If the parable in today’s Gospel reading seems to challenge the conventional meaning of fairness, it has accomplished its first provisional goal.  This parable is memorable because it portrays a large group of laborers hired a few at a time over the course of a day and paid equally for unequal amounts of work. 

The story creates the expectation that those laborers who worked longest might be paid more than those who worked only for a short time.  The expectation is appealing because it promises to satisfy the wish fulfillment fantasies that everyone harbors.  Everyone considers themselves to be extraordinarily gifted and uniquely accomplished.  The fact that others do not readily acknowledge one’s special character leads to the expectation that one will be compensated for both one’s specialness and the lack of recognition of one’s specialness. 

The parable takes an uncomfortable turn when the laborers who “who bore the day’s burden and the heat” are put on par financially with those who worked only an hour. (Mt 20:12)  The employer appears to be capricious or intentionally unjust.  The unexpected reversal of fortune for the laborers is most often understood as an illustration of divine egalitarianism, that is, that God loves all people and loves them equally. 

The conventional interpretation of this parable is valid.  God loves all people and offers all people equal opportunity for salvation.  Furthermore, all who believe rightly are granted an identical experience of forgiveness and redemption.  These are beliefs of the Catholic Faith. 

It is a bit odd, however, to portray God’s impartiality as personified in a capricious landowner.  For this reason, the conventional interpretation is not fully satisfying and invites a second look at the parable’s meaning.  It might be the case that the parable does not suggest injustice in the actions of the landowner but rather in the actions of some of the laborers. 

In the parable, the landowner states clearly the scope of work and compensation associated with the offer of employment.  All who accepted the landowner’s offer of employment did so in exchange for the pledge of “the usual daily wage.” (Mt 20:9)  The landowner can’t be accused of injustice or capriciousness because he did precisely what he promised to do.  Although the landowner might be accused of being a bit pedantic, he proved himself thoroughly trustworthy and honest.   

Only the grumbling laborers in the story can be accused legitimately of injustice.  They made an agreement and later complained about their own decision.  If it is surprising that the grumbling laborers were guilty of injustice, then the parable has accomplished its second provisional goal. 

The actions of the grumbling laborers were truly unjust because the grumblers compared themselves to the other laborers.  Some felt they deserved more than others, and some felt others deserved less than themselves.  This sort of comparison and complaint is more than a bit childish.  When a preschooler claims that her dolls are more beautiful than another child’s dolls, it’s age-appropriate and somewhat endearing.  When an adult makes a similar claim, it’s merely pathetic.  In the parable, the grumbling laborers proved themselves to be faithless and untrustworthy because they were unwilling to fulfill their obligations under the terms of the labor contract; they complained like petulant children. 

The parable invites scrutiny of the injustice that hides behind every person’s sense of uniqueness.  To compare oneself, favorably or unfavorably, to another is an act of rejection of belief in the unconditional nature of God’s love.  Regardless of whether one’s sense of superiority over others is based on the conviction that one has been wronged and deserves recompense or that one considers others undeserving of the benefits one enjoys; it is an act of profound injustice.  If God loves all equally, then all are equal; comparisons are a rejection of God’s love. 

If this interpretation of the parable challenges your belief that you deserve to be treated as if you are special, then the parable has fulfilled its ultimate goal.  Jesus’ statement that “the last will be first, and the first will be last” is, in fact, a statement about reversal of fortune. (Mt 20:16)  It is not, however, intended to legitimize anyone’s claim to special treatment.   

The “last” in the parable were not the mistreated underdogs who were vindicated by a surprising turn of events.  Rather, they were the ones who kept their word, accepted the terms of their agreement with the landowner, and did not grumble about it.  The “first,” on the other hand, were not those who had every advantage over their fellows but were humiliated so that others could be exalted.  Rather, they were the ones who always and only thought first of themselves to the exclusion of others. 

When Margaret Mead said, “Always remember that you are absolutely unique.  Just like everyone else,” she might have meant it sarcastically.  When Jesus made a similar statement, he meant it as an invitation to accept God’s universal offer of redemption by acknowledging that God desires the salvation of all.