The Parable of the Ten Minas
11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. [a] 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'
14 "But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'
15 "He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
16 "The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'
17 " 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'
18 "The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'
19 "His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'
20 "Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'
22 "His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'
24 "Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'
25 " 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'
26 "He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.' "
Dig Deeper
Imagine a scenario in which a parent was preparing to leave their college-aged student that was home during the summer to care for the house while they went off for some traveling that they had to do for work. They ask their child to care for the house and make sure to keep things running well until they return. They then head out for their trip with perhaps a bit of fear, knowing that their kid is not all that responsible, but also knowing that, whether they fail or succeed, they need the testing. The kid needs to see for himself whether he is a responsible caretaker or not. When the parent finally returns home after nearly a month on the road, he finds, much to his horror, that the son has failed miserably. The lawn has not been mowed, the mail has not been brought in, no dishes have apparently been washed during the entire time, and the rest of the house is an absolute mess. When the father asks the son what happened, he said that he was afraid of messing anything up because he knows that his dad is particularly picky about how things need to be done just right. “So you didn’t anything,” asks the exasperated father, “ instead of at least trying?” “No,” says the son, seemingly proud of his inaction. When asked what he did do for the whole month, the son indicates that he took very good care of himself. He exercised a lot to get in optimum physical shape, he ate the best food available with the money that his dad left, which meant that he couldn’t quite pay all of the bills that he was supposed to, and he really enjoyed his free time with some relaxing video games.
What do you think the response of this dad would be? What would this episode tell him about his son? At the very least it would be a very real indicator that the son didn’t really know what was important to the father at all. His behavior demonstrated that all he cared about was himself. He had no concern for the affairs of the father or the father himself when it came right down to it. He had everything at his disposal and was asked to care for it but had instead let it go into ruin for fear of doing something wrong and had instead taken all of the privileges of staying in his parent’s house and used them for nothing beyond himself. So what would be the response of the parent? It would not be pretty, that’s for sure.
In Luke 9:51 Luke told us that Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem and we have accompanied him on that incredible journey ever since then. We know that Jesus going to Jerusalem will end with no accident. He is determinedly marching towards a confrontation with evil and death, and now Luke tells us that this journey is nearly over. He was near Jerusalem and people were starting to get excited. They had, for the most part, apparently discarded the many warnings that Jesus had given about his own shame, suffering, rejection, and death that were going to come in Jerusalem, and had clung instead to their own preconceived notions of what the coming of the kingdom would look like. Surely, they thought, this was going to be a momentous event. At least some people seemed rather confident that when Jesus finally arrived in Jerusalem that the glory of God’s kingdom would break through.
In response to these questions surrounding his arrival in Jerusalem, Jesus chose to tell a parable. It is important to remember that, despite the fact that this parable is widely interpreted to be about the second coming and the final judgment, Jesus told parables to teach aspects of his ministry and what he was up to as he brought the kingdom of God crashing into the present age. This particular parable is surely pregnant with contemporary meaning for the people of Israel at the time. Both Herod in 40 BC and Archelaus in 4 BC went off to Rome to receive the right to rule as kings from the Roman emperor. There was public opposition, especially to Archelaus, as the people did not want him for a king, but he came back with ruling power nonetheless.
Using that very historical and relatable setting as a backdrop, Jesus told a story about a group of servants and a king. It is usually a pretty safe bet, we should remember, to assume that when Jesus told a parable about servants and a king that, at least at some level, God was the king and Israel was in the role of servant. Before he was made king, this nobleman called together his servants and gave them the task of ruling while he was away and asked them to rule over his affairs until he returned. This would not be an easy task, though, since the subjects of the king clearly did not want him to rule over them. While away, the nobleman was declared king and had returned home. But Jesus was speaking here of God. The king that has returned this time was not the hated Archelaus but God. In fact, that’s what his arrival in Jerusalem was all about. Since the destruction of the Temple in the 6th century BC, the people of Israel spoke of the fact that God’s presence had not returned to the Temple and they eagerly awaited the time when he would return. So, the much awaited return of the almighty God, Jesus was saying, was happening in the form of his arrival in Jerusalem. The time had come. The king was returning and now it was time for him to settle up with his servants. Had Israel, particularly the leadership of Israel been good stewards while the king was away?
Israel could have comported herself like the servant who was given charge over one mina (one mina was the equivalent of about a hundred day’s wages for an average worker or approximately $10,000 - $15,000 dollars in today’s terms) and increased the one mina to ten, or the servant who increased his mina to five. But instead, Jesus wanted to focus on the third servant to explain what was really going to happen as he arrived in Jerusalem. What did the third servant do with the resources given to him? Nothing is the cold, hard answer. The servant was afraid of what might happen if he misused that which was entrusted to him, so rather than using it for the purpose of making more wealth for everyone, he kept it to himself and it became worthless to anyone around. Not even the small bit of interest was gained by putting it into a bank. Jesus, we must be clear, was not offering sound asset investment advice here, but was making the point that God had given Israel much. As Paul put it in Romans 9:4-5: “Theirs is the adoption; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah.” He goes on to make clear that despite all of these resources, Israel failed to use them to be the light of the world, the purpose for which these things were given them. They hid them away and kept it all for themselves.
The servant in Jesus’ parable was associated with the master but his inactivity demonstrated that he had no sense of loyalty to the master. He didn’t trust the master at all, even though the master showed himself quite fair and generous to the other servants by putting them in charge of entire cities based on their faithful stewardship. His response to the other servants showed that he wasn’t really a hard man. The servant just didn’t know the master’s character at all and he attributed his lack of action to the king. It was the king’s fault, said the servant. The servant claimed to serve the master but his actions blatantly contradicted that.
Jesus’ point was clear. Was the kingdom going to come when he arrived in Jerusalem? Yes it was. Not in the way they expected, though. The long-awaited king was returning but the people didn’t really want him back. They wanted to keep the kingdom for themselves. As the king returned, the people would show themselves to have been unfaithful servants who were rejecting his message but they should know that judgment was coming as well. The king would richly reward those who proved themselves faithful but the unfaithful would meet with God’s judgment. The reality was, Jesus was not just talking about God’s return to Jerusalem, he was enacting it. The prophet Malachi had promised that “suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple” (Mal 3:1), and that was being fulfilled as Jesus made his way to Jerusalem. That Luke believed this to be the case is overwhelmingly obvious.
Jesus’ words of judgment here cannot be watered down or lessened. Those who tried to keep the master’s resources for themselves will find that they have nothing extra to show and even what they did have would be taken away. Those who rejected the return of the king because they didn’t really want him as king would be killed. The time was nearly expired for the nation of Israel. The king was on the verge of returning and he would be taking account of what his servants had done while he was away. Israel was going to be exposed as one who was associated with the king but didn’t really know the king at all. This is the last warning, in fact, that Luke recorded before Jesus finally stepped foot in Jerusalem.
For us, we know that the king returned to Jerusalem long ago, but we await the return of the king to take possession of his entire world one day. The reality of Jesus’ words here should give us reason to take pause and consider the significance of this parable for us as we await his final return to take measure of his servants and restore his creation.
Devotional Thought
The problem with the servant in this parable was that he did not know the nature and character of the master. This got him, and Israel, into trouble. Do you take concern in your daily life to ensure that you are really living your life in accordance with the nature of the Master? Upon his return will he find that you have been a good steward of his resources?
No comments:
Post a Comment