THE GRACIOUS EMPLOYER
(MATTHEW 20:1-16)
1. INTRODUCTION
The English word parable refers to ‘a short story using events or facts of everyday life to illustrate a moral or spiritual truth’.[1] But the term parable in the bible has different shades of meaning. The Hebrew word masal occurs in the First Testament thirty-nine times with a range of meaning: an expression of contempt (cf. 1 King 9:7;[2] Job 17:6); a short popular saying (cf. 1 Sam 24:13; Prov 1:1; 10:1); an allegory (cf. Ezek 17:2; 24:3); a prophetic discourse (cf. Num 23:7; Job 27:1).[3] In the Second Testament, masal is translated as parabole in Greek. Parabole too, like masal has a broader meaning in the Gospels: a proverb (cf. Lk 4:23); a riddle (cf. Mk 3:23); a comparison and a story (cf. Lk 13:6-9; Mt 22:1-14).[4] Hence it is difficult to give a fixed meaning to both masal and parabole in the bible.
The parables in the gospels are of three types: 1) a parable proper, which is “an extended metaphor (an implied comparison) referring to a fictional event or events narrated in past time to express a moral or spiritual truth”;[5] 2) a similitude, which is “an extended simile (an explicit comparison using “like” or “as”). It is a comparison relating a typical or recurring event in real life and is often expressed in the present tense”;[6] 3) an exemplary story, which “presents a positive or negative character (or both) who serves as an example to be imitated or whose traits and actions are to be avoided. Either explicitly or implicitly the example story says, ‘Go and do (or do not do) likewise’”.[7]
In fact, there are evidences of parables antecedent to Jesus, both in the First Testament[8] and extra biblical literature particularly in the rabbinic literature where “literally hundreds of passages in the Midrashim, Tosefta, and Talmud begin with the label masal, and they often use introductory formulas identical to those found in the synoptics (“it is like…”, “to what shall it be compared…?”, etc.)”.[9] Still, it is all clear from the observation of K. R. SNODGRASS, that “there is no evidence of anyone prior to Jesus using parables as consistently, creatively and effectively as he did”.[10] Therefore the parables of Jesus as documented in the gospels [11] are unique, that they “reflect with peculiar clarity the character of his good news, the eschatological nature of his preaching, the intensity of his conflict with Pharisaism”.[12]
In a nutshell, Jesus has used parables excessively as teaching method to describe primarily who God is – a loving, faithful and merciful Father, who is madly in love with humanity (cf. Lk 10:30-37; 15:11-32); who man is – a child of God, who has only to open himself to God and receive salvation (cf. Mt 20:1-16); who Jesus and his mission is – his life is the generous gift of the Father to humanity and the realization of the project of God in a scandalous way; and secondarily to nullify the existing system which hinders the meeting of God and human (cf. Lk 15:11-32).[13]
This paper studies the parable of the Gracious Employer[14] recorded only in the gospel of Matthew through the exegetical method in order to draw out its meaning in itself as far as possible, and to reread it against the background of present condition. However, while isolating the text for study, careful attention is also given to the inseparability of the text with its present context, theology of the evangelist, etc., in so far as it is part and parcel of the gospel of Matthew.
2. DELIMITATION
Though a number of scholars do demark differently,[15] most of the biblical scholars consider Mt 20:1-16 a unit in itself,[16] because it has: a beginning “For the kingdom of God is like a householder” (v.1a) like any other kingdom parables (cf. Mt 13:44a; 45; 47a); a body material which talks about the graciousness of the employer towards his workers (vv.1b-15); and a conclusion (v.16). Besides this, there can be other criteria such as: employer–worker, hiring–paying, morning–evening, market–vineyard, last–first, hours, denarius, to demark the parable into vv.1-16. However, this paper would focus only on Mt 20:1-16, considering it to be a single pericope.
3. TEXTUAL CRITICISM
Textual criticism “studies the variant readings found in the ancient manuscripts and tries to arrive at the form of the original text. Consulting several reliable translations can alert us to the textual problems within the manuscripts, the interpretative decisions facing the translator, and the different philosophies of translation”.[17] The saying “for many be called, but few chosen” (v.16b) is omitted,[18] based on the authority of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and the Coptic Versions.[19] Despite this, a few sacred books have retained it.[20] Moreover, it is also not found in some of the manuscripts.[21] In addition, v.16 is entirely missing in the Gospel of Thomas.[22] The rest of the material has come down the ages without any textual problem. The question “Or do you begrudge my generosity?” (v.15b, RSV) is translated varyingly as – “Or are you envious because I am generous?” (NRSV), and “Is thy eye evil because I am good?” (Douay Version).
4. PARALLEL LITERATURE
Some of the scholars consider this parable a Matthean version of the Lucan parable of the Merciful Father (Lk 15:11-32) because of their close resemblance of content, that the first group and the elder brother grumble against the benevolence of the owner and father towards the last comers and younger brother respectively.[23]
There has been an evidence of rabbinical parallel in the Jerusalem Talmud with close resemblance, which is in fact a funeral oration in the form of a parable on Rabbi Bun bar Hijja, a distinguished scholar who died around 325 c.e., and narrated by R. Ze‘ere, one of the colleagues of the dead scholar.[24] He narrated a parable about a king who hired several labourers. After two hours of work, the king at his inspection noticed a labourer more industrious and skillful than the rest, and so he kept with him until evening in order to accompany him as he moved around. In the evening the king paid everybody equally, which made the labourers to murmur against the one who worked only two hours and accompanied the king for the rest of the hours. The king replied that he had not wronged and asserted that one who had worked only two hours had done more than the whole day’s labour of the rest. At the end, R. Ze‘ere identified Rabbi Bun bar Hijja with this privileged labourer because he could achieve more than a gray-haired scholar in a hundred years, just in a short span of twenty-eight years, which pleased God that he took him to himself.[25]
The existence of a rabbinical parallel also raises a question whether R. Ze‘ere had used a parable of Jesus, or Jesus himself had recast a Jewish parable. But the date of the rabbinical version asserts the priority to Jesus, for Rabbi Bun bar Hijja and his colleagues are of fourth century c.e. Moreover, apart from the similarities, there are essential differences in the rabbinical version: the owner of the vineyard is a king; the king walks with his worker for about ten hours; and the worker of king’s choice has done a great work in a short time which the rest could not, even with their full hours.[26] Therefore the transformation of the parable in the mouth of the rabbinical scholar seems to suggest the priority and authenticity of the parable of Jesus, and its considerable influence on the rabbinical teaching. In addition, v.16a has parallels in Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 654, Ligion 3, which reads: “… For many that are first shall be last, and the last first, and few shall find it”; and yet another, Barnabas 6:13 states: The Lord said, “Behold, I make the last things like the first”.[27]
5. FORM CRITICISM
The form criticism of the Second Testament aims “to explain the literary character of the gospels and their place in the history of literature, and to analyse the material used by the evangelists, and trace it back to the oral tradition and sociological roots conditioning its form”.[28] In other words, it finds out the origin and history of the pericopes of the gospels, which have their roots and development in both sitz im leben of Jesus and the early community.[29] The general literary form of the passage is, third person narrative, and specifically it falls under the category of parable proper,[30] like that of kingdom parables – the Sower (Mt 13:4-9); the Weeds (Mt 13:24-30); the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl (Mt 13:44-46). Still, a scrutiny into the pericope would reveal other literary forms such as proverb or saying (v. 16a,b),[31] rhetorical question (vv.13b,15a,b),[32] and dialogue (vv. 4,6b-7,12-15)[33] in a pattern of dramatic monolouge. The plentiful presence of the literary device like kinetic imagery in the form of phrases like, “went out”, “agreeing with”, “sent into”, “going out”, “standing idle”, “hired about”, “made equal”, “on receiving”, “grumbled at”, “scorching heat”, “replied to”, etc., give a cinematic flavour to this parable.
6. SOURCE CRITICISM
Source criticism “asks whether the document being studied had a source before it, what the source tried to say, and what was the relationship of the author to the source”.[34] In other words it helps to recognize the origin of the written word.[35] And studies on the source criticism of the synoptic gospels have established that around 330 verses including the parable of the Gracious Employer are proper to the gospel of Matthew, without any parallel in the gospels of Mark and Luke.[36] Since this parable is found only in the gospel of Mathew and not in the others, in spite of Matthew’s dependence on Mark and Q source, it can be accordingly understood as from Matthean special source. However, M. Eugene BORING considers Mt 20: 1-14a, “originally an independent pre-Matthean unit in the oral tradition”.[37] Whereas, Jan LAMBRECHT entitles vv.1b-15 to Jesus himself,[38] and Robert H. STEIN thinks that along with the parable proper, v.16a - an independent proverb found in the synoptics,[39] goes back to Jesus himself.[40] Still, some others hold that v.16a and v.16b (cf. Mt 22:14) have floated freely in the oral tradition as common as any other proverb.[41] As a conclusion, vv.1b-15 are original words of Jesus, and have been handed over by a Matthean special source. Verses 1a,16a,b are from the evangelist himself[42] in order to fit in the parable in its present context.
7. REDACTION CRITICISM
The clause “for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder” (v.1a) acts as an introductory verse to the parable, which is typically Matthean in style, for often Matthew begins in the same manner (cf. Mt 13:24,31,33,43,44,45; 18:23; 22:2; 25:1), and the preposition “for” (v.1a) functions to link this parable with the preceding passage, and therefore v.1a is editorial obviously.[43] Biblical exegetes have spelt out various suggestions for the use of proverb or saying (v.16a,b) as a conclusion to the parable either by the evangelist or the final editor. David R. BAUER, delimiting the parable as Mt 19:30–20:16, views that it may form an inclusio[44] around the intervening parable, and according to him “Matthew is fond of inclusio and uses it frequently throughout his gospel”.[45] M. Eugene BORING extends the secondary verses to vv.14b-16 and holds that the addition is in view of Matthean allegorical interpretation.[46] Albert KIRK and Robert E. OBACH see the whole parable as an explanation to Mt 19:30 in the context of promise of reward.[47] Eta LINNEMANN considers v.16 as an application, though it does not fit the sense of the parable, devised by the evangelist “to strengthen the warning that is given to the disciples along with promise in 19:27-30, that their position of precedence should not mislead them into exalting themselves”.[48] Edmund FLOOD remarks thus: “Matthew was using the parable (Mt 20:1-16) to explain why the gospel message first offered to the Jews had in fact been received by the gentiles, and it is he who seems to have linked the parable with v.16”.[49] Robert H. STEIN opines that the conclusion (v.16) has been placed by Matthew at this point, because of Mt 20:8b which runs, “call the labourers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first,” likewise he has also added the ending of the parable of the rich man at this point.[50]
Joachim JEREMIAS proposes a few convincing suggestions, that v.16a,b are known as generalizing[51] logion (also cf. Mt 22:14; 25:13; Mk 4:22; Lk 18:14b) resulting from “a strong tendency to add conclusions to the parables, […] by employing them in this way it was intended to give the parables the widest possible applications”.[52] Proceeding further in pace with him, in spite of the secondary character of the generalizing conclusions (v.16a,b), they are significant in as much as they are part of the canonical text; they have acquired a moralizing sense; they are the voice of the early interpreter of the message of Jesus.[53]
8. CONTEXT
Joachim JEREMIAS observes a two-fold context for the parabolic sayings, “first, the original historical setting, not only of the parables, but of all the sayings of Jesus, in their individual, concrete situation in the activity of Jesus. Then, secondly, they (parables and all sayings) went on to live in the primitive Church. We only know the parables in the form which, they received from the primitive Church.”[54] Therefore, it is indeed tedious to bring out the original context in which Jesus uttered this parable, in so far as the parable is presented by the primitive Church with a secondary setting, at now. That’s why some scholars would state plainly that the original context is now lost[55] or the parable is addressed to a secondary audience.[56] Still, a close look into the context of this parable from various aspects would help to move closer to the original context.
8.1 Literary Context
In general, the evangelist has placed this unit within a larger literary unit, titled Growing Opposition to Jesus, consisting Mt 19:1-23:39.[57] Hence this parable shares a sense of apologia[58] along with other sub-units within Mt 19:1-23:39, since Jesus and his ministry is questioned by his opponents constantly. Furthermore, the larger unit itself is preceded by Mt 18:1-35 (Advice to a Divided Community), and succeeded by Mt 24:1-25:46 (the Coming of the Kingdom). The immediate context of this parable is that it appears in the context of Peter’s question regarding reward on the final day;[59] and it is affixed between Mt 19:16-30 (the Rich Young Man)[60] and Mt 20:17-19 (the Third Prediction of the Passion).[61] Moreover, this parable is closely linked with the preceding pericope, in the present context at least in three ways explicitly: 1) the inclusio (v.16a) connects it with Mt 19:30; 2) the preposition “for” (v.1a) clearly connects it with what precedes; 3) the catch word “receive” (vv.10-11) makes a knot with Mt 19:29. And Mt 19:16-30 is tied up with Mt 20:17-19 in terms of conversation between Jesus and his disciples.
8.2 Historical Context
Many biblical scholars, after analyzing closely the literary evidences within the gospel of Matthew and in comparison with others, have recognized that historically Jesus and his ministry had faced severe opposition from his religious opponents, especially the Pharisees and scribes. The gospels have enormous number of references to it.[62] Besides, Joachim JEREMIAS, after a detailed study on parables in the gospels, observes that the parables were originally aimed at the opponents or hostile crowd, and in the second stage the primitive Church applied them to the community.[63] Therefore, as Robert H. STEIN asserts, “in the sitz im leben of Jesus this parable was almost certainly addressed to those who opposed Jesus’ offer of God’s mercy and grace to the poor and outcasts”.[64] Accordingly, this parable wants to expose the unjustified and loveless criticism of the Pharisee and scribes originally,[65] and in the second stage it is applied to the secondary audience, namely, the disciples and then the community.[66]
8.3 Socio-Cultural Context
One of the characteristics of the parables of Jesus is that they reflect the day-to-day life situations in Palestine (cf. Mk 4:3-9,14-20; Mt 25:1-13; 21:33-43; Lk 18:9-14).[67] This parable too, portrays some elements of the socio-cultural situation of Palestine. As narrated, the farm workers are hired and paid as per the norms of Lev 19:13, and Deut 24:14-15 in Palestine, whereas, elsewhere agricultural works are usually done by the slaves,.[68] As Psalms 104:22-23 describes, the labour begins at the dawn and closes at the rising of the star; and in fact the expression “the burden of the day and the scorching heat” (v.12c) refers to the typical hot south wind of the Palestine region.[69] A denarius is usually paid as an average wage for a day’s labour (cf. Pliny 33.3; Tacitus Ann. 1.17).[70] Unemployment too is not uncommon[71] that workers would wait in the market places for some work; otherwise their families would be left to starve.[72] The question of the employer, “Is thy eye evil, because I am generous?” (v.15b, Douay Version), carries a cultural overtone of the belief in the malignancy of the dreaded evil eye.[73] This belief is based on the notion that “certain individuals, animals, demons, or gods had the power of injuring or casting a spell upon every object, animate or inanimate, on which their glance fell”.[74] In other words, it is believed that the power of the evil eye is effective by the rays emitted by the eye.[75] Thus evil eye is regarded as an indication of an evil heart and malicious intentions (cf. Prov 23:6-8; Sir 14:3-10).[76]
9. STRUCTURE
The parable is well structured with two distinctive parts.[77] The first part (vv.1-7) proceeds to narrate the urgency of the harvest and consequently the restless protagonist. But the second part (vv.8-16) brings a dramatic change in the scene of paying wages for the workers that the employer is depicted as the hero, and not the workers, by a two fold question in v.15. The generalizing logion (v.16) follows as the extension of this climax, and v.16a, by making the saying to occur in reverse order, forms a chiasm.[78] Furthermore, there are at least three sets of chiastic formulations running throughout the parable, making the verses a well-knitted texture. For example: 1) “what belongs to you” (v.14a) parallels “what belongs to me” (v.15a) and “what I choose to give” (v.14b) parallels with “what I choose with what belongs to me” (v.15a);[79] 2) “Is thy eye evil?” (v.15b1, Douay Version) with “because I am good” (v.15b2 Douay Version);[80] 3) “last…first…” (v.8) with “first…(v.10) last…” (v.12); “first” (v.13, one of them referring the first) with “last” (v.14); and “last…first…” (v.16a) with “first… last…” (v.16a).[81] The internal organism of the parable follows thus:
PART I. THE EMPLOYER’S HIRING OF WORKERS
v.1a Introductory Words
v.1b-2 Agreement on the Wages
v.3-7 Hiring Workers at Different Times
PART II. THE EMPLOYER’S PAYING OF WAGES
v.8 Instruction to the Steward
v.9-12 Grumbling of the Early Workers
v.13-15 Intervention of the Employer
v.16 Conclusion
10. TEXTUAL ANALYSIS
v.1a: These introductory words stand as a title to this parable by comparing the reign of God, neither to the householder, nor to the labourers, but to the whole situation (cf. Mt 25:14ff; Lk 19:12ff).[82] Matthew consistently uses the expression “kingdom of heaven”, merely as a circumlocution[83] against the wording “kingdom of God” in both Mark and Luke. Though kingdom of heaven in this particular parable implies an eschatological sense,[84] Matthew himself possesses the senses, both a present reality (cf. Mt 16:28; 24:32-36) and future reality (cf. Mt 6:10; 26:29).
vv.1b-2: The Employer goes out literally “together with the early morning” meaning “early in the morning”[85] to hire workers, as per the custom widely practiced in Palestine, for his vineyard. The vineyard itself is a rich imagery often used in the bible referring to the people of Israel (cf. Is 5:1-7). He haggles with a number of workers to be paid one denarius, a standard wage given for any manual labour, for a day’s[86]work which lasts from sunrise to sunset. Though the workers are passive, it is implicit from the context that they have agreed upon the norms of the employer.
vv.3-7: The owner goes out at the third hour meaning around 9 am[87] to the market place, hires some more labourers and promises them to pay what is right, by which the orientals would understand that “their pay would be a fraction of a denarius”.[88] Agreeing upon this they move to the vineyard. He does the same at the sixth hour meaning around 12 noon, and at the ninth hour meaning about 3 pm.[89] However, there is no mention of any agreement on the wage, probably they have presumed from their daily experiences. Once again he goes out at the eleventh hour meaning at 5 pm[90] to hire some more for his vineyard. This act of the householder almost at the close of the day suggests two things, although the parable in itself is not interested to make: 1) The employer’s hunting of work force as many as four different times in a day would mean that he is restless,[91]because the harvest day could be the previous day to Sabbath, which means to say that there is no more work possible,[92] or it could be at the onset of the rainy season.[93] 2) The frequent traveling of the employer seems to suggest a pressing harvest situation, for the grapes have to be collected and pressed at exact time in order to preserve the right sugar-content.[94]
The conversation of the vineyard owner with the last comers anticipates the significance of this group against its previous groups and particularly the first group. The reply of the last group, “no one has hired us” suggests that they suffer the fate of unemployment in spite of their desire to work, and accordingly their standing idle at the market place until at the end of the day does not mean laziness.[95] Here there is no evidence of any bargaining or promise on the part of the employer, but the workers seem to have responded positively in trust, so that they can take home at least a fraction of one denarius.
v.8: The instruction of the householder to his steward to pay every one “beginning with last” meaning including the last, projects him good, who acts as per the norms given in Lev 19:13 and Deut 24:14-15, so that his workers would go home comfortably with the wage before the nightfall.[96] Above all, the special order issued to the steward brings out a two-fold intention of the employer: 1) It is not the order of payment that matters, but all without any exception receive the subsistence wage.[97] 2) All, especially the first group, can witness the generosity of the owner towards the latecomers.[98]
vv.9-12: The eleventh hour workers receive a denarius surprisingly beyond their expectation according to the instruction (v.8).[99] When the turn of the first group comes, they are automatically lead to expect a higher sum of money than the last comers, but they are utterly disappointed when they are paid a denarius as per the agreement that they made at the beginning of the work. Their frustration gets expressed in grumbling against the householder for equating the final arrivals with them. In fact the grumblers have worked a full day under the scorching heat, whereas, the other group has toiled around an hour at the cool sunset. These differences make the full day toilers to accuse the employer of being unfair,[100] for they have considered that “the duration and hardship of their work entitle them to a higher rate of pay”[101] in view of the eleventh hour workers receiving one denarius.
vv.13-15: The intervention of the master of the vineyard is so natural and inevitable in the context of a dispute. He wisely answers to one of the protesters[102]who would mean representing the whole of the same workmen.[103] He addresses him with a title[104] “friend” which does not signify friendliness, because “the Greek word, which could also be rendered ‘my dear Sir’ or ‘my good man’, is generally used in addressing someone whose name one does not know”.[105] The farmer justifies his act by a two-fold argument that he is not unjust to them since they have received the agreed upon wage (vv.13-14a; cf. v.2); and as a householder he has full right over his possessions to the extent of disposing them equally even to the final arrivals, out of his generosity (vv.14b-15a).[106] After asserting his fairness thus, he accuses them in return for having an evil eye on his generosity, which seems to be the real issue of this parable.[107] The evil eye of the grumblers fails to perceive the benefactions of the master towards the undeserved ones, which eventually expose themselves to public shame even though the text does not mention explicitly.
vv.16a,b: The editorial addition of the independent proverbs gives a new twist and widens the application of the parable by their nature of generalization. Verse 16a, as an independent saying proposes, a reversal order, but in the context of the parable, it does not mean so,[108] because here all the workers, irrespective of their duration of hard work, receive a day’s wage. Further, with reference to the sitz im leben of Jesus, it is obvious, that the lasts in the Jewish community like poor, women, children, tax collectors, sinners, gentiles, etc., were the first ones to accept the reign of God and whereas the firsts, in other words, the religious elites, namely, Pharisees, scribes, Sadducees, were the last to recognize the kingdom proclaimed by Jesus.[109] And with reference to the Matthean setting, on the one hand, it recalls the good news first offered to Jews, but in fact received widely by the gentiles (cf. Lk 13:39; Rom 11:25ff),[110] and on the other hand, this seems to warn against the temptation among the early disciples to be on the top based on honour, seniority, long years of service, reward at the final day (cf. Mt 18:1; 20:20-28).[111] So also the other proverb, “Many are called but few are chosen” (v.16b) is applied in different levels: for instance, even though the whole Jewish people have been called to the kingdom by the prophets, only a remnant deserved to be chosen (cf. Is 1:9).[112]
11. THEOLOGY
This parable, by comparing the reign of God to the whole situation, pictures some of the salient features of God’s kingdom that Jesus proclaimed in contrast to the kingdom that the Jewish religious elites, especially the Pharisees propagated. The reign of God recognizes every human person including the little ones – the first group as well as the last comers, for what they really are; and showers benevolence on the undeserved without tampering justice. Whereas, in the Pharisees’ conception, reward is earned by one’s own efforts, hence it is in proportion. Thus it is exclusive, that obviously no others could compete with them.
The employer of this parable represents God himself[113] whose sublime characters are vividly pictured in the deeds of the vineyard master: 1) He is extremely generous and good[114] that he could pay equally the same wage to the eleventh hour workers, even though they deserve by justice a fraction of one denarius. 2) He is highly sensitive to recognize and care the labourers who were waiting until the evening for work; employ them so that their families may not starve; and pay them a subsistence wage so that they may sustain their families. 3) He alone takes initiative to go out several times in search of unnoticed people and it is he who gives dignity and a sense of meaning to them.[115]Again, the parable proceeds to clarify the identity of Jesus especially to his opponents as one who acts as God would act and his mission of going towards the social outcasts of Israel would assert the compassion and mercy of God towards the little ones. Therefore Jesus is what God is,[116] and consequently, his mission of reaching out to the tax collectors, sinners, children, etc., is in itself the mission of God himself.
Finally, humans are depicted as dignified beings that they are equally important and precious in the presence of God, in spite of their social difference within their socio-cultural system. They are capable of receiving the grace of God, as a gift in freedom and not as a merit out of their earning. In addition, there are a few ethical principles: 1) Justice is defined as giving one’s own due, and exhorted to keep up. 2) Mercy or generosity is above justice and it should not be exercised at the cost of justice. 3) Even at the hostile situation, a fellow human must be respected. 4) Ethics of any dialogue or meeting at the point of dispute demands discussion with the representatives and not with the crowd. 5) Work is noble. 6) From good comes good. 7) The goodness of any person deserves recognition and appreciation.
12. INTERPRETATTION
Down the ages, this parable has been interpreted in varied ways depending upon the context of the community by the commentators. Allegorical interpretation has been widely prevalent and dominant among the early Fathers, as their works would indicate. For instance: 1) Irenaeus (130–200 c.e.) explained that the first group represents the patriarchs and prophets of the First Testament, while the final arrivals, the disciples of Christ.[117] Again the vineyard stands for righteousness; the employer, the spirit of God; and the denarius, immortality.[118] 2) Origen (185–254 c.e.) who headed the famous catechetical school in Alexandria after his master Clement (150–215 c.e.) interprets: “the first shift of workers signifies the generation from creation to Noah; the second, those from Noah to Abraham; the third, those from Abraham to Moses; the fourth, those from Moses to Joshua; the fifth, those up to the time of Christ. The householder is God, while the penny represents salvation”.[119] 3) Bede of Jarrow (673–735 c.e.) describes that the vineyard owner is God himself; the vineyard is the Church; the labourers stand for the saints of all the times; and the denarius is the divinity of Christ.[120]
As it has been, the parable of the Gracious Employer seems to be having enduring relevance against the background of the present situation. The signs of the reign of God such as inclusive love, dignity of human persons, justice, optional preference for the insignificant people, depicted in this parable contrast the kingdom propagated by the powerful nations, especially USA, UK, and their allies specifically in view of the war against Iraq, in so far as they exhibit their power of weapon, economics, politics, over the poor nations; their means are through violence, killing, deprivation of basic necessities by way of embargo[121]; they place themselves as the sole caretakers of humanity; they monopolise the decision of the international community by their influence against the so-called enemies. So also the Rama Rajiyam advocated by some Hindu groups in the cross-cultural context of Indian sub-continent is intended at the cost of hatred and division. Hence Rama Rajiyam and the rule of the big brothers can never be a sign of the kingdom. In such a situation, both in the global and local spheres, discerning the will of God would mean voicing against such anti-signs as Jesus did by this parable against the Pharisees and scribes. In fact, many people of good will have already begun responding to God’s will by means of peaceful demonstrations, awareness meetings, etc.
God who is the center of the kingdom, represented in the employer of this parable literally goes in search of the people, who are pushed to the periphery, in order to dignify them as human persons by means of restoring their livelihood; show them generosity and goodness by preference. Hence any human being, even if one is a social outcast, genetically deformed, morally guilty, is precious and important in the sight of God. These characteristics of God the Father, expressed fictitiously in this parable, are actualized in Jesus, in as much as he stooped down to serve humanity by mingling with sinners, children, and women; had enjoyed table fellowship with tax collectors and Pharisees; and reached out the compassion of the Father to gentiles, Samaritans, Jews, and others. Therefore, whom so ever does any actions of human development, namely, social service, medical care for the poor and aged, cause of refugees, fight for rights, educational ministry, fight against any form of oppression on the poor nations, is indeed continuing the work of God – establishing the reign of God. By such people, whether believers or non-believers, lay or cleric, the project of the Trinity is remembered and relived. Hence such people can be called other Christs, in other words, sons and daughters of God.
The people like the first comers who are justly treated, are not expected to envy on the generosity shown on the least particularly the eleventh hour workers. This remains as an ever-lasting exhortation especially to the leaders and ministers in the Churches: not to claim any superiority in terms of age, talent, tradition, social status, since all the children of God are equally important for God; and not to have jealousy, when one of the colleagues is raised to higher office, rather to accept that as the will of God.
In addition, this parable because of its sublimity has drawn the attention of various people that the dalit theologians consider this, as one of the biblical support to uphold Dalit Theology as long as Jesus recognizes the rejected and dignifies them; the communist economists and liberation theologians view this, as a foundation, since it proposes payment on the basis of one’s fundamental needs; the ethicians see as a base for ethical practices like – respect for the protesters, way of behaving at the point of dispute; and the manual labourers imbibe great consolation for asserting the nobility of any labour especially against the glamour of so-called white-collar jobs and higher jobs.
13. CONCLUSION
The parable of the Gracious Employer delimited into Mt 20:1-16, has come down through the Matthean special source to a greater extent intact, except v.16b which is missing in some of the manuscripts. The existence of some sort of similar rabbinical parables especially R. Ze’ere’s funeral eulogy in 325 c.e., which is obviously a later origin, and the similarity of content in the parable of the Merciful Father (Lk 15:11-32) would establish the authenticity and origin to Jesus himself. The parable belongs to the form of parable proper, still there are other distinctive forms such as dialogue (vv.4,6b-7,12-15), rhetorical question (vv.13b,15a,b), and proverb (v.16a,b). The original parable narrated by Jesus would be merely vv.1b-15, and therefore vv.1a,16a,b are Matthean editorial works. Matthew has placed this within the general section termed Growing Opposition to Jesus (Mt 19:1-23:39) and it is immediately related with the preceding pericope by the preposition “for” (v.1a) and the inclusio (v.16a). Historically this is uttered by Jesus as a defense against his opponents to vindicate God’s goodness and generosity towards the little ones. But its canonical position at present, betrays a secondary setting in a two-fold way, namely, first to the disciples and then to the christian community which is composed of Jewish christians and gentile christians. The story is very appealing because of the realism of imageries common to Palestine and the plot crafted into two parts as hiring (vv.1-7) any paying (vv.8-16) with a chiastic pattern running through.
The story begins in a typical parabolic style–just direct, with an employer in search of work force at a market place for a vine harvest. As per the custom, an agreement is made for a payment of one denarius against a daylong work. The harvest seems to be very urgent that the master hunts for labourers until evening with a promise to pay a fair wage. At the time of payment, he pays every one equally. Naturally, the first group murmurs against the householder. Consequently, the intervention of the lord, thus brings out the issue of the parable – ‘why are you jealous’? Hence the message is direct, and in fact reaches the target.
The addition of an introduction (v.1a) makes the reign of God compared to the whole situation of the parable, and the conclusion (v.16a,b) widens the application especially to the disciples and then to the community. The theology evolves from the parable, namely: the reign of God is inclusive that it encompasses all the people irrespective of social differences; God is full of goodness, treats all equally, and shows his generosity especially to the unwanted ones; Jesus is what God is, and his mission is what God wills; human beings are lovable in the sight of God; has placed a heavy demand on every one to set the life according to the will of God. Therefore the people of God have obligation to be real signs of that kingdom; otherwise the life of faith of the Church becomes an empty one, teaching a shallow expression, liturgical celebration a social festivity. In other words, Church which is a sign and at the service of the kingdom, without these fundamental elements, can hardly represent the compassionate God to the world.
14. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sacred Books
THE HOLY BIBLE, Douay Version, London: Catholic Truth Society, 1963.
THE HOLY BIBLE, Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition for India, Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1973.
THE HOLY BIBLE, The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition for India, Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1999.
The Jerusalem Bible, London: Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd, and Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1985.
THE OPEN BIBLE, The New King James Version, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985.
Books
A. M. HUNTER, Interpreting the Parables, London: SCM Press Ltd., 1969.
Alexander JONES, The Gospel According to St Matthew, London: Geoffery Champman Ltd., 1965.
Anthony MARINELL, Understanding the Gospels: A Guide for Beginners, New York: Paulist Press, 1988.
Beda RIGAUX, Paul J. OLIGNY (trans.), The Testimony of St Matthew, Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1968.
Brad H. YOUNG, Jesus and his Jewish Parables: Rediscovering the Roots of Jesus’ Teaching, New York: Paulist Press, 1989.
Bruce VAWTER, The Four Gospels: An Introduction, Vol.II, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1969.
Burton H. THROCKMORTON, Gospel Parallels: A Synopsis of the First Three Gospels, Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1999.
Daniel J. HARRINGTON, Interpreting the New Testament: A Practical Guide, Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1980.
David R. BAUER, The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel: A Study in Literary Design, the Almond Press, 1988.
Edmund FLOOD, Parables for Now, Denville, New Jersey: Dimension Books, Inc., 1981.
Eta LINNEMANN, Parables of Jesus: Introduction and Exposition, London: S.P.C.K., 1966.
Jan LAMBRECHT, Out of the Treasure: The Parables in the Gospel of Matthew, Louvain: W. B. Eerdmans, Peeters Press, 1998.
Jan LAMBRECHT, Parables of Jesus: Insight and Challenge, Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1978.
Joachim JEREMIAS, The Parables of Jesus, Trowbridge, Wiltshire: Redwood Press Limited, 1972, edition 3.
John DRURY, The Parables in the Gospels, New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1985.
John P. MEIER, The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel, New York: Paulist Press, 1979.
Joseph FICHTNER, Many Things in Parables: Reflection for Life, New York: Alba House, 1999.
Madeleine I. BOUCHES, The Parables, Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1981.
Megan McKENNA, Parables: The Arrows of God, New York, Obris Books, 1995.
Norman PERRIN, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, New York: Harper&Row, Publishers, 1967.
Pheme PERKINS, Hearing the Parables of Jesus, New York: Paulist Press, 1981.
PIOVESAN, Christology (unpublished class notes), Mangalore: St Joseph’s Seminary, 1987.
Raymond E. BROWN, An Introduction to the New Testament, Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 2000.
Robert H. STEIN, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1981.
Robert H. STEIN, The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teaching, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminister Press, 1978.
Commentaries
Albert KIRK and Robert E. OBACH, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Toronto: Paulist Press, 1976.
Benedict T. VIVIANO, “The Gospel According to Matthew”, in Raymond E. BROWN, Joseph A. FITZMYER, Roland E. MURPHY, (ed.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1999.
Daniel J. HARRINGTON, “Matthew”, in Dianne BERGANT, Robert J. KARRIS, (ed.), The Collegeville Bible Commentary, Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1989.
E. DINKLER, “Form Criticism of the New Testament”, in Matthew BLACK, H. H. ROWLEY, (ed.), Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1962.
Eduard SCHWEIZER, David E. GREEN (trans.), The Good News According to Matthew, London: S.P.C.K., 1978.
George T. MONTAGUE, Companion God: A Cross-cultural Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, New Jersy: Paulist Press, 1989.
Henry WANSBROUGH, “St Matthew” in Reginald C. FULLER, Conleth KEARNS, (ed.), A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1969.
Howard Clark KEE, “The Gospel According to Matthew”, in Charles M. LAYMON, (ed.), The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1971.
K. STENDAHL, “Matthew”, in Matthew BLACK, H. H. ROWLEY, (ed.), Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1962.
M. Eugene BORING, “The Gospel of Matthew”, in Leander E. KECK, (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. VIII, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995.
Robert H. GUNDRY, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983.
Sherman E. JOHNSON and George A. BUTTRICK, “The Gospel According to St Matthew”, in George Arthur BUTTRICK, Nolan B. HARMON, (ed.), The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. VII, New York: Abingdon Press, 1951.
Wolfgang TRILLING, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Volume 2, John L. McKENZIE, (ed.), New Testament for Spiritual Reading, New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1981.
Journals
Barbara E. REID, “Puzzling Passages: Mt 20:1-15” in The Bible Today, Volume 35, Number 4, July 1997.
Diedrick A. NELSON, “An Exposition of Matthew 20:1-16”, in Interpretation, Vol. XXIX, No.3, July 1975.
John H. ELLIOTT, “Matthew 20:1-15: A Parable of Invidious Comparison and Evil Eye Accusation”, in Bible Theology Bulletin, Volume 22, Number 2, 1992.
Micheal L. BARRE, “The Workers in the Vineyard”, in The Bible Today, Volume 24, Number 3, May 1986.
Dictionaries
C. L. BLOMBERG, “Parable”, in Geoffrey W. BROMILEY, Everett F. HARRISON, Roland K. HARRISON, (ed.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol.3, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987.
K. R. SNODGRASS, “Parable” in Joel B. GREEN, Scot McKNIGHT, I. Howard MARSHALL, (ed.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Versity Press, 1992.
Richard H. HIERR, “Kingdom of God”, in Paul J. ACHTEMEIER, (ed.), Harper’s Bible Dictionary, Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 2002.
15. APPENDIX
15.1 Parables in the First Testament
1. Balaam's parable of the Moabites and Israelites, Num 23:13‑24
2. Jotham's parable of the trees who wanted a king, Judg 9:7‑15
3. Nathan's parable of a poor man's lamb, 2 Sam 12:1‑7
4. The woman of Tekoa's parable of the two sons, 2 Sam 14:5‑7
5. A parable to King Ahab about an escaped prisoner, I Kings 20:35‑43
6. Jehoash's parable of the thistle and the cedar, 2 Kings 14:9
7. Isaiah's parable of the vineyard, Is 5:1‑7
8 Ezekiel's parable of the two eagles and the vine, Ezek 17:2‑10
9. Ezekiel's parable of Me lion's cubs, Ezek 19‑1‑9
10. Ezekiel's parable of ‑the vine planted by water, Ezek 19:10‑14
11. Ezekiel's parable of the boiling pot, Ezek 24:3‑5
15.2 The Parables in each Synoptic Gospel
MARK
Parable The Sower 4:3‑9,14‑20
Similitude The Growing Seed 4:26‑29
Similitude The Mustard Seed 4:30‑32
Parable The Wicked Tenants 12:1‑11
MATTHEW
Similitude The Two Builders 7:24‑27
Parable The Sower 13:3‑9,18‑23
Parable The Weeds and the Wheat 13:24‑30,36‑43
Similitude The Mustard Seed 13:31‑32
Similitude The Leaven 13:33
Parable The Treasure 13:44
Parable The Pearl 13:45‑46
Similitude The Fishnet 13:47‑50
Similitude The Lost Sheep 18:12‑14
Parable The Unmerciful Servant 18:23‑35
Parable The Laborers in the Vineyard 20:1‑16
Parable The Two Sons 21:28‑132
Parable The Wicked Tenants 21:33‑43
Parable The Great Feast; 22:2‑10,11‑14
The Wedding Garment
Similitude The Faithful or Unfaithful Servant 24:45‑51
Parable The Ten Maidens 25:1‑13
Parable The Talents (The Pounds) 25:14‑30
LUKE
Similitude The Two Builders 6:47‑49
Parable The Two Debtors 7:41‑43
Parable The Sower 8:5‑8,11
Ex. Story The Good Samaritan 10:29‑37
Similitude The Friend at Midnight 11:5‑8
Ex. Story The Rich Fool 12:16‑21
Similitude The Faithful or Unfaithful Servant 12:42‑46
Parable The Barren Fig Tree 13:6‑9
Similitude The Mustard Seed 13:18‑19
Similitude The Leaven 13:20‑21
Parable The Great Feast 14:15‑24
Similitude The Tower Builder 14:28‑30
Similitude The Warring King 14:31‑32
Similitude The Lost Sheep 15:3‑7
Similitude The Lost Coin 15:8‑10
Parable The Prodigal Son 15:11‑32
Parable The Unjust Steward 16:1‑8
Ex. Story The Rich Man and Lazarus 16:19‑31
Similitude The Master and Servant 17:7‑10
Parable The Persistent Widow 18:1‑8
Ex. Story The Pharisee and the Tax Collector 18:9‑14
Parable The Pounds (The Talents) 19:11‑27
Parable The Wicked Tenants 20:9‑18
15.3 Parables Found Only in John
Good Shepherd (10: 1‑ 18; cf. Mt 18:12‑14; Lk 15:1‑7)
True Vine (15:1‑8)
15.4 Theme Based Classification
I. Teaching Parables
A. About the Kingdom of God
1 . The Soils (Matthew 13.3‑8; Mark 4.4‑8; Luke 8.5‑8)
2. The Thistles (Matthew 13.24‑30)
3. The Mustard Seed (Matthew 13.31, 32; Mark 4.30‑32; Luke 13.18, 19)
4. The Yeast (Matthew 13.33; Luke 13.20, 21)
5. The Treasure (Matthew 13.44)
6. The Pearl (Matthew 13.45, 46)
7. The Fishing Net (Matthew 13.47‑50)
8. The Growing Wheat (Mark 4.26‑29)
B. About Service and Obedience
1. The Workers in the Harvest (Matthew 20.1‑16)
2. The Loaned Money (Matthew 25.14‑30)
3. The Nobleman's Servants (Luke 19.11‑27)
4. The Servant's Role (Luke 17.7‑10)
C. About Prayer
1. The Friend at Midnight (Luke 11.5‑8)
2. The Unjust Judge (Luke 18.1‑8)
D. About Neighbors
1.The Good Samaritan (Luke 10.30‑37)
E. About Humility
1. The Wedding Feast (Luke 14.7‑11)
2. The Proud Pharisee and the Corrupt Taxpayer (Luke 18.9‑14)
F. About Wealth
1. The Wealthy Fool (Luke 12.16‑21)
2. The Great Feast (Luke 14.16‑24)
3. The Dishonest Accountant (Luke 16.1‑9)
II. Gospel Parables
A. About God's Love
1. The Lost Sheep (Matthew 18.12‑14; Luke 15.3‑7)
2. The Lost Coin (Luke 15.8‑10)
3. The Lost Son (Luke 15.11‑32)
B. About Thankfulness
1. The Forgiven Loans (Luke 7.41‑43)
III. Parables of Judgment and the Future
A. About Christ's Return
1. The Ten Virgins (Matthew 25.1‑13)
2. The Wise and Faithful Servants (Matthew 24.45‑51; Luke 12.42‑48)
3. The Traveling Boss (Mark 13.34‑37)
B. About God's Values
1. The Two Sons (Matthew 21.28‑32)
2. The Wicked Farmers (Matthew 21.33, 34; Mark 12.1‑9; Luke 20.9‑16)
3. The Unproductive Fig Tree (Luke 13.6‑9)
4. The Marriage Feast (Matthew 22.1‑14)
5. The Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18.23‑35)
G. Robert John Kennedy
III Theology, 25 February 2003
* This paper was presented on 5 March 2003 in the presence of Rev. Fr Stany Goveas, the guide of the Rereading the Parables Seminar Group.
* This was published in Vasanthem 2002-2003, the annual magazine of the Beschi Tamil Academy, St Joseph’s Seminary, Mangalore.
[1] Robert H. STEIN, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1981, p.15.
[2] Henceforth, all quotations are from THE HOLY BIBLE, Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition for India, Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1973. They are immediately noted by permitted abbreviations for the particular book in the Bible. Moreover the study of the parable is essentially based on the text of this Bible.
[3] C. L. BLOMBERG, “Parable”, in Geoffrey W. BROMILEY, Everett F. HARRISON, Roland K. HARRISON, (ed.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol.3, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987, p.656. Also cf. Robert H. STEIN, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, pp.16-18; Robert H. STEIN, The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teaching, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminister Press, 1978, pp.35,36.
[4] cf. K. R. SNODGRASS, “Parable” in Joel B. GREEN, Scot McKNIGHT, I. Howard MARSHALL, (ed.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Versity Press, 1992, p.596; Robert H. STEIN, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, pp.16-18.
[5] K. R. SNODGRASS, Ibid., p.593. Also cf. Madeleine I. BOUCHES, The Parables, Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1981, p.19. For example: The Wicked Tenants (Mk 2:1-11), The Weeds and the Wheat (Mt 13:2-30, 36-43), The Treasure (Mt 13:44), The Prodigal Son (Lk 15:11-32).
[6] K. R. SNODGRASS, Ibid., p.593. Also cf. Madeleine I. BOUCHES, Ibid., p.17-18. For example: the Growing Seed (Mk 4:26-29), the Two Builders (Mt 7:24-27), the Friend at Night (Lk 11:5-8).
[7] K. R. SNODGRASS, Ibid., p.593. Also cf. Madeleine I. BOUCHES, Ibid., p.20. For example: The Good Samaritan (Lk 10:29-37), The Rich Man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31), The Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Lk 18:9-14).
[8] For example: Balaam’s parable of the Moabites and Israelites (Num 23:13-24), Jotham’s parable of the Trees who wanted a King (Judg 9:7-15), Nathan’s parable of a Poor Man’s Lamb (2 Sam 12:1-7), Isaiah’s parable of the Vineyard (Is 5:1-7).
[9] C. L. BLOMBERG, op.cit., p.659.
[10] K. R. SNODGRASS, op.cit., p.594. Also cf. Robert H. STEIN, The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teaching, p.44.
[11] There are at least forty parables and the number may reach even sixty-five, if the sayings about persons (cf. Mt 7:3-5) are included.
[12] H. D. WENDLAND, ‘Von den Gleichmissen Jesu und ihrer Botchaft’, in Die Theologin, 11 (1941), pp.17-29 referred in Joachim JEREMIAS, The Parables of Jesus, Trowbridge, Wiltshire: Redwood Press Limited, 1972, edition 3, p.11.
[13] PIOVESAN, Christology (unpublished class notes), Mangalore: St Joseph’s Seminary, 1987, p.37.
[14] Several versions are found as: The Workers in the Vineyard, The Good Employer, The Labourers and the Hours, The Vineyard Labourers, The Labourers, The Labourers in the Vineyard, The Surprising Righteousness of God, etc.
[15] Mt 19:1-20:16 (Various stages of Life under the Cross): John P. MEIER, The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel, New York: Paulist Press, 1979, pp.136-141; Mt 19:27-20:16 (Accepting the Gentiles in the Church): Robert H. GUNDRY, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983, pp.391-399; Mt 19:30-20:16a (Parable of the Vineyard Labourers): Henry WANSBROUGH, “St Matthew” in Reginald C. FULLER, Conleth KEARNS, (ed.), A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1969, p.939.
[16] cf. Madeleine I. BOUCHES, op.cit., p.88; Bruce VAWTER, The Four Gospels: An Introduction, Vol.II, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1969, p.103; Albert KIRK and Robert E. OBACH, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Toronto: Paulist Press, 1976, p.219; Raymond E. BROWN, An Introduction to the New Testament, Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 2000, p.195; Benedict T. VIVIANO, “The Gospel According to Matthew”, in Raymond E. BROWN, Joseph A. FITZMYER, Roland E. MURPHY, (ed.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1999, p.663; Burton H. THROCKMORTON, Gospel Parallels: A Synopsis of the First Three Gospels, Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1999, p.132. Also cf. THE HOLY BIBLE, Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition for India, Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1973; The Jerusalem Bible, London: Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd, and Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1985, p.1642; THE OPEN BIBLE, The New King James Version, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985, p.994.
[17] Daniel J. HARRINGTON, Interpreting the New Testament: A Practical Guide, Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1980, p.125.
[18] cf. The Jerusalem Bible, London: Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd, and Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1985, p.1642; THE OPEN BIBLE, The New King James Version, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985, p.994; THE HOLY BIBLE, Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition for India, Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1973.
[19] cf. Sherman E. JOHNSON and George A. BUTTRICK, “The Gospel According to St Matthew”, in George Arthur BUTTRICK, Nolan B. HARMON, (ed.), The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. VII, New York: Abingdon Press, 1951, p.493.
[20] cf. THE HOLY BIBLE, Douay Version, London: Catholic Truth Society, 1963; THE HOLY BIBLE, The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition for India, Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1999, puts it in the foot note.
[21] cf. K. STENDAHL, “Matthew”, in Matthew BLACK, H. H. ROWLEY, (ed.), Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1962, p.790. Henry WANSBROUGH, op.cit., p.939; Edmund FLOOD, Parables for Now, Denville, New Jersey: Dimension Books, Inc., 1981, p.42.
[22] cf. Joachim JEREMIAS, op.cit., p.110.
[23] cf. Eduard SCHWEIZER, David E. GREEN (trans.), The Good News According to Matthew, London: S.P.C.K., 1978, p.394; Alexander JONES, The Gospel According to St Matthew, London: Geoffery Champman Ltd., 1965, p.225; Robert H. STEIN, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, pp.127,129; Jan LAMBRECHT, Parables of Jesus: Insight and Challenge, Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1978, p.268; Sherman E. JOHNSON, op.cit.,p.490. However, this paper is not interested to make a comparative study on both the parables.
[24] cf. Joachim JEREMIAS, op.cit., p.138; Jan LAMBRECHT, Out of the Treasure : The Parables in the Gospel of Matthew, Louvain: W. B. Eerdmans, Peeters Press, 1998, p.75.
[25] cf. Joachim JEREMIAS, Ibid., p.138; Sherman E. JOHNSON and George A. BUTTRICK, op.cit., p.492; Jan LAMBRECHT, Out of the Treasure : The Parables in the Gospel of Matthew, p.75; Norman PERRIN, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1967, p.117; Eduard SCHWEIZER, op.cit., p.394. Moreover John DRURY, The Parables in the Gospels, New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1985, p.94, gives a few rabbinical parables with the theme of wages, to some extend similar to Mt 20:1-16; Brad H. YOUNG, Jesus and his Jewish Parables: Rediscovering the Roots of Jesus’ Teaching, New York: Paulist Press, 1989, pp.260-262, and p.262 gives the text of yet another, closely connected midrash, known as Sifra in Lev 26:5; and also Sherman E. JOHNSON, op.cit., p. 492, gives some important statements from various rabbinical parallels regarding the same theme. However, the date of those parallels is not indicated.
[26] cf. Joachim JEREMIAS, Ibid., pp.138-139; Sherman E. JOHNSON and George A. BUTTRICK, Ibid, p.492.
[27] Burton H. THROCKMORTON, op.cit., p.131.
[28] E. DINKLER, “Form Criticism of the New Testament”, in Matthew BLACK, H. H. ROWLEY, (ed.), Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1962, p.683.
[29] cf. E. DINKLER, Ibid., p.683; Anthony MARINELL, Understanding the Gospels: A Guide for Beginners, New York: Paulist Press, 1988, p.7.
[30] cf. Albert KIRK and Robert E. OBACH, op.cit., p.211; Jan LAMBRECHT, Out of the Treasure : The Parables in the Gospel of Matthew, p.77; John H. ELLIOTT, “Matthew 20:1-15: A Parable of Invidious Comparison and Evil Eye Accusation”, in Bible Theology Bulletin, Volume 22, Number 2, 1992, p.56; Alexander JONES, op.cit., p.223.
[31] cf. Robert H. STEIN, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, pp.126,128.
[32] cf. John H. ELLIOTT, op.cit., p.56; Pheme PERKINS, Hearing the Parables of Jesus, New York: Paulist Press, 1981, p.141.
[33] cf. Jan LAMBRECHT, Out of the Treasure: The Parables in the Gospel of Matthew, p.75.
[34] Daniel J. HARRINGTON, Interpreting the New Testament: A Practical Guide, p.125.
[35] cf. Anthony MARINELL, op.cit., p.7.
[36] cf. Beda RIGAUX, Paul J. OLIGNY (trans.), The Testimony of St Matthew, Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1968, pp.119,120.
[37] M. Eugene BORING, “The Gospel of Matthew”, in Leander E. KECK, (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. VIII, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995, p.392.
[38] cf. Jan LAMBRECHT, Out of the Treasure: The Parables in the Gospel of Matthew, pp.72,74,75.
[39] Triple Tradition: Mt 19:30=Mk 10:31=Lk 13:30.
[40] cf. Robert H. STEIN, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, p.128.
[41] cf. Howard Clark KEE, “The Gospel According to Matthew”, in Charles M. LAYMON, (ed.), The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1971, p.634; Eta LINNEMANN, Parables of Jesus: Introduction and Exposition, London: S.P.C.K., 1966, p.85; Norman PERRIN, op.cit., p.116; Barbara E. REID, “Puzzling Passages: Mt 20:1-15” in The Bible Today, Volume 35, Number 4, July 1997, p.247.
[42] cf. Jan LAMBRECHT, Out of the Treasure : The Parables in the Gospel of Matthew, p.74.
[43] cf. Ibid., p.71.
[44] “Inclusio involves the repetition of features, words, phrases, and so on at the beginning and the end of a unit, thus having a bracket function.” in David R. BAUER, The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel: A Study in Literary Design, the Almond Press, 1988, p.18. Also cf. Pheme PERKINS, op.cit., p.137.
[45] David R. BAUER, Ibid., p.124.
[46] cf. M. Eugene BORING, op.cit., p.392.
[47] cf. Albert KIRK and Robert E. OBACH, op.cit., p.211.
[48] Eta LINNEMANN, op.cit., p.85.
[49] Edmund FLOOD, op.cit., p.42.
[50] cf. Robert H. STEIN, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, p.128.
[51] “Generalization designates the movement from particular to the general”. David R. BAUER, op.cit., p.16.
[52] Joachim JEREMIAS, op.cit., p.110.
[53] cf. Ibid., p.112.
[54] Ibid., p.113.
[55] cf. M. Eugene BORING, op.cit., p.392.
[56] cf. Madeleine I. BOUCHES, op.cit., p.89.
[57] cf. Daniel J. HARRINGTON, “Matthew”, in Dianne BERGANT, Robert J. KARRIS, (ed.), The Collegeville Bible Commentary, Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1989, pp.889-895. However, the demarking of this large unit differs from scholars to scholars.
[58] cf. K. STENDAHL, op.cit., p.790; Howard Clark KEE, op.cit., p.634; Jan LAMBRECHT, Out of the Treasure : The Parables in the Gospel of Matthew, p.80; Jan LAMBRECHT, Parables of Jesus: Insight and Challenge, p.268.
[59] cf. Madeleine I. BOUCHES, op.cit., p.91.
[60] Triple Tradition: Mk 10:17-31; Lk 18:18-30.
[61] Triple Tradition: Mk 10:32-34; Lk 18:31-34.
[62] The gospels make extensive description about Pharisees and scribes (often they are coupled together) as people who come on the way of Jesus’ proclamation of the gospel of building up a just human society (cf. Lk 5:20-22; 6:2; 7:30; 15:2). They are exposed to us as persons who are unnecessarily worried about the letter of the Law and not the sprit of it (cf. Lk 11:39-42,44). The gospel of Matthew pays special attention to present them as the opponents of Jesus (cf. Mt 9:11; 9:34, 12:24; 21:45). Mark clearly pictures them, as disputers with Jesus for silly things (cf. Mk 2:18; 2:24; 3:2; 2:16; 7:1; 10:2). Surprisingly Luke makes a meticulous observation of Jesus dinning with Pharisees for three times, perhaps they are righteous and justified before God (cf. Lk 7:36; 11:37; 14:1).
[63] cf. Joachim JEREMIAS, op.cit., p.113.
[64] Robert H. STEIN, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, p.127. Also cf. Albert KIRK and Robert E. OBACH, op.cit., p.211; Madeleine I. BOUCHES, op.cit., pp.89,91; Edmund FLOOD, op.cit., p.41; Joachim JEREMIAS, Ibid., pp. 136,139; K. STENDAHL, op.cit., p.790; Daniel J. HARRINGTON, op.cit., p.890; Howard Clark KEE, op.cit., p.634; Henry WANSGROUGH, op.cit., p.939; Howard Clark KEE op.cit., p.634; Eta LINNEMANN, op.cit., p.86; Bruce VAWTER, op.cit., p.103; Norman PERRIN, op.cit., pp.116,118; Jan LAMBRECHT, Out of the Treasure : The Parables in the Gospel of Matthew, pp.80,81; George T. MONTAGUE, Companion God: A Cross-cultural Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, New Jersy: Paulist Press, 1989, p.218; Pheme PERKINS, op.cit., p.138; A. M. HUNTER, Interpreting the Parables, London: SCM Press Ltd., 1969, p.52.
[65] cf. Robert H. STEIN, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, p.128.
[66] cf. Daniel J. HARRINGTON, op.cit., p.890; Madeleine I. BOUCHES, op.cit., p.89.
[67] cf. K. R. SNODGRASS, op.cit., p.596.
[68] cf. Robert H. STEIN, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, p.38; Robert H. STEIN, The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teaching, p.45.
[69] cf. Eduard SCHWEIZER, op.cit., p.392.
[70] cf. Robert H. GUNDRY, op.cit., p.396; Norman PERRIN, op.cit., p.117; Wolfgang TRILLING, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Volume 2, John L. McKENZIE, (ed.), New Testament for Spiritual Reading, New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1981, p.123; Joseph FICHTNER, Many Things in Parables: Reflection for Life, New York: Alba House, 1999, p.57; Jan LAMBRECHT, Parables of Jesus: Insight and Challenge , pp.253,254.
[71] cf. Eduard SCHWEIZER, op.cit., p.392; Joseph FICHTNER, Ibid., p.56.
[72] cf. Edmund FLOOD, op.cit., p.33; Eduard SCHWEIZER, Ibid., p.392.
[73] John H. ELLIOTT, op.cit., pp.52-65 presents an intensive study on the evil eye belief and practice by analyzing the large body of biblical and extra biblical literature, archaeology, folklore, etc. For a long list of bibliography on the same theme see pp.62-65.
[74] Ibid., p.53.
[75] Even today, this belief is prevalent in the Tamil culture known as kannu / knnu-p-pooduthal. It gets expressed in the day-to-day events, folklore, literature, etc. Very often babies are protected from the evil eye by karruppu-p-poddu (black bindi) on the cheek or forehead; grown ups by the ritual of suttri-p-poduthal; and the workshops, houses, …are guarded by anti-evil eye charms, snatching coconuts or pumpkins into tiny pieces.
[76] John H. ELLIOTT, op.cit., p.55, lists out the explicit references from the First Testament, on the evil eye or to one whose eye is evil, hostile, envious, covetous: Deut 15:9; 28:54,56; Prov 23:6; 28:22; Wis 4:12; Sir 14:3,6,8,9,10; 18:18; 31:13; Tob 4:7,16; and the Second Testament: Mt 6:22-23; Mk 7:22; Gal 3:1.
[77] Hiring (vv.1-7) and paying (vv.8-16): cf. Madeleine I. BOUCHES, op.cit., p.90; Jan LAMBRECHT, Out of the Treasure : The Parables in the Gospel of Matthew, pp.70,71; Barbara E. REID, op.cit., p.247, views this parable as a drama in three acts – first: vv.1-7, second: vv.8-12, third: vv.13-15.
[78] cf. Benedict T. VIVIANO, op.cit, p.663.
[79] cf. John H. ELLIOTT, op.cit., p.57.
[80] cf. Ibid., p.57.
[81] cf. Micheal L. BARRE, “The Workers in the Vineyard”, in The Bible Today, Volume 24, Number 3, May 1986, P.175.
[82] cf. Alexander JONES, op.cit., pp.163,223; Joachim JEREMIAS, op.cit., p.136.
[83] cf. Richard H. HIERR, “Kingdom of God”, in Paul J. ACHTEMEIER, (ed.), Harper’s Bible Dictionary, Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 2002, p.528.
[84] cf. Joachim JEREMIAS, op.cit., p.136.
[85] cf. Robert H. GUNDRY, op.cit., p.395; Madeleine I. BOUCHES, op.cit., p.90; Eta LINNEMANN, op.cit., p.81.
[86] “It (a day) is divided into twelve hours which are counted from sunrise on” in Eta LINNEMANN, Ibid., p.82. “The night, on the other hand, was not divided into hours, but into three night watches (cf. Lk 12:38)” in Joachim JEREMIAS, op.cit., footnote 21, p.136.
[87] cf. Joachim JEREMIAS, Ibid., p.136; Robert H. STEIN, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, p.125.
[88] Joachim JEREMIAS, Ibid., p.136. Also cf. Eta LINNEMANN, op.cit., p.83.
[89] cf. Robert H. STEIN, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, p.125.
[90] cf. Ibid., p.125.
[91] He seems to be an inefficient employer, for such an urgent harvest: cf. Edmund FLOOD, op.cit., p.35; Wolfgang TRILLING, op.cit., p.124. Moreover Eta LINNEMANN, op.cit., p.82 observes: “It is unusual that the householder goes out several times in the day, for the last time only shortly before the evening end of work, to look for workers. Normally an owner estimates how large a labour force he needs and engages the corresponding number of day-labourers in the morning”.
[92] cf. Edmund FLOOD, Ibid., p.35; Robert H. STEIN, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, p.128.
[93] cf. Joachim JEREMIAS, op.cit., p.136.
[94] cf. Edmund FLOOD, op.cit., p.35.
[95] cf. Benedict T. VIVIANO, op.cit., p.663.
[96] cf. Edmund FLOOD, op.cit., p.36; Eta LINNEMANN, op.cit., p.83; Joachim JEREMIAS, op.cit., p.137; Robert H. STEIN, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, p.125; Madeleine I. BOUCHES, op.cit., p.90.
[97] cf. Edmund FLOOD, Ibid., p.36; Eta LINNEMANN, Ibid., p.83; Joachim JEREMIAS, Ibid., p.137; Madeleine I. BOUCHES, Ibid., p.90.
[98] cf. Eta LINNEMANN, Ibid., p.84; Wolfgang TRILLING, op.cit., p.124; John DRURY, op.cit., p.93.
[99] Unfortunately the text is not interested in describing their emotional outburst.
[100] cf. Robert H. GUNDRY, op.cit., p.398.
[101] Joachim JEREMIAS, op.cit., p.137.
[102] Joachim JEREMIAS, Ibid., p.137, identifies as “the chief objector”.
[103] cf. Eta LINNEMANN, op.cit., p.84.
[104] Whereasthe objectors do not address so, which probably implies their indignation. cf. Robert H. GUNDRY, op.cit., p.398.
[105] Eta LINNEMANN, Ibid., p.84. Also cf. Joachim JEREMIAS, op.cit., p.137, and the same observes: “it implies an attitude that is both friendly and reproachful” (cf. Lk 15:31; Mt 20:12; 2:12; 26:50).
[106] cf. Eta LINNEMANN, Ibid., p.84; John H. ELLIOTT, op.cit., p.60; Robert H. STEIN, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, p.126.
[107] cf. Micheal L. BARRE, op.cit., p.178; Robert H. STEIN, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, p.126.
[108] cf. Robert H. STEIN, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, p.128; Madeleine I. BOUCHES, op.cit., p.91.
[109] cf. Robert H. STEIN, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, p.128; Alexander JONES, op.cit., p.225.
[110] cf. Edmund FLOOD, op.cit., p.42; Howard Clark KEE, op.cit., p.634.
[111] cf. George T. MONTAGUE, op.cit., p.218; Micheal L. BARRE, op.cit., p.173; John P. MEIER, op.cit., p.141.
[112] cf. Alexander JONES, op.cit., p.225.
[113] cf. Barbara E. REID, op.cit., p. 248; Micheal L. BARRE, op.cit., p.173; John H. ELLIOTT, op.cit., p.61; Wolfgang TRILLING, op.cit., p.125.
[114] cf. Diedrick A. NELSON, “An Exposition of Matthew 20:1-16”, in Interpretation, Vol. XXIX, No.3, July 1975, p.289; Micheal L. BARRE, Ibid., p.173; Barbara E. REID, Ibid., p.248; Alexander JONES, op.cit., p.223; Joseph FICHTNER, op.cit., pp.57,58; Jan LAMBRECHT, Parables of Jesus: Insight and Challenge, p.60; Bruce VAWTER, op.cit. p. 105.
[115] cf. Megan McKENNA, Parables: The Arrows of God, New York, Obris Books, 1995, p.71.
[116] cf. Diedrick A. NELSON, op.cit., p.289.
[117] cf. Sherman E. JOHNSON, op.cit., p.489; A. M. HUNTER, op.cit., p. 24.
[118] cf. A. M. HUNTER, Ibid., p. 24.
[119] Ibid., p.25.
[120] cf. Ibid., p. 29. Moreover, Sherman E. JOHNSON, op.cit., pp.489,490, mentions the interpretations of Gregory, Calvin, and A. T. Cadoux in brief.
[121] This seems to be a sophisticated method to leave the people to die by themselves, in depriving systematically food and other life supporting products.
No comments:
Post a Comment