[nonesuch]

In Matt.20:1-17 (kjv) there is a parable I could use some help in understanding. It begins:

[1] For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.

He hires labourers in the morning and more every three hours until near the days end. When the day is over he pays the early workers the amount they agreed upon. But then he pays the other workers the same amount as the first. At this the first workers complain and here is the rest:

[12] Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. [13] But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? [14] Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. [15] Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? [16] So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

I don't get it, do you?

[Heisenberg]

My guess is that it's saying anyone who "comes to Christ" will receive the same reward, regardless of when they do so. The vineyard represents the Kingdom of Heaven (i.e serving God). The workers represent the faithful Christians. Basically, Jesus is saying it's never too late to start serving God. The equal pay for different working hours is related to the concept of God's grace (i.e. "good works" do not merit a greater reward from God).

[Rich]

I suspect the parable is about the Jews and the Gentiles. The Jews are the early workers the Gentiles are the late comers. It basically means that the Jews get no privileges in the new Covenant despite their ancient allegiance to the one true God.

[nonesuch]

My guess is that it's saying anyone who "comes to Christ" will receive the same reward, regardless of when they do so.

Thanks H. That sounds more than plausible but what would you make of 20:15 "Is it not lawful..."? I mean it's not like grace has to conform with law.

It basically means that the Jews get no privileges in the new Covenant despite their ancient allegiance to the one true God.

This seems plausible as well. Also thanks for the input.

[Heisenberg]

Thanks H. That sounds more than plausible but what would you make of 20:15 "Is it not lawful..."? I mean it's not like grace has to conform with law.

The Protestant angle would stress the sovereignty of God. That verse is essentially saying that, since God is the source of the moral law, anything He chooses to do is "lawful", and He does not have to give reasons. It relates to the reformed doctrine of unconditional election.

[Potemkin]

I read it as being essentially an assertion of the equality of all believers. If you are saved by Christ, then you are saved by Christ. It makes no difference when it happened, nor do you receive privileges for being saved before somebody else. All are equal, no matter when they came to Christ, or how little or how much they have worked for the Church.

[nonesuch]

Thanks Heisenburg and Potemkin. I get it now. I don't know what to make of unconditional election. I guess I don't have to make anything of it. But I wonder if the elect, being saved from sin, are the Saints? Also, why parables?

[Heisenberg]

I don't know what to make of unconditional election. I guess I don't have to make anything of it.

I've always found it strange that Calvinists, who believe in unconditional election, also happen to be some of the most vocal Christians when it comes to proselytising. If the "elect" have been unalterably chosen before the beginning of time, what on earth is the point?

But I wonder if the elect, being saved from sin, are the Saints?

That's the Reformed view - "saint" simply means "Christian", as far as I'm aware. There's no special veneration for any of the Catholic saints (apart from maybe the apostles, Gospel writers and St Paul).

Also, why parables?

The idea is that only the "elect" are supposed to be able to understand them, while the Hellbound, reprobate degenerates are all baffled. Of course, this is all undone because Jesus explains loads of the parables to the apostles anyway.

[Plaro]

I love this story, it is one of my favourite out of the bible.

For myself the story points out the judging and ego games that we play. By following god and reaching at kingdom of heaven we all get rewarded with the same price. Yet to some fortune and grace seemingly comes easier and faster then to others. Yet the reward is all the same. Jealousy and guilt can come of this.

Be you of good fortune or bad. If of good, a person might look down on others because of it or feel guilty of it, or if of bad one might be envious of others fortunes and feel inadequacy of his/hers. Yet who are we to judge, who the divine decide to rule and for whom to follow. To whom they amass great fortune and to whom poverty. Because, otherwise, without this understanding there is jealousy and sin that prevent one to see kingdom of heaven.

Easy to say, but to not judge and envy others, is the hardest thing to do. Even though simple, but really difficult. Like if you meet a person next time, and not judge them or evaluate them. Can one do it. It is simple, bur really hard to do. Hard enough to get judgment out of one's mind, harder to purify the heart I find. Envy can go deep, you see someone on facebook traveling to place you always wanted. Envy and sorrow begins to ache at the heart. lol

Actually yes, facebook and how a lot of people interact with such social media, is a perfect analogy of this story.

Also, another thing I see this story is trying to show, is to do things without expectations, without want for reward. As a sacrifice to god.

[Doug64]

I look at it from a slightly different angle, that in the end God isn't so much interested in what you believe, or what you do, but what you are - and that to God it doesn't matter at what point in your life you achieve that character, such that you have repented of your past sins and out of the goodness of your heart you feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and comfort the afflicted. Come to Him early or late, God will welcome you all the same.

However, a late arrival doesn't wash away all that has happened leading up to it. I think another parable, also one of my favorites, that illustrates this point is that of the Parable of the Lost Son, where one son takes his inheritance and squanders it while the other remains faithful to their father. Everyone remembers the reaction of the father when his lost son returns:

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

“The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

“But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.

But people tend to forget the postscript, when the faithful brother finds out what the celebration is all about and is less than happy, and their father's response:

“The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’

“‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”

The lost son is welcomed back as if he had never left, and the father celebrates at his return. But the lost son cannot rewind the clock, to recover all the missed blessings that he would have received from continued faithfulness, and that the faithful son has enjoyed.

[ThirdTerm]

This parable shows that the Gentiles should be accorded with equal privileges and advantages with the Jews who worshipped God first and the first group of labourers were the Jews and it was the Gentiles who were hired by the master in the final hours of the day to work at the vineyard. The declaration that the last shall be first and the first last may have alienated many Jews who initially followed Jesus at the time as it put the Romans above the Jews and he was a very divisive figure for his own ethnic group, who denied the very notion that the Jews were the chosen people. Even today, some Christians believe that the Jews would not be saved until they convert to Christianity and the New Testament contains the seeds of anti-Semitism, some of which may have been inserted by the Romans, and the parable may also insinuate Christianity's supremacy over Judaism.

[youtube]m5oeSh66nhk[/youtube]

[Doug64]

This parable shows that the Gentiles should be accorded with equal privileges and advantages with the Jews who worshipped God first and the first group of labourers were the Jews and it was the Gentiles who were hired by the master in the final hours of the day to work at the vineyard. The declaration that the last shall be first and the first last may have alienated many Jews who initially followed Jesus at the time as it put the Romans above the Jews and he was a very divisive figure for his own ethnic group, who denied the very notion that the Jews were the chosen people. Even today, some Christians believe that the Jews would not be saved until they convert to Christianity and the New Testament contains the seeds of anti-Semitism, some of which may have been inserted by the Romans, and the parable may also insinuate Christianity's supremacy over Judaism.

A few problems with this. First is that Jesus himself focused almost exclusively on Jews, only involving himself with non-Jews when they sought him out, such as the centurion with a sick servant, or when passing between Judea to Galilee, such as the Samaritan woman at the well.

Second is that the earliest Christians didn't generally consider themselves distinct from the Jews, but the true House of Israel. Certainly they had plenty of converts out in the Empire that were either Hellenized Jews happy to find a Jewish sect that would allow them to more easily interact with the wider society or Gentiles attracted to Judaism that didn't want to deal with the restrictive dietary, etc., laws.

Third is that this parable isn't the only place where Jesus uses variations of “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” Consider the Parable of the Two Sons in the next chapter, where at the end Jesus tells "the chief priests and the elders of the people": “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him." Then at the end of the Parable of the Tenants immediately after, he tells them, “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."

So all told, I'd say that a better explanation for the latecomers are those who had previously led lives of sin who, choosing to follow Jesus, not only equal but surpass the righteousness of the Pharisees, chief priests and elders that were the ostensible leaders of God's chosen people. Whether those latecomers were Jews or Gentiles seems to me irrelevant.

[Ummon]

God is a libertarian.

[magnocrat]

This is about the grass always being greener on the other side of the fence. It shows human nature for what it is with deadly accuracy. No matter how goovvd things are we are never satisfied.

[Rich]

I don't know what to make of unconditional election. I guess I don't have to make anything of it.

I've always found it strange that Calvinists, who believe in unconditional election, also happen to be some of the most vocal Christians when it comes to proselytising. If the "elect" have been unalterably chosen before the beginning of time, what on earth is the point? :?:

That's whay Calvin is one of the most degenerate filth that ever lived. The Catholics had an excuse for torturing, burning and murdering Heretics that they were saving others form being led astray into eternal Hell. Calvin had no excuse for his murders of unbelievers. I folow my own version of the Golden rule. Treat Calvinists like they treated non believers, treat Muslims the way they've treated Pagans. treat Judaists the way they treated the Caananites.

Also, why parables?

The idea is that only the "elect" are supposed to be able to understand them, while the Hellbound, reprobate degenerates are all baffled. Of course, this is all undone because Jesus explains loads of the parables to the apostles anyway.

This may be due to Mark's messianic secret. Paul's Jesus had probably never been on Earth at all, but he certainly lived a life of humiliation and obscurity. He was killed by the demons, the rulers of this sinful age in ignorance of who he was. Only after the Resurrection did Jesus come into his power and glory. Knowledge of Jesus was revealed through study of the scriptures. The Jewish scriptures were long seen as multi-layered documents with encoded meanings, teaching and predictions. Later these revelations were reinterpreted as appearances and Jesus started to come down from heaven to perform miraculous and wondrous acts.

Later still these acts and wonders were grouped together in a life on Earth that had supposedly taken place in the recent past. The people to whom Jesus had first been revealed were reinvented as companions of an Earthly wandering teacher. Mark had to marry up the humble, obscure and unknown Jesus of Paul with the Miracle working, necromancing, superman who raised stinking corpses from the dead. Hence the messianic secret where Jesus' true status is recognised by and revealed to the demons, but remains hidden from the crowds. Note in Mark it is never really revealed what Jesus' teaching to the crowds actually was. We are just told that people were awed by it. Because in Mark, unlike Matthew and Luke Jesus' only real teaching is himself. As that was still a secret know first to the demons and then only to his closest disciples, he actually had nothing to teach the crowd.

A warning to any Son's of the most high that are stalking the Earth right now who wish to keep their true status secret, if you start, feeding thousands from a few fishes and loafs of bread, curing lepers and raising people from the dead, people tend to notice shit like that.

[Embrace]

The verse is a complaint against egoism.
The first workers feel they are entitled to more, simply because they worked more.
But what they don't realise, because of their ego, is that the householder is God.
And that it doesn't matter to Him how much work you may have done, according to your standards.
What matters to Him, si the work you have done according to His standards.
Those are the standards He will judge by.
Not yours.

[Hindsite]

To me this parable show the compassion and charity of the boss to those that were willing to stick it out in hopes of getting hired even if they were only going to make a small amount for waiting many hours to get hired. Many would have given up and went home and then come back to get hired the next day. The boss was fair by giving all the same pay that was promised to the first workers, because they all spent the same amount of time and it was not the late workers fault that they were not among the first chosen.

This also represents what the believer can expect to receive in the Kingdom from our Lord and Savior.

[nonesuch]

...the same pay that was promised to the first workers, because they all spent the same amount of time and it was not the late workers fault that they were not among the first chosen.

Thanks, Hindsite. Most all the responses here seem viable (even the political interpretations). Your emphasis on the disposition of the un-hired workers is, I think, rightly placed and relevant. What do you say of the last line: "...for many be called, but few chosen."?

[Potemkin]

What do you say of the last line: "...for many be called, but few chosen."?

It's a metaphor relating to the practice of the unemployed gathering at a building site or a farm, waiting to be hired for the day. The potential employer will call the gathered unemployed workers to him in the morning, and will then select which workers he will hire for the day. The rest would then have to go home again, or else move on to another building site or farm in the hope of being hired for the day there. This practice still happens to this day. Many are called, but few are chosen.

[nonesuch]

It's a metaphor relating to the practice of the unemployed gathering at a building site or a farm, waiting to be hired for the day. The potential employer will call the gathered unemployed workers to him in the morning, and will then select which workers he will hire for the day. The rest would then have to go home again, or else move on to another building site or farm in the hope of being hired for the day there. This practice still happens to this day. Many are called, but few are chosen.

Well... I can see how being called by the potential employer and then not chosen works but on the other end (of the metaphor) if one is called to Christ isn't that the same as being chosen?