Interpreting the Parable of the Minas

[Micah]

Recently I encountered an anti-theist in another forum who was using the Parable of the Minas in Luke 19:11-27 as grounds to say ‘let’s not forget that Jesus said to kill those that do not want him as their king.’ I’ve pasted the parable below from the NKJV, for reference; and you can see he was trying to get this from verse 27, where the ruler in the parable has those who did not recognize his authority brought before him and slain.

Luke 19:11-27New King James Version (NKJV)
The Parable of the Minas

11 Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. 12 Therefore He said: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas,[a] and said to them, ‘Do business till I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’

15 “And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. 16 Then came the first, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned ten minas.’ 17 And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities.’ 18 And the second came, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned five minas.’ 19 Likewise he said to him, ‘You also be over five cities.’

20 “Then another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief. 21 For I feared you, because you are an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ 22 And he said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow. 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’

24 “And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to him who has ten minas.’ 25 (But they said to him, ‘Master, he has ten minas.’) 26 ‘For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’”

After reading through this and pondering for a bit, and then looking up some historical information on the internet, I posted the following reply. I was wondering what you all might think of this kind of interpretation of this parable, whether the ruler could indeed be an example of an unjust earthly ruler, and not some figure who is a stand-in for Christ Himself. Think that could be, or am I totally off the mark here?

This parable strikes me differently. In the light of the events surrounding Archelaus, son of Herod, who went to receive authority from Augustus and had a delegation from Judea there contesting his rule (he slaughtered thousands who opposed him), I think Jesus was likely drawing upon the common knowledge of these events his audience had to make a point.

The people he spoke to had been talking about the Kingdom coming immediately, he may have been warning them:

• you will be oppressed by unjust rulers, made to slave away for their enrichment and subject to the sword if you contest their authority

• given that the Kingdom of God is not built on earthly might and power, but on Love and voluntary servanthood (i.e. see the rest of Jesus’ teachings), do not expect to see some instant miraculous delivery from such rulers or think that rising up against them will be prudent

This would be similar to the cautions by Paul in Romans 13 about being prudent in regard to rulers who claim authority – taking on the whole Roman Empire by force will probably be like spitting in the wind and do more harm than good, especially in the context of building the Kingdom in love.

Libertarians say similar things: even if taxes are theft, it may be prudent to pay them anyway, under duress or for pragmatic purposes. Don’t expect a violent revolution against the State to be the way to bring about Liberty – focus on changing hearts and minds, etc.

I think Christ very likely was putting dampers on expecting some immediate, loud, forceful earthly Kingdom to arise and topple rulers. No, it would be a force of another kind – Love, building up within, and spreading through networks of relationships.

There are other passages where Christ explicitly states that He and Peter had no obligation to pay a tax, but would do so for prudence sake – and others where He says we should not rule or ‘lord it over’ each other as the earthly rulers do.

This alternate reading of the parable seems to square more with the larger body of his teaching. But I need to investigate further…

[Agnostic_Gabe]

Wow, complicated post. This just further demonstrates that, even today, the parables need Jesus to interpret them. Even the disciples didn’t get it, so why should we? That said, I am not saying we cannot come up with interpretations. I myself have a wild imagination and could probably give you many different viewpoints. But, that isn’t the point. The point isn’t what can we explain away in the parable, or what is possible, but what is actually intended by Jesus? Seems like a personal revelation from the Holy Spirit is needed for some of these parables.

[Micah]

Yeah, I guess for starters, I was interested whether anyone else had heard of the similarities between the story in the parable and the account of the brutal Herod Archelaus (as recorded, for instance, in Josephus’ writings.) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Archelaus

If this was indeed the likely historical source material for the story (even if the parable spun off of it with dramatic license for its own purposes), this would seem to make it especially plausible that the nobleman/ruler was meant to be viewed as unjust and not as a representation of Christ himself. Any insights on the validity of this connection?

Is there any chance that Christ’s audience would have viewed the ‘nobleman’ with sympathy if he indeed was trying to evoke the image of Archelaus in their minds?

Secondly, whatever the meaning of the parable, it seems from verse 11 that this message has to include some kind of response to the idea that the Kingdom of God would come immediately, by trying to illustrate something about its nature or timing.

[Micah]

Ah! Also consider where he was and to whom he was speaking:

• in the house of the recently repentant tax collector, Zaccheus

• Zaccheus upon repentance had said if he had defrauded anyone of anything he would pay it back four times over

• this might lend weight to the idea that the slaves of the nobleman in the parable are like the tax collectors in service of the earthly powers in Judea and in Rome, that the wealth they were accumulating from the minas in such short order was gained through questionable practices

• if so, then the slave who wrapped up his minas and kept it safe might actually be the good guy in the story, refusing to play ball in the fashion of this hard man and his hard, thuggish slaves

Hmm…investigating further along these lines…

[Micah]

I guess this whole Archelaus thing must be new to most, as it is to me? This parable had always been an odd one to me – but maybe this makes sense now.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Actually, the Protestant site Got Questions provides their input at What is the meaning of the Parable of the Ten Minas?.
We can find another attempt in Tough Questions Answered at What Does The Parable of the Minas Mean?
Also in Wiki at Parable of the talents or minas

[Paidion]

Jesus consistently taught enemy love, and that by praying for our enemies and doing good toward them, we show ourselves to be children of our heavenly Father indeed, who is kind to ungrateful people and to evil people.

It doesn’t make sense that by means of a single parable he would undo the rest of his teaching by advocating the death of a slave who didn’t hid his money and thus didn’t produce interest.

[Cindy_Skillman]

I posted this to the “Is Christian Universalism True” Facebook group here: facebook.com/groups/universalrestoration/

I don’t know how to interpret this parable, Micah. Your ideas seem to have merit, and I have heard the parallel with Herod Archelaus before. It seems to me that this has to be PART of the explanation for the parable, but I’m not sure you’ve got the whole story. It seems to me as though it’s missing something, but I don’t know what that would be. Maybe someone will have some ideas for us on FB.

Meantime, I’ll see whether we can summon [tag]JasonPratt[/tag]. He’ll probably have some thoughts. [tag]EaglesWay[/tag] might also.

[Cindy_Skillman]

Here’s one of the reader responses on Randy’s second link. I thought it was very good, though it didn’t talk about the returning king’s slaying of his enemies:

I think that most have interpreted the parable of talents/minas in a very western-industrial-materialistic way. They think it is really about money or abilities and what we can produce with it. Everyone just skips over that fact that the 3rd servant notes that the master is bad (reaps where he does not sow etc) and that the master acknowledges that he is bad.

So then, if the “lazy” servant (actually it is clear he is simply afraid of the master) does not obey the bad master, what does that make him? If you gave me $100 dollars at the airport as you were leaving for safe keeping, would you expect me to buy stock and return to you $150? Would you be upset if i gave you back $100 on your return?

In, addition, if the master represents the going and return of Jesus, why would the author depict him as bad? Further, the master suggests that the servant should have given the money to the lenders (such as the table-turned lenders at the temple) for usury. Why would the master, representing Jesus, ask his servant or follower to collect usury or interest when usury is illegal in the Hebrew faith?

I believe the meaning of the parable is much deeper than the common (and somewhat shallow) meaning commonly given it. I would say it is time to go back to the drawing board, or in this case, the Greek/Hebrew text.

Blessings, Pastor Tom

Here’s another:

Is it possible that the meaning of this parable lies in its most troubling verse? Jesus sums up the story when he says (to the chagrin of those listening)," I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away." (NASB Luke 19:26).

On the surface, this is an outrageous statement, disdainful, perhaps, to anyone with a sense of social justice. But a deeper look at the parable reveals a different meaning.

In this story, men are entrusted with a mina apiece and are instructed by the king to, ‘Do business (or trade) with this until I come back.’ (NASB 19:13). The king expects increase.

So let us ask ourselves, in order to turn a single mina into five, or even ten, what would we need to do? What would we need to “have” in order to do so?

The answer to the first question is given in the king’s instructions: to do business, or
to TRADE - that is, to relinquish possession of one thing (a mina) in return FOR another thing of GREATER VALUE. Repeated transactions of this type will lead to significant
gain - and the pleasure of our king.

Then, what do we need to “have” in order to make these successful, gainful, profitable trades? Well, we’ve been given a mina. But that alone will not result in increase. What else must we “have”?

The answer is twofold. First, we must 'have" THE ABILITY TO VALUE RIGHTLY - the way the king would if he were here. To trade gainfully we need the capacity to weigh and measure comparative values the way the king does - by his standards. Then, like the 5 and 10 mina makers, we prove ourselves worthy of his delegated authority.

Secondly, and perhaps more crucially, we must judge the king’s nature rightly. Because,
as in the case of the man who, out of fear, neglected to trade with his mina, we will
be judged by king in the way we judge him. If we value him wrongly, we lose everything.

Doesn’t Luke 19:26 read differently now?

“I tell you that to everyone who has (the ability to value rightly), more shall be given (through gainful trade), but from the one who does not have (the ability to value rightly), even what he does have shall be taken away (through trading for loss - or failing to trade at all).” (NASB)

Somehow, this is the essence of the Kingdom.

You may relate to this one:

Donna Deconstruct Tradition • a year ago
I found the following explanation I ran across of the parable by Rev. Lowell very compelling:

"Parable of the Whistle-Blower’

Three years ago I did some study about this parable of the talents and wrote a sermon based on the remarkable scholarship of William R. Herzog, II in
his book “Parables as Subversive Speech.” That sermon is on our web site at this address: stpaulsfay.org//low….

Herzog says that these characters would have been recognized by Jesus’ listeners. They were the retainers of wealthy, absentee landlords. According to the law of Hammurabi, they were expected to make a minimum profit of 100% on liquid assets. Beyond that, they could keep part, maybe even all of the excess income. One way they invested was to make loans to peasant farmers so that they could plant their crops with interest rates ranging to 60 percent and perhaps as high as 200 percent.

Jesus’ hearers would have been familiar with these retainers. Some peasants may have lost their lands through forced foreclosure when their crop was not
sufficient to cover their loans to the retainer. The retainers’ work was dirty work. And they were hated by the peasants.

These retainers were very powerful businessmen. But when Jesus calls them slaves, he exposes their vulnerability and dependence upon their master.
Describing powerful men as slaves must have surprised Jesus’ listeners. Maybe Jesus wanted them to re-think their attitudes toward these retainers. Especially the third one, the one who hid his talent.

This retainer talks back to the master in an insulting, manner, calling the master out to his face and speaking of his dirty business in public: “I knew you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed.” Today, he might be called a whistle-blower.

And though this retainer was afraid, he buried the money. He took the aristocrat’s money out of circulation and hid it in the ground, where it could no longer do harm. He opted out of a corrupt and oppressive system.

He was right to be afraid. He is thrown into the outer darkness, away from the influence and protection of the aristocrat and other retainers, and into the world of the peasants where his skills are useless and their
resentment toward his type of people is great. His is a desperate and vulnerable position. Yet it may be that Jesus is framing him as some kind of hero. Maybe Jesus is encouraging a peasant community who would
otherwise be hostile toward any retainer to give this one a break.

Maybe Jesus offers this parable to encourage acts of integrity, justice, and public consciousness raising, especially when such acts are costly. We can ask ourselves, how are we trapped into cooperating with systems or relationships that are unjust or sucking the life out of us and others? How should we opt out of such entrapments, burying our participation instead of using our talents wrongly?

But more than that. It seems to me that Jesus is telling the community of his listeners to open their hearts with compassion and to give some support to those people who take such risks. Some people are able to
leave a destructive situation when they believe that they have even just a little backup or understanding out there somewhere. We can be the community that takes the fallen retainer out of the outer darkness he
been thrown into and befriends him.

Even if that retainer seems to have made a mess of his life thus far. Even if he was someone we pointed toward as one of the “bad guys.” Now that he has stood-up to the oppression that also trapped him, he needs our friendship… see more at: lowellsblog.blogspot.co….

[JasonPratt]

I’m pretty sure the extra details compared to GosMatt are meant, based on the location near Jericho and Archaeleus Herod’s palace, to refer to Herod. Since the surrounding context tends to warn people to make friends with Rome (their enemies under God), that shouldn’t be surprising.

If this is a king, it wouldn’t be surprising for the stewards to be called “slaves” either – high ranking servants were still slaves, though at a very different social level and meaning than indentured slaves. A mina wouldn’t be as excessively much as a talanton, but it’s still several hundred daywages.

In my commentson the other time Jesus gives this parable (less than a week later, on the Mount of Olives, probably Wednesday night) in Matt 25, I argue extensively that Jesus is warning His own apostles and closest disciples (who would have more authority naturally, thus the upscale to talantons of silver) not to be anti-evangelical. The stewards are entrusted to do the family business, and that means evangelizing if the king == Jesus/God.

That doesn’t change, though it might well be less obvious to the crowds on the road from Jericho, for the earlier parable. The point to making friends with the unrighteous, especially in GosLuke, is to lead them to salvation, and that has to be what Jesus means when exhorting Israel to submit to Rome: to act as a witness to the world for God.

But the lazy servant doesn’t want to do that. It isn’t even because he’s merely lazy (though that’s how he’s described in the story either way) – a merely lazy person would deposit the money for drawing interest later. We can always support evangelism if we have been given few talents for it, even if we’re completely lazy about it – which wouldn’t be a good excuse either, but that isn’t the villain’s problem.

The villain actively refuses to do the work of the Master while He is gone.

And his attempt at an excuse, involves trying to flatter his master in a typical Near Middle Eastern fashion, by calling him a ruthless tyrant.

That’s someone whose heart is flat set against God trying to save at least some people from their sins, and who is projecting their own unmercy onto God as an excuse.

That’s why he’s thrown outside where the wailing is and the gnashing of the teeth – but it isn’t because God is unmerciful. It’s because the guy was unmerciful and expected or hoped God would be unmerciful, too.

And this was one of the highest ranking servants of God either way. Not this Pharisee opponent, not that pagan governor, nor that atheist over there. This warning is aimed at us, and more at us the more authority and responsibility God gives us.

Nor should we regard the anti-evangelical high-servant of God as being unmercifully punished. Or else we’re putting ourselves under the same judgment as that servant.

[ChrisB]

It is interesting to read in this post that we have a subversive “whistle blower” interpretation through the to one concerning evangelisation (not the filthy lucre!). At least we have arrived at a point where we see that it’s not the money! I think I am mostly with Jason on this one though because of the context and time of its telling. I think the life death and outer darkness is there to lend weight to the importance of the family business as Jason calls it. Sharing the good news - and if we are now understanding UR what good news it really is!

[Eaglesway]

This a mysterious parable to me now, after reading all these answers I am no longer so sure I kno what I thought I knew, and I LOVE THAT!

One of the keys to me is the part at the end of the parable as it is in Cindy’s post, “But bring those adversaries who did not submit to my reign and slay them before me”.

Seems awfully harsh and barely in keeping with most UR sentiment to me at first but…

I was thinking of Jesus saying “I am the Vine and you are the branches, if anyone abides in me they will bear much fruit, and their fruit shall remain. If anyone does not abide in me they will be cut-off as a branch and withered, and men shall gather them up and throw them into the fire.”

This seems to me to parallel 1 Cor 3:13-15

13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test [a]the quality of each man’s work. 14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

This(imo) perfectly describes the fate of the unprofitable servant. He loses his reward, but he himself is not slain.

gold silver and precious stone remain, wood hay and stubble are destroyed, consumed… then Paul goes on

6 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

The word for destroy there is PHTHEIRO…

Strong’s
corrupt, defile, destroy.
Probably strengthened from phthio (to pine or waste);** properly, to shrivel or wither**, i.e. To spoil (by any process) or (generally) to ruin (especially figuratively, by moral influences, to deprave) – corrupt (self), defile, destroy.

ruin, loss- like apollumi which fits in this scenario as well from other parables and teachings.

translated in most other places as corrupt- but notice the emphasis of Strong’s on “wither”- similar to John 15 and the branch that abides not.

Man I am longwinded sometimes

So if I look at the traditional interpretation, as the slaying being similar to the “cutting off”, and the unprofitable servant as one who misunderstood his Master’s intent and refused to obey Him, likened to the "wood hay and stubble, and as one who could not have abided in the will of a Lord he so little understood… I can deal with the slaying,

"If anyone withers/corrupts the temple of God God will wither/corrupt him

So many points made work in this paradigm fo rme. These were high servants of the Lord- slaves, but also stewards. Grace is given to be multiplied, “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”…“And great grace was upon them all”

“But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.”

“As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.”

“But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.”

And then back to 1 Cor 3…“According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.”

So I see four groups here, two who invest grace according to instruction, one who does not, and the adversary/rebels. We abide in grace as humble servants and grace mutiples in us and through us. if we understand His heart we will invest because His nature is to give and giving multiplies grace(give and it shall be given unto you, press down, shaken together, overflowing)- and the added group of his enemies- but they are NOT FOREIGNERS, they are subjects who refuse His reign.

The only wrench in the gears is this focus on the goodness or badness of the owner, but was he really bad? or was he speaking as the proverb, “Answer a fool according to his folly”. I am re-evaluating, altho all these principles are true…

Wheels within wheels, mysteries hidden from the foundation of the world, so that hearing they might not hear and seeing they might not perceive…oy vey!

Isaiah 27:1 In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

2 In that day sing ye unto her, A vineyard of red wine.

3 I the Lord do keep it; I will water it every moment: lest any hurt it, I will keep it night and day.

Here the Lord slays the ultimate adversary/rebel(see Job 41, Leviathan, the king of all the children of pride)- with the sword of His mouth, so may we all be slain, and thus abide fruitful branches in the vineyard of His favor ;o)

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

[Cindy_Skillman]

VERY helpful, Jason and Eaglesway and everyone! Thanks. I’m going to tag [tag]Micah[/tag] just to make sure he gets to read all your wisdom too.

[Micah]

Hey, thanks very much everyone for the replies and perspectives on this; and thanks for letting me know about it, Cindy. Busy Memorial Day weekend with family, but hoping to read through them again soon when I get a bit of a breather.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Another interesting spin I’ve found is at Risk: The Parable of the Ten Minas (Luke 19:11-27). I have specifically underlined two statements, as I found it very interesting for reflection.

T

his parable makes explicit that citizens of God’s kingdom are responsible to work toward God’s goals and purposes. In this parable, the king tells his servants directly what he expects them to do, namely, to invest his money. This specific calling or command makes it clear that preaching, healing, and evangelism (the apostles’ callings) are not the only things God calls people to do. Of course, not everyone in God’s kingdom is called to be an investor, either. In this parable, only three of the country’s residents are called to be investors The point is that acknowledging Jesus as king requires working toward his purposes in whatever field of work you do.

Seen in this light, the parable suggests if we choose to accept Jesus as king, we must expect to lead risky lives. The servants who invested the master’s money faced the risk of being attacked by those around them who rejected the master’s authority. And they faced the risk of disappointing their master by making investments that might lose money. Even their success exposes them to risk. Now that they have tasted success and been promoted, they risk becoming greedy or power-mad. They face the risk that their next investments — which will involve much greater sums — will fail and expose them to much more severe consequences. In Anglo-American business (and sports) practice, CEOs (and head coaches) are routinely fired for mediocre results, whereas those in lower-level positions are fired only for exceptionally poor performance. Neither failure nor success is safe in this parable, or in today’s workplace. It is tempting to duck for cover and search for a safe way of accommodating to the system while waiting for things to get better. But ducking for cover is the one action Jesus condemns in the parable. The servant who tries to avoid risk is singled out as unfaithful. We are not told what would have happened if the other two servants had lost money on their investments, but the implication is that all investments made in faithful service to God are pleasing to him, whether or not they achieve their intended payoff.

[JasonPratt]

Well, in Jesus’ later version, reported in Matt 25, the hateful servant is thrown into the outer darkness where the weeping is and the gnashing of the teeth; so I wouldn’t hang much (or anything) on him apparently not being punished with more than having his mina taken away in the earlier version.

[Eaglesway]

Yes, it appears that multipying the minas, in Matt 25, is drectly related to the following verses concerning the judgment, “I was sick and you visited me, I was hungry and you fed me”…etc. Here it looks like the minas are relating to practical love. The one who buried his love got punished.

[Micah]

Have read through the replies, and I’m back to being pretty confused on what to think here. I think the sticking point I’m trying to wrap my head around is why Christ would use such negative images the people had in their minds of a brutal ruler like Archelaus, to have them make an association of that ruler’s character and action with His own character and action. It’s hard for me to square a picture of someone wanting people brought before him so he could watch them be slain for questioning his authority, with the Suffering Servant Who commanded us to love our enemies, commanded us not to rule over others like the world, Who said the first shall be last and the last shall be first, Who said ‘Father forgive them for they know not what they do’, etc.

Is there anything to be gleaned from the audience having been those in Zaccheus’ house, who had just witnessed his conversion from a tax collector who defrauded people for the Empire, to become a servant and follower of the Servant King, ready to make amends for his ways?