In Ancient China, during the monarchical rule of dynastic emperors, whipping boys were employed to bear the blunt of punishment for the transgression of the young emperor. When the celestial head of state breaks a vase, he is never punished. Instead his coterie of fawning eunuch would cane the whipping boy. Such caning was deemed punishment enough for the young emperor. As such, the emperor could get away with murder with full impunity (no punishment). It is therefore natural to see how such corrupt system of justice is grossly unfair without any further say.
So, by extension, the sin of Adam and Eve should not be visited on later generations. And seen in this light, it is not unreasonable for an observer to frown at such dark-aged, pre-scientific logic of justice. How can the sins of the father and its consequences be imputed onto the innocence of his child and thereafter passed down to his child's unknowing descendents? It was at this time that Anna did a reinterpretation. She turned our attention to the question: "What is fair?" or "What does fairness mean?" Fairness therefore took on a re-definitional spin. Can God's sense of justice be distinguished from men?
At this juncture, the spotlight shone on James. He offered an interesting glimpse of God's Kingdom justice in the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16). Briefly, this parable tells us about various laborers standing idly in the vineyard at different times of the day. One group was engaged early in the morning; the other diverse groups were employed on the third, ninth and the eleventh hour of the day. On wages, the first group had agreed to be paid one denarius a day. But curiously, the Bible said nothing about the wages of the other groups who came later to the vineyard to work. To the subsequent groups of laborers, all was promised was this equivocal phrase, "you go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you."
When evening came, the landowner/employer gathered all his laborers to ready them for payment. All of them were then paid one denarius regardless of how long they had worked in the vineyard. This infuriated the first group of laborers who had logically worked much longer than the other workers, especially those who were only engaged at the eleventh hour.
An extract of the dialogue between the landowner and the first group of laborers is illuminating. "And when they had received it (one denarius), they complained against the landowner, saying, "These last men have worked one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day. But he answered one of them and said, "Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you."
My first impression after reading this parable (thanks to James) was that the landowner must have been a red-blooded communist. He paid all his laborers equally regardless of their toil and sweat. Obviously, the first group was not complaining about what they were getting since they had agreed on one denarius for a day's labor. But they were aggrieved by what the others were getting - the same wages as them even though the last group only worked for one hour!
But like all parables, they aim to convey Kingdom principles and God's justice that is markedly different from the justice of men. As Christians, we have to accept that God's ways are indeed different from ours and His thinking is not like ours. Zenn agreed on this by enlightening us with elusive concept of God's abundant grace and forgiveness. Basically, men's system of justice works on two levels. During the medieval days, men's justice was mainly based on the Mosaic pronouncement of "an-eye-for-an-eye". Even today, in some parts of the middle eastern countries, the judicial system sanctions punishment based on this crude principle. Recently, a lady from the middle east was a victim of a vicious acid attacked by a jilted lover. The latter threw acid on her face and she suffered permanent disfigurement and blindness.
Years later, she managed to persecute her assailant and the courts gave her two options: monetary compensation or retributive punishment (that is, pouring acid back into the man's eyes to blind him forever). Instead of opting for money compensation - and mind you, she really needed the money for health reasons - she elected without regrets the other punishment. Beloved, this is men's justice based on raw revenge.
The other type of justice is more humane. It is based on the due process of the law. I have a client whose teenage son was killed in a road accident. They came to me for justice. They wanted the driver to pay. Later, the driver was charged in Court and he got away with a fine and a short disqualification from all classes. However, this wasn't enough for the family. They wanted compensation. And rightfully so. So, I filed the papers to seek civil damages for the pain and suffering caused to them. This is therefore the second type of men's justice.
Now, God's justice is based on grace. It is counterintuitive (goes against human's apparent logic). God's justice is forgiveness before we were even born. It is a blanket assurance of forgiveness and it asks for nothing in return. It is unconditional. The world cannot understand how such form of justice can work. And I cannot blame them. Imagine transforming the world's judicial system to that of grace and forgiveness. Imagine telling a convicted rapists or murderers that they can go in peace, that their sins are forgiven, and that they do not need to serve time or pay fine. Their immediate acquittal is costless, unconditional and unquestioned. A world based on grace would be beyond secular imagination. How can our carnal mind grasp such other-worldly concepts? God's sense of fairness is indeed different from ours.
Sadly, the world cannot operate on the justice of grace because of the prevalence of grace-abusers. A society which abdicates laws and punishment and administers grace fully in this fallen, corrupt world would suffer the consequences of lawlessness. Authentic grace-abiders would be at the mercy of grace-abusers who flaunt the law. We therefore still need the law because free will or free choice can be subjected to abuse. All we need is a handful of hardened, lawless rebels and chaos would rule the day. In finances, these motley crew are called "rogue traders." In politics, they are called "dictators". In religion, they are called "pharisees". In game theory, they are called "free-loaders." In ordinary parlance, they are called "gangsters".
The lesson of the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard is about humility - an often neglected virtue in a world where humility is seen as weak and pride as strength. You see, the parable is not so much concerned with the workers' wages as much as it has got to do with the workers' heart. Why shouldn't the first laborers be satisfied with their wages (which was the same with the last batch of laborers)? By all counts, they should be contented since it was already settled that they would get only one denarius. But because they were filled with envy, they rebelled against the payment. I would think that they would be pleased if their fellow laborers were paid less than them. But God works differently.
Translating this parable into its proper context would require us to think about the true motive of our service to God. I would not belabor you with this as I have written about it in my last Friday's recap(280209)...in particular the invented story about Peter and his rock.
So, going back to the question: Is God fair? Well, in the light of our discussion above, God is apparently unfair if we focus narrowly on the seemingly unfair verdict of universal and ubiquitous condemnation for just one teeny, tiny, weeny infraction (sin). Maybe we could have done better to resist the temptation? Maybe we should not have left our spouse alone with the serpent? Maybe, if we had closed the garden entrance, or placed more guards (animals) on duty, the serpent would have not made any ingress? Maybe...
And, stretching it a little, if the Bible had stopped there and ended with the Book of Deuteronomy (Torah), then it would be grossly and wholly and undeniably unfair! But God did make a way. If we could see what God had seen then, we would discover that just as one man condemned all, the same man could bless all. Romans 5:17 put it beyond reproach, "For if by the one man's offence death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ."
So, God had a plan for our redemption. Although it took a while, about 39 books and 4000 years later, before Jesus came, God executed the ultimate plan by executing his perfect son. This has to be the greatest love story and the greatest sacrifice of all time. If Grace was a five letter word then it has to read "J-E-S-U-S". Let me end with the poem taken from the Book, Captured by Grace written by David Jeremiah, which juxtaposition mercy (old testament covenantal lingo) with grace (new testament covenantal lingo).
Mercy withholds the knife from the heart of Isaac. Grace provides a ram in the thicket.
Mercy runs to forgive the Prodigal Son. Grace throws a party with every extravagance.
Mercy bandages the wounds of the man beaten by the robbers. Grace covers the cost of his full recovery.
Mercy hears the cry of the thief on the cross. Grace promises paradise that very day.
Mercy converts Paul on the road to Damascus. Grace calls him to be an apostle.
Mercy closes the door to hell. Grace opens the door to heaven.
Have a wonderful weekend!
Postscript: Yesterday (130309) we also discussed about: Why then do people not make preparation for eternity? Our discussion was quite animated with you guys offering various reasons. If I may surmise them, they are:-
1) Too young to think about death.
2) Too skeptical to believe.
3) Too busy to care.
4) Too tired to act.
5) Too disillusioned (disappointed with life's struggles) to bother.
6) Too hedonistic (pleasure-seeking) to commit.
7) Too hard-hearted (stiff necked) to be touched.
8) Too flippant to take it seriously.
9) Too double-minded to decide.
10) Too arrogant or self-righteous to pay attention.
Food for thought?
