18 May 2024
Bailey decides to use the old English label for the Parable of Talents, calling it "pounds", found in Luke 19:11-27. He notes something very important: This parable addresses a common fallacy of Jesus' day regarding the impending Messianic Kingdom. People convinced the world will end soon tend to pull back from obedience on a lot of issues because it seems it won't matter. If we knew Jesus would return in a few days, we could skip going to work or school, taking out the trash, washing our laundry, etc. In common thinking, normal consequences disappear.
The point is that the Messianic Kingdom was not going to follow the Day of Judgment. The Day of Judgment would be a separate event, and the Messianic Kingdom would not change the world itself. Thus, the time to buckle down and get to work was right then and there, because the Messianic Kingdom was actually more strenuous than the Old Kingdom of Israel.
As historical background, Herod in 40 BC went off to Rome to petition to be made king of the entire realm that he had conquered on Rome's behalf. In 4 BC, his son Archelaus made a similar journey for a similar claim. The basic story in the parable is familiar to Jesus' audience, sounding very much like what both men had done even in the details. The key themes were faithfulness versus unfaithfulness, reward versus condemnation.
Bailey's outline isn't that special; there's no rhetorical format. Everyone should know the story, so we'll just get on with it. The servants had a limited time to make the most of their trusts. Each received what the ruler felt they could handle. We get a Greek lesson regarding some words that may not have been translated properly in the past. When the ruler orders them to engage in trade "until" he comes back, the Greek phrase en ho should better indicate an expectation -- "in which" or "because" he would return.
Meanwhile, the plot thickens as some in his realm sent a delegation to the imperial court to contest this man's claim. Bailey says there is an implied expletive deleted, as the delegation calls their ruler something nasty. Thus, there was also the implication that the ruler's enemies would harass his servants and try to hinder their efforts to make a profit.
Therefore, the man who hid the money acted quite reasonably. The political instability back home during the ruler's absence should have been an obvious expectation for everyone who reads this story. Who is going to keep order on the ruler's behalf? His personal presence, or lack of it, changes the whole situation. Thus, included in his charge to this servants is the sure knowledge they would face the risk of resistance in performing his will. He is testing their loyalty. Will they boldly represent him, acting in his name?
There is a very good reason a faithful church is persecuted during the time Jesus is physically absent from the world. This echoes the teaching on the elohim council rebellion.
Upon his return, the king asks what his servants have gained from his investments. The Greek word (diepragmateusanto) shows up only here in the entire New Testament. Of the meanings possible, the Middle Eastern churches have consistently chosen to translate this, "How much business has been transacted?" This is not, "Show me the money." This is more like, "How much trouble have you faced in my name?"
The reason westerners miss the point is our capitalist assumptions read back into Scripture. English translations rarely get the point here. It's not about profits, but faithfulness to their master in promoting his reputation. The servants were praised for loyalty, not success. Paul says it is God who provides the success with the gifts He gives us.
The third servant claims to fear his master, but he was even more afraid the king would not return. In essence, he says to this master's face that he is just a thief. But the king is not a Bedouin for whom such words are a compliment (harvesting others' grain). But this man thinks of it as a compliment, suggesting that his king was a plundering predator. That may have echoed the sentiments of Herod's enemies early in his career, but it's not a compliment to a king ruling over an established agricultural nation.
We do have record of raiding cultures reading their value system back into the Bible, so that even King David was imagined by some as more like a Bedouin brigand, instead of a civilized man protecting his nation. Since the unfaithful servant has this twisted perception of his master, the king punishes him according to that viewpoint (see Psalm 18:25-26). Besides, had the king been a raiding brigand, he would have been happy to receive interest from bankers, something everyone knows was illegal in this particular kingdom.
To the cries about unfairness in how rewards were distributed, Jesus replies that the faithful are granted an abundance, and the unfaithful will lose everything. Meanwhile, the king now deals with this internal enemies -- they are condemned to death. But the parable ends before this command is executed. This is typical of Jesus' many parables, where the expected end is cut off. Then again, in the mind of Middle Eastern folks, upon hearing such an order about themselves, they know that they have a long and difficult negotiation ahead of them. Hyperbole is still common in that world, as it was in the Hebrew culture.
It should be clear that no Herodian was ever that generous, but our God is. Even the man who failed was treated rather gently, compared to what an actual Herod might do. An important point in this parable is the significant difference between human nature and how the Messiah Himself acts.
This document is public domain; spread the message.