Defining Fairness. Can Scripture Help?

[unixknight]

As was noted in another thread, Scripture doesn't attempt to define fairness.  As was also pointed out, Scripture doesn't really get into the business of defining terms in  general.  

That said, I think it can still teach us what that is.  

Consider Matthew 20: 1-16.

Quote

Matthew 20:1-16 King James Version (KJV)

¹For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.

² And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.

³ And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,

⁴ And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.

⁵ Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise.

⁶ And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle?

⁷ They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.

⁸ So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.

⁹ And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.

¹⁰ But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.

¹¹ And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,

¹² Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.

¹³ But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?

¹⁴ Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.

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

¹⁶ So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

 

 

(This parable should totally be called the Home Depot parable. 🤣) 

There are two ways to look at this, if you're trying to determine what's fair.  

The first way is what the morning workers were complaining about from verses 10 - 12.  They had worked longer, but received the exact same pay (a penny) as those who had only worked an hour.  They felt that since they had put in more work, they should receive more pay.  That isn't an entirely unreasonable position to take.  That isn't, however, what the Lord is teaching us.  

The second position here, the one of the householder, is that the workers who had been there all day had agreed to work for a penny.  Therefore, they were being paid according to their agreement.  That too, is a reasonable position.

But why does the second one prevail?  Obviously Jesus is teaching here that the second perspective is the correct one, but why?  What is He teaching us here?

Well, first of all, I think this whole parable is about those who become followers of Christ late in life are going to receive the same salvation as those who had been followers all along.  (This is not unlike the parable of the Prodigal Son.) 

I think there's more though.  Look at the details.  In verse 15 we are very clearly being told that the householder has the right to dispose of his property (or coin) as he chooses.  That's HUGE.  The householder isn't obligated to give the morning workers more to align with what he pays the latecomers.  Each worker is paid according to what he agreed to work for.  (Verse 13) The amount was always the same, but the level of effort was not.  What's key here is that they all voluntarily agreed to work for the amount offered.  Nobody was forced to work, nobody was forced to accept a lower wage than they were promised.  Nobody was coerced into agreeing to a low wage in the first place.

So were the workers who were only there an hour overpaid?  Maybe.  Maybe the householder was being charitable to the guys who were otherwise going to go home empty handed.  Maybe there wasn't a smaller coin than a penny he could offer, so oh well.  Maybe he just didn't think about it.  That isn't what matters. 

What matters is that every worker received exactly what he was promised.  That is the foundation for fairness, according to this parable.

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, unixknight said:

As was noted in another thread, Scripture doesn't attempt to define fairness.  As was also pointed out, Scripture doesn't really get into the business of defining terms in  general.  

🤣***

What matters is that every worker received exactly what he was promised.  That is the foundation for fairness, according to this parable.

The Lord certainly delivers what He promises because he has reconciled all things, including justice and mercy, faith and knowledge, etc. His promises are contingent upon our forgiving others, and the extent to which we do that. When we take responsibility to forgive others, there is no expectation for fairness in life's equation.

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, unixknight said:

What matters is that every worker received exactly what he was promised.  That is the foundation for fairness, according to this parable.

Yep

So think about Oaths and Covenants, or earthly contracts. Have we been sufficiently honest in our dealings with our fellowmen if we have not delivered according to what we contracted?

Edited December 18, 2018 by Anddenex

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, unixknight said:

What matters is that every worker received exactly what he was promised.

Haven't we all been promised the same thing?

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The Lord certainly delivers what He promises because he has reconciled all things, including justice and mercy, faith and knowledge, etc.

Just to expound a bit on this:

I think it can be simplified thusly:

The Lord delivers what He promises because He is just.

The rest fits into that methinks.

[unixknight]

48 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Haven't we all been promised the same thing?

Yep.  I guess it takes the New World Order^TM to set things right.  Eh, @2ndRateMind? 

Edited December 18, 2018 by unixknight

[Guest]

3 hours ago, unixknight said:

As was noted in another thread, Scripture doesn't attempt to define fairness.  As was also pointed out, Scripture doesn't really get into the business of defining terms in  general.  

These two statements are contradictory in the background of the parable.  And these seem to contradict the rest of your post.

• The ONLY point of the parable IS to define what is fair. 
• The definition of "fair" is "paid according to their agreement."

If that is not free market capitalism, I don't know what is.

The rest of what you stated in your post explicitly states this.

[unixknight]

Just now, Carborendum said:

These two statements are contradictory in the background of the parable.  And these seem to contradict the rest of your post.

• The ONLY point of the parable IS to define what is fair. 
• The definition of "fair" is "paid according to their agreement."

If that is not free market capitalism, I don't know what is.

The rest of what you stated in your post explicitly states this.

Maybe I should have put quotes around the word 'fairness.'  Scripture doesn't define the word 'fairness' anywhere, does it? 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Maybe I should have put quotes around the word 'fairness.'  Scripture doesn't define the word 'fairness' anywhere, does it? 

If you're looking for the exact word, the KJV didn't use the word in that sense because that was not the common usage at the time it was written.  But let's take a look at this very same passage in the NIV.

Quote

12 These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13 But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 

14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 

15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

16 So the last will be first, and the first will be last.

Consider that this language turns this parable around at least 90 degrees.  It speaks to both right and left in the current political climate.  (Thank heavens, I'm libertarian).

v12 has the workers complaining about how the Lord made all "equal in outcome".  That was a complaint that most on the right make.  You can't just give everyone the same outcome for differing levels of work!!! 

v13 specifically uses "unfair" rather than "doing wrong." Certainly, the concept of "fairness" was being debated here.  And the final answer is "I'm doing what I agreed to do." 

So, here the Lord denies both right and left arguments about equality of outcome or equality of effort.  Neither matter.  The only thing that makes His actions fair is that he did what he agreed to do.

And as justification:  Don't I have the right to do as I will with my own money?

Then look at the last: Are you envious because I am generous?

It is as you describe.  But he certainly was defining the concept of fairness.

Now, cross reference this with Luke 12

Quote

13 ¶ And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.

14 And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?

15 And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.

So, here the Master is confronted with someone complaining about a rich man who is selfish.  But his response is to condemn the poorer man because of covetousness.

Then he gives a final message for us all.  MONEY DOESN'T MATTER!!!  But for some reason that is what we keep arguing about.  Socialist keep saying,"If we only had money for the poor...."  NO.  Money is not the problem.

Capitalists say,"If they just ..., then they'd have all this stuff."  NO!  "having stuff" is not going to change anything.

Both are wrong because it has to start from the inside.  That is what makes a man's life worth living. 

[CV75]

14 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Just to expound a bit on this:

I think it can be simplified thusly:

The Lord delivers what He promises because He is just.

The rest fits into that methinks.

...but also because He is merciful...

[Rob Osborn]

The parable speaks of laborers in the Lord's kingdom laboring for the souls of men. Coming at different hours represents mortality where we are born into the vineyard at different times. So yeah- some were born thousands of years ago and have been working for the Lord as converted laborers longer. But the reward which is salvation from hell is the same regardless of when one comes into mortality and accepts the gospel and in turn labors with those who came before for the salvation of souls.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

...but also because He is merciful...

Mercy is not an also to justice in my thinking. Mercy is a part of justice. If God were not merciful he could not be just.

[wenglund]

40 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Mercy is not an also to justice in my thinking. Mercy is a part of justice. If God were not merciful he could not be just.

True. Yet, those who avail themselves not of God's mercy, will nevertheless receive justice. So, in one sense mercy is a part of justice, and in another sense it is not. At least that is my thinking.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

20 hours ago, Carborendum said:

v12 has the workers complaining about how the Lord made all "equal in outcome".  That was a complaint that most on the right make.  You can't just give everyone the same outcome for differing levels of work!!!  

That is an excellent point.

However, if the penny is a metaphor for remission of sin and the ability to progress through the eternities unto Godhood rather than be damned, then what appears to be an outcome is actually an opportunity 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Mercy is not an also to justice in my thinking. Mercy is a part of justice. If God were not merciful he could not be just.

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

True. Yet, those who avail themselves not of God's mercy, will nevertheless receive justice. So, in one sense mercy is a part of justice, and in another sense it is not. At least that is my thinking.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My take is that mercy and justice are perfectly reconciled through the Atonement of Christ. They are not part of each other yet do not rob each other; they are functionally opposing principles. Perhaps charity is their unifying or coordinating principle, since that is the basis for the Atonement of Christ.

[wenglund]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

 Perhaps charity is their unifying or coordinating principle, since that is the basis for the Atonement of Christ.

I am thinking the unifying principle is sacrifice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

5 hours ago, wenglund said:

I am thinking the unifying principle is sacrifice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I was taught a long time ago that obedience is the first law of heaven.  Sacrifice is the second.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, wenglund said:

I am thinking the unifying principle is sacrifice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not fair!

[The Folk Prophet]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

My take is that mercy and justice are perfectly reconciled through the Atonement of Christ.

I'd call that more than just a take.

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

They are not part of each other yet do not rob each other;

To be just is to be fair, right, correct, good etc.

Do you believe it would be fair, right, correct, good, for God to be merciless?

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

they are [can be] functionally opposing principles [but do not have to be].

This is more accurate I think.

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

Perhaps charity is their unifying or coordinating principle, since that is the basis for the Atonement of Christ.

As I said, I believe justice is the unifying, coordinating principle.

I suppose one could say that God is just because he has charity. So in that regards charity could be viewed as the unifying principle.

[unixknight]

On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 7:48 PM, Carborendum said:

It is as you describe.  But he certainly was defining the concept of fairness.

I've been thinking about this and the part of your post I still don't agree with is this statement.  I think that conceptually, people already understood the concept of 'fairness.'  It didn't need to be defined as such, but I do think these verses explain the correct perspective on fairness.

I don't think the workers who had been laboring since the morning were being entirely unreasonable, in that they felt like the amount of pay should be commensurate with the amount of time spent working.  After all, "time is money" and people are accustomed to thinking in terms of there being a direct correlation between time spent and pay received.  We would consider that to be fair.

But here's why they were, in fact, wrong.  They had reached an agreement, a verbal contract, with the householder to work for a specified period for a specified amount of pay.  They seem to have felt that was fair compensation for their work at the time.  The trouble comes when the householder hired others later to work less time for the same amount of pay.  Essentially, the workers from the morning seem to have felt they were being cheated somehow.  But they weren't.  They were given what they were promised, in a transaction they entered into freely and in good faith.  That's how fairness is being presented here.

It's like if I go to the store and buy a new television, and the next day that TV goes on sale for 20% off.  Have I been cheated?  No.  I bought the TV for a price I felt was reasonable enough to pay, and was satisfied with my transaction right up until I realized that if I had waited another day, I could have saved 20%.  Is the store obligated to refund me the 20%?  Of course not (although I've known people to push for this).  Is it unfair?  No. 

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

But here's why they were, in fact, wrong.  They had reached an agreement, a verbal contract, with the householder to work for a specified period for a specified amount of pay.  They seem to have felt that was fair compensation for their work at the time.  The trouble comes when the householder hired others later to work less time for the same amount of pay.  Essentially, the workers from the morning seem to have felt they were being cheated somehow.  But they weren't.  They were given what they were promised, in a transaction they entered into freely and in good faith.  That's how fairness is being presented here.

In the eternal scheme of things I think there's another point worth mentioning. God's objective is to get us all to become like Him. Since we don't all start out the same, the path getting there cannot be the same.

Someone who naturally easily gets angry needs a different path to become God-like in their temper control than someone who naturally doesn't get angry very easily.

God, knowing all, has us labor in the field according to our needs so that we may become like Him. If we have to labor longer for the same reward, that's not on God's fairness or lack thereof. It's on us and it's for us and it's because God is no respector of persons and will give all the same "fair" opportunity to become as He is.

I think of when my wife and I were going to college in our early marriage and had some classes together. We'd get assigned to write a paper and she's struggle, struggle, struggle, work, work, work, and finally, with lots of trauma sometimes, get the paper completed after days and days of work. I'd wait until the last hour before it was due and type something up. Half the time I'd end up with the better grade.

Is this "fair"? She had to work so much harder than me for the same or a lesser grade.

Well -- I'm a better natural writer than her. (Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I write with more ease than she does). If she continued to write and write and write, eventually she'd do it as easily as me most likely, and eventually she'd probably be better. But she'd have to work harder to get there. In the end (meaning exalted), if we both work on it, we'll be perfect writers/communicators. But her path getting there might be a bit more labor intensive than mine.

Now I don't know where the "natural" ability to write stems from -- meaning if it's a learned thing, pre-mortal thing, just the brains we were given, or what. But the theory works I think. The differences (weaknesses) we have, at some level, are eternal. The objective is to remove the weakness. Some will do it easier, some less so. It's not fair. But it's not an imposed unfairness either. It simply is what it is.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

I've been thinking about this and the part of your post I still don't agree with is this statement.  I think that conceptually, people already understood the concept of 'fairness.'  It didn't need to be defined as such, but I do think these verses explain the correct perspective on fairness.

I can go along with that.

[Traveler]

It is interesting to me that at the end of the scripture quoted that there is the phrase - the last shall be first and the first shall be last.  I am of the opinion that this phrase is not understood well in our modern society.  Often Jesus (Jehovah) refers to himself as Alpha and Omega.  Which in essence means the first and the last.

 

The Traveler