Michael Barber offers a Catholic perspective of the role of works at the final judgment in the newest Zondervan counterpoints book on the subject. One of the most interesting things for me is his discussion of the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16). Barber notes that many scholars, ala R.T. France, say the story reveals “It is all by grace.” (The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT p. 752)
Barber offers an alternative interpretation based on a recently completed PhD dissertation at Duke University by Nathan Eubank (“The Wages of Righteousness: The Economy of Heaven in the Gospel According to Matthew”). Barber explains:
“As Eubank states, ‘The point of the parable can hardly be that ‘everything depends upon grace’ since the early workers received exactly what they worked for, though Matthew 20:11-15 certainly warns those who have done more work against begrudging God’s generosity with those who have done less.’ Indeed, all were paid for doing some work; none were paid for not working at all. If the story were meant to teach that salvation is given only as a gift with no relation to works, one would expect the vineyard owner to walk into town handing out money to everyone he met, without any negotiations or further expectations.
In fact, Eubank points out that the story is best read in light of what immediately precedes it: the story of the rich young man, who, unlike the disciples, refuses to leave all his possessions and follow Jesus (Matt. 19:16-30). The story, then, likely functions as an extended answer to the disciples’ question: ‘Who then can be saved?’ (19:25). While this man has kept the commandments, Jesus suggests that technically the man has not done enough to be perfect. The apostles, who have left everything, have done much more. Nonetheless, by placing the parable of the workers immediately after this story, Matthew provides us with hope for the man: God is a merciful judge.
Indeed, this idea has its parallels in Jewish literature describing divine judgment. In sum, Jesus teaches salvation is not simply the result of cold calculation of credits and debits. Wages are paid out in connection with labor, but not in strict proportion to labor. The parable thus teaches the necessity of works alongside the generosity of God in paying out more than was earned.” (175-76)
In response Thomas Schreiner says “Citing parables to defend a theology of merit is precarious in any case, unless such a teaching is clearly one of the main points of the story. We must be aware of pressing details of the story in parables.” (192) Schreiner’s point is valid but is the observation enough to overcome the interpretation? James D.G. Dunn was more open in his response:
“I too have been impressed by Eubank’s thesis, particularly his treatment of the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16). Important elements of the parable have been too often overlooked, or they are submerged in the attempt to interpret the parable as an expression of pure grace. To be sure, the workers who work only for the last hour (no reasons given as to why their labor had not been engaged earlier in the day) are treated generously—graciously, we may of course say. But those who have worked all day are paid the wage agreed when there were engaged, the wage they had earned. Nothing in the parable denies their right to that wage. And if the parable is indeed a parable of the kingdom, that is of kingdom values, and of relations between the king and his subjects, then the failure to bring out a stronger note of ‘sheer unmerited grace’ (payment entirely unrelated to work done for all workers) must be significant.” (198)
Of course, Barber does not build his case solely on this parable. This is but one strand of his evidence. It does, however, offer a different interpretation of a parable which my bear a second look.
I am not sure that any of the above commentators quite identify the real point of this parable. Immediately before the parable, and immediately afterward, we find a variation of the same phrase: “Many who are first will be last, and the last first”; “So the last will be first, and the first last.” The chapter break is most unfortunate, but the word “for” which opens chapter 20 points us back to the first of these two phrases found at the end of chapter 19. These phrases, with their mention of “first” and “last,” match the parable’s depiction of the “first” and “last” workers, who were unexpectedly paid in reverse order. As the master says, “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?” The context provides another clue. While the rich young ruler story probably is relevant to this parable, Jesus’ dialogue with Peter is more immediately in context. This parable is part of Jesus’ answer to Peter’s question: “See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” Peter was asking a question about rewards. Jesus’ reply was that, yes, the 12 disciples would be rewarded (19:28); indeed, all his followers will be rewarded (19:29). However, no one should think that he can put God in his debt by his radical service; God will reward each according to his own terms, doing as he wishes with his own rewards. And there will be some surprising reversals on the day of reward!
So, yes, it’s about grace and it’s about our works, but much more it’s about how we should never think that our service obligates God to grant us great rewards.
LikeLike
In addition to the material that Barber draws on from Eubank’s dissertation, Eubank has recently published an article on this very parable in JSNT, here is the abstract with link:
Discussions of the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Mt. 20.1-16) tend to rely on two key assumptions: (1) the parable eliminates ‘merit’ and replaces it with ‘grace’; (2) the parable is the hermeneutical key to all of Matthew’s other discussions of rewards, if not the entire New Testament. This article challenges these assumptions and offers a reassessment of divine recompense in Matthew. Matthew 19.16–20.16 does not set aside ‘merit’ in place of ‘grace’ but contrasts generous wages faithfully repaid by God with even more generous wages. The Gospel as a whole emphasizes that disciples must earn treasure in heaven and forgive others their debts to enter the kingdom; those who refuse to work and who refuse to forgive will be damned. At the same time, however, God’s repayment of deeds is not according to strict desert, but goes far beyond what workers have earned.
http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/35/3/242.abstract?rss=1
As is his manuscript with de Gruyter entitled “The Debt of Sin and the Wages of Cross-Bearing,” Eubank’s article is well worth reading.
For more on the dissertation, see here:
http://www.degruyter.com/view/product/203740
LikeLike
Matthew 21 explains the parable further when Jesus explains that the tax collectors and prostitutes are entering before you. Those who are last who are first are the ones who through faith and their works are confidently entering God’s grace and knowing Jesus in the present. The tax collectors and prostitutes hadn’t died. They knew Jesus. They had transformed through him and were beginning their life in the kingdom. Yes, we, repentant sinners are all still working out our salvation in fear and trembling, but we can know him now as he cleanses us of our sin.
http://www.lampofthebody.com/46-the-parable-of-the-workers-in-the-vineyard.html
LikeLike
good work. I also really like this other perspective on the laborers in the vineyard. http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-laborers-in-the-vineyard?lang=eng it something I had never heard before but made complete sense
LikeLike