The Kingdom of God is invading the present. People, not fully understanding this, assumed that it would be fully realised in the immediate future. To address this Jesus told a parable about faithful slaves and wicked citizens (19:11-26). A nobleman went to a distant country to get royal power. He gave responsibility for some of his money to his slaves and the ordered them to “Do business with these until I come back (v.13).” When he returned in his full authority (cf. v.12), he sought to find out how much they had gained through trading. One had a ten-fold increase and was rewarded with the rule of 10 cities; another with a five-fold increase was awarded 5 cities to rule; a third failed to invest the money. He instead laid the accusation before the noble that “you are a harsh man; you take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow (v.21).” The noble takes the money from the man and gives it to the one who was blessed with the 10-fold increase.
This scenario is weaved together with another about the citizens of the noble’s country: they hated him. They told him after he left that they did not want him to rule over them. They openly rebelled. When he returned he demanded, “These enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence (27).” The ethical implications of this second scenario are easy to understand: if we rebel against the Son of Man, when he returns in his full authority, we will suffer the appropriate consequences.
What about the slaves though? The slaves are in the direct employ of the master. They are charged with taking care of a portion of the nobleman’s wealth. They do not rebel like the citizens. The third slave in the story is different from the citizens in that he is employed by the noble. However, he still does not receive his reward; he forfeits it. As the citizens are those who reject Jesus as king, I submit that the slave represents those who claim him as king but fail to carry out their responsibilities. When Jesus returns it is not enough to claim to be his slave, we must actively use what he has given us to work for him or we risk forfeiting our reward.
This scenario is weaved together with another about the citizens of the noble’s country: they hated him. They told him after he left that they did not want him to rule over them. They openly rebelled. When he returned he demanded, “These enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence (27).” The ethical implications of this second scenario are easy to understand: if we rebel against the Son of Man, when he returns in his full authority, we will suffer the appropriate consequences.
What about the slaves though? The slaves are in the direct employ of the master. They are charged with taking care of a portion of the nobleman’s wealth. They do not rebel like the citizens. The third slave in the story is different from the citizens in that he is employed by the noble. However, he still does not receive his reward; he forfeits it. As the citizens are those who reject Jesus as king, I submit that the slave represents those who claim him as king but fail to carry out their responsibilities. When Jesus returns it is not enough to claim to be his slave, we must actively use what he has given us to work for him or we risk forfeiting our reward.
More daily blogs at
Comments
Post a Comment