A traditional interpretation of the parable of the
workers in the Vineyard has been to focus on 20:16 (“the last will be first,”.)
to understand the parable as a statement about the gift of eternal life, as the
ultimate equalizer, which will be bestowed upon to all “laborers in the
vineyard.”
From our contemporary view, this parable brings to mind
issues of and daily laborers. What is “fair” for those who work in the various
service potions.
The “parable of
the laborers in the vineyard” is unique to Matthew. The stories that surround the parable -- the rich
young man/Peter’s claim to have “left
everything” and Jesus’ third prediction of his death/James &
John’s request -- were consecutive accounts in Mark.
Matthew’s
inclusion
of this parable interrupts that narrative flow. In Matthew’s narrative context, Jesus’ parable seems to be a
story directly (connected) to discipleship issues, possessions, and
authority.
Matthew’s placement was important to the larger
narrative structure, this “parable” was typified. For example, in the preceding
story (cf. 19:23-29),
Peter declared, “we
have left everything and followed you” (19:27).
This kind of dedicated service to Jesus will reap a
reward (cf. 19:28), but these rewards are not just for Jesus’ immediate
disciples but for Christians who have followed, since “many who are first will be last” (19:30
The parable also played out in the story that followed
the parable (21:17-28): Jesus predicted his death to the disciples for the
third and final time (cf. Matthew 16:21; 17:12; 17:22-23). Right after this
prediction, the mother of James and John requested special privilege for her
sons (rather than a direct request from James and John themselves, as in Mark
10:35-45). They, too, “have borne the burden of the day” since they’ve been
with Jesus from the beginning of his mission.
In this following story, we hear the concern -- and,
perhaps some of that “envious” spirit -- from the other disciples. But, Jesus
warned them as well: greatness comes through service (cf. Matthew 20:25-28).
God’s generosity will not succumb to human jealousy. As Matthew’s Jesus
preached earlier, God provides rain for the just and unjust alike (cf. Matthew
5:45).
Matthew
20:1-16 is a true-to-life parable. “Day laborers”
would be readily available in the market place. But it would be unusual for a
wealthy “landowner” to locate his own workers. Usually, the manager would have
hired the laborers, just as he would have been responsible to pay wages (cf.
20:8). More than likely, the manager would not have returned to the market
place to hire additional workers at the end of the day and offered
the same wage. He would be fearful of his landowner’s reaction to such an
unwise investment in labor.
The first-century workers union complaint (cf.
20:11-12) seems reasonable, even if misguided. Why wouldn’t those who have
labored less receive less? But the landowner had a different conception of
fairness. In the first-century economy, the master could choose to do what he
pleased with his resources.
The landowner’s question, “Are you envious because I am generous?” (verse 15), is the
translation of a Greek idiom which literally translates as “Is your eye evil because I am good?” An
“evil eye” (ophthalmos poneros)
speaks of a deeper problem than it may first appear.
As Jesus taught, “The
eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body
will be full of light; but if your eye is unhealthy (ophthalmos poneros;
so, if you have the “evil eye”), your whole body will be full of darkness” (cf. 6:22-23). In this account, the
“evil eye” was the opposite of
generosity jealousy, greed, selfishness,
And, the “landowner” (or, preferably, “household
master” from oikodespotes) is a common analogy for God in Jesus’
teaching in Matthew’s Gospel.
The Gospel of Mark does not uses this analogy. So, it
may reveal something about Matthew’s cultural setting.
To the contemporary reader, the analogy may cause
concern, since many of these masters owned slaves in Jesus’ parables (e.g.,
10:25; 13:27; 21:34; 24:45). For this short discussion, why was God’s reign
often compared to landowning activities? Was it simply Jesus’ theological
belief that God “owned” all the land (cf. Deuteronomy 10:14; Psalm 24:1; Job
41:11)?
Within Jesus’ parables, household masters generally
made wise decisions (e.g., 13:27-30), even if misunderstood (20:11-15). The
possible exception to this pattern occurred in 21:33-41; here, the landowner’s
patience cost him his son’s life because of evil (grumbling?) tenants who
worked the land (cf. 21:33-41).
Perhaps, Jesus stressed the landowner’s active patience
as a positive sign of God’s forbearance. To many interpreters, however, the
inability to recognize the dangers from his servants’ experiences suggests a
naiveté on the landowner’s part.
In our passage under discussion, the landowner was to
be emulated (even if most of Jesus’ audience members would have been more
culturally attuned to the experiences of the laborers). The so-called “parable
of the laborers in the vineyard” should more aptly be called the “parable of
the Landowner’s generosity.” As Jesus taught earlier, in Matthew’s parable
chapter: “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven
is like the master of a household (oikodespotes) who brings out of his
treasure what is new and what is old” (13:52). So, “scribes…trained for the
kingdom” (i.e., Jesus’ disciples) are expected to be like the “landowners”
(i.e., God), who generously provide for all of their “laborers.”
So, the parable is really not about the “laborers in
the vineyard.” In fact, this is not even a story about the growth of the
vineyard. Nor was there any significant attention on the activities of
the workers. We hear the complaints of those who have toiled all day long, but
the story was really not about them either.
Rather, Jesus’ parable highlights the generosity of
God. As the ultimate “landowner,” God will use what has always belonged to the
Creator for the good of all even if humans fail to view the world through God’s
eyes. In Jesus earlier words: God’s perfection is exemplified in God’s rain on
the just and the unjust (cf. 5:48). The landowner’s question in the parable is
Jesus’ punchline for the story: “Are you envious because I am generous?”
No comments:
Post a Comment