Why is this often described as a problem parable?
“The story is as clear as it is unexpected.” (France)
“It is a disconcerting parable on more levels than one because it seems to defend the unacceptable
principle of equal pay for unequal work.” (Bruce)
: “Little seems more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals.” (Blomberg) I learned this
personally being in a management position at work and listening to my workers grumble about how
well another employee had been treated in comparison to them.
“Why do we still feel that there is something wrong? Because we cannot detach ourselves from the
ruling convention that rewards should be commensurate to the services rendered...But the kingdom of
heaven does not operate on the basis of commercial convention.” (France)
Biblical Context
Deuteronomy 1:27: The grumbling workers in Matthew 20:1-34 are taken from this verse.
This is the common practice of using day laborers and paying them at the end of the day in obedience with laws in Leviticus 19:14 and Deueronomy. 24:15. It is in contrast to the use of slaves in other parts of the Mediterranean world and attests to its genuine nature. (Stein)
Verse 16 ties in with the parable found in 19:30. In that case the first were believers and the last were
unbelievers. Both are believers in the present case. (Blomberg)
Blomberg sees the two questions in 19:3 and 20:15 forming an inclusio around the three controversy
stories in 19:1-20:16.
The use of “for” to begin chapter 20 points back to 19:30 as the reason for this explanatory parable.
France: the immediate context is the discussion on heavenly rewards in 9:27-29 and on the saying in
19:30.
This is an example of poor chapter division.One should properly start this parable with Matthew 19:30,
which acts as a bookend to 20:16 with phrases given in reverse order. This same literary technique was
used in many of Paul's epistles, which start out with “grace and peace” and end up with “peace and
grace.”
Verse-by-verse comments
Verse 1: This is one of the few parables in which the cultural situation hasn't changed much since Jesus'
day. We are familiar with the general situation of this story since we still have pick-up spots for day
laborers in many towns. Ther is also the same general practice of paying wages at the end of each day.
They were probably harvesting grapes in September, when it would still be hot in the afternoon. The
working day was from 6AM to 6PM with time out for prayer and eating. A ten-hour
day was standard.
The vineyard in this parable probably should not be equated with Israel. (Snodgrass)
Verse 2: A wage of one denarius was just enough money to provide for a family's food for one day.
Verses 6-7: The five times of day mentioned in the parable refer to the five dispensations in salvation
history of the world. Early church fathers interpreted this parable in this manner beginning with Adam
and ending with the Last Days, a rather fanciful reading. The same is true of those who connect the five
times of day with the five stages in everyone's life or with the five senses. (Snodgrass)
There is no negative connotation to the fact that they hadn't yet been hired (such as they were too lazy
to show up at the marketplace early or that they were known to be poor workers, etc.). “Idle” just
means there was no work available for them. (France)
Adding workers later on was probably out of compassion, not because he had underestimated the
amount of work needed. (France)
Josephus told the story during the time of Agrippa after the completion of the Temple when many
workman no longer had employment. Because of their need and the fear that excess money in the
treasury would be stolen by the Romans, a days wage was given to all men even if they only worked
one hour in the day. (Snodgrass)
Alternatively, the landowner kept going back for more workers because grapes had to be picked at just
the right time to ensure the proper sugar content. And if the harvest began late in the week, then it
would have to be completed before the Sabbath.
Verse 8: Kyrios (lord) often was used for God. It is therefore tempting to see the foreman as a figure of
Christ, to whom judgment is given by the Father. But many commentators say that is doubtful due to
the fact that foreman is not mentioned except in this one verse.
Verses 13-15: Contrary to the view that the only sin the first-hired workers were guilty of was envy,
these verses expose their triple sin: mercenary spirit, failure to recognize the rights of the landowner,
and envy of others. Note that the grumblers don't even address the owner with respect (just like the
older son in the Parable of the Prodigal Son).
“Evil eye” in v. 15 is an expression indicating envy or stinginess. The master is described as
“good,” which identifies him as a symbol of God in light of Matthew 19:17. (Snodgrass)
Verse 16 “Many are called but few are chosen” was added to the end of a number of manuscripts. but
makes no sense here (only found in KJV). It probably came from Matthew 22:14. Thus, it points back to
the main point of all 19:13-20:34.
“It is one of the three most difficult parables...the problems are relatively easy, except for two: the identity of the original audience and the meaning of the parable.” (Snodgrass) And, of course, the two issues are strongly interrelated.
Audience
1. This parable is addressed toward apostles like Peter who expected preferential treatment in heaven for following Jesus so wholeheartedly. Look at Peter's inappropriate question equating apostles' self-sacrifice with future rewards, and the following request of the sons of Zebedee. Snodgrass thinks this is the main setting of the parable. He says, “it is intended to exclude arrogance, ideas of superiority over others in the kingdom, and any idea that God's assessment is to be understood by some kind of reckoning.” “The parable addresses speculation about reward in comparison to others.”
2. This parable addresses the Jews who had the benefits of the law before the Gentiles but failed to recognize Jesus for who he was, unlike many Gentiles who came to faith later on. There are such hints of an historical interpretation for this parable. The Jews had been serving God much longer than Gentiles. This understanding is somewhat confirmed by the fact that the first group of workers had a contract (covenant) with the landowner while the others didn't. If this is the primary meaning, however, we would expect only two groups of workers to be mentioned. There is a contrast between those who do work after haggling over proper wages and those who simply trust the landowner that he will “do what is right” by them. “Israel was a highly self-conscious ethnic entity, proud of its separation, expectant of privileged treatment by God for having been the keeper of his word. But the proclamation of Jesus, though addressed to the people of the Covenant, did not exclude the Gentile world.”
By contrast, a later rabbinical parable has God giving Israel a large reward for their long work for Him,
but giving Gentiles who have only worked a little while a small reward. (France)
The primary reference is to the Jew's precedence but could also be addressed to early disciples as a
warning. (Albright and Mann)
3. This parable is addressed to the religious leaders who felt superior to the “sinners” that Jesus associated with. The law-abiding Pharisees, etc. felt they had made a bargain with God (as did the first group of workers): if they would keep His commandments, they would be rewarded. But the sinners (represented by the later group of workers) were in no position to bargain and just had to rely on God's grace rather than their own works. “Is it unfair that they get the same reward? “If God is pleased to give them as much, who will tell him that he should not.” (Bruce) Explanations 2 and 3 face the hurdle that they seem to imply that some will get their eternal reward from works while others will receive it by grace. Snodgrass sees no indication that this was the original audience.
Regarding the above: The focus is not on exactly who the two groups represent, but on the grace shown by the owner. (France) Snodgrass disagrees: “While the parable is about the goodness of God at some level, it is not contrasting works and grace and is not about God's extreme generosity.”
Proposed Interpretations
1. This parable teaches that there will be differential rewards for those who go to heaven. That may be true, but this parable only addresses our eternal salvation. And there the reward is the same for all.
Verse 16 Then, in what way are the first last, etc. if both get the same amount? One will be unsatisfied and the other will be grateful. The common idea that there will be differences of status in heaven is not taught in the Bible. Those who look for such signs (and there have been popular books written on the subject) are not that far in attitude from the grumblers in this parable. (Blomberg) “Equality of reward does not mean, however, that there will be no differences of position in the Kingdom as Jesus points out in xxx. 28.” (Albright and Mann) Snodgrass feels the parable has “little concern to describe what it [heaven] is like.”
Hill: The main concern is on God's grace, not on the relative rewards or status. By grumbling, the first workers put themselves in the last rank.
2. This parable teaches that heaven helps those who help themselves. We can't stretch the details of any parable too much. Otherwise one could also argue that some of us earn the right to heaven (a whole denarius) to our own efforts while others are only there through grace. A standard Catholic interpretation is that it shows that even a little effort on our part is enough to earn us a place in heaven.
3. This parable teaches the sound business management principle that you can best motivate workers if you first pay those who work the least. The absurdity of that suggestion illustrates how most of Jesus' parables had unexpected twists that would have been received as outrageous by his listeners.
4. This parable teaches that we should closely monitor how well our fellow Christians live their lives. No, we should be thankful for God's grace to all, not envious toward others thinking that we deserve more than they. Snodgrass: “The life of God's kingdom with its focus on communal love cannot be experienced as long as we are comparing ourselves with others and calculating what is due us or being envious of what others receive.”
There is the old story about a group of people in line waiting to get into heaven. A rumor starts spreading-- “They are letting everyone in.” What would be our immediate response—one of joy, confusion, or anger?
What is it in human nature that causes us only to be happy when we look good in comparison to others? I must admit that I still read the annual Parade magazine issue that reviews the salaries of a number of people to see how it compares with what I was earning when I retired.
5. This parable teaches that even in heaven we must continue working to get the daily allowance God will provide. This explanation confuses the present and future aspects of the kingdom. The more likely proposed meanings of the payments are (1) that we need to rely on God's provision day by day and (2) that when we come to God, all our needs are met, if not all our wants.
6. This parable teaches that we will lose our salvation if we envy others. In verse 13, the word “friend” sounds gentle enough, but there is a definite rebuke given and a more sinister tone might be inferred from the only two other places in the NT where this word is used: Matthew 22:12 (The king rebukes the wedding guest who is not dressed properly and he sends him into outer darkness) and Matthew 26:50 (Jesus addresses Judas as he is betraying him in the garden of Gethsemene). In each case there is a relationship which has been broken by the actions and attitude of the subordinate party.
7. Equal pay for all the workers was just and fair since those hired later on probably worked harder than those hired at the start of the day. This explanation is similar to a works-oriented rabbinical parable in which the same pay is given to those who only worked for two hours since they accomplished as much as the others who worked all day. (France) This faulty interpretation even pops up in some Christian teaching and preaching I have heard, with the added explanation that those who worked in the cool of the evening were able to do more work than those exhausted by the heat of the day.
8. This parable teaches that our God is not a God of justice. True justice for all would lead to condemnation for all of us. Only through Christ can God's justice be met, and this is a case of grace being extended to all of us.
9. There is no reference to God in this parable. Instead, it “is an invitation to imagine a new order of compassion and concern for human need.” (Snodgrass)
10. David Barton ("Pastor to the Tea Party") on this parable: Jesus was anti-union and against the minimum wage. This parable teaches that an employer has the right to make individual agreements with his workers without any outside interference.
I have three comments concerning this interpretation: (1) Jesus explains the meaning himself at end of parable and it has nothing to do with economic theory; (2) one could use the same reasoning with the parable of the judge and the widow to conclude that God doesn't mind corrupt judges who ignore the needs of the poor; and (3) one could just as well argue that since a denarius was the bare minimum to support a man and his family, this parable actually teaches that there should be a minimum wage. But even this would be importing into the text a teaching that wasn't intended.
I like Hendricksen's conclusion on the three main lessons for us today: (1) avoid a works-oriented
attitude toward God, (2) recognize and accept God's complete sovereignty in all things, and (3) don't
have an envious spirit. France suggests that we need to have the attitude of the Dodo in Alice in
Wonderland: “Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.” Snodgrass quotes Lischer as saying that
“good people have a harder time understanding grace than people who are desperate.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments