Login/Sign up

World Association of International Studies

Post The Unforgiving Servant: Debt in the Gospels
Created by John Eipper on 10/28/20 3:30 AM

Previous posts in this discussion:


The Unforgiving Servant: Debt in the Gospels (David Duggan, USA, 10/28/20 3:30 am)

I appreciate Enrique Torner's approval of my analysis of the pericope adulterae (October 25th), but can offer no insight as to the authenticity of Matthew's parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt 18:21-35). This parable appears only in Matthew's Gospel, but is one of many appearing throughout the synoptics that bear on debt, repayment, investment, and ultimately forgiveness. Without limiting the number, included among these are the parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30; Luke 19:11-27); the parable of the tenants of the vineyard (Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-18); the parable of the hidden treasure (Matt 13: 44-46); the parable of the shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-12); and the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt 20:1-16). Curiously, the Gospel of John has no parables.

I have no insight into the mind of the Word Incarnate why He taught in parables and why three of his four evangelists included these in their Gospels, and the last did not. Parables, like allegories, are susceptible to endless re-interpretation, and perhaps Jesus recognized that His followers needed continuously to examine the texts against not only their contexts, but also the context of their present time. Think for instance of the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). In 1st Century CE, Jesus' hearers would have understood this to be an accusation against the Temple authorities who condemned Samaritans for having intermarried with Gentiles after the Assyrian (Hittite) empire had seized the northern kingdom (Israel) and exiled its inhabitants (2 Kings 15:29). That is implicit in the depiction of the priest and the Levite passing by the injured man on the road to Jericho. A leading New Testament scholar, Amy-Jill Levine of Vanderbilt (improbable, I agree) offers an "originalist" interpretation of these parables: how were they understood at the time of their utterance. More recently, people have seen the Samaritan as sort of a proto-Christ, an outcast who steps into humanity to heal their wounds. Dr. Martin Luther King suggested this interpretation in his "I've been to the Mountaintop" sermon delivered the day before his death.

To understand the several parables involving debt, repayment and forgiveness, we may need to dive into how ancient Judea handled land ownership and farming. Of the five parables which address relations between the wealthy and the working poor (the hidden treasure parable contains no human interaction), two involved a monarch (the unforgiving servant, and the talents [Luke; Matthew describes him only as a person with property going on a journey]), two involve a landowner (the rented vineyard and the workers in the vineyard), and one involves a rich man (the shrewd manager; the source of his master's wealth is not revealed but the context suggests that he dealt in agricultural commodities). Exodus (22:25) and Leviticus (25:35) both prohibit the lending of money to the poor at interest, yet no agricultural economy can exist without advancing funds at planting time, hoping that the harvest is successful with the lender receiving more than the equivalent value of the debt in the product at time of harvest. Put simply, this is interest by another name. And because the priestly tribe of Levi owned no land (Joshua 13:14), the Temple authorities had no way to exact income from the farming masses. Depending on voluntary offerings was not a long-term way of funding the Temple.

Except. Every seven years, debts were to be forgiven (Deut 15:1-2), but that applied only to the original creditor. In that seventh year, the Temple Levites took over the notes and then tried to collect them in the eighth year. In each of the two versions of the parable of the talents ("minas" in Luke, a lesser unit of measurement), the pledger goes away for a while (Matthew says "for a long time"), and in each one of the servants returns with only that which with he was entrusted. In each, the fearful servant says that the pledger was a "hard man" who reaped where he had not sown. And in each, the pledger takes the original asset and gives it to the servant who had earned the most: "For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have even what he has will be taken from him." (Matt 25:29) And in each, the pledger asks why the "wicked and slothful" servant had not put the money on deposit with the bankers and earned interest. Only in Matthew is the fearful, wicked, slothful servant thrown into the darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The conventional reading of this parable is that we servants of God have a duty to use our talents to further God's kingdom. God as the king or owner going on the journey (i.e., absent from our present condition like an impersonal God leaving us to our devices) is the pledger of these talents to our use; our talents are our gifts, and if we bury our gifts we are not being faithful servants of our divine benefactor. But that is far too simple. How could Jesus condone the lending at interest as a way of returning more than had been entrusted, when lending at interest was forbidden to observant Jews? How could the Lord of mercy and forgiveness counsel taking the fearful servant's talent and giving it to one who already had an abundance? If this parable is a prefigurement of life at the end times, how does this square with the "reversal of fortune" between rich and poor suggested in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31)? We must be missing something.

A recent interpretation that I find compelling completely upsets the conventional reading. The pledger of the talents is not God the Father, but the Temple authorities who bestowed franchises (money-changing, selling animals to be sacrificed) on those deemed worthy. In contravention of the forgiveness of debt in seven years, they exacted repayment with more as an incentive to reward the franchisees. This is the way the world works. Nothing exceptional there. But the servant returning only that which he was entrusted is penalized, thrown into the place of darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, commonly understood to be sheol. That is Jesus who received the punishment of the Cross for having challenged the Temple authorities and descends to hell. This parable's appearance in both Matthew and Luke immediately before Jesus' triumphal entry on Palm Sunday gives theological support for this conclusion: knowing of his impending death, Jesus skillfully masked his accusation of a system of falsehood by the Temple priests. His listeners may have grasped His purpose, but there was enough fog around the narrative that He could not be nailed simply because of it.

That is why we still read parables and why they are important to our faith.

JE comments:  The "talents" parable always puzzled me, as it seems to be a Divine endorsement of aggressive investment, a sort of Gordon Gekko avant la lettre.  David, can you elaborate on this new interpretation?  Is it actually a defense of the meek servant--or more precisely, a condemnation of usury and the wickedness of the Temple authorities?  I hope I didn't misread the above.

Rate this post
Informational value 
Reader Ratings (3)
Informational value100%

Visits: 213


Please login/register to reply or comment: Login/Sign up

Trending Now

All Forums with Published Content (45694 posts)

- Unassigned

Culture & Language

American Indians Art Awards Bestiary of Insults Books Conspiracy Theories Culture Ethics Film Food Futurology Gender Issues Humor Intellectuals Jews Language Literature Media Coverage Movies Music Newspapers Numismatics Philosophy Plagiarism Prisons Racial Issues Sports Tattoos Western Civilization World Communications


Capitalism Economics International Finance World Bank World Economy


Education Hoover Institution Journal Publications Libraries Universities World Bibliography Series


Biographies Conspiracies Crime Decline of West German Holocaust Historical Figures History Holocausts Individuals Japanese Holocaust Leaders Learning Biographies Learning History Russian Holocaust Turkish Holocaust


Afghanistan Africa Albania Algeria Argentina Asia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Central America Chechnya Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark East Europe East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Estonia Ethiopia Europe European Union Finland France French Guiana Germany Greece Guatemala Haiti Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Persia) Iraq Ireland Israel/Palestine Italy Japan Jordan Kenya Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Latin America Liberia Libya Mali Mexico Middle East Mongolia Morocco Namibia Nations Compared Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North America Norway Pacific Islands Pakistan Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Polombia Portugal Romania Saudi Arabia Scandinavia Scotland Serbia Singapore Slovakia South Africa South America Southeast Asia Spain Sudan Sweden Switzerland Syria Thailand The Pacific Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan UK (United Kingdom) Ukraine USA (America) USSR/Russia Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam West Europe Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire


Balkanization Communism Constitutions Democracy Dictators Diplomacy Floism Global Issues Hegemony Homeland Security Human Rights Immigration International Events Law Nationalism NATO Organizations Peace Politics Terrorism United Nations US Elections 2008 US Elections 2012 US Elections 2016 US Elections 2020 Violence War War Crimes Within the US


Christianity Hinduism Islam Judaism Liberation Theology Religion

Science & Technology

Alcohol Anthropology Automotives Biological Weapons Design and Architecture Drugs Energy Environment Internet Landmines Mathematics Medicine Natural Disasters Psychology Recycling Research Science and Humanities Sexuality Space Technology World Wide Web (Internet)


Geography Maps Tourism Transportation


1-TRIBUTES TO PROFESSOR HILTON 2001 Conference on Globalizations Academic WAR Forums Ask WAIS Experts Benefactors Chairman General News Member Information Member Nomination PAIS Research News Ronald Hilton Quotes Seasonal Messages Tributes to Prof. Hilton Varia Various Topics WAIS WAIS 2006 Conference WAIS Board Members WAIS History WAIS Interviews WAIS NEWS waisworld.org launch WAR Forums on Media & Research Who's Who