Parables of Jesus - PDF document

Joy Lindner 12 - 13 - 02 Parables of Jesus Parable of the Unforgiving Servant Matthew 18:23 - 35 A modern retelling: A woman had two sons, Mike and Brian. One night Mike returned home four hours after his curfew. His mom was furiou s. “You were supposed to be home four hours ago! You‟re not going to go out for the next two months! No parties with your friends, no movies, nothing.” Mike began to beg, “Mom, I‟m sorry. I won‟t do it again. I‟ll make it up to you.” His mom had com passion on him, knowing how important going out with his friend was to him, and decided not to punish him. The next day Mike went to his brother Brian‟s room and found him listening to one of his CD‟s without having asked for permission. Mike was furio us and punched his brother in the gut. Brian said, “Heh, I‟m sorry. I won‟t do it again. I‟ll make it up to you.” But Mike did not relent. Hearing the ruckus, their little sister peeked into the room, saw what was happening, and quickly ran to tell Mom. After their mom had heard the entire story, she wasn‟t so forgiving toward Mike anymore. “Didn‟t I just yesterday change my mind about the consequences of violating your curfew? So why are you beating up your brother for borrowing your CD without askin g? He asked for mercy, just as you asked for mine!” In anger, his mom reinstated his punishment. For the next two months, every evening Mike was found doing household chores instead of hanging out with his friends. Exegetical notes: The enormity of t he debt owed is incredible, about a year's wage for 200,000 people, an amount in the billions in today's figures. The outlandishness of the debt contributes to one possible point of the parable, the extravagance of the debt forgiven, though these figures s hould not be taken as literal or typical. In no way could a person acquire such a debt, but that is what helps make the parable "memorable" (Hultgren 24). It is an outlandish figure, one “neither inconceivable nor within the bounds of their experience” (B lomberg 242). The King's initial decision to sell the debtor along with his whole family to pay the debt raises many questions. There were no provisions in the Jewish law that would allow a man to be sold to pay for a debt (Hultgren 25). Furthermore, it was against Jewish law to sell a man‟s wife and children to settle his debts (Scott 274). In contrast, Hagner claims there is Old Testament background to a family being sold into slavery (Hagner 538; 2 Kings 4:1; Neh 5:3 - 5; Am 2:6, 8:6; Is 50:1). Hultgr en claims that influence from the Roman rule at the time may have led Matthew or Jesus to speak in those terms, for it was not uncommon for Gentles to punish in that way (Hultgren 25; Scott 274). Perhaps this Roman influence occurred, but maybe this refe rence to selling the debtor‟s family into slavery is Matthew's attempt at hyperbole, to speak of the gravity and enormity of the debt. But the beauty of the passage and the character of the King are emphasized by the king‟s decision to cancel the debt, d espite the slave's presumption to pay it all back. The verb used for “to cancel” is the same that is typically used when speaking of forgiveness (Bultmann 511). Yet, the slave leaves his master and runs into a fellow slave who owns him money, roughly equ al to four month's wages. The ratio of the two amounts is enormous, about 600,000 to 1 (Hultgren 27). The first slave “even resorts to physical violence,” ignoring the second slave's request for more time, even though it is almost exactly his own petition to his master (Hagner 539). So, the second slave is put in prison. Though Jewish law forbids putting a fellow slave into prison for debt, it was a common practice in the first century (Hultgren 27). This imprisoned slave must now rely on money given by hi s friends and family on his behalf to get him out of prison (Hagner 539). Perhaps the first servant, and others who behave in this way, did not fully understand at the time of his forgiveness what had taken place. This harsh scene between the servants mu st have been a public spectacle — other slaves witnessed the event. They were distressed, apparently because they knew of their master's forgiveness. In that case, they understood the gravity and incongruity of the forgiven slave's behavior. Their distr ess led them to report the slave to the master. When the master calls the slave back, he is very angry. Retracting the servant‟s forgiveness, he sends him to be punished until the debt can be paid. Interpretations differ over whether the master sent the servant to be tortured or to prison, both possible translations of the Greek. Torturers were not allowed by Jewish law, but were common in Roman prisons (Hagner 540). Hultgren nevertheless prefers "to be tortured" (27). Others say that the servant was b oth tortured and then also put into prison (Davies and Allison 803; Hagner 540). According to Hagner, now that the servant is in prison, it becomes the responsibility of family and friends to raise the money to cover the debt (540). The torturing of the servant works was a motivation for the debt to be paid (Davies and Allison 802). However, the enormity of the debt highlights the impossibility of paying it; therefore, the servant‟s punishment will last forever (Hagner 540). Whether the slave is tortur ed, imprisoned, or both, the point remains that he is punished severely for his refusal to forgive his fellow slave as the master had forgiven him. The parable concludes with an injunction that the same will happen to us if we do not forgive others from t he heart. However, the context in which the parable is set is problematic for its interpretation. Matthew 18 deals with relationships among church members. Jesus begins this chapter by speaking to his disciples “concerning care for God‟s „little ones‟” (Hultgren 50). The rest of the chapter is concerned with how to deal with sin individually and corporately in the context of a local church (18:8 - 20). In this context, Peter asks how many times he should forgive a fellow believer (18:21 - 22). After Jesus ‟ responds that one should forgive 77 (or 70 times 7) times, he tells the parable of the unforgiving servant. Whether 77 or 490, the point is that forgiveness should know no limits. The parable seems out of place in this context, for Jesus says that Peter should forgive without limits, yet the king in the story seems unable to forgive twice (Hultgren 30). In order to remove the inconsistency or discrepancy between the answer to Peter‟s question and the parable proper, some interpreters claim that the para ble is not attempting to make the same point as Jesus‟ answer. Hultgren claims that the parable need not be so closely connected to the previous saying; both are connected by the common theme of the importance of forgiveness (30). In this case, the para ble emphasizes the generosity of God's forgiveness, not its repetition. The king's revoking of forgiveness in the end demonstrates how seriously God views a lack of forgiveness among believers. According to Jeremias, “God will revoke the forgiveness of si n if you do not wholeheartedly share the forgiveness you have experienced” (213). Gundry bluntly states that “the parable does not teach repetition of forgiveness” (374). More than once Matthew's Gospel stresses that disciples forgiving each other is a c ondition for God forgiving them (Gundry 374). God‟s forgiveness of us is dependent on our forgiveness of others (Mt 6:14 - 15). The measure we give will be the measure we get (Mt 7:2; Hagner 540). “The gospel is demand as well as gift” (Davies and Allison 802). According to Davies and Allison, there is no tension in the context; certainly it was “as obvious to Matthew” as to us that the parable does not illustrate the principle of repetitive forgiveness (794). “Rather, although both have to do with forg iving, they have different emphases” (Davies and Allison 794). Verses 21 - 22 deal with repetitive forgiveness while verses 23 - 35 are a “vivid reminder that the failure to forgive is failure to act as the heavenly father acts” (Davies and Allison 794). Blo mberg deals with the problem of the King‟s retraction of forgiveness by saying that the retraction of forgiveness need not have an “exact analog on the spiritual level” (242). The ending frame insists that “so my heavenly Father will also do to every one o f you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart” (18:35 NRSV). This conclusion seems to imply that forgiving people with sincerity is absolutely crucial in the life of a believer (Davies and Allison 803). Perhaps this ending frame enc ouraging us to forgive others with sincerity could be viewed as the point of the parable as opposed to an elaborated answer to Peter‟s question about repeated forgiveness. Bibliography Blomberg, Craig L. Interpreting the Parables . Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1990. Bultmann, Rudolf. “Forgive.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol 1. Ed by Gerhard Kittel. Trans by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman‟s Publishing Company, 1964. 509 - 512 Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew Vol 2. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991. 794 - 803 Gundry, Robert H. Matthew . Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdman‟s Publishing Company, 1982. 370 - 375 Hagner, D onald A. Matthew 14 — 28 . Word Biblical Commentary Vol 33B. Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1995. 534 - 541 Hultgren, Arland J. The Parables of Jesus . Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman‟s Publishing Company, 2000. Jeremias, Joachim. The Parabl es of Jesus . Revised ed. Trans by S. H. Hooke. New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1963. Scott, Bernard Brandon. Hear Then the Parable . Minneapolis, MN: Fortres s Press, 1989.