Parable

When you find a story particularly impenetrable, confusing or disconcerting, sometimes it helps to retell it. This particular story was itself a retelling of an older story (the new version left out the whale because people seemed to find that episode too distracting).

- - - - - - - - - - - -

So this crazy rich guy out on the Main Line is getting ready for his daughter's wedding. It's a big deal -- one of those extravagant old-money blow-outs at his estate out there off of St. David's Road. The place is ridiculously huge -- with gate houses and guest houses and stables and houses for the guys who work in the stables.

The wedding is Saturday and the estate needs some work, so the crazy rich guy calls up a local union contractor. (Most rich guys hate unions, but like I said, this guy's kind of crazy.) He says he wants to hire everybody they can send him to work all day on Friday -- but only on Friday, because the job has to be done in time for the wedding.

The union guy catches the scent of money and desperation and scratches some numbers on the back of an envelope. Sixty bucks an hour, ten hours, time-and-a-half for the OT, round up generously ... "$700 a head," he says as a starting point in his negotiation.

"How about $2,500 each for the day?" the crazy rich guy counters, and the contractor jumps to agree before the chump sobers up.

So Friday comes around and a dozen union workers show up at the estate and start working. They work hard all morning and they're good at what they do, so they're getting a lot done.

But the crazy rich guy is still worried the place won't be ready in time. So at noon he sends his son down to Kennett Square, to this 7-Eleven parking lot where the immigrant day laborers hang out. Son comes back an hour later with a half-dozen Mexican and Guatemalan guys and they start pitching in.

The union guy isn't too thrilled to have his crew working alongside these non-union immigrants. He's worried their work won't measure up to the standards of his professional craftsmen. And he's worried the rich guy is bringing in this notoriously low-bid labor as leverage to renegotiate the sweet deal he'd agreed to earlier.

"Don't worry about that," the crazy rich guy says. "You and your men will still be getting $2,500 each."

The contractor is relieved, but then the CRG adds, "The same as I'm paying these men."

Then it gets even worse.

Around 4:00 the crazy rich guy sends his son back to the 7-Eleven to recruit some more workers, though of course by that point in the day the pickings are slim. He gets back an hour later with two more immigrant day laborers, one of whom is visibly drunk, and a couple of stoner kids who were hanging out in the parking lot.

By 6:00 the work is done. The house and the grounds look fantastic. The CRG's son is walking around with a stack of C-notes telling everybody how pleased his dad is and how excited his sister is going to be to see all the work they've done.

And then he pays everybody $2,500 for the day. Everybody. Even the migrant workers who didn't start until after noon. Even the drunk guy and the stoner kids who barely worked for an hour -- if you could even call what they did working.

And then, to top it all off, the kid invites everybody back the next day, not as workers, but as guests to the wedding.

"Serious party -- open bar, live band," kid says, "and don't worry about a gift, you've all done enough." The Mexicans and the stoner kids are all psyched to come and the CRG's son arranges to pick them up the next day at the same parking lot.

Then he turns to the contractor. "How about you?" he asks. "You coming too?"

Comments

[hapax]

This is why this is The Best Blog in the World. Seriously.

I'm sending links to this to everybody I know.

[bulbul]

Amen to that, hapax.

[cjmr]

Wow! Great rewrite, Fred. Of course, that one has always been among my favorite parables.

[Tom Hoffman]

Didn't I just hear this on Matewan? Except the daily rate has gone up 2500 times?

yes I said yes I will Yes

[Kathryn]

Matthew 20:1-2, NRSV: "‘For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire labourers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the labourers for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard."

(emphasis mine)

Fred, your retelling of this drives home a point very strongly, however, inflating the wage to $2,500 seems to be a major part of that. What's the justification/reasoning for writing it this way?

[Victor]

True story if we leave out the ice!

This story brought back memories of when the midway ride fair would set up at our school for a week during the summers. On the last day of the midway I learned that I could make a few bucks by helping them pack up. A group of us got hired at about six that night and the guy running the fair promised us all two bucks when the job was finished..( During the ice age, that was a lot of money! (lol?) Anyway, while I was working, I noticed other people coming at different times and seemingly without asking they would start working but I also noticed that some of the ones who got hired earlier with me were starting to leave for whatever reasons. By the time the job was done and it was time to get paid, it was almost Midnight! I noticed a lot of new faces and believe it or not this guy gave us all two dollars just the same.

Before I tell you more what do you guys and gals think the moral of this story is?

[Leighton]

Generosity > generating a superficially fair wage assessment function on the fly when you've got a wedding to worry about.

[Erick Oppeen]

*clueless*

What or where is the Main Line?

[Bugmaster]

You know, I never really understood the original parable (*), and I don't understand Fred's re-telling of it, either. The CRG just sounds half-assed to me. He should either embrace generosity all the way, and give everyone a penny (**) (with the additional bonus of making everyone happy), or embrace capitalism and compensate people according to the value of their labor, which would probably be a function of skill_exhibited * hours_worked (with the additional bonus of making people feel that their labor is respected).

But what the CRG actually does is make people jump through arbitrary hoops just to get their dole, and that sounds like something the bureaucratic Caesar (i.e., the government) would do, not something that a Good Christian would do.

(*) Probably due to all my atheistic godlessness.

(**) That's how much the day's wages were in the original KJV

[Bugmaster]

Heh. I just re-read the original parable, and in it, the CRG says:

Matthew 20:15: Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

So, essentially, he's saying, "it's my money, and I'll spend it in whatever arbitrary ways I choose, and if you think that's unfair, buzz off". Technically he is right, but these kind of statements don't really bolster his moral high ground.

[JamesK]

I always understood it to be "You who've been loyal and true followers of Christ all your life will get Heaven as a reward for your hard work. You who have come to Christ after much trial and tribulation will also receive Heaven for your hard work. You who have come to Christ on your deathbed, achieving true repentance after a lifetime of sin will receive Heaven despite very little that could be called hard work. Now, you life time Christians. Will you refuse Heaven because we're letting the slackers in too?"

But then I've never even been to Sunday school, so who knows what sorts of strange misunderstandings I might be suffering from.

[Scott]

So, essentially, he's saying, "it's my money, and I'll spend it in whatever arbitrary ways I choose, and if you think that's unfair, buzz off".

How dare he waste society's money like that, as if it was his to spend as he sees fit. The parable, supposedly about generosity, is based on a totally selfish belief that he has this unilateral right to spend it instead of having society divide it up via elections. He should be taxed more heavily if he has this much to spend on something as useless as a big society wedding. Damn rich people, partying while others starve.

[Fred]

Scott --

We have a really bad local editorial cartoonist who can never manage to make his caricatures look anything like the people they're supposed to represent. So he ends up having to label everything. The ugly woman in the picture, it turns out, is actually "GOV. RENDELL" and the car in the background is actually "STATE CAPITOL, HARRISBURG," etc.

It's pretty sad, but he's actually a better caricaturist than you are. Maybe you should try using labels?

[Bugmaster]

@JamesK:

Yes, I understand that this is what the parable is supposed to mean. But I simply don't see how I'd get the intended meaning ("Christ is merciful") from the original text, unless I already knew the intended meaning. In other words, I can't imagine being one of the people in the crowd around 25 AD, listening to this Jesus guy, and getting this message.

Actually, now that I think about it, the message is still far from clear-cut even when seen through modern eyes. Essentially, Christ is saying, "I could let any of you into Heaven, but I'm arbitrarily only going to accept people who repent on or prior to their deathbed. It's my salvation, I can do with it what I want". Again, he's God and it's his prerogative, but such an attitude does nothing to bolster his moral high ground.

[Axiomatic]

So, the goddamn immigrants are stealing seating reservations in Heaven from honest, hard-working Americans!

[Jesurgislac]

To me this parable has always linked in my mind to the Prodigal Son parable (which I'd also love to see Fred do a retelling of). It's God-goofy-with-love story.

A lot of Christians, no matter how much they like to talk about God being love, and loving people as Christians, nevertheless have a pretty definite idea of the kind of person God really loves. Sometimes they include themselves in that group, and sometimes they don't. But they know that there are worthy and unworthy people. Calvin turned this into a theology, but I don't think he could have donethat if it didn't appeal to something in the human psyche, something hierarchical and structured that believes you have got to EARN love, love doesn't just come undeserved.

The Prodigal Son? A dad so goofy with love that he throws a big party to celebrate when the kid comes back having spent all his inheritance. The Prodigal Son hasn't done anything to deserve being loved that much by his dad, and his older brother has, but his dad doesn't love either kid because they deserve it, he loves them just because. Completely. All the way.

The Crazy Rich Guy story is about a god so goofy with love for everybody that he doesn't care who's deserving and who's undeserving. You show up, you want to come to the party, he loves you!

And people who think they're deserving, who are certain that love can't really go to the undeserving... they're not going to get it.

[hk-reader]

I like Jesugilac also equate it with the story of the Prodigal son. It's about free grace and natural human jealousy & meanness and trying to get our sinful hearts around the concept of G-d's free grace and love.

[RedEnsign]

Its an interesting parable (in either new or original form), but doesn't it suggest that the best way to approach Christianity is to party hard, sin as much as you want, then show up at the last minute as a penitant seeking absolution in Christ? The problem with this approach is that it doesn't encourage people to actually live up to Christian values, but rather to behave as sh*tty as they want to as long as they sign up with Jesus just before they die.

[hk-reader]

Bugmaster, in the NIV version the wage is a denarius ( 1 denarius = 4 sesterces)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mathew%2020;&version=31;

According to this site:
http://www.uah.edu/student_life/organizations/SAL/texts/misc/romancon.html#ctwo

In order to qualify as an "eques" (knight) had to have a worth of 400,000 sesterces or 100,000 denari. So, about the life-time wage of a common laborer.

Also, as to whether someone hanging around in AD 30 listenig to this story might get the point?

Well, it starts out:
"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard..."

So, at the begining of the story, the listeners were told that this isn't just a story being told about some CRG - it is related to the Kingdom of Heaven.

I think you mis-read it if you think it means: that G-d is arbitrarily accepting people who repent in the end, and *not* accept people who try to live righteously.

Instead, it's being told to people who think they *are* living righteously that they should not be jealous or angry that the love of G-d is extended to everyone, even those who were not righteous before. In fact, since no one is perfectly righteous, it extends hope to all.

[Stephen]

in the NIV version the wage is a denarius

And an Old English translation of the passage (whose precise date I'm having trouble finding, but I believe it pre-dates 950 AD or so) has him paying them "anne pening" ("a penny").

[Doctor Science]

Like Jes, I was taught to link this parable with the Prodigal Son. Both are about the resentment of the righteous for the (apparently) unrighteous, the slackers who get into Heaven anyway. How can that be fair?

The way my parents presented it to me (in post-Church discussions), the message is that God's love is so great & wonderful that no-one can actually *earn* it -- it's love, not money, and it comes from an infinite supply. The reward of righteous behavior over last-minute repentance isn't in Heaven, it's feeling the sense of God's love for more time on earth. The early-morning union workers get to work with God all day, that's their true reward. The stay-at-home son gets to experience his father's love all the time, that's *his* reward. Heaven is nice, but it's not the *point* of human life, which is -- human life.

My background is Roman Catholic and liberal Lutheran; I don't know if the de-emphasis of Heaven as reward was just my parents, or if the Heaven-centeredness of much evangelicalism has helped pushed Catholics and mainline Protestants into a different theological market.

[Todd R]

Could there be many different readings of this parable? When I read the parable I think more of Job than the Prodigal or any other story. In the book, Job wants to confront God as to why he is being so unfairly treated. God responds with basically the same response of the CRG--Who are you to question what I do? Even though God shuts him down, God still is dialoguing with Job. That is the cool part.

I think there is a difference between justice and fairness (what it is I can't really put my finger on but I think it is there regardless). God is quite clear in Scripture about God's stance on justice--we are to act justly by taking care of the widowed, orphaned, alien, oppressed, least, last and lost. At the same time, God doesn't mind that God is ambiguous about fairness--Job loses everything (I think the book would have been pretty cool to read w/o the "resolution at the end), the guys who show up at the last minute get the same thing as the guys who have been working all day, the lame and blind are invited to the banquet at the world's end and an innocent son dies for the guilty.

Go figure.

Anyway, with that--I pass.
(psst--Fred, send me an email sometime, why don't you!).

[cjmr]

Similar background to Doctor Science, I have a similar sense of what the advantages are supposed to be of being an earlier-hired worker.

As far as the value of the wage is concerned--the translation that I saw that was most logical said that they were hired for a normal day's wage--which might translate as one denarius at the time, or one penny in early Christian England, or $46.20* now. Quibbling over how much money it 'actually' was completely misses the point of the whole exercise.

-----

* I think that's minimum wage...

[Jesurgislac]

RedEnsign: but doesn't it suggest that the best way to approach Christianity is to party hard, sin as much as you want, then show up at the last minute as a penitant seeking absolution in Christ?

Mmmm... No.

I was thinking about this, after I made my comment.

Christianity tends to get used as a policing system for other people's behavior. We're so used to this function of Christianity that it's hard to think of what Christianity is without that function - to an extent that (I'm not especially picking on RedEnsign, that flag just happens to be the latest person to express this point of view) people actually think of "Christian values" as a code of behavior you have to "live up to".

What this parable says to me is that the best way to approach Christianity is to understand that God loves you, to do your best to return that love, and to refrain from judging other people's relationship with God by their behavior. Of course, I'm not a Christian: but take away the presumption that Christianity is all about policing other people, and you're really left with a religion that's all about your own relationship with that God.

[Doctor Science]

Todd --

If there weren't many readings of the parable, it wouldn't be any good.

Jes --

take away the presumption that Christianity is all about policing other people, and you're really left with a religion that's all about your own relationship with that God.

Not exactly -- it's about your own relationship with God, but that relationship is expressed or explored in the way you deal with other people. One refrain of the Narnia books is that "no-one is told any story but their own" -- you don't get to judge or police other people, because you don't know their story and it's *really* not your business. But it doesn't matter how secure or beautiful you feel your own relationship with God is, how certain you are of being saved, whether your faith can move mountains -- only how you show it to other people, how much you love.

[Jesurgislac]

Not exactly -- it's about your own relationship with God, but that relationship is expressed or explored in the way you deal with other people.

*shrug* If you like. I think - as a non-Christian - the main thing is for Christians to get rid of the notion that their religion centers around policing other people's relationship with God. That's none of their business (and I thank Fred for reminding me of this parable to point it out to the next Christian who tries). Following that, it's really up to each Christian to decide whether to take Matthew 25 literally or not, and most Christians don't.

[Beth]

"it's about your own relationship with God, but that relationship is expressed or explored in the way you deal with other people."

*shrug* If you like.

No, if Jesus likes. Remeber the sheep and the goats: "What you do unto the least of my brothers, you do unto me," (or something like that).

My own, untutored understanding of the parable's message is this: "Keep your eyes on your own work."

I have a friend who's been going through all sorts of stress with her job. In ways it's an ideal position for her. There's lots of flexibility which she needs, having lots of family drama. She's got great vacations, good healthcare, she basically likes the work, likes her coworkers, and has a good relationship with her boss. But about six months ago, they moved the office to a new location, which meant a much longer commute for her. She started looking around to see what was available closer to home, and discovered there were people offering $10-15k more for similar jobs than what she was getting. A coworker pointed out that at those wages, the bosses were bound to be a lot more demanding and not let her take time off whenever she needed as she does now. She couldn't argue with the logic, but also couldn't shake the feeling that she was being underpaid. Recently, she learned that a coworker who has only been there a year asked for an 8k raise. My friend is outraged. Not only is that twice any raise she's gotten there, it would put the newcomer within spitting distance of her own salary. She told me that if the coworker gets the raise she's going to think about looking for other work. I can sympathize with her desire to be treated fairly and not be taken for granted or taken advantage of, but I can't help thinking that if she could just focus on her own situation -- the work she does and the return she gets for it -- she'd save herself a lot of misery.

[Fraser]

RedEnsign, there's a saying by St. Augustine that Christians should "love God and do as you choose," meaning that if you love God, you'll obey and keep his law.
It's true, you can sin a lot and still get into Heaven, but if you're seriously dedicated to God, you won't sin anyway. At least, I think that's the logic.

[Jesurgislac]

Beth: . I can sympathize with her desire to be treated fairly and not be taken for granted or taken advantage of, but I can't help thinking that if she could just focus on her own situation -- the work she does and the return she gets for it -- she'd save herself a lot of misery.

And save her employer a lot of money, too!

The one thing I wouldn't take from this parable is the idea that employees mustn't inquire into what other employees are getting paid, because that only leads to misery (especially for employers!). But it would not surprise me to find that this is the message your average right-wing Christian takes from it. "And God says, don't ask what your co-worker is getting paid. Jesus hates it when you unionize."

[Rhythm]

RedEnsign: The problem with this approach is that it doesn't encourage people to actually live up to Christian values, but rather to behave as sh*tty as they want to as long as they sign up with Jesus just before they die.

If that's the case, why aren't more christians slutty boozhounds?

[wintermute]

> If that's the case, why aren't more christians slutty boozhounds?

If it's not the case, why aren't fewer Christians slutty boozehounds?

[spencer]

If that's the case, why aren't more christians slutty boozhounds?

There are plenty of slutty Christian boozehounds out there. They just don't advertise all that well.

[bulbul]

in the original KJV
ORIGINAL KJV? Give me a break, Bugmaster.
In the not-so-original Greek, the wages were one denarius.

[Jesurgislac]

Getting back to topic:

Beth: No, if Jesus likes.

No, if you like. Your decision which bits of the Bible to incorporate into your personal faith. You may interpret this as "if Jesus likes", but it's still your choice.

[Beth]

Your decision which bits of the Bible to incorporate into your personal faith. You may interpret this as "if Jesus likes", but it's still your choice.

Tell you what, Jesu. You find some Gospel passages where Jesus says we can attain the kingdom of heaven without being loving/generous to our fellow human beings, and I'll concede that your argument is more than just cheap sophistry.

[bulbul]

but doesn't it suggest that the best way to approach Christianity is to party hard, sin as much as you want, then show up at the last minute as a penitant seeking absolution in Christ?
Well if it does, you are missing the point.
I have often heard people speaking of St. Augustine in contempt. He could be considered a poster for this kind of behavior: he rejected Christianity when it was offered to him, becoming a pagan philosopher instead, accepted a high-paying prestige job, whored around (anybody read Jostein Gaarder's "Vita Brevis"?) etc. etc. And then he turned around, became a Christian, a bishop, a saint and a Church Father. Some people look down on him because of this perceived hypocrisy - once you've tasted all life has to offer, it's quite easy to catch religion and become a monk. So why should I bother with sticking to the rules when it's enough to convert on the dead-bed? Sometimes they would bring up this parable to support their argument. And I always answer the same: you are missing the point. This is but an episode from a longer series, this particular one deals solely with God's love. You should check out the whole show.

[Jesurgislac]

Tell you what, Beth. You find some evidence that Christians are compelled choicelessly to do literally and exactly what Jesus says in the gospels, and I'll concede that your claim that it's not your decision but Jesus's has some value.

[Jesurgislac]

You find some Gospel passages where Jesus says we can attain the kingdom of heaven without being loving/generous to our fellow human beings

And in response to your claim: try John, Ch3, v3-18.

[PK]

RedEnsign: The problem with this approach is that it doesn't encourage people to actually live up to Christian values, but rather to behave as sh*tty as they want to as long as they sign up with Jesus just before they die.

Matthew 24:48-51 (NIV): "But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,' and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Planning deathbed repentance won't do you much good if you get hit by a bus.

[Beth]

You find some evidence that Christians are compelled choicelessly to do literally and exactly what Jesus says in the gospels...

Irrelavent.

ry John, Ch3, v3-18.

Ditto.

You'll have to find someone else to play with. I don't have the time or energy to waste on your petty nonsense.

[Jesurgislac]

I don't have the time or energy to waste on your petty nonsense.

It really sucks to lose an argument that badly, that fast. But stalking off, nose in air, after you lose, declaring that the whole argument was a waste of time... that's petty. Bye.

[bulbul]

And in response to your claim: try John, Ch3, v3-18.
What does that prove?

It really sucks to lose an argument that badly, that fast.
Not the case here, Jesu.

[cjmr]

try John, Ch3, v3-18.

Real convenient there, stopping at verse 18. Why not complete the passage and add verses 19-21, which are about good vs. evil deeds?

[Jesurgislac]

Bulbul: What does that prove?

Read it. It's what Beth asked for and I provided.

Not the case here, Jesu.

You too want to claim that Christians have no ability to make choices? Honestly, is this an argument you want to have?

[A. Kennedy]

Bulbul: What does that prove?

Read it. It's what Beth asked for and I provided.

Not the case here, Jesu.

You too want to claim that Christians have no ability to make choices? Honestly, is this an argument you want to have?

You want to claim that Christians are not obligated or duty-bound to treat their neighbors with kindness and charity? Honestly, is that the argument you want to make?

[Bugmaster]

@Jesurgislac:

The Crazy Rich Guy story is about a god so goofy with love for everybody that he doesn't care who's deserving and who's undeserving. You show up, you want to come to the party, he loves you!

Not quite. As I said in my original post, if the CRG just showed up at the 7/11, and started giving denarii (sp?) to everyone, I wouldn't have the problem with the parable. The CRG doesn't do that. Instead, he makes people jump through hoops to get their handout. He knows that the stoner kids and the boozehounds won't do any meaningful work on his house (heck, they'd probably mess it up), but he wants them to show up nonetheless. That, to me, just seems condescending (to the stoner kids) and disrespectful (to the honest craftsmen). Again, for the libertarians out there: I do understand that the CRG can spend his money however he wants, and I'd be the first one to defend his right to do so; I disagree with his decision, not his human right to make it.

The Prodigal Son parable is more in line with the loving, charitable person that Jesus is portrayed to be, but it still has that little snag of arbitraryness (is that a word ?) in it. If the father had even 0.1% of the power that Jesus has (we already know he has 100% of the love), he would have hired private investigators to track down his son, then flown out to meet him in whatever broken-down dive the son was hanging out at, and thrown him a party right there and then. He wouldn't wait for the son to come to him.

@Todd R:

God responds with basically the same response of the CRG--Who are you to question what I do? Even though God shuts him down, God still is dialoguing with Job. That is the cool part.

Actually, the story of Job is much more consistent with the view of God as an eccentric (and, in Job, practically malicious) tycoon, not as a benevolent ruler. What you're saying is, "God didn't have to talk to Job at all. He could've just destroyed his life and moved on. But he talked to him after all ! How cool is that !" No, what would be really cool is if God said, "Shut it Satan, I love all my children equally, and they have nothing to prove to me. You had your chance, you failed, I fired you, now stop emailing me". What God does to Job in the actual story is not cool at all, especially when you consider that Job's material possessions and his human wives are lumped in the same category of "acceptable losses".

@hk-reader:

I think you mis-read it if you think it means: that G-d is arbitrarily accepting people who repent in the end, and *not* accept people who try to live righteously.

No, that's not what I meant at all; I understand that God accepts anyone who repents at some point, as well as people who have nothing to repent for (although I'm not sure how many of them are out there).

Basically, my main problem with the parable is that it makes Jesus come off like a hypocrite. Either Jesus is all-loving and all-forgiving, which means that he accepts everyone, even unrepentant sinners -- or he has a set of rules that he wants people to follow, and he only accepts the people who play by the rules. Either stance is fine; the problem is that Jesus claims he's one while, in fact, being the other. Jesus is engaging in a PR spin.

[Jesurgislac]

Why not complete the passage and add verses 19-21, which are about good vs. evil deeds?

Because Beth didn't ask me to quote them: she asked me for an example like verses 3-18.

Beth's right that this is petty nonsense, but wrong about whose side the nonsense is coming from. Everyone makes choices (even people reared as Christians from childhood). Trying to claim otherwise, especially on a blog with posts consistently pointing out the different things in the Bible that different Christians choose to believe and disbelieve, is just really mindbogglingly petty nonsense: Christians, like anyone else, choose.

[Bugmaster]

And now for something completely offtopic: I actually prefer the translation of "denarius" to either "penny" or "a fair day's wages". The "penny" translation makes the wage sound insignificant (whereas in the story, it was a fair amount of money, apparently), and "a fair day's wages" just sounds like lawyer-talk. The word "denarius" brings more color to the story, and it makes you think about the exact meaning, which is good.

Join us next timne for another hour of lit-crit with Bugmaster, the B+ English student !

[Jesurgislac]

Bugmaster: Not quite. As I said in my original post, if the CRG just showed up at the 7/11, and started giving denarii (sp?) to everyone, I wouldn't have the problem with the parable.

But is your problem with the parable, or with the message it conveys?

Either Jesus is all-loving and all-forgiving, which means that he accepts everyone, even unrepentant sinners -- or he has a set of rules that he wants people to follow, and he only accepts the people who play by the rules.

Well, yes. Gods are like that. Read Terry Pratchett.