Hello everyone.
We just looked at the story of Zaccheus in Luke 19. We will continue the story there, today, covering verses 11-27. Zaccheus' story takes place in Jericho, which is eighteen miles from Jerusalem. They had been on this long journey toward Jerusalem, and they were getting close. Everyone understood that Jesus' arrival in Jerusalem was significant. However, their understanding of its significance was probably quite different. Jesus understood exactly what was to happen, while the disciples were expecting some kind of political revolution and the restoration of the Davidic kingdom. Verse 11 tells us that as they neared Jerusalem, they were thinking that God's kingdom was about to come. It was, indded, about to come, but in the way that they thought it would.
The parable Jesus tells here is very similar to a parable that Matthew tells. (Matt. 25:14-30) There are differences however:
- The location where the parable is told is different.
- The number of servants and the amount of money given is different.
- In Matthew’s account, three servants are given various amounts of money based on ability. In Luke’s account, ten servants are all given the same amount of money.
- Luke includes a second plot about the citizens of the country not wanting the man to rule over them.
Within this context Jesus tells a parable of a man who goes away to a distant land to be made king, while leaving his servants in control of his money with the expectation that they would put the money to use and earn more. As the man is preparing to leave he brings in ten of his servants and gives them each a mina and tells them to conduct business in his absence. A mina is worth about three months wages.
Here is the man's thinking. He is about to be made king, and when he is, he will give his faithful servants positions of authority in his new kingdom. The task that he gives them prepares them for work he has in mind for them to do later. Those that prove faithful will be given more.
When the man returns, the servants are called to account for their actions while their master was gone. How have they conducted business in his absence?
The first servant is very successful. He turns one mina into ten more. The second is also pretty successful. He turns one mina into five more. The master responds to these two servants with great generosity. For example, the first servant took three months wages and turned it into thirty months wages. It is quite a profit. He is rewarded by being placed over ten cities. He has certainly done well, but his reward does seem outsized in comparison to what he has done.
However, the third servant is unsuccessful, and does not produce anything. The man made no effort to produce anything with the money that had been entrusted to him. He merely wrapped it in a cloth and hid it away for safekeeping. The third servant’s rationale for hiding the money was that he was afraid of the king, calling him a difficult man, who withdrew money that he had not deposited and reaped where he had not sown. But, based on the response the master gave to the other two servants, we know that this perception of the master is incorrect. The master has already shown himself to be quite generous. This misunderstanding of the nature of the Master led the servant to be paralyzed with fear. So, he does nothing. The servant may have felt like he was in a no-win situation. The master would keep any profit, and blame the servant if he lost the money, so he took no chances and simply gave back what he had been given.
Just like this servant, many misunderstand the Master, seeing God as mean and vindictive. They reject Him because they do not see Him clearly.
The Master’s judgment of the third servant is interesting. He tells him that he will be judged by his own words. The man calls the master a difficult man, and the master doesn’t deny it, even though he had not shown himself to be difficult to this point. The master judges the servant based on the servant’s view of the master. The master does inquire as to why the man did not at least put the money in a bank to draw interest, rather than just hiding it. He could have made a small profit while doing absolutely nothing, but in his foolishness, he doesn’t even do that.
After their accounting, the first two receive commendation and promotion. They will play an important role in the new king’s administration. Darrell Bock points out that the faithful receive reward and responsibility, while the unfaithful receive judgment. (Bock, 1540.)
Becasue the third servant does not see the master clearly, he ends up with nothing. What little he has is taken and given to the one who had made the biggest profit. It seems that it is our best interests to see God clearly.
There is a secondary plot in this parable about people who did not want the man to rule over them. Verse 14 says that those who he would one day rule over, hated him and sent a delegation after him to declare that they did not want his leadership. This subplot seems to have very little to do with the story of the servants and the money, but we see after the settling of accounts with the servants, the new king calls for those who did not want to rule over them, whom he calls enemies in verse 27, brought in before him and slaughtered.
On the surface, this seems like a strange disconnected addition to the parable, having nothing to do with the story of the servants and their business dealings. However, this part is connected to their imminent arrival in Jerusalem, where Jesus has come as their king. However, he is rejected as king by the people there. Jesus has been telling his disciples that this would happen, but they have been very slow to understand what Jesus has been saying to them. They are expecting the Messiah. Jesus doesn’t fit their idea of Messiah. In fact, he is going to be rejected by the nation of Israel, and the world, but his disciples will be expected to serve him faithfully, until he returns.
No comments:
Post a Comment