondrous power of Jesus; and no doubt they wondered if that power might ever be exercised for them. Jesus was passing by. If they had let him pass, their chance would have gone by for ever; but when the chance came they seized it.

a. These two blind men were undiscourageable. The crowd commanded them to stop their shouting; they were making a nuisance of themselves. It was the custom in Palestinefor a Rabbi to teach as he walked along the road; and no doubt those around Jesus could not hear what Jesus was saying for this clamorous uproar. But nothing would stop the two blind men; for them it was a matter of sight or blindness, and nothing was going to keep them back.

b. These two blind men had an imperfect faith but they were determined to act on the faith they had. It was as Son of David that they addressed Jesus. That meant that they did believe him to be the Messiah, but it also meant that they were thinking of Messiahship in terms of kingly and of earthly power. It was an imperfect faith but they acted on it; and Jesus accepted it.

c. These two blind men were not afraid to bring a great request. They were beggars; but it was not money they asked for, it was nothing less than sight.

d. These two blind men were grateful. When they had received the boon for which they craved, they did not go away and forget; they followed Jesus.

So many people, both in things material and in things spiritual, get what they want, and then forget even to say thanks. Ingratitude is the ugliest of all sins. These blind men received their sight from Jesus, and then they gave to him their grateful loyalty. We can never repay God for what he has done for us but we can always be grateful to him. —BDB

BDB…………..Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)

·        ESV………….ESV Study Bible Notes

·        MSN…….MacArthur NASB Study Notes

·        NIVSN…..NIV Study Notes.

·        JVM ….J Vernon McGee,

·        ACC …. Adam Clarke’s Commentary

·        BN …..Barnes Notes

·        WBC……   Wycliffe Bible Commentary

·        CN ……Constables Notes

·        IC……….Ironside Commentary

·        NET………Net Bible Study Notes.

·        JFB…………..Jamieson  Fausset Brown Commentary

·        VWS……………..Vincent Word Studies

·        CMM………….Commentary on Matthew and Mark

·       “Fair Use “ Notice – Title 17 U.S.C. section 107

The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues.  It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

A Realistic Look at Global Warming

Evidence for Creation

by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D., and Jake Hebert, Ph.D.*

Since the late 1980s, global warming has been hotly debated, with many arguing that Earth is undergoing potentially catastrophic man-made climate change. Is Earth getting warmer? Is such warming, if real, dangerous? And is it caused by human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2)? Or, to put it another way, is catastrophic anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (abbreviated as CAGW) real?

There has been a warming trend for much of the 20th century. In fact, ICR scientist Larry Vardiman did his own independent analysis of three different datasets and concluded that warming had probably occurred for at least the last 30 to 50 years.1

But past warming is no indication that such warming will necessarily continue. In fact, there has been an apparent pause in this warming trend for the last 18 years.2 Nor does a warming trend automatically prove that human activity is responsible.

A recent article in Eos, however, attempted to establish as fact that human activities drive global warming.3The author, Dr. Shaun Lovejoy, did this by supposedly disproving the only alternative—that observed warming is due to natural causes. He calls those who support this alternative hypothesis “denialists” because they supposedly deny the obvious facts of science.

Lovejoy attempts to show that increased amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide are responsible for an increase in global temperatures of about 1° Celsius over the last 125 years. He does this by making a plot of change in global temperature against a “stand in” or “proxy” for radiative forcing due to atmospheric CO2 (Figure 1).4Radiative forcing is an indication of a gas’s ability to affect the earth’s climate. (See the sidebar for a more detailed discussion.) Lovejoy argues that there is only a one-in-three-million chance that natural causes could produce this temperature rise, although he later acknowledges that a more realistic estimate is one in a thousand.

A History Lesson

But are long-lasting changes in climate really that unlikely? Abundant historical evidence shows that significant, long-term climate fluctuations lasting hundreds of years have taken place. These fluctuations occurred long before human CO2contributions became significant. Even scientists who believe that humans are causing global warming acknowledge that human contributions to atmospheric CO2were practically negligible until the early- to mid-1900s.5

Yet there have been two significant changes in climate within the last thousand years—the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 950–1250 A. D.) and the Little Ice Age (roughly 1300–1850 A. D.). Because these changes in climate occurred before humans could have caused them, the mere existence of these two periods is a real problem for any attempt to dismiss the possibility of natural changes in climate. For this reason, some who believe in CAGW have attempted to minimize the significance of these past climate fluctuations, despite abundant historical evidence for their reality.6,7

For instance, one of the best-known images in the global warming debate is the “hockey stick” graph of Penn State University climatologist Michael Mann, so-called because it resembles a hockey stick turned on its side with the blade pointing up. The hockey stick has been used to argue that the late 20th century was characterized by unprecedented warming, since Mann’s statistical analysis significantly “cooled” the Medieval Warm period. However, Mann’s work has been widely criticized, and a more conventional analysis indicates that 20th-century warming is not unprecedented (Figure 2).8

The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age raise an obvious question about Lovejoy’s reasoning. If not one but two significant long-term changes in climate have occurred within the last thousand years, before humans could have influenced climate to any significant degree, then perhaps such naturally occurring changes in climate are not nearly as unlikely as Lovejoy claims!

Moreover, Lovejoy seems to be underestimating the probability of natural changes in climate. His argument assumes that temperatures from hundreds of years ago can be known accurately to within just one-tenth of a degree Celsius (0.1°C).3 But these temperatures were not measured with thermometers—not even crude thermometers. Rather, they were estimated from things like tree rings, boreholes, ice cores, etc. Because these are indirect estimates of temperatures, the true uncertainty is almost surely a lot more than Lovejoy’s optimistic estimate of 0.1°C. Using the same reasoning he used, but with larger estimates for these temperature uncertainties, would imply that significant natural changes in climate are much more probable than he asserts.9

An interesting side note is that many evolutionists absolutely dismiss out of hand the possibility that any observed global warming could be due primarily to natural causes. For instance, the National Center for Science Education has made advocacy of a belief in man-made global warming a priority.10 Yet even by Lovejoy’s own calculations, the lowest probability he can estimate against recent warming being the result of natural causes is one in three million (1 in 3×106). Compare this to a probability of 1 in 1×10106 that the simple protein insulin can form by pure chance.11Yet evolutionists claim that the insulin protein did somehow form by chance, even though such an event is much less likely (by their own reasoning) than long-term natural climate variation, which many of them confidently dismiss as an impossibility. Why? Could it have something to do with their worldview?

Lovejoy quickly dismisses other factors that can affect climate, such as changes in solar activity. But mounting evidence shows that the sun can indeed subtly influence weather and climate by affecting the number of cosmic rays (energetic protons) entering the atmosphere. In fact, the Ph.D. work of one of this article’s authors found additional evidence for this possibility.12 Also, increases in temperature can actually cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 via releases from the oceans. A well-known rule in chemistry called Henry’s law states that the amount of gas that can be dissolved in a liquid decreases with increasing temperature at constant pressure. This is the reason a can of soda goes flat as it warms. Indeed, some datasets show atmospheric CO2 increasing after temperature goes up.13 So, are temperatures, particularly ocean temperatures, causing an increase in atmospheric CO2, or are warmer temperatures the result of increased atmospheric CO2, or is it some of both?

Another problem with the argument that human-produced carbon dioxide could lead to climate catastrophe is that this argument implicitly assumes that the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the pre-industrial era was consistently much lower, about 270 parts per million (ppm), than today’s value of about 400 ppm. It also assumes that today’s value is truly abnormal.

Systematic measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide have been made at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii since 1959, and these measurements do indeed show an increase in CO2 from about 310 ppm to today’s value of 400 ppm.14 However, scientists also made thousands of measurements of atmospheric CO2between 1812 and 1958. Although not as precise as the modern Mauna Loa readings, many of these older measurements are estimated to have been accurate to within 3% of the true values and were good enough to show a seasonal cycle that is also apparent in the Mauna Loa measurements. These suggest high values of atmospheric carbon dioxide around the years 1825, 1857, and 1942, with the 1942 value comparable to today’s value of 400 ppm.15

Specialists are aware of these data but generally dismiss them in favor of estimates of atmospheric CO2inferred from ice cores. However, gases tend to escape from the cores after their removal from the surrounding ice, which implies that such estimates will tend to be lower than the true values. Even so, there is evidence from a shallow Antarctic ice core that amounts of CO2 may have been as high as 328 ppm within the last hundred years or so.16 But recent jumps in the amount of atmospheric CO2, both before and during the industrial period, suggest that atmospheric CO2 can vary due to natural causes, not just human influences. We have already mentioned one possible source for such variation—warming oceans, which would release more CO2 into the atmosphere.

The Climate Change Model Problem

Finally, much of the alarmism surrounding this issue results from climate computer models that predict considerably higher temperatures in the coming decades as a result of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Obviously, the particulars of different models will vary, but a general overview is presented in the sidebar. However, in the past these climate models have consistently overestimated the amount of future warming, as shown in Figure 3.17 If one looks at these climate change model predictions for the temperature anomaly from the present to 2050, they vary from 0 to 2.5°C, a significant disparity between models. The observational data are very near 0 for the temperature anomaly.

Clearly, there are major disagreements between different models about any significant global warming. But the data accumulated thus far seem to support the models (hypotheses) predicting global warming of no more than 0.5°C through 2050.

It should also be remembered that carbon dioxide was part of God’s “very good” creation (Genesis 1:31). Plants “breathe” carbon dioxide, and there is evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing more plants to grow, even in dry areas.18 There are also indications that the pre-Flood world may have had more atmospheric carbon dioxide than we do at present, and this increased CO2 may have contributed to a much more temperate pre-Flood climate.19 So even if CO2 is warming the planet today, Christians have no reason to panic over this issue.

So many variables affect Earth’s climate that it’s difficult to see how a computer model can accurately predict future changes, especially given our present imperfect understanding. Earth’s atmosphere is subject to numerous intricate interactions, and we still don’t have a firm understanding of its overall long-term sensitivity. If we want a realistic assessment of climate change, we need to 1) do our homework and learn from history, 2) continue to study the data with great diligence, and 3) refrain from jumping to conclusions based on skewed climate models and short-sighted assumptions.

To be sure, God has appointed man to be custodian of His Earth. We should be good stewards of what He has given us, but we enter dangerous territory if we presume to be able to control and shape to our will what God has made. The law of unanticipated consequences inevitably intervenes.

References

1. Vardiman, L. 2007. Evidence for Global Warming. Acts & Facts. 36 (4).
2. IPCC AR5 Working Group 1 Highlights. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Posted on c2es.org, accessed January 21, 2016.
3. Lovejoy, S. Climate Closure. Eos. Posted on eos.org October 20, 2015, accessed January 21, 2016.
4. Ibid, Figure 1a.
5. Stocker, T. F. et al. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. T. F. Stocker, eds. New York: Cambridge University Press, 51.
6. Klevberg, P. and M. J. Oard. 2011. The Little Ice Age in the North Atlantic Region Part I: Introduction to Paleoclimatology. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 47 (3): 213-227.
7. Watts, A. The truth about ‘We have to get rid of the medieval warm period.’ Watts Up With That? Posted on wattsupwiththat.com December 8, 2013, accessed January 21, 2016.
8. McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick. 2003. Corrections to the Mann. et. al., (1998). Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series. Energy & Environment. 14 (6): 751-771. Figure 2 of this article was taken from Figure 8 of the McIntyre and McKitrick paper.
9. This was astutely noted by commenter “Tyler Durden” in the Comments section below the online version of Lovejoy’s article (reference 3).
10. Showstack, R. 2012. Defending climate science. Eos. 93 (5): 51.
11. Coppedge, J. F. 1977. Evolution: Possible or Impossible? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 102.
12. Hebert, L., B. A. Tinsley, and L. Zhou. 2012. Global electric circuit modulation of winter cyclone vorticity in the northern high latitudes. Advances in Space Research. 50 (6): 806-818.
13. Vardiman, L. 2008. Does Carbon Dioxide Drive Global Warming? Acts & Facts. 37 (10): 10.
14. Full Mauna Loa CO2 Record. NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. Posted on esrl.gov, accessed January 18, 2016.
15. Beck, E. G. 2007. 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods. Energy & Environment. 18 (2): 259-282.
16. Jaworowski, Z. Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2. Statement written for the Hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation March 19, 2004. Posted on john-daly.com, accessed January 18, 2016.
17. Adapted from Figure TS.14 in Stocker et al, Climate Change 2013, 87.
18. Thomas, B. Global Warming? Trees to the Rescue! Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org July 22, 2013, accessed January 21. 2016.
19. Humphreys, R. God’s global warming worked just fine. Creation Ministries International. Posted on creation.com August 11, 2009, accessed January 18, 2016.

* Drs. Cupps and Hebert are Research Associates at the Institute for Creation Research. Dr. Cupps received his Ph.D. in nuclear physics at Indiana University-Bloomington. Dr. Hebert received his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Texas at Dallas.

Institute for Creation Research  Hello Augustine,  We do invite you to use our material in your online discussions with a link back to the original articles on our website. Regards,Christine Dao Assistant Editor Institute for Creation Research Proclaiming Scientific Truth in Creation

“Fair Use “ Notice – Title 17 U.S.C. section 107

The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues.  It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.