20‘For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire labourers for his vineyard. 2After agreeing with the labourers for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. 3When he went out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the market-place; 4and he said to them, “You also go into the vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.” So they went. 5When he went out again about noon and about three o’clock, he did the same. 6And 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?” 7They said to him, “Because no one has hired us.” He said to them, “You also go into the vineyard.” 8When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, “Call the labourers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and then going to the first.” 9When those hired about five o’clock came, each of them received the usual daily wage.* 10Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received the usual daily wage. 11And when they received it, they grumbled against the landowner, 12saying, “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.” 13But he replied to one of them, “Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?* 14Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. 15Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?”* 16So the last will be first, and the first will be last.’
Literally: For the kingdom of heaven is like a house-ruler who came out early in the morning to hire workers into his vineyard. Agreeing together with the workers (for) a denarius (per) day, he ordered them into his vineyard. And he came out around the third hour, he saw others standing idle in the place of assembly. And he said to them, "And you go out into the vineyard, and I will give you whatever (is) right." And they went out. And going out again around the sixth (hour) and ninth hour, he did in like manner. Around the eleventh (hour), he went out and he found others standing, and he said to them, "Why are you standing here all day free from labor?" They said to him, "Because no one has hired us." He said to them, "You also go into the vineyard."
When evening happened, the lord of the vineyard said to his manager, "Call the workers and pay them wages beginning from the last just as the first." And the ones going out at the eleventh hour came (and) they took a denarius apiece. And the first came supposing that they would receive more, and they received a denarius apiece. Receiving, they grumbled around the house-ruler, saying, "These last ones did one hour and you have made them equal to us, the ones who bore the burdens of day and burning heat." But he answered one of them, "Partner, I did not act unjustly to you. Did you not agree with me a denarius? Take up (what belongs to you) and go. I desire to give these last the same as you. Is it not lawful to do what I wish with what is mine? Or is your eye evil because I am good? In this manner, the last will be first and the first last."
This text follows upon Peter asking Jesus what the disciples will get for having left everything to follow him. John Meier says that Matthew "obviously" intends the parable of the laborers in the vineyard to be understood in "close connection" with Jesus' promise of reward for the disciples.
The vineyard is an oft-used symbol for Israel. The owner of the vineyard, the "house-ruler"--oikodespotace--is God. The "house-ruler" makes five trips into town to hire day-laborers to work in the vineyard. He pays a denarius, "the usual daily wage." (I have seen estimates of the value of a denarius which range from 18 cents to $100.) It should be noted also that the "house-ruler" pays the first a denarius, but offers "whatever is right" to all the rest.
The contrast is between the "first" and the "last." The last are clearly paid first primarily so that the first will see what has happened. Otherwise, what difference would it make? The "house-ruler" hears the grumbling and responds to one of the grumblers whom he calls etairos--"partner, comrade, friend." The "house-ruler" denies doing wrong. The contract he had made with the "first" is fulfilled. Moreover, the "house-ruler" asserts his freedom to pay the rest whatever he pleases--"whatever is right."
Then, the "house-ruler" asks, "Or is your eye evil because I am good?" (The NRSV, wrongly, has, "Or are you envious because I am generous?") The word "good"--agathos--is framed by the words ego and eimi. Ego eimi is the Greek translation of the tetragrammaton, YHWH, the name of God revealed to Moses. In other words, ego eimi is the name of the God of Israel.
That the word agathos--"good"--is placed "inside" of the ego eimi is to confirm what Matthew had just written in 19:17: "One (God) is good." In the context of this parable, the "goodness" of God is revealed not as justice--the "first" have a strong case according to contemporary moral standards.
But, no, God's "goodness" is not revealed as justice, but as mercy. Themes of justice abound throughout the parable, but the fullness of that justice comes to expression as equal treatment for all. The overflowing generosity of God's love ignores all human merit.
That's one interpretation. Avery Hendricks offers another. He notes, first of all, what the story tells us about working conditions in first century Israel. People work from dawn to dusk for not much money. (A denarius was the "usual daily wage," but it was not a living wage.) There is a sizeable pool of day laborers--a sizeable pool, in other words, of people who are reduced to scrambling for any little bit of work they can get.
Clearly, for Hendricks, the "house-ruler" is not God, but more akin to a plantation owner. By offering a pittance, the "house-ruler" is exploiting labor. The "house-ruler" apparently has an exceptionally large vineyard. (He keeps coming for more workers.) How could the "house-ruler" have attained all that property if not by foreclosing on peasant debt?
Then, to top it off, the "house-ruler" cops an attitude when talking with the last chosen. "Why are you standing around idle?" He all but calls them lazy. He presumes that they are unemployed because of some choice, as if he didn't know that they were unemployed in the first place because they had been forced off their land.
In paying the last the same as the first, the "house-ruler" insults the first. When the first "grumble," the "house-ruler" singles out their leader--the text says he spoke to "one of them"--denies doing wrong, and then fires him. "Take what belongs to you and go." The "house-ruler" adopts the typical strategy of firing the union organizer.
Taken as a whole, I don't agree with Hendricks, but think he makes a valuable contribution to understanding the parable. We shouldn't automatically assume that the "house-ruler" is God. Nor should we too readily adopt the first interpretation mentioned above without considering that other interpretations are possible.
Frankly, whichever interpretation you opt for depends a bit on how you interpret etairos, which NRSV translates as "friend" in verse 13. Hendricks says that etairos is not a positive greeting. It's on the order of "fella" or "buster." Robert Capon sometimes uses etairos in this way also. On the other hand, the two lexicons I consulted render etairos as "friend, comrade, partner." If Hendricks is right, that would support his argument that the land-owner is haughty and dismissive. If the Gingrich Lexicon is right, the first are considered "partners" with God in the management of the vineyard.
I find Hendricks' thesis plausible, but finally opt for the first interpretation on the basis of the ego agathos eimi, which, to me, clearly refers back to the pronouncement that only God is "good." That would make God the owner of the vineyard.
In any case, in either interpretation, the parable comes down on the side of subverting class-based heirarchies. "The last will be first and the first last." If the "house-ruler" is God, then God's mercy reigns supreme, and God's mercy is what constitutes God's "goodness." If the "house-ruler" is a plantation owner, the parable is clearly a slam at economic exploitation of the poor by the rich.
"God has a place for everybody, so just trust in him and trust that he gave you the talent that he wanted, so you just got to roll with what you have."
— Bridget Sloan, women's gymnastics
Posted by: Chanel | November 02, 2010 at 11:33 PM