[Traditio]

Several times, I've seen conservative posters cite this passage as "proof" that God grants us an absolute right over our private property and that any economic exchanges, so long as they are "willingly and freely" entered into, are just. Let the free market dictate the price of goods and services!

It occurs to me, however, that this is crazy. In Matthew 20:12, the complaint is not the hardest workers aren't paid enough. The complaint is that those who worked the least hard are paid too much. To which the owner of the field answers, and rightly so, that he can do as he pleases with his own money.

But if you pay attention to how much the workers were paid, you'll find that the justice of the agreement comes not from the fact that they were all agreed, but on the intrinsic justice of the amount that they were paid.

The vineyard owner paids each of the workers a denarius. A denarius was the common payment for a day's labor for a common worker. This is why those who worked the hardest don't complaint that they got too little. They worked for an entire day, and they, in turn, received a day's wages. Their complaint is that those who did not work the entire day nonetheless received a day's wages.

From all of this, it seems evident that the claim of the conservatives simply doesn't follow: it doesn't follow from this passage that the market should dictate the price of goods and services. It doesn't follow from this passage that any exchange is fair so long as freely and willingly entered into.

And those of us who demand an increase in the minimum wage are complaining precisely on these grounds: the minimum wage isn't a true daily wage. The current minimum wage doesn't render a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

And employers are obliged to pay that much, no matter how many employees are willing to settle for less.

[Traditio]

Furthermore, from the above, it should be obvious that this parable has absolutely nothing to do with economic justice. An economic justice is already assumed. The parable has everything to do with grace and how God grants superabundant graces and mercies even to those who don't deserve it.

Not everyone deserved the full day's pay. They didn't work for an entire day. Some worked only an hour. And yet the vineyard owner, because of the abundance of his generosity, gave them an entire day's wages anyway.

The parable is about grace, not economics.

[OMEGA]

Jesus is just saying that no matter how much you have suffered and how many Trials that you have had, You still only get Eternal Life.

BUT ... If you OVERCOME alot, you get Rulership over Cities which is a higher level of Responsibility.

Joh 4:36 And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal:

that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.

Lu 19:17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant:

because thou hast been faithful in a very little,

have thou authority over ten cities.

Re 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Re 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

[Iconoclast]

Are you being intentionally ignorant or are you just trying to deceive?

This is why those who worked the hardest don't complaint that they got too little. They worked for an entire day, and they, in turn, received a day's wages. Their complaint is that those who did not work the entire day nonetheless received a day's wages.

This is the foundation of your argument and it is patently false this is what the workers said and thought.. Emphasis mine..

10 But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. 11 And when they had received it, they 3complained against the landowner, 12 saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’

So they complained that they weren't paid enough. Since they saw what the others were paid who just got there an hour before.

Wow some of you on this site just want to be dumb.

[Traditio]

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

10 But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. 11 And when they had received it, they 3complained against the landowner, 12 saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’

I decided to quote the above separately since it's under discussion.

So they complained that they weren't paid enough.

False. They complained that they didn't receive more. These are different concepts. It's one thing to say that you're not paid enough. It's another thing to say that you're not paid more.

Their complaint of not receiving more is relative to what the landowner paid the others. Their complaint, and I quote, is "you made them equal to us." They received a day's pay for a day's labor, and the others received a day's pay for an hour's labor.

Again: they're not complaining that the wages they agreed upon were unjust. They were complaining that the others received more than was just.

But note that the landowner rightly refutes them: their own expectations were unjust. They expected to be paid more than a day's wages for a day's labor.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Traditio

Several times, I've seen conservative posters cite this passage as "proof" that God grants us an absolute right over our private property and that any economic exchanges, so long as they are "willingly and freely" entered into, are just. Let the free market dictate the price of goods and services!

It occurs to me, however, that this is crazy. In Matthew 20:12, the complaint is not the hardest workers aren't paid enough. The complaint is that those who worked the least hard are paid too much. To which the owner of the field answers, and rightly so, that he can do as he pleases with his own money.

But if you pay attention to how much the workers were paid, you'll find that the justice of the agreement comes not from the fact that they were all agreed, but on the intrinsic justice of the amount that they were paid.

The vineyard owner paids each of the workers a denarius. A denarius was the common payment for a day's labor for a common worker. This is why those who worked the hardest don't complaint that they got too little. They worked for an entire day, and they, in turn, received a day's wages. Their complaint is that those who did not work the entire day nonetheless received a day's wages.

From all of this, it seems evident that the claim of the conservatives simply doesn't follow: it doesn't follow from this passage that the market should dictate the price of goods and services. It doesn't follow from this passage that any exchange is fair so long as freely and willingly entered into.

And those of us who demand an increase in the minimum wage are complaining precisely on these grounds: the minimum wage isn't a true daily wage. The current minimum wage doesn't render a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

And employers are obliged to pay that much, no matter how many employees are willing to settle for less.

You're a moron.

[Traditio]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

You're a moron.

Lighthouse, I am aware that you think that I'm a moron. Unfortunately, that doesn't refute the argument that I've given. Do you have a counterargument?

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by Traditio

I decided to quote the above separately since it's under discussion.



False. They complained that they didn't receive more. These are different concepts. It's one thing to say that you're not paid enough. It's another thing to say that you're not paid more.

Their complaint of not receiving more is relative to what the landowner paid the others. Their complaint, and I quote, is "you made them equal to us." They received a day's pay for a day's labor, and the others received a day's pay for an hour's labor.

Again: they're not complaining that the wages they agreed upon were unjust. They were complaining that the others received more than was just.

But note that the landowner rightly refutes them: their own expectations were unjust. They expected to be paid more than a day's wages for a day's labor.

Thus you agree that you get paid what you agree to.. Let the market decide... So you are a free market guy... Since at that time that was the "going" rate for a days manual labor... Was that fair back then? Shouldn't it have been more?

You truly are a person who wants to have it both ways...

[Traditio]

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Thus you agree that you get paid what you agree to.. Let the market decide... So you are a free market guy... Since at that time that was the "going" rate for a days manual labor... Was that fair back then? Shouldn't it have been more?

You truly are a person who wants to have it both ways...

Iconoclast, I don't think you fully understand the point that I'm making. The point of the parable isn't that market forces should decide what the "going rate" of labor is. That's simply not the focus of the parable.

An economic justice is already presupposed, namely, that the proper reward of a fair day's work is a fair day's pay.

Note that the vineyard owner pays everyone a denarius (the common daily payment for unskilled labor in those days).

The focus of the parable is on the generosity of the vineyard owner, who gave in excess of what he justly owed. The parable is about how grace is an unmerited, free gift from God.

As I said before, in order for this verse to support the conservative point, the vineyard owner would have had to paid the workers less than a denarius. He would have had to have justified paying them less than a denarius by saying that he can do what he wants with his own money.

But he doesn't.

He justifies paying an entire denarius to those who didn't put in a whole day's work by saying that it's his money and he can do with it as he pleases.

The conservative argument simply doesn't follow from this parable.

[Delmar]

Originally Posted by Traditio

I decided to quote the above separately since it's under discussion.



False. They complained that they didn't receive more. These are different concepts. It's one thing to say that you're not paid enough. It's another thing to say that you're not paid more.

Their complaint of not receiving more is relative to what the landowner paid the others. Their complaint, and I quote, is "you made them equal to us." They received a day's pay for a day's labor, and the others received a day's pay for an hour's labor.



Again: they're not complaining that the wages they agreed upon were unjust. They were complaining that the others received more than was just.

But note that the landowner rightly refutes them: their own expectations were unjust. They expected to be paid more than a day's wages for a day's labor.

I have to agree with Iconoclast. You are a special kind of special!

[Newman]

This is just the silliest thing.

Traditio uses a parable that explicitly and plainly denounces complaining about not receiving more than what was agreed upon at the outset (whether it's God's grace or wages or anything) to argue against the idea that people should get exactly what was agreed upon at the outset.

[Traditio]

Originally Posted by Newman

This is just the silliest thing.

Traditio uses a parable that explicitly and plainly denounces complaining about not receiving more than what was agreed upon at the outset (whether it's God's grace or wages or anything) to argue against the idea that people should get exactly what was agreed upon at the outset.

They agreed to receive a day's wages for a day's labor. In order to support your doctrine of "let the market dictate," the parable would have to assert that the vineyard owner paid them less than a day's wages for a day's labor and told them, to justify himself, that he can do as he pleases with his own money.

But these aren't the facts of the case.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Traditio

They agreed to receive a day's wages for a day's labor. In order to support your doctrine of "let the market dictate," the parable would have to assert that the vineyard owner paid them less than a day's wages for a day's labor and told them, to justify himself, that he can do as he pleases with his own money.

But these aren't the facts of the case.

"Let the market dictate" says nothing to the effect that an employer must pay all of his employees according to the time worked.

"Market", in my book, means "agreement", so anything that the employer and employee agree on regarding their exchange of labor for wage is fair, INCLUDING the employer's measurement of the employee's labor.

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by Newman

"Let the market dictate" says nothing to the effect that an employer must pay all of his employees according to the time worked.

"Market", in my book, means "agreement", so anything that the employer and employee agree on regarding their exchange of labor for wage is fair, INCLUDING the employer's measurement of the employee's labor.

Well said Newman, the measurement is made and then mutually accepted. After all, the prospective employee has the freedom (there's a dirty word to a liberal socialist) to turn down said offer and seek employment elsewhere for a higher wage/salary. Your just not going to see your level playing field when it comes to flippin burgers opposed to Brain surgery Trad, there are a lot more people that are capable of flippin a burger than those that have the aptitude and training to perform brain surgery.

[Traditio]

Originally Posted by Newman

"Let the market dictate" says nothing to the effect that an employer must pay all of his employees according to the time worked.

I didn't assert this.

"Market", in my book, means "agreement", so anything that the employer and employee agree on regarding their exchange of labor for wage is fair, INCLUDING the employer's measurement of the employee's labor.

Yes. This isn't present in the parable. Certainly, this is a position which you can hold (errantly), but it's not a position which you can derive from this parable. Again, in order for you to derive this from the text, it would have to be the case that the vineyard owner paid those who worked all day less than a denarius.

This is not the case.

The vineyard owner didn't pay them the "fair rate," in the sense of what he "thought" was worth paying and which the workers "thought" was worth working for.

No. He paid them the actual fair rate, in the sense of paying them the standard pay for a day's work.