Matthew, in material unique to him, tells a parable known as “the Workers in the Vineyard,” but it's actually about the owner of the vineyard:
“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the laborers for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. When he went out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace; and he said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went. When he went out again about noon and about three o’clock, he did the same. And about five o’clock he went out and found others standing around; and he said to them, ‘Why are you standing here idle all day?’ They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard.’ When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, ‘Call the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and then going to the first.’ When those hired about five o’clock came, each of them received the usual daily wage. Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received the usual daily wage. And when they received it, they grumbled against the landowner, 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.’ But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” (Matthew 20:1–16 NRSV)
Why does the owner of the vineyard go out to the market at noon, at three, and again, finally, at five? Does he expect that their work will provide as much value to him as that of the men he hired early in the morning? Of course not. For he is not hiring men, early or late, for the value they can provide to him. He is hiring men out of his abundance for the value he can provide to them, a wage sufficient for the day in return for honorable service. He understands the responsibility of the rich in society: it is neither to hoard wealth, nor to dissipate it, but instead to use it purposefully to advance the health of society.
Let us consider our society today, a society beset with sustained high unemployment. We hear from the voices privilege that the problems our our society are due to to the poor. It is the poor who don't contribute enough. Yet the poor still seek work, and if they don't find it, it's not because God has not provided. It is because those he's entrusted with wealth have nurtured the delusion that their wealth is a reward for their own merit, and its sole purpose is their self-indulgence. The problem we have today isn't that the poor aren't working, it's that the rich aren't hiring. It's that the rich that aren't doing their job.
Let us pray:
Dear Lord, Heal our society. Call the rich to their duty, or give us new rich who will do it in their stead. In Jesus's name we pray. Amen.
Peace
18 comments:
Interestingly enough, Stu, the vineyard parable's found in only one Gospel--St. Matt (and quite similar to an Old Testament passage ..Deut?). So the first question might be--is it legit? Perhaps. Ive read some scholars have called into question the authenticity of St.Matt (tho' others it consider THE NT book I guess, with some reason). The account of the crucifixion, f.e., in St Mateo is quite...apocalyptic with material not in other books, ie LUke (the "renting of the temple" IIRC). MY hunch is that ..St Mateo's a bit..fanciful.
THe parable itself suggests..JC held that all may earn salvation however short lived their faith, per God's grace, not..works. So the family man who went to church and did good for 20 years is no different than the prisoner who converted yesterday? Sounds nearly baptist-evangelical like (and Paul says that too, does he not). And..for that matter..the vineyard parable (if read as "sola fide") may contradict (or be contrary to) other sections of the NT...(James...for one..somewhere in John "righteous works" are praised as well).
J,
There's no OT parallel that comes to mind, and my textual sources don't claim any. This parable seems to be truly unique to Matthew.
I think the real question here, if we assume that this is an authentic parable of Jesus, is, "What did he mean?" The traditional interpretation, like yours, is that this is an allegory about salvation. It seems perfectly arguable to me, but I'm pressing here for a very different interpretation--one that has an earthly focus.
What is the role of the poor? Per this parable, it is to be available for work, and to be content with a fair day's wage. For the rich, it is to hire the poor, and to keep hiring the poor, in proportion to one's resources, not merely in proportion to one's need for labor. It seems to me that this is a radical view of social relations, and one that is worthy of consideration and discussion.
Check the wiki--mentions a passage in Deut. There may be a strictly economic angle--but in a sense, it seems a bit unfair to pay the person who worked one hour the same as one who worked 8--unless JC's hinting at some type of socialist equality? Which I doubt most christians would agree to (tho' there are other passages like that in NT). So I still think it was about salvation depending on...God's grace--though whether those are the actual words of JC...Im not convinced.
J,
It took me a couple minutes to realize that you meant Wiki: Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. Deuteronomy 24:14–15 is not cited as a parallel, but rather as a scriptural warrant for the practice of paying a poor/need laborer for his day's work before sunset.
But this is consistent with a recurrent theme of Jesus's parables, which is to take a bit of the law, to tell a story that brings him up to an application of that law, and to restate its obligations in clearer and more complete form. You can almost hear Jesus asking his listeners, as the story approaches sunset, asking them, "what does the law say the owner owes each man?" and them citing the Deuteronomy text above, saying, "wages according to each man's work, paid before the sun sets," and then Jesus continuing, "but I say to you, it is not the owner of the vineyard who created it's abundance, but God, and God wants all to be fed from it, rich and poor, first and last, alike."
I would not characterize this as a passage about social equality. The owner does not suddenly divide his holdings among the workers, only a part of the proceeds. The story does not end with everyone suddenly made equal, it ends with everyone having enough to feed their family on that day.
A noble sentiment--though whether that's a consistent message throughout the NT is another matter (ie, religious people can and do justify about political views--right or left--with scripture do they not). To me, the anomalous nature of the parable of the vineyard in Matthew nearly stirs up..my evidentialist self (partially from dealing with religious people online over the last few months..one tries to be tolerant..but anti-rationalism seems endemic. And to think catholic tradition is supposedly about Reason... or was). The PoV could very well be spurious--or, at least seems a bit odd--maybe translation issues. Though given the traditional protestant reading--ie God decides on your fate, and that has little or nothing to do with actual merit--I then respectfully disagree.
The job of the rich is to remain rich. It's something like Esther's "job" with regard to Ahasueras, or Joseph's job with regard to Pharoah, or Job's job, which is simply to accept his state, but to remain in communion with God, although he's seemingly lost everything.
J,
I'll reiterate that I'm not arguing for what you call “the traditional protestent reading,” which I think of as Presbyterian double-predestination interpretation. I find your line of argument here to be puzzling. Yes, this parable is often interpreted in ways that you find problematic. I'm arguing for a very different interpretation. Why sustain an argument against an interpretation that I'm not making?
As for the question of whether this is an authentic parable of Jesus, I believe it is, even though it's not present in Luke (and therefore not in the putative Q). First off, it has a familiar structure and set of concerns, i.e., elaborating on the Kingdom of Heaven/God via an anecdote that exposits on and radicalizes the Law. Second, it is surprising, and even puzzling. This koan-like structure is common in Jesus's parables, which are often accompanied by the disciples expressing confusion and a subsequent exegesis by Jesus himself. Because those parable/exposition pairs are so familiar to us, we're often left in the position of thinking, "Weren't those disciples dumb? Didn't they get it?!" Well, this time the exegesis is incomplete, and we find ourselves as puzzled as the disciples in trying to figure out the full implications of Jesus's parable. Maybe they weren't so dumb after all. Maybe we shouldn't be so complaisant in believing that we get it. Jesus's parables were meant to challenge their listeners; if we're not feeling challenged, we're not getting it.
Finally, I can only agree that religious people have used their religious beliefs to justify all sorts of political and social beliefs, often antithetical to one another. This is sadly just human nature: as we try to live into our faith, sin often leads us to package it up, and to use it only to justify the life we'd be living anyway. I don't believe this pervasive sophistry necessarily invalidates religious argument; it certainly doesn't invalidate religious experience. But it does argue that just because a Christian believes X, and believes X to be a consequence of his Christian faith, that doesn't mean that X is a consequence of Christian faith, let alone that X is true. There are, after all, more Christians (and more Jews, and more Muslims, and more Mormoms, and more Buddists, etc.) than there are people who have been trained to think and argue rigorously.
"He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful."
Matthew 13:22
Ah not exactly Ayn Rand. Back to the drawing board, Kirby Teabag
Kirby,
The job of the rich is to remain rich. It's something like Esther's "job" with regard to Ahasueras, or Joseph's job with regard to Pharoah, or Job's job, which is simply to accept his state, but to remain in communion with God, although he's seemingly lost everything.
To me, this is no more or less than a denial of the notion of community. In effect, you're arguing that we're all just parts separately, and that what we call community isn't a whole, but a meaningless abstraction. In effect, the position that you're taking here is mere social darwinism, wrapped up in a bit of Smith to make it more directly palatable to you.
You're the person who says that we should follow the ten commandments. How did Jesus exposit them? Remember, "You shall love the Lord your God will all your heart, and soul, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself"?
It is the job of the rich to love their neighbors, and this includes the poor people in their midst, as much as they love themselves.
Why don't you just admit you are a socialist? What's to be shamed about?
I don't think there's anything shameful about being a socialist, I'm just not one. A socialist would have argued for redistribution of the vineyard, not for paying everyone willing to work what they need to live on.
The problem, as I've said before, is that there are a lot of grays in the world, not just whites and blacks. And there are ways to argue that aren't mere attempts to polarize and demonize. Perhaps you ought to learn them.
Well, I think you need to decide what is good and bad, and what is right and what is wrong. If you can't do that, we can't argue. We can only say: everything is a muddle. That's an argument, but it doesn't provide a way forward. To Moses us out of the muddle of Egypt, you have to present a Promised Land of some kind. Yours is socialist for lack of not being capitalist. You're not a capitalist. Therefore, you have to be a socialist.
Kirby,
Well, I think you need to decide what is good and bad, and what is right and what is wrong.
God alone is good (cf. Mark 10:18 and parallels thereof).
What is right? To love the Lord your God with all your heart, and soul, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself. (cf., Matthew 22:34-40).
I believe I've been consistently clear on these points.
Yours is socialist for lack of not being capitalist. You're not a capitalist. Therefore, you have to be a socialist.
This is nonsense. You've created a false alternative (between socialism and capitalism), and so your argument is unsound in its presuppositions.
You're either a GOP capitalist, or you're a Demo- Red, goldangit
For a supposed literary person, Kurly Olson hardly sounds different than the usual biblethumping hayseed out at the baptisst warehouse, Dr. Stu. IMO, it's an outrage that he's allowed to teach at a state college while holding opinions somewhere to the right of Limbaugh, Fox, Breitbart etc. (actually he sounds nearly insane). Delete this if you want,but..dems the facts.
J,
I'm opposed to political litmus tests in the academy, whether they're of the sort that you'd find congenial, or of the sort that Kirby'd find congenial. There is a social utility to providing a variety of political opinions and/or potential role models. The University is supposed to be about free debate, and you can't have that if you're pre-filtering the views that are admitted. And I see this as a matter of self-preservation: there have been times in the past, and there may be times in the future, when conservative voices dominate in the academy, and the intellectual integrity of the University's rests on the shoulders of a small cadre of liberal truth-tellers.
I believe you and Kirby both grossly overestimate the influence that professors have over their students, and this amounts to thinking too little of the independence and integrity of our students. I wonder more about Kirby in this regard than I do about you. After all, Kirby had teachers who were well-known and culturally significant, but also very much left-wing, homosexual, and sexually abusive. Kirby, at least in so far as we can tell by how he represents himself, is none of these things. I don't know enough of your story to know if it presents a similar irony.
Delete this if you want,but..dems the facts.
I don't believe I've deleted any of your posts, except by way of a bit of house cleaning where you've already deleted them yourself. I suppose I might, but your comment here isn't so uncivil as measured against the standards of the blogosphere as to warrant censure.
No, you're making a false equivalence, like I'm ..spouting leftist-marxist dogma when I'm not. I still value Jeffersonian ideals,however quaint. Ive taught on and off for years and I would never dismiss people--students or otherwise--for arguing for a political view/interpretation (of a book--including the Good one--, history, politician etc), even radical ones, as Olson does routinely (ie, Demos are communist in his little solipsistic word).One points out the flaws of a POV--or ideology (whether maoism ,or nazis, or... -capitalism for that matter)--instead of waving hands and pounding tables, or whining.
IN other words--there is no room for reasonable debate or disputation in Olson's pseudo-pedagogy. He's like the Rush Limblow of writing blogs.
IMO Olson's generalizations and emotional litanies against his perceived enemies (lets not forget how often he calls Obama a communist etc) is typical of many literary types--they don't actually argue (even basic critical/evidential reasoning beyond them)--they insist and demand, not unlike the low-church fundamental types. Literature, enemy of the people (at least as it's taught now, by both links oder rechts).
stu
i like your interpretation of this parable
in terms of the role of the rich
i'd never thought of it that way before
it makes a lot of sense
and i agree that your interpretation
is distinctly different from socialism
Actually the point of the parable may be this--what seems "fair" apparently (giving the men who worked the whole day the full wage, and the part-timer only partial), may not be fair, per Logos. Ie, someone attends sunday school every week (or takes the holy Mass and ..seems religious, pious, "Christian")--but in reality ..he's a Sandusky. Or something like that.
Call it the..reluctant Kierkegaardian interpretation.
J,
I've never been much of a fan of the "fire insurance" theory of church-going (which I take as a point of agreement). But it seems like a heck of a stretch to me to pull this (perfectly valid) argument out of the parable of the workers in the vineyard. It seems almost to require "getting paid" to be equivalent to "being condemned," and "working" with 'sinning."
Not that Jesus didn't speak in riddles.
Was Soren K. in the "fire-insurance" school? Nyet.
The parable suggests something like the difference between appearance and Reality, if you will--ie, Christendom (what seems "fair") not being synonymous with..Christ's realm
Post a Comment