Two Erroneous Solutions
Two very ingenious, but, to our understanding, erroneous, solutions of these difficulties are worth a moment's attention. The main difficulty of the parable is, of course, the apparent injustice of giving all the laborers the same wage. And to escape this difficulty some of our ablest expositors have assumed, that either those who were first called grew slack and careless, or the last called displayed so extraordinary a diligence that in one hour they did as much work as those who had been in the vineyard all day; just, for example, as St. Paul, though the last called of the Apostles, labored more abundantly than they all.
To this interpretation, however, there is one fatal objection. If all the laborers had done an equal stroke of 'work, how is it that the lord of the vineyard fails to urge so obvious and so complete a vindication of his conduct?
Evidently what 'he does say is said in an endeavor to justify himself. When, therefore, his justice was called in question, why did not "the householder" meet his impugners with the unanswerable reply "Although you were first in the vineyard you have done no more work than those who came last; and as these have done as much as you, it is but fair that they should receive as much." Instead of taking this tone, however, he falls back on his contract with them, and on his power to do as he liked with his own.
His very defense implies that the last called had not done as much as the first called, although he chose to give them as much. Another ingenious interpretation turns on the various kinds and values of the Roman denarius, translated in our Authorized Version, "penny”. There were the brass, the silver, and the gold denarius; the double, the treble, the fourfold. -- And the solution is offered that just as in the Kingdom there will be one reward, namely eternal life, and yet this one reward be capable of enjoyment on various planes of being -- the Divine plane, a lower spirit plane, and lastly the human plane -- so in the parable each received a denarius, a penny, but the pennies were of different kinds and values.
But the objection fatal to the previous interpretation is also fatal to this. True and beautiful as the thought is in itself, we have no hint of it in the parable. We have hints that point in an opposite direction. If the wage, though nominally the same were really different, why did not "the householder" bid the complaining laborers look at their penny, mark that theirs was a gold penny, while that of those taken on at midday was a silver penny, and that of those called late in the afternoon was but brass? With so complete and unanswerable a defense at his command it is simply inconceivable that he should have fallen back on his contract, and his right to do what he would with his own.
We must admit, then, that there was at least an apparent injustice in his dealings. We must admit that those who were really first were put on a level with the last, and that those who were really last were put on a level with the first. We must admit that those who had done the most work received no higher wage than those who had done least. In fact, we must admit the inequality of the treatment, and learn, if we can, how it is to be explained and justified.” (The Herald of Christ's Kingdom - December, 1934)
We will continue with our next post.
