Here are some random thoughts on the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16):

Book recommendation

Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed by William Herzog, Westminster John Knox Press, 1994.

In his reading of the workers in the vineyard, William Herzog argues that the vineyard owner is not a benevolent God figure, but a very wealthy landowner who is exploiting the workers. Considering that some of the workers are potentially previous owners of the land, for the landowner to say, “Can’t I do what I wish with what is mine?” is like a slap in the face. By singling out the “rebel rouser,” the owner is assuring that the peasant’s will not unite in opposition to the unfair situation. The worker who is reprimanded will surely not be hired again, and the others cannot afford to lose the possibility of future work. Herzog’s contention is that, in telling this story, Jesus is educating first century peasants about their own oppression. Viewing the system from the outside, they can realize that the system is unfair and perhaps move toward ways of addressing, even fighting the system.

Technical note:

Exploring Jesus’ use of the term “friend” in Matthew’s Gospel reveals that the landowner is being harsh rather than gentle with the worker when he says, “Friend, I am doing you no wrong.”

Here are the two other times Jesus uses that term in Mattthew:

Matthew 22:12: The king says to a man, “Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?”. And then has the man bound and thrown into the outer darkness.

Matthew 26:50: After Judas kisses Jesus in the garden, Jesus says, “Friend, do what you are here to do.”

Questions to Consider:

How do we (do we) distinguish the parable told by Jesus from the framing the Gospel writer puts around it? What happens if we take away “The Kingdom of Heaven is like” from the beginning and “The last will be first and the first will be last” from the end of this passage?

How do you read this story if God is the landowner? How do you read it if the landowner is just some random rich guy?

What does it mean for the last to be first and the first to be last? Is that only a promise for the next life, or are there ways we can see it play out in this life?

With which contemporary workers’ rights issues might this parable connect?