112. Chapter 53 - The Parable of the Pounds

Chapter 53 - The Parable of the Pounds

Luke 19:11-28 The Crowd of Pilgrims

“And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was immediately to appear” (Luke 19:11). The visit in the home of Zacchaeus was over. The crowd of pilgrims was climbing up the mountain highway with Jesus in the midst. Everyone was anxious to hear from the apostles or members of the household who were present exactly what was said and done in the home of Zacchaeus while they waited impatiently in the street. Much excited discussion was carried on among the pilgrims as they talked of the healing of the blind man and the conversion of Zacchaeus. But most of all they talked of tomorrow and what would happen when Jesus came face to face with the wicked rulers in Jerusalem. This false expectation that the next day or two would see the establishment of the kingdom is what caused Jesus to deliver this parable, in which He showed clearly that the Messianic King was to go away for a long period and finally return for the glorious consummation. There must have been a strong contingent of Zealots in such a multitude as this. It was important to warn them and temper their misplaced zeal. They were approaching the capital, but there was enough of the long journey left to give them time for reflection and discussion among themselves as to the meaning of this parable. Predictions of His approaching death had been repeatedly given to the apostles to prepare them for the tragedy they must now face. This parable given to the multitudes did not picture the death of the Messiah; the parable of the wicked husbandmen, delivered four days later on the last day of His ministry, predicted this clearly. The Parable of the Pounds issued the warning “not now, but later,” and underscored the solemn responsibility of each one to make the fullest use of his opportunities. The Locale The incident in the home of Zacchaeus was definitely connected with this parable by the clause and as they heard these things. Plummer thinks this refers to those in the home of Zacchaeus who heard the words Jesus spoke to him, and he holds that this parable was delivered while Jesus was still in Jericho. This is a possible interpretation since Jericho was “nigh to Jerusalem.” Jericho to Jerusalem took about six hours. But it seems more probable that this parable was delivered at one of the rest periods on the stiff climb up the mountain. If the stay in the home of Zacchaeus was only a few hours in the middle of the day and the journey resumed in the afternoon, then the overnight stop would have been at the halfway point made famous by the Parable of the Good Samaritan. An inn, fort, and two pools would have furnished water and protection, and the sunset hour amid the wild mountain scenery would have furnished the background for this sermon of which we have only the parable recorded.

If Jesus remained overnight in the home of Zacchaeus, it seems probable that they would have been much closer to Jerusalem and that it was mid-afternoon when this parable was delivered. The Two Similar Parables

Strauss and various other hostile writers have argued that this parable is an invention in which Luke mixed up a variant form of the Parable of the Talents with another setting which might he called “The Parable of the Rebellious Citizens.” The only possible basis for this radical view is the bare hypothesis that Jesus would not have delivered on different occasions parables similar in some of their details. Repetition is the life of effective teaching. If a first parable had not been properly understood or digested, a second similar parable would have been helpful. Both Luke’s intelligence and accuracy of information are assailed by this view. The differences between the parables are pronounced. The Parable of the Pounds was delivered publicly, as Jesus approached Jerusalem; the Parable of the Talents was given privately to the apostles two days after the triumphal entry. The one represents the owner leaving home for a time; the other tells of the nobleman going into a far country in search of a throne. The talents were distributed to three men unequally; the pounds were given to ten men equally. In the giving of rewards and punishments there is considerable difference. Moreover, the parable in Luke’s Gospel introduces a number of entirely new items grouped about the effort of the nobleman to gain a throne, and the opposition and punishment of his enemies.

Double Objective The parable is directed toward two diverse elements: (1) Some of the disciples were in a fever-heat of excitement over the prospect that as soon as He arrived in the capital He would use His miraculous power to destroy His enemies and proclaim Himself the Messianic King. They had materialistic ideas of the kingdom and too small a conception of their spiritual responsibilities. (2) Others were enemies who did not believe on Him and were determined to frustrate His movements and destroy Him. The disciples were warned that the final consummation was not close at hand; they must wait with patience for the kingdom and work faithfully for Christ until His return from a far country. The enemies were warned that their opposition was known, would fail, and that terrible destruction would be their fate. The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen is also devoted to this second objective.

Current History Were it not for contemporary history, the critics would have had a more convincing argument against this parable that it represents an inconceivable situation. A nobleman goes into a far country to receive a kingdom, and returns to rule. If he desires to “receive a kingdom,” why go into a far country to get it? If it was acquired in a far country, why not stay there and rule? Behind this parable one sees the shadowy outline of historical events in Palestine. Josephus tells of several such instances in which Herod the Great or his descendants went to Rome to be confirmed as rulers of Palestine. Those hearing this parable would probably be reminded of these recent historical events. They would say, “Oh, yes. We had something like that happen in Palestine when Archelaus went to Rome to have Herod the Great’s will confirmed.” Herod’s will had bequeathed to Archelaus the rule over Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea. Herod Antipas was made ruler over Galilee and Peraea. The Trachonitis country to the north was given to Philip. After some consideration Rome confirmed the will of Herod the Great. The Jews knew the barbarous, cruel character of Archelaus and feared their fate would be worse than under Herod the Great. They sent an embassage of fifty of their ablest leaders to Rome in an appeal to Caesar Augustus against the confirmation of Archelaus.

Rome kept order in the provinces by permitting such appeals to Caesar, even against a Roman governor. But Rome kept the appeals from multiplying over petty matters by making it a life-and-death appeal. If the appeal was sustained the Roman governor would be dismissed, exiled, or even executed. If the appeal failed, the members of the delegation making the appeal would be slain. This was the fate of those who opposed Archelaus. Herod the Great began his reign in like manner by slaying forty-five of the leaders of the opposition in the Sanhedrin. Jesus does not refer to all this current history, but the hearers must have been reminded of it as they listened to the parable. If there had been a definite reference to the wicked Archelaus in the parable, then we would have the same sort of situation as in the Parable of the Unjust Judge, where the details do not fit and the interpreter must be content with the principles taught. The nobleman in this parable is benevolent and only acts against his enemies as a last resort to mete out just punishment. Any connection with current history is nothing more than shadowy outline in the background.

Ten Servants

“And he called ten servants of his, and gave them ten pounds, and said unto them, Trade ye herewith till I come” (Luke 19:13). The nobleman represents Christ; the servants answer to His disciples; the citizens who oppose him are Christ’s enemies. There is probably no special significance in the number ten in this parable or the number three in the Parable of the Talents. These were round numbers and fitted to show typical attitudes and achievements. In this parable strong emphasis is placed on the rash enthusiasm of the crowd, and a warning is given that He must go away, but will finally return and assuredly reward both the righteous and the wicked according to their deeds.

Achievements and Rewards

One servant, who had increased his pound to ten pounds, was given jurisdiction over ten cities. Another, who had now five pounds, was given the rule over five cities. This shows the purpose of the nobleman in distributing the pounds in the first place; he wanted to test the capacity of the men with the idea of promotion. We cannot argue that it teaches degrees of reward in heaven because we cannot be sure whether this detail of the parable has a spiritual parallel. It suggests at least that the nobility achieved in this life will determine the measure of appreciation we shall have of the blessedness in heaven. The statement Jesus made to James and John that there are chief seats in the kingdom which will be given to those whom God has selected comes nearer to positive proof. This statement is not in a parable, but it still is subject to the different interpretation of those who would refer it to the day of Pentecost, the setting up of the kingdom then, and the place which Peter and the apostles had in its initial establishment. But Jesus seems to have been talking of the final consummation in that passage. There is certainly nothing startling or inconsistent about there being a difference in rewards in heaven; in fact, it seems to be an inevitable result of the character and fruitage different Christians have achieved. The Talents and Pounds

“Well done, thou good servant: because thou wast found faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities” (Luke 19:17). In the Parable of the Talents the master had distributed his entire possessions to three servants, each according to his several ability. The amount committed to each was very large. A talent of gold was almost $30,000; a talent of silver was about $1,950. In the Greco-Roman period the Attic talent was from $960 to $1,180. In contrast, the pound was very small, only about $20, and each of the ten servants was given the same amount. The newly-crowned king emphasized the fact that the amount he had given each was “a very little,” but it had been sufficient to test their fidelity. The reward was immense as compared with the small amount they had handled. It was on the basis of faithfulness rather than success. The man who had gained five pounds was praised as warmly as the one who had gained ten pounds, even though the reward was different in extent. The Faithless Servant

“And another came” (Luke 19:20). The most strongly supported text is the other. One important uncial and some later manuscripts have another. Following the majority of the best manuscripts and the principle of choosing the more difficult reading, the textual critics generally adopt the other. The a.s.v. has another in the text and the other in a footnote. The thing which makes the other a difficult reading is that if there were ten servants and two had reported, why say “the other”? Weiss claims that this proves that the present report of the parable is confused and that originally there were only three servants represented, and that this parable and the Parable of the Talents were the same. Plummer replies vigorously that it would have been tedious to have gone through all the ten reports; the three are considered examples of all — some gaining greatly; some, moderately; some or one, none at all. “The other” may imply that all the other nine made some gain at least in harmony with the achievements of the two that are reported, but this one stood apart from all the others.

“For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that which thou layest not down, and reapest that which thou didst not sow” (Luke 19:21). The word translated “austere” meant originally rough to the taste, stringent. The master is represented as severe and bitter in his dealings. The servant charges that if he had gained anything with this pound, it would have been taken away from him; and, if lie had lost by his business transactions, he would have been blamed for the loss. The actual conduct of the king shows that this is a false charge. He had “laid down” and “sowed” generously to these ten servants. Instead of seizing what had been gained by the faithful servants, he rewarded them in an amazing manner. Usually when this is read in public a faulty emphasis has the king admit in Luke 19:22 that the charge against him is true. A lilt in the voice will make it a question: “Thou knewest that I am an austere man taking up that which I laid not down, and reaping that which I did not sow?” — “so this is your opinion of me, is it? Well, I will judge you upon the basis of your own false opinion of me.” The master repeated the charge against him not as true statement of fact, but to make it the basis of judgment upon the wicked servant. If the man had been fearful he would lose the pound in unwise business ventures, he could at least have placed it in the bank where it would have been as safe as it was buried in the ground and where it would have borne interest. This verse offers interesting information on the antiquity of banking and the reputation for stability of primitive banking. The bankers were the money changers. The Greek phrase into the bank reads literally “on a banker’s table.” Aristotle bitterly opposed taking interest on money; Cato quoted Cicero as saying it was on a level with murder. But Jesus was not communistic in His teaching; the right to private property with the individual responsible to God as a faithful steward is everywhere taught; there is no suggestion of anything wicked in a fair rate of interest. Such denunciation of interest as came from Aristotle and Cicero was tantamount to a denial of the right to any business transactions or to the possession of private property. The Principle

“And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds” (Luke 19:25). It is not clear who is speaking. The king has just commanded that the one pound be taken away from the servant who had refused to use it, and be given to the one who had ten pounds. “They said” may refer to the servants who are commanded to take the pound away from the one servant and give it to the other. Some think it means that some in the audience broke in on the teaching Jesus was giving and voiced a protest against the turn He was giving to the account. It seems more probable that this was the protest of the servants to the king. “Unto every one that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him” (Luke 19:26). Here is the principle taught in this section of the parable. The wise use of the pounds brought about their increase; the refusal to use even a very small amount would mean the loss of this possession, ability, or opportunity. “Him that hath not” means in a relative sense. Nothing could be taken from one who had nothing, but in a relative sense the man with the one pound stands beside other servants who have gained larger sums by their diligent efforts. There seems to be no particular reason for the one pound being given to the man who had ten, rather than divided among those who had increased their pounds in smaller amounts, except to emphasize the general principle that “to him that hath shall be given.”

Final Triumph of Righteousness

“But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (Luke 19:27). The parable closes with a dreadful warning to the wicked rulers who were plotting His death. These repeated declarations foretold the time when He would fulfill the Messianic predictions of the Old Testament and bring final judgment on the wicked who had despised and defied God. Such a prediction must have collided strongly in the minds of the apostles with His predictions of approaching death at the hands of these wicked leaders of the nation. The verb slay is a compound verb meaning to hew to pieces, to slay utterly. This suggests both the terrible doom of Jerusalem when destroyed by the Romans and the eternal doom which awaits those who rebel against Christ. The criticism that the Old Testament presents a God of wrath and the New Testament pictures a God of love and mercy, and that the two do not harmonize is supposed to be a “modern” idea, but back in the fifth century Augustine used this passage in the New Testament to combat this very criticism of the Bible.

“And when he had thus spoken, he went on before, going up to Jerusalem” (Luke 19:28). This picture of leading the great multitude up the mountain highway reminds one of Mark 10:32, when Jesus went on before the apostles with His face so full of determination and severity that the apostles followed in a huddled group. This is not affirmed of the multitude now, but Jesus was leading the way to His death in a way that must have filled His followers with awe and amazement.