Parable of the workers in the vineyard, is it really fair?

[lostguest]

I was wondering, how is the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20: 1-16) different from a modern day employer who pays men more than women for doing the exact same work? Or what if an employer decided to pay, for example white people more than people of other races (or minorities and people from third world countries) for doing the same amount or even more work?
Also, even though people normally agree beforehand to certain work conditions as far as pay and type/amount of work, they still have an expectation of payment proportional to their work. In my opinion it would be different if they knew prior to agreeing to work under those conditions that others would get paid the same for a fraction of their effort and knowing that they would be carrying other people's weight.
I understand that the householder was trying to be generous to the laborers who came late. However, personally I think that the parable could only be considered fair if for instance, the householder had "loaned" the payment to the late workers but had then come back to work another day to make up for the hours they didn't work, given the fact that the early workers were not aware of all the facts prior to agreeing to work. Or maybe the householder should have let the early workers go home early once the late workers arrived while still paying them the agreed upon amount.

[marco]

It could be true. No one comes to Jesus without repenting first.

We have come a long way from the denarius in the vineyard. Most people have little to repent for. The gospels give the impression that anyone was welcome to approach Jesus and it was Pharisees and hypocrites who rejected sinners. Perhaps it is Jesus, not the parable, that is misinterpreted.

[JehovahsWitness]

However, the point of the parable is that whether the employer(Adonai) compensates the laborers(His people) equally or unequally is not the concern of the laborers, as long as they get what is promised.

Yes, but wasn't the point that the landowner was applying the rule equally? That the application of the same pay for all would result in those that came last benefiting more than those that came first (ergo that the natural Jews (and those of them that had prominent positions therein such as the Pharisees) would end up "behind" those that came later (repentant sinners and eventually gentiles).

The beauty of true justice is that redresses imbalances and those that come last often do so through no fault of their own. The late laborers were not at home in bed, they had been waiting from the morning (willing to work) but because of unfavorable circumstances, ended up being last. The reality of their unfortunate situation was therefore (being paid hourly) they would have had to work ever longer just to get to an equal footing with those that were fortunate enough to have found work. Let the cycle of the poverty trap begin!

That unfair situation was redressed by the landowerns decision. Paying prortionally (by the hour) would not have redressed the balance, those that came last would remain last. Paying (as agreed) for any portion of the day worked, did. The result would be that those that came first would lose the arbitary advantage they had over those that just happened not to have been chosen. The "chosen people" and especially the religiously prominent among them wanted to hold on to their "first come first served" position of privilege, but true justice redresses the advantages that have been obtained through accidents of birth and circumstances and puts everyone on an even playing field.

Jesus' own conclusion "that the first will be last and the first last" recognizes that the "last" need more to get to the positions of the first, and only in doing so is justices served. It was, like all Jesus' illustrations in my opinion, an illustration which is deceptive in its simplicity, it deals masterfully with the issues not just of the kingdom (and TRUE equalization therin) but the principles of real justices in general!

[bluethread]

However, the point of the parable is that whether the employer(Adonai) compensates the laborers(His people) equally or unequally is not the concern of the laborers, as long as they get what is promised.

Yes, but wasn't the point that the landowner was applying the rule equally? . . . . .!

No, all of that in your last post is your interpretation, and you are welcome to it. Equal is a matter of prospective. What is equal using one standard is inherently unequal using all other standards. IMO this parable criticizes absolute equality as much as it does "equal pay for equal work". The point was that pride and envy, hallmarks of any form of egalitarianism, are not very valuable in Adonai's economy. If one gets what one bargained for, there is no point in complaining that someone else got what one does not think they deserve. In other words, one should mind one's own business.