part 2

It shows a natural victim who had faith in the system.

A large number of parables can be interpreted in very different ways than have become traditional in our church traditions. The following will suffice:

Workers in the Vinyard

Our culture has a long history of blaming the victims, and siding with the perpetrators. We are so used to blaming the victims, that when we are confronted with a Bible story which unmasks the power of oppression, we turn it into a condemnation of the poor.

When we become aware of this bias, it enables us to look at our basic beliefs in a whole new way. When I was packing up my books to move here, I actually threw out a number of my old textbooks. They just were not accurate descriptions of what we find in the Bible. One of the biggest changes facing the world of Biblical studies is the realization that the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, was written from the perspective of a persecuted people who were in the minority. The Bible was not written by powerful people who were in control of their destiny.

The Bible writers saw the world differently from most people. Most world religions describe the greatness and strength of the hero when he first finds God. Moses was a prince of Egypt who was wanted for murder. He was on the run from the law when he met God for the first time. Moses ends up leading his people out of slavery.

His story is written from the runaway slave’s perspective, and not the perspective of their powerful Egyptian masters. The first time the stories of the Bible were collected into one book happened while the people were enslaved again, this time during their exile in Babylon. They collected these stories, so they could remember who they were, so they could survive their captivity. By the time Jesus was born, the nation of Israel had not existed for over 150 years. They were a conquered people. The Greeks and later the Romans had occupied the land and ran it for their own benefit. All of Jesus’ stories were told from the perspective of the underdog, and not the master.

But this is not how you and I were taught to read the Bible. Since the Protestant Reformation in Europe, we’ve been taught to read it from the point of view that we are the Empire. We are the powerful ones. We are the colonizers. We are culturally superior. We are the economic elite, destined to rule the world.

Let’s look at the parable of the workers in the vineyard. When I went to seminary they tried to explain this story as if God was the landowner. To identify God as the landowner is to treat this parable as if it was an allegory. With an allegory you can say God is the landowner, Jesus is the Steward, and the day labourers are the Jews. But a parable is not an allegory. A parable is an extreme, exaggerated example of what God is like. A parable is an open-ended story, which seeks to turn your expected ideas upside down. From the landowner’s perspective, this is an allegory about judgement on those who reject the grace which is offered to them. Those who are ungrateful will be punished in the end. But does that sound like good news to you?

But what does this parable say from the servants’ point of view? A day labourer in those days was a member of the expendable class. The best comparison today is a homeless person living on the street. The career options for an expendable person was to work as a day labourer during harvest time, to beg when things were slow, and to become a thief when things were desperate. An expendable person had lost his land and his trade. Once you hit being an expendable, the average life span was only five to seven years. Their life was, as Thomas Hobbes puts it, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

The wage that the landowner offered them was just enough to keep them alive. Most peasants in that culture lived on only five hundred calories a day. They were always only a day away from starvation. The wage was just enough to keep them alive for one more day. It wasn’t much, but it mattered a lot. This landowner is not being generous when he calls the workers. He tells them he will decide what to pay them. His order to go and work is not to be questioned. They will take what he decides, because they have no bargaining power.

Jesus has created a powerfully dramatic scene. The rich ruthless landlord, who gets what he wants, was normally never seen in public. His steward would do all the dirty work for him. In this case, the rich man steps out from behind the polite mask, and is revealed for all to see. He has a huge labour pool to draw from, so he can dictate the terms of employment- there will be no negotiations here. He is offering a subsistence wage. The workers are so desperate they will take anything so they can survive just one more day.

This all sets up the key confrontation in the story. At the end of the day, the landlord tells his steward to pay them all the same wage, starting with those who started last in the day. This is a slap in the face to the workers. This was a culture of honour and shame. He should have respected those who had put in a full day’s work. By putting the last workers at the head of the line, and paying them the same, he has shamed the workers. He is saying that the quality of the full day’s work was of no more value than the single hour of work. These day labourers have nothing, except their ability to work. They aren’t begging or stealing here. And the landowner has insulted their ability to work for an honest day’s wage. He has deliberately shamed them.

If they were to say nothing at all, they might as well be dead, because then they would have no honour what so ever. The landowner responds to their complaint by singling out the one worker who dares to raise his voice. The owner is going to make an example of this upstart. He says “Friend, I am doing no wrong here.” His use of the term ‘friend’ is condescending, because wealthy landowners were never friends or brothers to expendable day labourers.

He claims to have bargained fairly with them for the wage, even though there was no bargaining. He has all the power. They have none, and they both know it. The owner shames the worker, and sends him away. This day labourer will never find work here ever again.

The punch line of the story comes when the landowner says “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money?” As a society of free market capitalists, we don’t hesitate to answer his question with a resounding Yes! We are free to do what we want with our own money! But if we are people of the Bible, people of God’s covenant, the answer to the rich man’s question is a resounding charge of “Blasphemy!”

It is blasphemy, because God gave the people of Israel the Promised Land that they were to be the stewards of forever. Debts were to be forgiven every seventh year. If the land was lost, it was to be restored in the year of Jubilee. The rich were to care for the poor.

If I was to say "If the shoe fits..." you'd respond "wear it!" We are all familiar with call out lines that have a standard response. We are all familiar with Jesus’ saying “You will always have the poor with you.” What we usually overlook is the fact he is quoting a line from Deuteronomy 15:11 which has a very specific response, which everyone in his day would have known.

“There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be open-handed toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.” This rich landowner is clearly violating one of the Torah commandments he is supposed to be living by.

The parables of Jesus are meant to contrast how life is lived under the Kingdom of Rome, with what the kingdom of this world would be like if God sat on the throne. The kingdom of God is in stark contrast to the Kingdom of this world. This parable exposes the power of oppression, and shows how it has wandered away from the power of God. Oppression silences us. Divided we fall.

Despite how badly the rich landowner treats the day labourers, he still needs them. What will he do if no one answers his call for workers in the market place tomorrow morning? Would you be willing to work all day for him, or would you only answer the call at the end of the day? The landowner can’t pull this stunt a second time. He is no longer trust worthy. He only hurts himself when he hurts others like this.

In God’s kingdom, justice is not about punishing ungrateful people. In God’s kingdom, we seek a just and fair distribution of wealth which respects the true value of each person’s gifts. We need to be just, loving and respectful in how we treat each other, regardless of our economic station in life.

In God’s kingdom, those this world calls First, shall be Last, and those this world calls Last, shall be First.

Source: William Herzog “Parables as Subversive Speech” Westminster-John Knox Press 1994

Scripture has had the best minds and the most motivated people over thousands of years speaking to what it means, what its message is, and what 'it' (scripture itself is).

I find myself humbled by such astute and studious minds, and could not begin to compare notes with those people and schools of people. All the same, the fruit of all that labour is confusion, conflict, and endless diversity. The practical person would walk away from it all. The same is true of this parable.

Yet, I use scripture daily. Moreover, I am about to undertake to write a small book on the parables as they are in today's translations of the Gospels.

My solution has been to attempt to construct, with people of like mind, an understanding that stands outside myself but which itself is true to Christ.

So here is a sample of my approach... How would Christ understand the story? Would he condemn the rich for what they do? I think not. Would he devalue the widow giving all? I think not people have always given all they have to others, even to death. Would Christ see the parable about how we fund churches? Is it a story about sharing with the less fortunate (certainly no church has been "less fortunate"). In Christ's eyes, what was the point of the story? That If we give to God, we should give all. If Christ were the widow, would Christ have given all two mites to the 'church' or only some, and use the rest for other things? Perhaps Christ would give no mites tothe church and would have given them to some beggar on the street who had not eaten for days. With some good intention, I think that people of like mind can construct and present Christian solutions. My reading of scripture is that this leads to knowing the mind of Christ.

Using the parable in this way, we are able to present the mind of Christ to ourselves and to one another. In other words, we present or prophesye the mind of Christ to our selves and to one another. We are able to benefit from one another in mind, spirit and heart

Now comes the practicality of the approach. How do we know we have arrived at an understanding of the mind of Christ in regards to the parable in question? We go from knowing to doing and using what we understand. I believe Christ is a reality which we enage in and through which we can exist is a specific and particular way. If this is so, then when we apply the mind of Christ, that reality will be discerned or discovered by the results or outcomes of what we do.

I think the parable to the two mites, can be understood and used spiritually. We readily get lost in the mire of merely material understanding. As for 'preaching myths' --- will that stand the test of like minded Christians in spiritual congregation?

So we move from knowledge to use or application which generates experience or evidence of a reality. What wonderful and powerful gifts to put into the hands of the young --- and old and everyone in between.

But, please note knowing and using the mind of Christ is not the same as Christian being or Christian existing.

(ps my editorial skills have not improved with age ... spell and grammar check or not)

JRT, that was very interesting. I'm beginning to think more and more that in order to understand what Christ was talking about, we should understand the Torah more. Deutoronomy was quoted often by Him.

Another parable with an alternative interpretation follows:

Parable of the Talents

The parable of the Talents (Mt 25:14-28) is about a servant who acts honorably by burying money given in trust, courageously by denouncing an exploitive master, and as a result is consigned to extinction for his audacity.

Most people understand the story as Matthew has (cf. Lk 19:12-24). But his concluding editorial, "To all those who have, more will be given, but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away" is at odds with everything else Jesus says on the subject of haves and have-nots (Mk 10:25/Mt 19:24/Lk 18:25; Mt 6:19-21/Lk 12:33-34; Mt 19:30; Mt 20:16; Lk 6:24; Lk 16:19-31); and Jesus was obviously no capitalist. Matthew's editorial implies that the first two servants are the heroes of the story, which Jewish peasants would have found outrageous.

As Richard Rohrbaugh and William Herzog have demonstrated -- though in very different ways, as we will see -- the third servant is the hero of this parable, because he acted honorably and refused to participate in the rapacious schemes of the master. Contrast with the agenda of the first two servants:

"First things first: the master's initial investment must be secured, then doubled; after that, the retainers can make their profit. They are always walking a tightrope, keeping the master's gain high enough to appease his greed and not incur his wrath while keeping their own accumulations of wealth small enough not to arouse suspicion yet lucrative enough to insure their future. The master knows the system too, and as long as the retainers keep watch of his interests and maintain a proper yield, he does not begrudge their gains. In fact, he stands to gain a great deal by encouraging the process. Not only do the retainers do his dirty work, exploiting others for profit, but they siphon off anger that would otherwise be directed at him." (Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech, p 160).

The first two servants do exactly as expected of them, doubling the master's money and presumably making some "honest graft" on the side, as all retainers did in agrarian empires. But the third servant acts completely out of character -- this alone is the tip-off that he will be the story's hero -- by digging a hole and burying the master's money to keep it intact, acting in accordance with Jewish law.

When the master (naturally) rewards the two servants, the third servant acts stunningly by blowing the whistle on him (as Herzog puts it), while at the same time giving him back the money he had buried in trust: "Master, I know that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, gathering where you did not scatter." This retainer says what every peasant has always wanted to say.

An alternate version of this parable was preserved in the Gospel of the Nazorenes (now lost), reported by Eusebius. Here the third servant is accepted with joy, while the other two are condemned. In "A Peasant Reading of the Talents/Pounds", Rohrbaugh notes the chiastic structure:

The master had three servants:

A one who squandered his master’s substance with harlots and flute girls
B one who multiplied the gain
C and one who hid the talent;

and accordingly,

C’ one was accepted with joy
B’ another merely rebuked
A’ and another cast into prison.

(Eusebius, Theophania; from Hennecke & Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha 1:149)

Though I'm eternally suspicious of arguments based on chiastic structures, this one is powerful. Here we have an ancient author who rejected the Matthean judgment on the third servant, while modern critics insist on vilifying him.

Like many of Jesus' parables, the Talents ends on dark ambiguity. "The whistle-blower is no fool," says Herzog. "He realizes that he will pay a price, but he has decided to accept the cost (p 167)." The question is who his friends are after banishment. Will peasants acknowledge and respect his honorable course of action, or would the fact that he was a retainer make such meeting of the minds impossible? Listeners are left pondering the fate of an unlikely hero.

Do you agree with the writer?  ---NO --NO AND NO

This is just how blind people with no understanding of what the Bible is all about can be ignorant to who God is and to His purpose for His Children -----

Proverbs 4:7 ---Wisdom is the principle thing so get wisdom and with all your getting get understanding -----

This scripture ----

About the original commentary - talk about someone who really doesn't "get it". A religion "built upon the backs of the poor"? Now just how is the paltry amount that such a widow contributes going to "build a religion". Do the math - put all the widows together and they still wouldn't be able to support the expenses. Remember too, that some of those expenses would include supporting widows. 

The story simply is there to shame those who have much, yet think they are being very generous - even though they still have lots left over! Now that's not going to hurt, very much, is it? If we are to praise anyone, it should be those who sacrifice a great deal in support of their community, because those are usually the ones who are doing the real work of keeping the community together. And to stretch the metaphor further - the point of the story could just as easily include those who give their time and the sweat of their brows as well as those who give their money.

Thanks so much for the great commentaries, a special thanks to JRT. Is it O.K. if I wander off topic just a fraction? 

Taken the widow's mite story literally (fundamentalist?) do you think Jesus was a fortune teller or a medium of some sort.....no insult intended. Possibly  he knew the widow and her family or not? He didn't know that Lazurus was sick ...?...if I recall correctly? ..and there are other examples re sick people he didn't know  or he waited to be invited to heal?

I think I'm saying that  prior to  his death and resurrection  he did not have full knowledge about all people, he was not God while he was on earth at that time?  Sorry, I'm not a very savvy biblical student.

spiritbear

I recall SG ( I think it was)  and myself some years back talking about today's TV evangelists taking money from the widows and the poor. People were jumping all over the evangelists complaining. I was trying to explain that I believed the widows or the poor  had a choice re giving. Nobody was twisting their arms.

This is a statement from the above OP

[Contemporary “evangelists” call this ‘seed faith’- “Give me your money and God will multiply it back to you.”] God doesn’t want a widow to give up her last two cents and you can’t find that concept anywhere in the Bible at all. In fact, that’s the last thing God would want a widow to do.

The evangelist who call this Faith seed are actually Preaching the Word of God ---as it is God's Book The Bible that  says this ----we humans either believe what God's word says or we don't -----this is a perfect example of the blame game ----blaming the Preaches for preaching God's word -----Just maybe we don't want to give as instructed by God so what better way to get out of doing what the word says than criticizing and mocking a God and His word who wants us to do the very thing we don't want to do ----- 

The Bible says you reap what you sow ----everything on this earth that grows into a physical seen thing starts as a seed -----The Parable of the sower Jesus tells His disciples is important as it describes How God's Kingdom works and He tells them if they don't get this Parable they won't understand any Parable ----

The word is your seed ----Faith brings the seed into producing ----all according to God's word ---not man -----if man chooses not to believe God's word that that is man's fault not the evangelist's fault who is preaching God's word -----Now --that being said there are good and bad  Preachers ---Some are honest and some are not ---Desernment is needed by us who listen to any Minister ---Padre ---Priest etc ---The Bible warns us of this -----The Holy Spirit will guide us in our desernment prosess -----

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Sowing-Seeds/

Bible verses related to Sowing Seeds from the King James Version (KJV) by Relevance 

  We will reap what we sow ---more than we sow --later than we sow  -----all according to God's word ----not man ----

These are my thoughts on this ---Peace

Hi stardust,

Jesus' attitude notwithstanding.  Jesus does make a very clear comparison.

The widow gives all out of her poverty whereas the wealthy give from their excess.

It reflects the dialogue between the pig and the chicken and whom is more committed to breakfast.

The author may think this.  There is no evidence in the text that Jesus was angered by the sacrifice of the woman or that it was the source of his blood boiling.  Indeed there is no evidence in the text that his blood did boil upon his observation of the distinct difference in those who give first fruits as opposed to those who give leftovers.

The author makes this claim.  There is nothing in the text which shows that the woman was compelled.  I think that most of us would agree that any system which compels individuals to make choices between serving God or survival is a dubious system.  I mean what if we lived in a society which didn't compel us to serve God in this way but, for example, forced people to choose between food on their table or a a roof over their heads.

Would we tolerate that morally bankrupt system?

Or hey, what about a system that forces individuals to choose between Cancer treatment or having a home to live in?

It is fair to critique a very prevelant interpretation of the passages.  Not fair, I think, to inject your own emotional response.

Fairest of all is to look at the comparison being made.

Wealthy give out of their wealth.  This poor woman out of her poverty.

So what is the deal?

It isn't about sacrifice, it is about priority and to a degree it is about trust.

The Israelites are called to tithe and tithing is the practice of skimming the cream, taking from the top so to speak.  In tithing the idea is that since God has given everything God is the first to be thought of when settling accounts.

Some manage to live this way quite faithfully.

Some struggle because there are times when the needs of the moment out-strip the resources at hand.  Believing that God would not want us to suffer we justify ignoring the tithe and promise that once we have looked after our very real needs we will settle our account with God.

Never mind that the accounting process is far broader in the context than dollars in wallets.

Still, eventually everything gets reduced to a fiscal bottom line and God ceases to be a priority in the act of settling accounts.  Individuals not only pay their bills first, they tend to find new bills to pay.  A bigger house or more things and God gets a cut of what is left over.

It goes all the way back to Genesis and the offerings given to God by Cain and his brother Abel.  It isn't that God despises vegetarians it is that Abel brings the best he has and Cain essentially says to God, you can have what I have no use for.

It is about respect.

The Widow doesn't have much in the way of money.  Her respect for God still compels her to give to God from what she has available.  The wealthy have a great deal in the way of money (one may wonder why it is that they have so much) but they do not appear to give out of any respect for God.

And then there is context.  Mark 12:  41-44 carries the same story.  Immediately preceding it is a warning against the teachers of the Law.

The same warning immediately precedes Luke's telling though it belongs to the final verses of the preceding chapter.

It is important to remember that Chapter and verse breaks are a much later addition to the text.  In the original telling these two portions of text would have belonged much closer together.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Very  informative responses everyone, lots to think about and digest. Thanks for taking the time.

@Rev John

I'm interested in  the info. about Abel and Cain's offerings. It is something I never understood.

I suspect that the Cain and Abel story reflects the age old tensions and animosity between the nomadic herdsman and the settled farmer .

Thx. JRT

...evangelists .... seed faith ..... always a murky mixture......

I am surprised that 1 Kings 17 has not been mentioned....

To me that is a story that is much closer to the concept of seed faith.

But here we have a prophet sent by God to a specific person..... at a specific time .... for a specific purpose....

Most of what I see on television in the evangelical programming much more reminds me of some sort of pyramid scheme.    Invest and hope ... maybe you move up the chain.  

A few good motivational seminars with the requiste testimonials from the wonderfully successful stars and in pour the "investments"....

I feel that the original post presents a perspective that should be explored.   Even if it is not agreeable in its entirety there are aspects that are very worthy of exploration.

Was the widow being taken advantage of ?   Maybe? .... maybe not???

I do not feel she was giving with any expectation of getting back.....

I feel she simply gave because that is what she felt she was supposed to do.

I sense her reverence for God is why she gave so deeply and this seemed the appropriate place to give.

What was the responsibility of her "church" towards her and her needs?

Just asking ..... would the religious "business" of that day be in any way similar to the religious business of today?

Thank you for this thread ..... much to chew on....

Regards

Rita

Hi stardust,

The text gives it away.

Cain brings produce.  It isn't that God hates produce it is that the produce is unremarkable, it is not distinguished.

Abel's offering is noteworthy not because it is meat but rather because it is first-rate and fat-laden.  It is a valuable offering.

Abel's offering is looked upon with favour.  Cain's is not.  Why?  Because the thought actually does count.  Abel thinks to bring the best and Cain is content to offer less than that.

Why else would God say to Cain, "Why are you angry?  Why is your face downcast?  If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?

Cain did something wrong and since the offering was not accepted it is obvious that there was something wrong with the offering.

Grace and peace to you.

John