Y. The parable of the pounds (19:11–27)
Y. The parable of the pounds (19:11–27)
There are resemblances between this story and the parable of the talents in Matthew 25. Some see these as variants of one original, but the differences make this hazardous (see the discussion in Arndt). It is more likely that Jesus made more than one use of the basic idea. In Matthew he is concerned with people of different abilities to whom are assigned tasks according to their capacities. The sums are large and represent the discharge of serious and important tasks. Here the sums are small and the same amount is given to all. The servants are being tested to see whether they are fit for larger tasks. The Matthean parable reminds us that we all have different gifts, the Lucan that we all have one basic task, that of living out our faith. Matthew’s story concentrates on the servants and their trading, but Luke has references to a nobleman receiving a kingdom and to the attitude of his subjects. Some hold that this means a conflation of two originally separate parables either by Luke or his source. This is possible, but the parable can be readily interpreted as it stands.
11. For some time Luke has been describing a journey to Jerusalem (see on 9:51). Jericho is about 17 miles from that city, so the journey is nearly over. This led some to think that the climax was at hand and that the kingdom of God would appear immediately. The climax was indeed at hand, but it would be of a very different kind from the one these people imagined. The parable was to put them right.
12. The nobleman going to a far country to receive a kingdom reminds us irresistibly of a vassal making a pilgrimage to Rome to be made king. Herod the Great had received his kingdom that way. In his will he divided his realm between three of his sons, all of whom in due course went to Rome to press their claims. Archelaus had been left Judea with the title king, but the people detested him and sent representatives to ask that he be not given the kingdom. He had given them good reason for hating him. At the first Passover after his accession, for example, he had massacred about 3,000 of his subjects (Josephus, Bellum ii.10–13). He was a thoroughly bad ruler. But the emperor confirmed him in the place of authority, though he denied him the title ‘king’ until he should prove worthy of it (which he never did). There would be special fitness in an allusion to Archelaus in this region, for he had built a magnificent palace in Jericho and also made an aqueduct for irrigation purposes (Josephus, Antiquities xvii.340). We should probably take the references to the kingdom allegorically. Jesus was about to finish his course at Jerusalem and that meant leaving this earth. But he would return in due course, having been given the kingdom. The reference to a far country shows that he cannot be expected to return very soon.
13. The nobleman made arrangements for his business affairs to be carried on during his absence by entrusting money to ten of his servants (not slaves, for a slave would not have the authority needed for the business transactions envisaged). Pound renders mna, a Greek coin worth a hundred drachmas (a drachma was a labourer’s wage for a day’s work). The sum is not a large one, but then most of God’s servants have limited ability. The servants were told to trade and evidently each had a pretty free hand, though they all knew that in due course they must give account of themselves.
14. The king motif reappears. The people subject to the nobleman did not like him, so they took what steps they could to prevent him from obtaining kingly authority. In the case of Archelaus they were justified, though unsuccessful. We cannot transfer this to the allegory, for Jesus is the perfect King and nothing can interfere with his kingship. But we should not miss the point that people rebel against all he stands for.
15–19. The nobleman got his kingdom and came home. He now called his servants, who had been trading, to render their accounts. The first and second had gained 1,000% and 500% respectively. Neither claims credit, but each modestly ascribes the increase to the money: your pound has made … Both are commended and promoted, being given cities in proportion to their profits. The reward is not rest, but the opportunity for wider service.
20–21. Only one more servant is dealt with and we are left to imagine what happened to the other seven. But this is sufficient, for in the end there are only two classes: those who made good use of the money and those who did not. This third man did nothing with his pound but laid it away in a napkin. This did not comply even with the minimum requirements for safety, which required burial in the earth (Talmud, Baba Metzia 42a). His declared motive was fear. He described his master as a severe man, using the adjective austēros whose meaning is ‘ “strict, exacting,” a man who expects to get blood out of a stone’ (MM). Taking up what one did not put down and reaping what one did not sow are evidently proverbial expressions for making gain through other people’s efforts.
22–23. The master made the servant’s words the basis of his condemnation. If the servant really believed what he said about his master, he ought to have done something. Without risk he could have put the money into the bank, where it would have earned interest. There were, of course, no banks in our sense of the term and the Greek means ‘on the table’, i.e. the table of the money-lender (in passing we notice that the English word ‘bank’ derives from ‘bench’, the money-lender’s bench). It would have been possible to put the money to use, but the frightened servant did nothing.
24–26. So the money was taken from him and given to the man who had proved that he could make good use of it. It is not clear whether the listeners who interject (25) are Jesus’ hearers or the other servants in the story. Nor is it quite certain whether the following words (26) are those of the nobleman or of Jesus. In either case they lay down the principle which the parable exemplifies. Jesus is not saying that the rich will get richer and the poor poorer. The words must be seen in their context. It is the man whose abundance shows that he has made good use of what he has who will get more. The man whose lack shows that, like the third servant, he has made no use of his opportunities, will lose what little he has. Cf. 8:18. It may be objected that there was no point in giving one pound to a man who already had ten and also authority over ten cities. But there is a principle involved. The smallest gift must be put to good use. In the Christian life we do not stand still. We use our gifts and make progress or we lose what we have.
27. The story finishes on a note of frightening severity. Those who rejected the nobleman and sent their embassy after him (14) are not forgotten. Safely installed in his kingdom and with accounts with his trading servants finalized, the nobleman commands the destruction of those he calls plainly these enemies of mine. They have set themselves in opposition to him; they must take the consequences. T. W. Manson has possibly the best comment on this: ‘We may be horrified by the fierceness of the conclusion; but beneath the grim imagery is an equally grim fact, the fact that the coming of Jesus to the world puts every man to the test, compels every man to a decision. And that decision is no light matter. It is a matter of life and death.’34