7. In Rome, at the time of Cicero, a day -labourer received 12 as =about 6d. - that is,
rather less than in Judæa (comp. Marquardt , Röm. Alterth. vol. v. p. 52).
These four things, then, stand out clearly in the Parable: the abundance of work to be
done in the vineyard; the anxiety of the householder to secure all available labourers;
the circumstance that, not from unwillingness or refusal, but because they had not been
there and available, the labourers had come at later hours; and that, when they had so
come, they were ready to go into the vineyard without promise of definite reward, simply
trusting to the truth and goodness of him whom they went to serve. We think here of
those 'last,' the Gentiles from the east, west, north, and south;8 of the converted
publicans and sinners; of those, a great part of whose lives has, alas! been spent
somewhere else, and who have only come at a late hour into the market-place; nay, of
them also whose opportunities, capacity, strength, or time have been very limited - and
we thank God for the teaching of this Parable. And if doubt should still exist, it must be
removed by the concluding sentences of this part of the Parable, in which the
householder is represented as going out at the last hour, when, finding others standing 9
he asks them why they stood there all the day idle, to which they reply, that no man had
hired them. These also are, in turn, sent into the vineyard, though apparently without
any expressed promise at all.10 It thus appears, that in proportion to the lateness of their
work was the felt absence of any claim on the part of the labourers, and their simple
reliance on their employer.
8. St. Luke xiii. 30.
9. The word 'idle' in the second clause of ver. 6 is spurious, though it may, of course, be
supplied from the fourth clause.
10. The last clause in our T. R. and A. V. is spurious, though perhaps such a promise
was understood.
And now it is even. The time for working is past, and the Lord of the vineyard bids His
Steward [here the Christ] pay His labourers. But here the first surprise awaits them. The
order of payment is the inverse of that of labour: 'beginning from the last unto the first.'
This is almost a necessary part of the Parable. For, if the first labourers had been paid
first, they would either have gone away without knowing what was done to the last, or, if
they had remained, their objection could not have bee n urged, except on the ground of
manifest malevolence towards their neighbours. After having received their wages, they
could not have objected that they had not received enough, but only that the others had
received too much. But it was not the scope of t he Parable to charge with conscious
malevolence those who sought a higher reward or deemed themselves entitled to it.
Again, we notice, as indicating the disposition of the later labourers, that those of the
third hour did not murmur, because they had not got more than they of the eleventh
hour. This is in accordance with their not having made any bargain at the first, but
trusted entirely to the householder. But they of the first hour had their cupidity excited.
Seeing what the others had received, they expected. to have more than their due. When
they like wise received every man a denarius, they murmured, as if injustice had been
done them. And, as mostly in like circumstances, truth and fairness seemed on their
side. For, selecting the extreme case of the eleventh hour labourers, had not the