Fairness and the Realm of God—Lectionary Reflection for Pentecost 17A/Proper 20A (Matthew 20)
Matthew 20:1-16 New Revised Standard Version Updated
Edition
20 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius for the day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 When he went out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 and he said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went. 5 When he went out again about noon and about three o’clock, he did the same. 6 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?’ 7 They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard.’ 8 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.’ 9 When those hired about five o’clock came, each of them received a denarius. 10 Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. 11 And when they received it, they grumbled against the landowner, 12 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.’ 13 But he replied to one of them, ‘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 the same as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ 16 So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
****************
Fairness,
like beauty, could be in the eye of the beholder. Depending on one’s
perspective the Parable of the Vineyard could be viewed as an act of generosity
or an unjust act. It might depend on whether you were the first or last laborer
hired. What makes this parable challenging is that once again Jesus uses a
parable to describe and define the realm of God, what in Matthew is called the
Kingdom of Heaven.
This is
one of those parables that is relatively well-known and yet challenging to
interpret. It’s normal and probably appropriate to assume that Jesus intends us
to identify the landowner with God, and the laborers with God’s people. As is
often true, parables both reveal something about the kingdom of heaven and hide
something. They’re also culturally defined. In other words, what is revealed in
the parable reflects the world of the original reader. Therefore, it may seem
culturally foreign to our eyes. Thus, we must interpret and translate what we
read here if we’re to understand its message and perhaps embrace it as a word
to our day.
The
parable itself is rather straightforward. We have a landowner who needs to
bring in the harvest from the vineyard. So, early in the morning, the landowner
goes out to where the day laborers have gathered. It’s a sight that can be seen
in our own day. Farmers, contractors, and other employers who need largely
unskilled laborers will hire for the day, usually, I’m assuming, on a cash
basis. So, the landowner hires a crew that is deemed sufficient for the task.
They agreed to a wage, which in that region at that time in history was a denarius.
He sent them into the vineyard to harvest the crop. Here is where things get
interesting because the landowner goes out around nine in the morning and sees
more laborers standing there hoping to be hired. So, he hires them, telling
them that he’ll pay them what is right. He does this same thing at noon, three,
and five. Each time he makes the same agreement. He’ll pay them what is fair.
At the end of the day, the landowner instructs his assistants to line people up
to be paid, beginning with those hired last. He pays them a denarius. That’s a
full day’s wage. He does the same for each hire, including those hired first.
The ones hired, let’s say, at six AM.
If you got hired at the end of the
day you’re thrilled. You only had to work for an hour or two and you got a full
day’s wage. But what about the ones hired first? They worked hard, all day long
in the hot sun. Surely, they deserve more in compensation. That only seems just
and fair. Yet, the landowner treated them the same way as the ones hired last.
When we assume that the primary
setting is the vineyard and the primary characters are the landowner, who
traditionally is understood to be God, and the laborers, being the people of
Israel or an even larger picture, then this is understood to be a parable about
salvation. It doesn’t matter whether you enter the kingdom early or late in
life, you get the same reward—salvation. But is that what Jesus is talking
about?
Amy Jill-Levine, in her book The Short Stories by Jesus, offers us other options. She notes that Jesus
doesn’t seem all that interested in getting people into heaven. Rather, Jesus
is more interested in people loving one another. She writes:
Might we rather see the parable as about real workers in a real marketplace and real landowners who hire those workers? The vineyard can still be “Israel,” the ideal community that God intended and that Jesus attempted to call into being in anticipation of the messianic age. But in this reading, a reading seeking the voice of Jesus the storyteller, the message is not about eschatology, but economics; it is not about salvation in the world to come, but the even more pressing question about salvation in the present. [Short Stories by Jesus, (pp. 215-216). Kindle Edition].
We needn’t read into the passage modern economic theory, but
it can be read as a word about how we love our neighbors in terms of economics.
If that is true, then the issue here isn’t whether someone got the wage they
deserved, but whether they have enough to feed their families. It doesn’t seem,
at least, in the story, that the folks hired last waited to the last minute to
go out to the corner. They just didn’t get hired earlier in the day, but they
have the same needs.
I will
confess that I struggle with this interpretation. It does seem a bit unfair, at
least when we look at the passage through modern capitalist lenses. But that’s
not an economic theory that was present in the first century.
One
reading that according to Amy-Jill Levine needs to be set aside is one
that suggests that while Jews may have gotten the call first, Gentiles, who
arrived later, get the same seats in heaven. She points out that at least from
Origen on forms of supersessionism crept into the interpretation of the
parable. In this way, the ones who are hired first and grumble at getting the
same wage are seen as Pharisees or other legalists, whereas those hired last
are Gentiles who are recipients of grace. Thus, Jews are seen as ungrateful. So,
she writes: “Neat and tidy, the traditional interpretation finds a parable
proclaiming a message of ecclesial inclusivity, Jewish xenophobia, and Jesus’s
invention of divine generosity.” [Short Stories by Jesus (p. 218).
Kindle Edition]. I will admit that this is the way I have traditionally
interpreted the passage.
This
allegorical interpretation that has been prominent in Christian circles is
problematic. It also sets aside any reading that involves economic concerns.
If, we read the parable in economic terms, what might we see? We might ask
whether wages should be based on the work done (the perspective of those hired first
and paid last). Isn’t this the way it should work? In our world wages and
salaries are based on productivity and are often hierarchically set. To use my
own profession as an example. Pastors of large churches tend to get paid better
than pastors of small churches (I was always a small church pastor). I’m not
sure that large pastors work harder, though their positions might be more
stressful. Generally, higher pay goes to those with more experience. Or perhaps
it’s a question of education. For example, some clergy pursue Doctor of
Ministry degrees because it is assumed that one can command a higher salary as
a result. I’m not sure that this is always true, but it is an assumption among
some.
So,
what if the message here is one of radical equality? That’s a message that
connects this parable with the reading for the day from Exodus 16, where God
provides manna and quail. Everyone gets what they need, no more and no less
(Exod. 16:2-15). If we read the two passages together then perhaps the message is
not one of reward for work done, but a provision for what one needs to sustain
life. Charles Campbell suggests that in both cases the message involves the
creation of a new people “who will embody an alternative to the ways of Egypt,
the ways of domination and submission, rich and poor, powerful and
powerless.” There’s nothing especially appealing about manna, but it
sustains life. It's worth noting that this reference in Exodus 16 to God’s
provision of daily bread corresponds to the prayer for “daily bread” in the
Lord’s Prayer. It is simply the provision of what is needed to survive.
It is subsistence living. It is what we pray for in the Lord’s Prayer –
“our daily bread” [Feasting on the Word, Year A, Season After Pentecost 2 (Proper 17-reign of Christ), p. 93]. What God provides isn’t a
new luxury car or the latest smartphone with all the bells and whistles. No,
what God provides is basic subsistence, what is needed for the moment.
So,
maybe what Jesus is up to here is simply reiterating his basic message that
involves loving our neighbor. Let us not begrudge what is needed but celebrate
that everyone has what they need for the moment. As for the landowner, there
are questions about why things happen this way. There were likely expectations
about minimum payment, so perhaps those hired last expected to get a full day's
wage. As for those who worked all day, they might expect more. That only seems
fair. However, the landowner speaks of generosity and sustenance. The funds
belong to the landowner, who might have paid more for that day's work than
necessary simply because he hired workers that he may have needed, simply to
make sure they had something to take home. Thus, the landowner asks: “Am I
not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious
because I am generous?’ (vs. 15).
When we
read parables like this it’s easy to import our own social/cultural dynamics
and claim Jesus for our own side. The reality is, Jesus wasn’t a Capitalist or
a Marxist. Such economic theories/parties didn’t exist in the first century. But
we needn’t spiritualize the parable so that it simply speaks of salvation. One
of the problems with such an interpretation is that it inevitably ends up with
an anti-Jewish perspective. Thus, I turn once again to Amy-Jill Levine, who
writes:
If we refocus the parable away from “who gets into heaven” and toward “who gets a day’s wage,” we can find a message that challenges rather than prompts complacency. If we look at economics, at the pressing reality that people need jobs and that others have excess funds, we find what should be a compelling challenge to any hearer. And in that story, we learn what it means to act as God acts, with generosity to all. And that is what parables are supposed to do. [Levine, Short Stories by Jesus (p. 238)].
If we read the passage in this way, the message is one of
generosity that is rooted in the love of one’s neighbor. Whether one is the
first or last, it doesn’t matter. Perhaps the one who is last is the one with
the greatest need. If the landowner is a stand-in for God, then it’s good to
know that God is not only loving and gracious but generous as well.
Comments