Matthew 20
Matthew begins the chapter with Jesus' parable concerning the laborers who are brought in last minute who receive the same benefits as those who had been there longer.
‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?' So the last will be first, and the first last.”

Interesting he prefaces he prophetic testimony with these words.
It doesn't seem that the disciples make the connection - "Son of Man" to Jesus. "Son of Man" terminology was not original verbiage but it seems that they are really missing an important thing here... Either the bit about the prophisized events or the bit about His being the "Son of Man."

Notice - as they were going to Jerusalem Jesus says " See, we are going to Jerusalem..." only to prophesy His own death using a the "Son of Man" title. Here the geographical significance seemingly hints at the consequent activities that He will endure in Jerusalem being the "Son of Man."

Whatever the case, the following passage seems so disconnected from the Jesus own Gospel proclamation. The mother of the sons of Zebedee (unnamed here... like the references to Bathsheba - the wife of David) asks that her sons be given seats right and left of Jesus in Paradise. What a peculiar leap?

All the same Jesus responds to her question: "you do not know what you are asking... the seats are not mine to give but my Father's to give." It seems this is the reason why he emphasises the "what" of Gospel leadership. It seems that he says at least, "The World's Great men Lord their authority over others and yet their authorities lord their authority over these Great men. The paradigm shifts here. The servant will lead. The first shall be last" (25-27) only to emphasize the drama of His own affective leadership, "the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (28).

Note the geographical movement mentioned here. Wherever they were before Jericho, it seems that they are on their way to Jerusalem followed by a crowd as they leave Jericho. Its my inclination that vs. 29 begins a distinguished path but chap 21 will help us in that regard. Let it be said, vs 29 seems a really strange compliment to its previous verses. Blind men call out for vision, the crowd mocks, and Jesus gives sight to the physically bind me. It seems that the truly blind men oppress the needy neglecting the gravity of their own needs. And Jesus heals those who plead for mercy. This seems like a really typical Jesus thing.

Schaeffer "He is there and He is not silent"

The problem of knowing affects four particulars: moral, human, reality and fantasy, and relationships (57).
All men live as though there were correspondence between external and internal world.... even even if they deny it people still love and judge simultaneously denying the existence of love and morals (70).

"Work"

This is the question. Does the context of our own subjective colors bear on the “objective” definition of words? Are the words that we use given particular contextual variation contingent upon our own usage. Although the cultural shift and movement affects words, it seems that the variation imposed should not completely differ from the common accepted usage of a word if you want to be understood.

Take for example the common accepted use of the word “work.” In our day, common to those preceding ours, work's definition includes a vocational investment from which a participant receives a sum. However, this common accepted usage seems to differ and or equivocate an original idea. It seems that work is not exclusively a means to an end. It seems at this point that one particular usage may completely differ from another given the context. In fact the Biblical model seems to offer a peculiar definition for the work of a Christian. To me, this seems more intuitive than subjective, however. It seems that we would be able to distinguish between the two given the content and flow of a given dialouge or text.

When my brother asked, “What does work me to me?” The question seems more unhelpful than helpful. I suppose maybe a better question would have been, How are you using work given the varying definitions of the word? Do you mean a fiscal investment or the God ordained activities for the Christian?