We are back this week and the parable for this blog message is found in Luke 19:12 – 27, the parable of the Minas. A minas is a Greek measure of money equal to slightly more than three months salary or one-sixtieth of a talent. Even though the actual parable begins in verse 12 I will begin with verse 11 as this verse sets up the parable.
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. ‘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 the one who has 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.’”
This story perhaps has recent Jewish history as its background. Herod the Great had gone to Cleopatra in Egypt and then to Mark Antony in Rome, where a Jewish delegation had been accusing Herod of misconduct. Herod’s father Antipater had been gracious to Antony, so he persuaded the Roman Senate to make Herod king over Judea. Herod then made a habit of murdering his opponents.
Later Archelaus and Antipas, Herod’s sons, traveled to Rome seeking political appointment. The Jews revolted against Archelaus and appealed against him in Rome. Caesar finally divided the kingdom, making Archelaus tetrarch of Judea, with his two brothers Antipas and Philip splitting the remainder of Herod’s kingdom. Archelaus continued his cruel ways, finally forcing Rome to take away all his political power. After the time of Jesus, this pattern continued in Judea. Jesus’ audience would easily have understood the situation he described and may have thought he was talking about a current political situation.
Many interpreters seek to limit this parable to earthly kingship and make its teaching a contrast to the way Jesus is king. The close relationship between Jesus’ comings and goings and those of the man in the parable force us to see the story as illustrating exactly what verse 11 introduces: the delay of Jesus’ kingdom.
Having made his way up the dangerous winding mountain road from Jericho, Jesus came to the entrance of Jerusalem. The crowds were following him and listening to his teaching. They made it clear to Jesus that they thought the moment had arrived. It was time for him to bring in the kingdom. Evidently, they thought he would enter Jerusalem as a conquering king, ready to throw out the Roman government and take charge. He could use the miraculous powers he had shown and call on God to send the angelic army, and a son of David would once more occupy the throne of David. Jesus sought to dash such expectations. He used his normal method: telling a parable.
In the parable a man traveled to another country to be crowned king of the country where he had been living. To test their responsibility, the king gave each of his ten slaves one mina. The man entrusted almost nothing from his standpoint to the slaves, but each of them had over three months’ pay. Would the slaves wait idly while the master was gone, living on the unexpected windfall? Or would they obey the master and put the money to use and earn a profit?
The man seeking the kingship had to deal with other people besides the slaves of his household. He had citizens of the kingdom. These people were not slaves. Rather, they claimed power and influence in the kingdom. They had resources of their own, independent of this king. They used these resources to send their own delegation to the far country, trying to prevent his appointment as king. They did not want this man as king.
Certainly, behind such an image stood the Pharisees and other religious leaders of Israel. God sent his Messiah to be their king. They rejected Messiah and even collaborated with enemy government officials to prevent him from gaining the kingship. They did not realize that Jesus never intended to establish an earthly kingship. Rather, God used their opposition to Jesus to achieve his plan of redeeming the world through the blood of his Son.
The opposition failed. The man became king in the far country and returned to rule. This again parallels the kingdom of God. Jesus journeyed to heaven after his death. There the resurrected Lord sits on the throne at God’s right hand. He is king, but his opponents cannot see that. They think they have won the victory. Instead, Jesus is on his way back. He is coming. One day his kingdom will be evident to all the world. Then what will happen? The story tells us. He summons his slaves to whom he has entrusted responsibility. He wants to know how they have done with his resources.
The first slave passed the examination with flying colors. He had earned one thousand percent on his investment. Now the king rewarded him with even more responsibility and power. The least on earth, a slave, became powerful and great because he was a faithful steward, responsible over all he received. The second slave made only five hundred percent profit. Again, the master rewarded him with more authority and responsibility
The story does not follow each of the original ten. It simply illustrates the two extremes: great faithfulness and utter failure. The third slave exemplifies the latter. He knew the king’s habits and feared what would happen to him if he should lose his money. So, he gave the king back what he had received. But this was not faithful obedience. This was not responsibility. This was lazy, fearful idleness. He did not put his money to work as the king ordered.
Verse 21 makes interpretation of the parable difficult. If God or Jesus is seen as the returning king, then this description hardly fits. It is a caricature of the king who so graciously gave the money before he left and who so richly rewarded some of his slaves when he returned. This is the only servant who attempted to describe the king, and his description was wrong. He rep¬resents the worst side of the Jewish religion of his day, a side that thought it had to obey God at any cost and in the smallest detail of the law. Otherwise, God would become the angry judge, throw the book at them, and punish them beyond imagination. This is the natural outcome of legalistic religion. It changes God from a gracious redeemer who gives laws because he knows the life that is best for us to a mean tyrant who forces us to obey laws for his own pleasure and cheats us out of what rightfully belongs to us. Legalistic religion concentrates so heavily on the religious system that it gets out of touch with the God it claims to represent.
The king took the disobedient slave’s words at face value. This is not to say the king accepted such a description. What monarch would publicly admit to such a character profile? The king simply says, “If this is the system he is seeking to follow and this is the god he is trying to please, then he will be judged on that system.” That system makes even more demands for obedience. Why did he not follow the command of the king rather than retreating in fear? If nothing else, let someone else do the work. Just put the money in the bank and receive common interest on it. Then he would have had something to give the master.
The slave’s excuse makes no sense. Similarly, the judgment scene in Matthew 25 shows people totally unaware of how false their religious conceptions are and how wrong their expectations of heavenly reward. The religious system Jesus found in place in Israel did not work. It was not based on intelligent reasoning, consistent actions, or a true understanding of God. The people who practiced it faced judgment.
The judgment involved taking away what the slave had. The most faithful of the slaves got even more reward and responsibility. The evil slave was left with nothing. His whole system disintegrated. What he thought he controlled, he lost. The Jewish religious system would face terrible judgment in A.D. 70 with the destruction of the temple, but the individuals would face ultimate judgment when the Messiah returned in all his glory.
The crowd, or perhaps the other slaves, saw this as unfair. Why take away what little the one had to give to the one who had enough? This represents the response of legalism, a system built on eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, absolute justice. Jesus’ kingdom represented an entirely different type of system. It was a system of grace to the faithful and trusting, but judgment for those who trusted themselves rather than leaning on God’s grace.
This summarizes the story in proverbial form. Jesus divided people into two classes: those who have and those who do not. The latter class includes very religious people who think they know God and believe they have the only way to gain his rewards. In reality, they do not know God at all. They are evil. They will lose the religious power and responsibility they have and will face the king’s final judgment.
The class of those who do not have includes another group. These not only think they have the way to God all locked up, but they actively oppose Jesus. Here Jesus spoke directly to the Pharisees and scribes who would soon lead him to Pilate and Calvary. They were opposing him. They did not want his type of relationship to God. They refused to acknowledge him as king. Eternal slaughter and death awaited them. Active opposition to God brings even greater punishment than refusal to do things God’s way.