The Eccentric Employer

The behaviour of the main character in the parable we find in Matthew 20:1–16 is certainly eccentric to a large extent. Though this parable is known popularly as the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, I came accross at least one commentator who suggested that this is the Parable of the Eccentric Employer! I think he is right.
On a surface level reading of the parable we find eccentric behaviour of the master of the vineyard. Normally owners of the vineyard will have an estimate of the work-force that they require and employ people accordingly. Why did this man employ everyone whom he could find. Normal daily work hours are from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm. He had employed some people at 6:00 am but still visits the labour market to employ more people every three hours for more times. To add to the argument of eccentricity he employs another batch of workers when there is only one more hour for the bell to go. Not only that, this people employed in the last hour are those left behind. No one employed them--may be they were physically weak, had no skills for the work, or otherwise unemployable. Why did he employ such 'refuse' of the job market?
That is how it is with God. He may appear a bit 'eccentric' to us, who claim to be 'normal.' If God went by the norms and the rules none of us will be found in the Kingdom of God. It is his sheer mercy in going out of the way to find us that we are no the children of God.
There was surprise when the wages were given. First comes those unemployable people who came last to work. Though they came last--may not have done any work at all because by the time they reached the vineyard the bell must have gone--they were the first in the line at the payment counter. When they were given one days full wage (One Denarius) rest were excited. If this master gives away one Denarius for one hour then they will be paid according to the hours they put in. So, the first batch who had worked 12 hours in the scorching sun expected to get 12 Denarius. So, the other batches too. However, all of them were disappointed as they got only one Denarius the wage they had agreed upon. This master is unjust, they rightly concluded. He pays one days full wage to those who worked only an hour. However, the master's argument was valid too. He said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?' (Matthew 20:13-15 ESV).
So, that was the secret motive of the Master. He was not concerned about how much work is done and who does it--skilled, muscular people or useless, sloggy guys. It was his 'generosity' that makes him appear to be 'eccentric.'
That is true! Grace doesn't depend on any merit of those who receive it. It is freely given, generously, lavished on those who doesn't deserve it.
A final observation. After concluding the parable Jesus turned to his disciples and said: 'So the last will be first, and the first last' (Matthew 20:16 ESV). This is the second time that he said this the same day. Earlier in the day the young rich man came to him seeking how to enter eternal life. However, he turned back when he was told that he has to sell all that he has and give to the poor. Then in reply to Peter's question Jesus assured his disciples that those who left their property, famiy and friends for the sake of the Kingdom of God will not be losers but will be gainers. They will receive 'a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life' (Matthew 19:29 ESV). He was saying that those who like to keep their wealth will lose eternal life. However, who would risk what they have in this world for the Kingdom of God/Eternal life will not be losers in any sense of the word. He concluded that conversation also in a sentence identical to the one we find in 20:16 in 19:30. "But many who are first will be last, and the last first."
Was Jesus suggesting that those who entered the rule of God earlier than others has some kind of disadvantage? Or was he suggesting that those who came last to his grace has some undue advantage? A new truth emerges when we compare these two passages. The story of the rich youngman and the parable here. On many counts this man is first--his wealth, his spiritual hunger and his status in the society. However, this world which has accorded him the 'first' position will be superceded by another world to come--the Kingdom of God in its fullness or eternal life. In that world/age he will be last. At the same time, those who are last because they suffered loss for the sake of the world to come will be the foremost in the age to come. Jesus spelt that out clearly in Matthew 19:28. 'Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." There is a certain reversal of the order that is going to happen.
Grace may look a bit 'eccentric' because it doesn't follow our rules. That is why grae is grace, otherwise it would be somthing that we can claim or grab from God.

The Camel through the Eye of a Needle

Paul Piff, social psychologist has studied how wealth affects attitudes and behaviour. His empirical studies has uncovered that the wealthy are more prone to corruption and very poor in giving. They tend to be more likely to be law-breakers than those who are poorer than them! However, he says that these can be improved, though he doesn’t tell us how. There are exceptions to this rule certainly. The exceptions comes to us in the form of Warren Buffet, Bill and Melinda Gates and Narayana Murthi (Infosys) and many others who though rich are engaged in commendable service to humanity and liberal in their giving.
I think Paul Piff, has provided a modern scientific commentary to what Jesus said in the first century: ‘It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God’ (Mark 10:25). He meant ‘eye of the needle’ literally. It is not a small gate in the city of Jerusalem in Jesus’ time as some interpreters think. There was no such gate! ‘Eye of the needle’ is a hyperbole used to illustrate the near impossibility of the rich making progress in their spiritual progress.
The story of the rich man who approached Jesus is a good illustration. This man (young and rich) approached Jesus to find out how to enter ‘eternal life’ (Mark 10:17-31). This man obviously had the hunger to grow spiritually. He knew that there is something more than what he know and he practice to spirituality. It is this realization of lack that made him come to Jesus ‘running’ and ‘kneel’ before him. In addressing Jesus as ‘good teacher’ he also expressed his confidence that Jesus has the right advice and he is eager to know it.
The conversation  between him and Jesus reveals that he has achieved good spiritual progress already. Jesus prescribed to him six out of the ten commandments that has to do with human relationships and wealth (Mark 10:19). However, Jesus slightly modified one which originally said, ‘do not covet’ to ‘do not defraud.’ Defrauding goes a step further than covetousness or that is where covetousness leads a person to. In response to Jesus he claimed that he has been following these ‘from his youth’ (Mark 10:20). That means ever since he became morally responsible for his actions. (A Jewish male is considered to be morally responsible for his actions when he turns sixteen. He is then accountable to God and the society for his actions.) Jesus was very impressed by his spirituality, that is why Jesus ‘looked at him and loved him’ (Mark 10:21).
He is indeed a righteous rich person by the standards of his society and the religion he followed. By declaring that he has been observing all these rules, he claims that he has become wealthy in the right way. He hasn’t become rich at the expense of others. This is almost equivalent to any claim religious people make our days too. They haven’t accepted or given bribes to become rich, they haven’t exploited anyone, or have never made through illegal means. All that they have is made through right and justifiable means.
But Jesus’ response to him was shocking: ‘you lack one thing!’ (Mark 10:21). What is that one thing that the rich lack? Jesus did not make it clear when he said: ‘go, sell all that you have and give to the poor.’ Jesus was not asking to make a donation or to be regular with his tithes. His demand was to give away all that he has. It is shocking because Jesus was not against wealth or the wealthy. Jesus did not demand anyone other than this man to sell all that he had. If they left anything that was on their own, not because Jesus forced them to. The disciples left their nets, boats, taxbooths at their own will. Zachaeus offered to give away the wealth that he gathered through illegal means and share his legitimate wealth with the poor without any insistence from Jesus. Jesus certainly had many rich friends and disciples. Some of them were so rich to throw parties and Jesus accepted their hospitality to be labelled ‘a glutton and a drunkard’ (Mat 11:19) by his opponents. This peculiar demand was to illustrate to his disciples that the wealthy preferred their wealth if they had to make a choice between wealth and spirituality. As he expected, the rich man walked away: ‘Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions’ (Mark 10:22).
Jesus made two powerful statements through this confrontation with the rich man. First, even the  most perfect man by any standards have still room to grow spiritually. Second, wealth is the most important thing for the rich people. It is so important for them that even higher goals of life like growing spiritually takes a backseat. That means it is easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than expecting the rich to make spiritual progress.
What is wrong with money then? Does this mean that one has to become poor in order to grow spiritually? Not at all! We have already seen that Jesus did not demand asceticism from his followers. The danger of wealth is that it demands worship from us. That is why Jesus qualified wealth as ‘mamon’ the name of an Aramaic deity. That is why Jesus said that noone can ‘serve’ God and ‘mamon’ at the same time (Matthew 6:24). ‘Serve’ means to worship. It competes with God for its place in human life and we are prone to yield to wealth than to God when a choice has to be made.
Paul Piff’s research tells us that the problem with the wealthy is the sense of entitlement that they have. ‘Entitlement’ is that notion or belief that all that one has belong to him (her) and he (she) has right to it. He has found out that even those who didn’t make their wealth but got it through inheritance could have this sense of ‘entitlement.’ This makes them poor givers because they want to hold on to what they are ‘entitled’ to. This also make them make more money any way they could. Paul Piff through his scientific studies which the great Teacher had already stated and proved through the conversation with this rich man: ‘It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God’ (Mark 10:25).