Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

See more
See less

Is the Parable of the Workers socialist?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is the Parable of the Workers socialist?

    Did Jesus espouse socialism?

    -‐--------

    Are we being taught economic theory in this? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    Sometimes, people present the parable of the workers in the field in Matthew 20 as if Jesus is espousing socialism. After all, everyone gets paid the same. Right? There’s no differentiation in wages. I was reading that recently and started looking at it and yes, I have heard other people bring out these arguments, but I figured I needed to as well.

    First, let’s look at the parable.
    “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

    3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.

    “He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

    7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

    “He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

    8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

    9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

    13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

    16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

    At the start, for one thing, this parable is not meant to teach business practices or economics. Seriously, if any business worker did this, he would find himself out of business quickly. After all, if I knew this guy did this, I would wait until the last hour to get hired, put in an hour’s work, get a day’s pay, and I would have spent the day prior and after just doing what I want. Word would get out.

    However, that being said, the parable doesn’t even have a socialist background in any way. We can say the workers all got paid the same. No one was greater and no one was lesser in pay. Right. But why? The owner tells us.

    “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money?”

    So in this, the owner owns the money himself. If he wants to pay the last workers that much, he can do that. Not only that, if anything, the ones who worked all day sound like the socialists in the parable with them saying, “We worked harder. We are owed more money.”

    I don’t support minimum wage laws. No one is owed a job by anyone. What you are owed is what you agree to work for, in this case, a denarius. The people in this story think they are owed more than they agreed to. They think they have the right to tell the landowner what to do with his money.

    They don’t. He tells them it is his money. He can spend it how he sees fit. If he wants to give to the last workers a denarius, he can do that because it is his money. Now if he did pay the workers who worked all day less than a denarius, they could have gone to the courts with him breaking a contract, but he didn’t. There was no basis for such a charge.

    Ultimately, the point of the parable is not to teach economics. It’s to teach about grace in the Kingdom of God. Still, from an economic perspective, this is not a socialist story. It is a capitalist one.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters
    (And I affirm the virgin birth)
    Are we being taught economic theory in this? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out. Sometimes, people present the parable of the workers in the field in Matthew 20 as if Jesus is espousing socialism. After all, everyone gets paid the same. Right? There’s no differentiation in wages. I was reading that recently … Continue reading Is The Parable of the Workers Socialist

  • #2
    In the parable regarding the talents (Matthew 25:14-30), Jesus has the main character giving according to their ability not according to their need. And note how he took back what he gave the servant who buried the money and did nothing with it rather than used it to increase the owners wealth and gave it to the servant who was the most productive, the one who had increased his wealth ten-fold.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      In the parable regarding the talents (Matthew 25:14-30), Jesus has the main character giving according to their ability not according to their need. And note how he took back what he gave the servant who buried the money and did nothing with it rather than used it to increase the owners wealth and gave it to the servant who was the most productive, the one who had increased his wealth ten-fold.
      And one Denarius in Jesus' time was quite likely to have been a week's wage for a field hand in Judaea, as it was in Egypt, or rather, six or seven days wages. But even 1 talent was no small sum; about 58.9 kg (129 lb 14 oz).
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post

        And one Denarius in Jesus' time was quite likely to have been a week's wage for a field hand in Judaea, as it was in Egypt, or rather, six or seven days wages. But even 1 talent was no small sum; about 58.9 kg (129 lb 14 oz).
        So Michael Palin's "ex leper" comment in The Life of Brian concerning" half a denari for my bl***y life story" was actually quite a generous charitable offering by Brian?
        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • #5
          In the interpretation of the parables, Christians have had a tendency to assume that the rich landowners represent God and the workers humans, and interpret them through a lens that says whatever the landowner says is correct and whatever the workers say is wrong.

          In such a reading in this parable, if God is the landowner, the morale basically becomes that last-minute conversions get as much benefit as early-life conversions, and that Christians who have served God all their lives shouldn't be bitter when last-minute conversions get the same rewards.

          However, some of the scholars working on social context research have suggested that Jesus' parables like this one aren't meant to represent God+humans, but are more literal about landowners and workers in his time. And the reason it's given as a story rather than a direct teaching, is because those in power (i.e. the rich landowners) would find the moral of the story somewhat subversive (i.e. not complimentary to them). It's then a 'slice of life' story, and presumably with the listeners meant to side with the workers and assume whatever the workers say/do in the story is reasonable and whatever the rich landowners say/do is wrong.

          Taken that second way, in this story, the landowner seems to be being a bit of arbitrary jerk in terms of how he pays his workers. The workers would like the wages to be merit based, and the landowner is being a twit about it and parading in front of them the fact that because he has the money and power he can use it however he likes. The morale of the story then seems to become that it's wrong that the system is giving him this money and power to use and abuse arbitrarily.

          The third way to interpret it, which I think is harder to justify than either of those two ways, is actually what Nick seems to be opting for... to assume it's literally about landowners and workers rather than God/humans, but that it's the landowner who we should assume to be in the right, and the workers who we should assume to be in the wrong. That seems a possible interpretation, but not a very defensible one to me given the context of Jesus' teachings in the rest of the gospels.
          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            In the interpretation of the parables, Christians have had a tendency to assume that the rich landowners represent God and the workers humans, and interpret them through a lens that says whatever the landowner says is correct and whatever the workers say is wrong.

            In such a reading in this parable, if God is the landowner, the morale basically becomes that last-minute conversions get as much benefit as early-life conversions, and that Christians who have served God all their lives shouldn't be bitter when last-minute conversions get the same rewards.

            However, some of the scholars working on social context research have suggested that Jesus' parables like this one aren't meant to represent God+humans, but are more literal about landowners and workers in his time.
            I don't doubt that some scholars do consider that the parable of the labourers in the vineyard doesn't liken the owner of the vineyard to God, despite the first sentence in the story being (Matthew 20:1) “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard."



            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by tabibito View Post
              I don't doubt that some scholars do consider that the parable of the labourers in the vineyard doesn't liken the owner of the vineyard to God, despite the first sentence in the story being (Matthew 20:1) “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard."
              That in turn can depend on what we understand the "kingdom of heaven" to refer to. The afterlife? God's current rule in heaven? Israel of the then-present? A more utopian Israel of the then-near-future that Jesus' followers were hoping to bring about?
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                That in turn can depend on what we understand the "kingdom of heaven" to refer to. The afterlife? God's current rule in heaven? Israel of the then-present? A more utopian Israel of the then-near-future that Jesus' followers were hoping to bring about?
                It was a customary circumlocution, referring to God. The afterlife, God's rule, or Israel would not have a person_in_charge representing the Kingdom of Heaven.
                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                .
                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                Scripture before Tradition:
                but that won't prevent others from
                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  In the interpretation of the parables, Christians have had a tendency to assume that the rich landowners represent God and the workers humans, and interpret them through a lens that says whatever the landowner says is correct and whatever the workers say is wrong.

                  In such a reading in this parable, if God is the landowner, the morale basically becomes that last-minute conversions get as much benefit as early-life conversions, and that Christians who have served God all their lives shouldn't be bitter when last-minute conversions get the same rewards.

                  However, some of the scholars working on social context research have suggested that Jesus' parables like this one aren't meant to represent God+humans, but are more literal about landowners and workers in his time. And the reason it's given as a story rather than a direct teaching, is because those in power (i.e. the rich landowners) would find the moral of the story somewhat subversive (i.e. not complimentary to them). It's then a 'slice of life' story, and presumably with the listeners meant to side with the workers and assume whatever the workers say/do in the story is reasonable and whatever the rich landowners say/do is wrong.

                  Taken that second way, in this story, the landowner seems to be being a bit of arbitrary jerk in terms of how he pays his workers. The workers would like the wages to be merit based, and the landowner is being a twit about it and parading in front of them the fact that because he has the money and power he can use it however he likes. The morale of the story then seems to become that it's wrong that the system is giving him this money and power to use and abuse arbitrarily.

                  The third way to interpret it, which I think is harder to justify than either of those two ways, is actually what Nick seems to be opting for... to assume it's literally about landowners and workers rather than God/humans, but that it's the landowner who we should assume to be in the right, and the workers who we should assume to be in the wrong. That seems a possible interpretation, but not a very defensible one to me given the context of Jesus' teachings in the rest of the gospels.
                  Christians should rejoice whenever someone who is lost finds their way.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment

                  Related Threads

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by Apologiaphoenix, Yesterday, 06:19 PM
                  0 responses
                  14 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                  Started by Apologiaphoenix, 05-06-2024, 04:30 PM
                  10 responses
                  64 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post JimL
                  by JimL
                   
                  Started by Apologiaphoenix, 05-01-2024, 09:43 PM
                  5 responses
                  65 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                  Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-25-2024, 09:42 AM
                  0 responses
                  11 views
                  1 like
                  Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                  Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-09-2024, 09:39 AM
                  28 responses
                  206 views
                  1 like
                  Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                  Working...
                  X