Following the repentance of chief tax-collector Zacchaeus, Jesus tells a parable to those who witnessed it. It is known as the Parable of Money Usage or the Parable of the Pounds.
It has many details in common with the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:13–30). One common opinion held by scholars is that they are one and the same but due to differing oral tradition, the evangelists diverged (R. Ginns, “The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St. Luke,” in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture) but I believe this to be unlikely.
Another (more likely) opinion is that these are two separate parables said on two separate occasions. This is because of the timing it was given; Luke specifies nearing Jerusalem instead of on the Mount of Olives (Matthew) and that it is directed toward a crowd instead of the disciples (Matthew). Along with the setting and audience being completely different so are many of the details of the parable if you look into it being deeper than a parable about money.
(Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 2 )
Some argue that Jesus would not repeat himself but prominent scholars of rabbinic Judaism like Jacob Neusner note that repetition and variation are pedagogical tools that have been used by rabbis for millennia. The rabbi simply reforms the building blocks of a teaching to the situation at hand, modifying details where appropriate to illuminate different things.
(Avery-Peck, A., Chilton, B. D., Green, W. S., & Porton, G. (Eds.). (16 Oct. 2014). A Legacy of Learning. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004284289)
11 As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.
Jesus has just announced that “salvation” has come to the house of Zacchaeus, the chief tax-collector, and referred to himself as the “Son of man”, the messianic-divine figure spoken of by the prophet Daniel. It is after hearing “these things” that Jesus begins telling the crowds a parable, this means the parable will apply to them, diverging from the Parable of the Talents in Matthew that is addressed to the disciples. Luke the Evangelist illuminates two reasons for Jesus telling the parable; the first, because he was near Jerusalem, the historic home of the Davidic Kings (2 Samuel 5:6-10) and the second, because his audience believed in an instantaneous reestablishment of a physical kingdom. The purpose of the parable is to correct their misconceptions on how these things are going to take place.
12 He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive a kingdom and then return.
He begins with a person of noble birth (eugenēs) who goes into a foreign land in order to receive power to rule his own land and eventually return to his people as king. This puts forth a timely and spatial distance between being picked as king and actually receiving the power to rule. This may seem odd in the modern western context, but this is exactly how kingship worked in first-century Judea, so it is something the audience is familiar with. The Herodian princes (noblemen) would have to travel to Rome (far away country) in order to receive their authority to rule their kingdoms. They were already princes but had not been bestowed the authority to rule as that was in the hands of Caesar.
13 Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten pounds and said to them, ‘Trade with these till I come.’
Before the nobleman leaves, he gathers ten of his servants and gives them 10 “pounds,” one pound each. The Greek word here is “mina,” which is a weight of money. In the Old Testament, a weight of 300 shekels was one pound or mina. In the New Testament, it was a weight of money equal to 100 drachmae. A detail of contrast with Matthew’s Parable of the Talents because the amounts of money are dramatically different. A single talent was worth 60 mina. The nobleman directs his servants to trade with these or more literally ‘Do business’ with these until he comes back.
14 But his citizens hated him and sent an embassy after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’
The future subjects, the Jews, hated him and sent a following after him in order to make claim to the powers of authority that they do not wish for him to be their king. This is exactly what happened in 4 B.C with the Herodian prince, Archelaus. He went to Rome to receive rightful authority from Caesar to rule in the land of his father Herod the Great but the Jews sent an embassy to contest his kingly appointment. The Jewish authorities will do the same in substance to Jesus when he is pronounced King of the Jews by Pilate, “We have no king but Caesar”(John 19:15), though we should not stretch point-for-point as Jesus is very different to Archelaus. Jesus is using what his audience already knows to illustrate things they do not know.
15 When he returned, having received the kingdom, he commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by trading.
After the noble man has returned, now as King, he orders back his servants who he gave the money to in order to see how well they had followed his commands to do business with it. It’s important to stress he commanded them to do something with the money and anything less than that is insubordination to the new king, justifying the judgement he gives on them.
16 The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your pound has made ten pounds more.’
The first servant comes back. He reports to the king that he has multiplied what was given to him tenfold. This is a dramatic profit on the kings investment and demonstrates the dedication of the servant. It should be noted that this detail of the parable contrasts with the economic reality of the ancient Roman world. A typical return on investments would range between 10-20% and practices like usury which might be able to attain such a high rate of return were frowned upon by Jewish Law (Exodus 22:25-27) so this is likely a hyperbolic element meant to underscore the servant’s faithfulness to the King’s order.
17 And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’
The King commends the first servant, calling him good, underlining that his faithfulness in little things is what is being commended, not the profit that has been gained and then rewards him. The reward is striking in its proportions to the deed, ten mina being worth a little under two years wages for a laborer and the servant is given the authority over ten cities in return. This cements Jesus’ positioning of faithfulness and obedience above other actions. A king disseminating his authority to those below him, just like with God, is an act of power, not powerlessness. This speaks to the catholic understanding of the communion of saints, God does not lose power or glory by extending it to His creatures, it is a demonstration of His power in the first place.
18 And the second came, saying, ‘Lord, your pound has made five pounds.’
The second servant arrives, informing the king that he has increased the Lord’s investment fivefold. The same as before this is an extreme return on investment that is not very probable in the reality of the Roman economy but again speaks to the fruitfulness of obedience to God’s word.
19 And he said to him, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’
As with the first, so with the second. The subsequent servant receives the authority over five cities within the Lord’s kingdom. A pattern is emerging, although the rewards to the two servants so far are massively more abundant in value to the material goods acquired by trading, they are proportionate. Ten pounds, ten cities and five pounds, five cities. What the servants do with what is given to them by their Lord, they receive abundantly in kind.
20 Then another came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your pound, which I kept laid away in a napkin;
A third servant arrives, this one offering back the exact same pound that was given to him with no return on investment despite the king specifically telling him to “do business” with it. He informs the king that he kept it laid away in a “napkin.” This translation of the Greek soudarion has always been confusing, as a napkin is a very specific thing with a very specific purpose, whereas the word soudarion has a variety of meanings. It literally means “sweatcloth,” but it was used to describe cloths used for wiping sweat from the face, cloths for blowing your nose, and the facial binding cloth of a corpse. It really should just be translated as common cloth, in my opinion. A portion of fabric with no particular purpose. That further illustrates the disrespect the servant is showing. He is not just being disobedient; he is being careless.
21 for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man; you take up what you did not lay down, and reap what you did not sow.’
The disobedient servant then gives his excuse for why he did not follow through on the obligations laid out for him by the King. He states that he feared him because he is a “severe man.” The word for severe is austēros, which means to be rigid of mind and manners. It is where we get the English word austere from. So the servant is afraid of the king because he is rigid in mind and manners; the types of manners the king is rigid in that the servant fears specifically are illustrated at the end of the verse. “You take up what you did not lay down and reap what you did not sow.” The servant seems to obstinately reject the servant/master relationship. In his inferiority, he attributes evil dispositions to his rightful master. The servant seems to think his own status and actions are independent of the king, despite him only having such status and ability to do these actions because of the king’s authority.
22 He said to him, ‘I will condemn you out of your own mouth, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow?
The King responds to the insubordinate servant by rebuking him with his own words. It can be confusing, but the King is not admitting to the accusations of the servant but saying even if they were true and he knew it, then he is incriminating himself. The evil he accuses the king of is just an excuse for laziness.
23 Why then did you not put my money into the bank, and at my coming I should have collected it with interest?’
The laziness of the servant is exposed by the King’s following remark that even if he thought all the evil of him was true, why did he not just put the money he received into a bank so the King could gain interest and he a reward? A detail not usually extracted from this is that the King himself could have done this before leaving, but he chose to bestow this responsibility on the servant; he was sharing a little of his dominion with him in money, giving the servant the opportunity to abundantly receive even more dominion after he receives his authority over his kingdom.
24 And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the pound from him, and give it to him who has the ten pounds.’
The king turns his attention to those stood by, presumably other servants, and instructs them to take the money from the insubordinate servant and give it to the good servant that had made the ten mina. This action of the king disproves the accusation of the disobedient servant in verse 21.
25 (And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten pounds!’)
The servants who are stood by respond to the king with what sounds like an exclamation of disbelief rooted in incorrect assumptions or possibly jealously, but commentators have asserted that this is in fact a literary device of expressing the generosity of the king.
26 ‘I tell you, that to every one who has will more be given; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
The teaching Jesus gives through the mouth of the king in the parable here begins with “I tell you,” an indication that this is the lesson being taught to the audience. This suggests that those who faithfully use their God-given gifts, talents, or opportunities to be fruitful in life will receive even greater blessings and responsibilities, but those who are not fruitful will lose even more than they had in the first place. What is interesting is that despite all the harsh words, the harshest are not given to the unfaithful servant but are reserved for the Jews that formed an embassy to follow the King to the faraway country at the beginning of the parable; this contrasts with the other parable in Matthew where the harshest punishment is for the unfaithful servant, once again making these two parables very distinct from each other despite the surface-level similarities.
Craig Keener notes that this principle reflects not just material stewardship but also spiritual accountability. Faithful discipleship leads to growth in spiritual riches, while neglect leads to stagnation or loss.
27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.’ ”
The most ominous words are saved not for the unfaithful servant but for the individuals who sought to deny the kingship of the nobleman. Now that he has received his authority and returned, he deems these people who attempted to circumvent is coronation as enemies and orders for them to be killed in front of them.
According to Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 2 this judgment of the King in the parable points to the events of 70 A.D.
“bring hither, &c.—(Compare 1 Sa 15:32, 33). Referring to the awful destruction of Jerusalem but pointing to the final destruction of all that are found in open rebellion against Christ.”
28 And when he had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.
Upon finishing the parable, Jesus goes on ahead of the caravan that has been traveling with him to make the final stretch to Jerusalem. The following verses will be Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem, so we can see why his very detail rich parable was given just before to correct the presumptions about what his entrance to Jerusalem means. He must go way first from this world before he can return as King in power, and his entrance into Jerusalem may be filled with celebration and joy, but it is not his coronation, and a terrifying punishment awaits those who attempt to refuse his authority when he is crowned.
Leave a Reply