|
30 This concluding slogan, which will be repeated in 20:16, recurs in
different contexts in Luke 13:30 and (in a less developed form) in Mark
9:35; a similar aphorism will be found in 23:12. It is possible to interpret it
here as an entirely positive comment on the disciples’ situation. By making
themselves “last” through giving up their homes and families they have
become “first,” whereas the rich man, whom society would have classed as
“first,” turns out to be “last.” Those who have faced persecution from Israel
(10:16–23 etc.) will be judges over Israel. In the kingdom of heaven the
tables are turned.
But, while the conjunction de is not strongly marked, it usually indicates some
degree of contrast, rather than a restatement of the same point, and in the light of
the following parable which is framed by this saying it is possible to detect a
different nuance: it is a retort to the smugness of Peter’s assumption that they at
least have got it right. Those whose renunciation has put them at the forefront of
the Jesus movement might naturally expect to be the greatest in the kingdom of
heaven, as their question at 18:1 has shown, but there is no such guarantee.
Those who have borne the greatest weight of loyal service for the kingdom of
heaven cannot assume that their reward will be greater than that of others (20:1–
15). In the kingdom of heaven nobody earns their status, even by spectacular
renunciation. They may rightly expect a reward, but not necessarily the reward
of preeminence. The kingdom of heaven, which operates by divine grace rather
than by human achievement, is a great leveler.
5. The Parable of Equal Wages for Unequal Work (20:1–16)
¹For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner¹ who went out early in the
morning to hire workers for his vineyard. ²He agreed with the workers on one
denarius for the day, and sent them off into his vineyard. ³About mid-morning²
he went out and saw others standing in the market-place with no work to do,
⁴and he told them, “Off you go into the vineyard as well, and I will pay you
whatever is fair.” ⁵And off they went.³ He went out again about mid-day and
mid-afternoon, and did the same. Late in the afternoon he went out and found
others standing there, and he said to them, “Why are you standing here all day
and not working?” ⁷“Because no one has hired us,” they replied. He said, “Off
you go too into the vineyard.” ⁸In the evening the owner of the vineyard said to
his foreman, “Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last
and so on to the first.” When those hired late in the afternoon came they were
given a denarius each; ¹ so when the first came they assumed they would get
more, but they too were given a denarius each. ¹¹When they had received it, they
began to grumble against the landowner: ¹²“These who came last have worked
only one hour, and you have made them equal with us who have put up with a
whole day’s work in the heat of the sun.”⁴ ¹³“My friend,”⁵ he replied to one of
them, “I am not cheating you; didn’t you agree with me on one denarius? ¹⁴Take
what you have earned and be off with you. It is my wish to give to this last
person the same as to you; ¹⁵or don’t I have the right to do what I choose with
what belongs to me? Or are you jealous⁷ because I am generous?”⁸
¹ So the last will be first and the first last.
This parable, recorded only by Matthew, interrupts the Marcan sequence which
Matthew has been following since the beginning of ch. 19 and which will
continue after the parable until the end of ch. 20. It thus stands as a comment on
the discussion of rewards for discipleship in 19:27–29 and on the saying about
the last and the first which concluded that discussion and which is repeated after
the parable in v. 16. It is therefore about the reversal of human expectations in
the kingdom of heaven—which, in various ways, has been the dominating theme
of the whole of ch. 19.¹
The story is as clear as it is unexpected. Whereas we take it for granted that
harder work deserves a greater payment, this employer operates on a less
conventional basis. The reader instinctively sympathizes with the aggrieved
workers in vv. 11–12: it doesn’t seem fair. The retort of the landowner is of
course technically correct: no one has been cheated; the agreement has been
scrupulously observed. Why then do we still feel that there is something wrong?
Because we cannot detach ourselves from the ruling convention that rewards
should be commensurate to the services rendered. When one man is “rewarded”
far in excess of what has been earned while another receives only the bare sum
agreed, we detect unfair discrimination. Any union leader worth their salt would
protest at such employment practices. Anyone who took this parable as a
practical basis for employment would soon be out of business.¹¹
But the kingdom of heaven does not operate on the basis of commercial
convention. God rules by grace, not by desert.¹² The “rewards” which this gospel
has so persistently spoken of (see on 5:3–10, 11–12; 6:1–6, 16–18, 19–21;
10:41–42; 19:27–29) are not earned, nor are they proportionate to human effort.
The God who lavishly clothes the flowers and feeds the birds (6:26–29) delights
to give his servants far more than they could ever deserve from him. It is that
principle, rather than the disappointment of the whole-day laborers, which is the
main focus of the parable, but their very natural disappointment and sense of
unfairness helps the readers to re-examine how far their reactions are still
governed by human ideals of deserving rather than by the uncalculating
generosity of the kingdom of heaven. In the kingdom in which the first are last
and the last first there is no room for envious comparisons.
The theme of divine generosity is enhanced by an awareness of the employment
situation for day-laborers (“involuntary marginals,” Carter) in first-century
Palestine. The day-laborer did not have even the minimal security which the
slave had in belonging to one master. There was no social welfare program on
which an unemployed man could fall back and no trade unions to protect a
worker’s rights. An employer could literally “do what he chose with what
belonged to him.” (v. 15) In such a setting no work meant no food for the family.
The extraordinary behavior of this landowner in adding extra workers after he
has already recruited all he needs in the early morning therefore probably
indicates not that he could not calculate his labor needs in advance¹³ but that he
was acting compassionately¹⁴ to alleviate the hardship of the unemployed.¹⁵ It is
unlikely that he needed the extra workers, and his excessive payment of them
speaks for itself. Commercially, the man is a fool. And God is as uncalculating
as that.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
