The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard

Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?

—Matthew 20:15

Generosity vs Greed

Generosity is beautiful—for those at the receiving end of it and the person being generous. Generosity reflects goodness of heart; greed is the opposite. Perhaps you know how it feels when you worked hard to make ends meet, yet it wasn't enough, and then your employer took note of your circumstances and gave you a bonus to make ends meet. As the owner of the company you worked for, he or she can do that. It is a blessing. Others may look at you with envy, exposing their greed or jealousy. Although they have their wage, they don't want you to have a little extra. Does that sound familiar? Yet each individual situation is unique and shouldn't be misjudged.

The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard can, at first glance, be puzzling; it seems the landowener was unfair to those who worked longer hours than others and got paid the same as everyone else. But the concluding statement clarifies the proper understanding of what Jesus was teaching. The context in which Jesus spoke this parable sheds further light on the matter. It is a parable regarding generosity vs greed.

I recently had the privilge to watch a theatrical musical by children on this very parable. I was curious how they would bring the biblical message of the parable across. It was done very well. The days following that musical, I had the opportunity to ask some of the kids participating in it, how it was fair that the landowner paid each one the same amount of money despite working different hours. I wanted to know whether they understood the message of the parable. It made them think and I got different answers.

The most genius of all answers was this: 'When you get to heaven, you can ask Jesus.' Everyone present at the table fellowship was amused that this witty answer, me too! It was clever, indeed, yet also exposed a deeper issue: that child didn't fully understand how to explain fairness in the light of the actions of the landowner. It's not an easy thing to explain it, even for adults—they were thinking too when they heard my question towards rge children present. Perhaps I should have asked the adults for an explanation. Waiting for Jesus to explain it to us in heaven is certainly an option, yet how about trying to understand it already now on earth? Afterall, the message of the parable is for us now.

Summary of the Parable

The parable is a comparison regarding the kingdom of God (Matthew 20:1). It shows one of many aspects of the kingdom, just as other parables do (see Matthew 13; P2). The characters point to God dealing with His servants.

The parable is about a landowner who hires workers for work in his vineyard (v 1). This situation reflects real-life circumstances in first-century Israel. Jesus' audience would have been familiar with such a setting. Even today, there are many parts of the world where people depend on working as day-workers to feed their families. Where there is no job security, life is tough. Brad H. Young explains that the 'day laborer was on the bottom of the economic ladder' (Parables, 70).

The landowner hired some workers 'early in the morning' and they agreed on the payment (one denarius) before being sent to work in his vineyard (Matthew 20:1-2). 'A denarius was sufficient to provide food for the laborer and his family, but it was not a great amount of money. It was considered fair compensation for a day's work' (Parables, 70). A few hours later, mid-morning, the landowner hired more day-workers, who were at the market place available for work (v 3). Instead of agreeing on a set fee, he would pay them 'whatever is right' (v 4). This is an important detail, as the conclusion of the parable will show. They agreed and went to work. Twice more at later stages of the day did the landowner agree with yet more workers to work in his vineyard (v 5). And one final time, shortly before the work-day ended, he hired yet more workers (vv 6-7). Young sees the hiring of yet more workers as reflecting the reality at the time of 'the urgency of harvesting the produce' (Parables, 70). There was a greater need for more agricultural workers during the harvest seasons.

As the day came to an end, it was time for paying salaries. The Torah commands not to withhold salaries from the hired labourer until the next day (Leviticus 19:13; Deuteronomy 24;15), as they depend on daily payment to provide for their families. The second half of the parable deals with the payment for the different groups of day-labourers, groups according to the time spent working in the vineyard. This story parable reflects 'the workplace' and a 'labor dispute between the landowner and the day workers' (Parables, 71), or, as we shall see, between the landowner and some of the day workers. Their reaction exposed their hearts.

The landowner instructs his foreman to pay out salaries, starting with the group that worked the least hours (Matthew 21:8). The 'last group,' as we might described them, received one denarius each (v 9). As stated above, this was 'fair compensation for a day's work,' enough to provide for a family. However, they didn't work a whole day. It was the same amount agreed with those workers who started work early in the morning, the 'first group.' Perhaps the last group was surprised to having received a day's wage; it was generous of the landowner to do so. The parable does not provide their reaction, as the reaction of the first group is the crux of the matter. The first group was not happy: 'they grumbled at the landowner' (v 11). But why?

Interpretation of the Parable

The parable is reaching its climax with the dispute; in it lies its interpretation. The last group got the same wage (one denarius) as the first group had agreed to receive with the landowner at the start of the day, before they went to work. But when they saw that the last group received what they had agreed (one denarius), 'they thought that they would receive more' (v 10). Yet they didn't: they received what they had agreed. This caused the grumbling (v 11). They were offended that the landowner made them 'equal' to those who worked only one hour, although they bore the heat of the sun and worked all day (v 12). This seemed unfair. But was it?

The landowner's reply reminded them that he did them 'no wrong,' since he paid them what they had agreed upon (v 12, cf., v 2). It was their own calculations that made them expect a higher payment in view of the payment of one denarius to those who worked the shortest hours. It wouldn't seem fair from their side to blame the owner for not paying more than what they had agreed upon. The owner explains that he wishes to pay each one the same and that it's lawful for him to decide so since he is the owner of the vineyard (vv 14-15). The owner then issued a warning against greed in his final question: 'Or is your eye envious because I am generous?' (v 15) The expression 'eye envious' is idiomatic: a 'bad eye' is a Hebrew idiom for greed or stinginess; the 'good eye' on the other hand, speak of generosity and goodness (cf., Proverbs 22:9; 28:22; see Matthew 6:19-34 in Q4).

The issue is not whether or not the landowner was fair; the issue is that he was generous and it caused envy and greed in some of them. The parable is silent about the other groups of day-labourers; the contrast between the first and the last group serves to drive home the point. The generosity of the landowner, whose generosity paid for a fair wage which was the necessity for sustaining a family, should not cause envy in others. Each one should be content with what they got according to the agreement, the 'terms and conditions' agreed upon, and not be envious with greed at the generosity of the boss.

The Parable in Context

The context of the parable sheds further light on a proper understanding of the parable. A rich man inquired about how to gain 'eternal life' and Jesus pointed him to God's commandments, which he quoted and affirmed he kept (Matthew 19:16-20). Yet he refused to give up his wealth to follow Jesus. He was a good, law-abiding person, yet the one thing that would've made him 'complete,' was to sell all his possessions and give it to the poor. He grieved over the saying of Jesus as he was very wealthy in property (vv 21-22). In other words, a person may keep all the commandments yet harbour greed or have his or her security in material possessions and still be found lacking. The proplem was not that he had wealth; the problem was that he wouldn't give it up in view of 'eternal life,' the very thing he inquired about. He, too, had wrong priorities, just like the 'rich fool' in the parable (see Luke 12:13-21 ; P7). Life does not consist of material things; we are to guard ourselves against any form of greed (Luke 12:15). It is foolish to be rich in material wealth yet poor towards God. The problem is not if someone possesses things; the problem is when things possess that someone.

Jesus lamented the rich man's decision not to give up his possessions (and bless the poor with them!) and noted how difficult it is for rich people to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:23-24), precisely because their priorities are on wealth this side of death (on earth), and not in eternity (in heaven). Riches can hinder people entering heaven if they have a wrong priority in our lives; that is true even for good people who take God's law seriously. However, it is still possible for rich people to be saved (vv 25-26), by getting their heart right in relation to material wealth. We are not called to be poor; we are called to be pure. If giving up all our possessions is the way to gain purity regarding money, then that's a good thing. Purity of heart will make proper stewardship with right priorities possible; it guards from the dangers of envy and greed, which corrupt the heart.

That doesn't mean we are committed to a life of poverty; rather, we commit to a life of purity. When we prosper with a pure heart, we won't be corrupted. Paul later wrote how the rich should 'do good' and be 'generous' with their earthly wealth nad thus store up treasures in heaven, and not be 'conceited' or 'fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches' (1 Timothy 6:17-19). Paul's language echoes Jesus' words (Matthew 6:19ff) and were written in the contect of a warning about greed ('the love of money') and an instruction towards contentment (1 Timothy 6:3-16). Giving up all possession was not a rule for all Christians; it was Jesus' response to a man who trusted in his riches. It was an invitation to set his priorities right in view of eternity. Christians are called to modesty with right priorities regarding money. We are to be self-providing and responsible, not poor and dependant or live of the wellfare system. But those who harbour greed or a false trust in money, are invited to undergo a transformation by giving up earthly wealth to follow Jesus, just like the first disciples did. Peter left his business to follow Jesus; Matthew his lucrative work-place.

Peter pointed out that they, the disciples, had left everything to follow Christ (Matthew 19:27). He also added the question, 'what then will there be for us?' Was this a question of reward? Jesus did say that those who leave behind all material things to follow Him will have their reward in the afterlife, as well as blessing in this life (vv 28-29). Jesus won't leave us destitute. However, His main concern was 'eternal life' (v 29). Eternity is more important than this world. It is a matter of right priorities and not misplacing our trust in material wealth. We are called to be pure: if we are willing to give up all earthly wealth, we can gain the purity of heart so that we can be entrusted with power in the world to come as well as steward what God give us in this world. Jesus wanted to help the rich man to get his heart right. It doesn't mean to say that we all have to live in poverty. It was a warning against greed and a false sense of security in money. Serving the money god 'Mammon' is idolatry; God's people are to seek God's kingdom as their first and foremost priority in life (Matthew 6:24-34; see Q4).

The greed that manifested in the day-labourers of the parable was caused by envy and false reasoning. It lead to wrong conclusions, misguided expectations and false accusations. They grumbled against the generous landowner whom they mistook for unfair. Jewish teaching emphasises generosity: 'Jesus called the people to live up to the high spiritual values and ethical requirements of the Torah' (Parables, 73). Jewish teaching also encourages serving God and others for the right reasons:

Be not like servants who serve the master for the sake of receiving a reward, but be like servants who serve the master not on condition of receiving a reward. And let the fear of heaven be upon you.

This saying of Antigonus of Socho points to serving God 'because of love rather than the hope of receiving a reward' (Parables, 73). In the context of working in the vineyard in the scorching sun, we might conclude that getting a reward is only fair and hoping for a little more is only human. The grumbling workers got what they agreed upon with the landowner. The problem was not that they hoped for a higher wage; the problem was that they got envious and took offence at the generosity of the landowner towards those who also have to feed their families in difficult economic circumstances. They should have been happy over the generosity of the landowner that others also had the means to feed their families, rather than getting offended and grumble. Their resentment mislead them and caused the false evaluation of their situation as well as the motive of the landowner. The comparison between them and those who worked shorter hours (and by implication deserved less pay) lead them to envy and exposed greed. Comparison leads to envy.

The landowner would've been 'unfair' if he didn't pay them as they had agreed upon; being generous is not being unfair. It was his wealth to be generous with (Matthew 20:15a). The day-labourers were paid for a day's work, not an hourly wage. Apart from that, some people can be more productive within the same time span than others. But the point is that the workers got what was agreed upon and the landowner was generous to all. This is not a matter of payment for overtime (they did not work overtime) or a work-bonus for better performance. It is about a just wage based on an agreement and the generosity towards those who came later, not because they were lazy or unwilling, but because they were only called later in the day. We are not to compare and get resentful based on wrong reasoning. Each of us should be content with our situation and not serve God for what we can get. We should work with 'sincerity of heart' and do what we do 'heartily' (Colossians 3:22-25). God is a fair Judge. Each one will get their reward, yet reward should not be the driving- factor or basic motive; serving God with a pure should be.

And then there is this curious statement that reccurs twice in this context: 'the last shall be first, and the first last' (Matthew 20:16; cf., 19:30). In terms of the parable, those who came last got paid first. In terms of following Jesus, the original disciples served longest, yet others would join later and there is not to be any envy or strife. Those who serve God from a pure heart can be entrusted with wealth in this world and power in the world to come (Matthew 19:28-29). Not only does the context indicate the importance of purity regarding money (vv 16-29), it also points to the necessity of humility (vv 13-15) and having an attitude to serve without wrong aspirations of power (20:20-28). We are not to 'grumble against the landowner,' but trust God as we serve Him with purity of motive in all aspects of life and in view of eternity. Those who cannot be trusted with money and power, cannot be trusted with anything, as money and power can corrupt a person and bring corruption into society through those who have compromised in the foundational matters of leadership. True leaders serve others with the resources given by God.

Given the context of the parable, it seems to have been a warning to Jesus' disciples. Those who had given up everything to follow Christ should not grumble at those who came 'to work in the vineyard' at a later stage. When people work hard and long, when they sacrifice a lot and may not be rewarded for it as they see fit, they can get resentful towards God and envious of those who seem to have it easier. Grumbling at the father for being forgiving and generous towards a wasteful, wayward son who returned home in repentance, is a wrong attitude towards grace (Luke 15; see P6). How quickly we can distort our image of God when we misinterpret a situation and feel entitled to judge God for being unfair, all the while envy and greed is causing a false interpretation of who God is. When we serve God with a pure heart, we would be happy at His generosity rather than serve Him for what we can get in terms of reward and get envious when others also get a good reward. Wanting others to get less is a wrong attitude. Grace is expressed in generosity.

It is true that God will reward each person according to his or her deeds. Yet this parable is not teaching 'equality of outcome' or some sort of early form of 'socialism.' The parable is a warning against envy and greed in view of God's generosity. The one who had the 'means of production' was generous; he did not exploit his workers; he cared for them. He didn't 'take from the rich' and 'give to the poor'; he gave a fair wage and was generous to all. Those who worked longer hours misjudged the situation as being made 'equal' to those who, in their eyes, deserved less. Equality here was a form of degrading them. But the landowner was generous. Jesus used this parable as a warning regarding envy and greed in the context of the every-day workplace situation and as an illustration of serving God with pure motives.

Conclusion

The parable is a warning against envy and greed in view of a generous landowner who provides the means for all his workers to provide for their families. He is generous and cares for his workers and their families. He is not an exploitative, oppressive tyrant. The wrong reasoning that lead to false expectations and unfair accusations were based on envy and greed. The parable serves as an illustration for those who serve God: a reward should not be the main aspect and money should not be the driving motive in working for and serving God in His kingdom. Those disciples who started first and served the long hours were not to be envious of those who came later and got the same reward. The parable was a warning against wrong comparison and false expectations. We are to have pure hearts when it comes to money and power, serving God with the right motives. This is the only way to avoid envy and greed and the resentment that follows it.

P12 >

_________

References

Brad H. Young, The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998.