Parable of the Pounds

THE PARABLE (LUKE 19:11-27)

Jesus wa going to Jerusalem for his crucifixion
People thought Jesus was going to be crowned king and/or that God's kingdom was soon to arrive
Jesus shared this parable:

- A nobleman went to a far country to receive authority to rule his kingdom
- A delegation went as well to contest his rule
- Before he went, the nobleman gave money to his servants
- When he came back, he asked the servants for his money and its return
- The first made 10 times as much in financial trading
- The second made 5 times as much
- The third returned the same amount, and with a bad attitude, in effect, he told his master, "I knew that if I made anything more and above this amount, you would take it away from me, so why should I try?  Here is what you gave me."
- The ruler took that man's portion and gave it to the one who made 10 times as much
- The ruler killed those who contested his authority

THE CONTEXT OF THE PARABLE

Jesus was winding up his ministry and it was time for him to prepare for his death.  Everybody was expecting the next week to be glorious and they are hoping that the coming week would be the beginning of a new and wonderful kingdom.  And if not that week, they were sure it was soon to come.  Anticipation was foremost on the minds of many, especially Jesus' followers.
- Before the parable: Zaccheaus found salvation by giving away a large portion of what he had
- After the parable: Jesus received a king's welcome into Jerusalem

HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE PARABLE

Before becoming a king, the appointed ruler had to go to Rome in order to receive his authority.  When Herod's son Archelaus went to Rome to receive his authority, many Jews went as well to contest his rulership.  Receiving authority to rule over Judah from Rome, Archelaus had those Jews and other enemies killed.

INTERPRETATION

Luke placed this parable that Jesus spoke in this spot for a reason.  Jesus was finishing his ministry, so I expect that Jesus would bring conclusions to his teachings.  At the same time, because it was his last week, I would expect that  Jesus wanted to prepare his disciples for his leaving them - which is something they did not expect.

This parable did both.  It concluded his teachings and it began to prepare his disciples for his departure.

-Jesus was the nobleman who was to go away to receive a kingdom. 
-The enemies were his enemies.
-The servants were his followers.

Jesus expected his followers to bear fruit with what they were given.  That is, they were to use their gifts, talents and money to build a wealth of treasures for his return.  We know that in the rest of Luke, Jesus was not telling his disciples to become wealthy, but rather to use what they had for the treasures that would last for all of eternity.

This parable suggests that Jesus would reward his disciples in the afterlife according to how well they put his gifts to use during this life.  Jesus gave his disciples gifts and teachings to share.  These gifts and teachings were given as a test to see what the disciples would do with them.  If they tucked them away and did nothing, his disciples would lose whatever they had.  But if they put those gifts to good use by giving to others, they would get a great reward.

God gave us money, jobs, possessions, opportunities and a lot of other things.  We are to put them to use by giving and sharing.  When we give and share, we get back - some in this life, some in the next.  It is that which we get back through giving that will be placed on our account for eternity. 

I would venture to guess, that what we get back in this life is intended soley to reinvest for eternal rewards.  In other words, if I start to get a lot of money back from giving away money to help the poor, the amount that I keep for myself is only good for this world.  Its only good for helping me to live, survive and enjoy this life.  But that return will be of no value for eternity.  However, what I give to others in their need will always be treasure stored for the future kingdom.  So if I get back a lot, I have more opportunity to give more.

Zaccheus

But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount (Luke 19:8)."

Luke ended Jesus' ministry (before his final week) in his Gospel writing with the story of a rich man who was able to buy his way into the kingdom.  The concept of buying his way in comes from Luke 16:9:  Here's the lesson: Use your worldly resources to benefit others and make friends. Then, when your earthly possessions are gone, they (those friends)will welcome you to an eternal home.

Throughout the book of Luke, Jesus told us that the kingdom belonged to the poor and that the rich were have no part in it (Luke 6:20-26).  The parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16) illustrated this teaching.

Throughout the book of Luke, Jesus warned his followers about money, its deceitfulness, and its ability to rob us of the Word of God and His kingdom. 

In the book of Luke a rich young ruler could not enter the kingdom because he could not give away all that he had.  I have already stated that he could not give everything because his money was earned fairly and was acceptable in the good society.  The rich young ruler had a lot of money and that made him honorable in his society. 

On the other hand Zacchaeus had dirty money, taken brutily and dishonestly.  His money brought him dishonor among his people.  It was easier to let go of dirty money, because as it went, there was a feeling of dignity and honor that returned as that dirty money left.

I suppose it is very possible that being a little person in his society, Zaccheaus may have suffered a lot of criticism and bullying as he grew up; so he didn't have much social standing.  So when he grew up, he chose to make money by capitalizing on being cruel to others with a Roman big brother at his side. 

Zaccheaus was Luke's example that countered the rich man.  Zaccheaus was a rich man who gave extremely generously (more than half) and therefore bought his way into the kingdom of God, buying for himself friends who would welcome him into the kingdom.

The Blind Man and Money

As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging.  When he heard the crowd going by, he asked what was happening.  They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.”

He called out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”

Those who led the way rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”

Jesus stopped and ordered the man to be brought to him. When he came near, Jesus asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?”

“Lord, I want to see,” he replied.

Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.”  Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they also praised God.

(Luke 18:35-43)

There are several reasons why I believe this story is a metaphor for those whose eyes were opened at the end of Jesus' ministry.  For Mark the same healing was a metaphor for the disciples who began to see that Jesus was not only the glorious Christ, but the suffering servant as well.  For Luke, the metaphor is about people like the disciples and Zacchaeus who began to see that there is a huge price to enter the kingdom of God.

Seeing is a metaphore of those who are no longer blind spiritually.  As Jesus entered Jerusalem to wrap up his ministry, the full weight of his teachings had been given by Jesus and understood by many.  The story the blind man is surrounded by stories of people who gave up everything or a huge portion of what they had to help those who were in need.  Immediately before, there was the story of the rich man who could not give and in contrast, the disciples who gave up everything.  Immediately after the man received his sight, Zaccaeus gave away a huge portion of what he had.

I call this the sandwich effect.  In the sandwich effect, something in the middle which appears to be unrelated is central to the sides.  Another sandwich effect, found in Mark 11, is the cursing of the fig tree, cleansing the temple, and then back to the fig tree which is dried up one day later.  Here is what that sandwich effect looks like:
Jesus cursed the fig tree
Jesus cleansed the temple
The fig tree dies up

The fig tree was one of Judah's symbols, much like the eagle is for the modern U.S.   Speaking and acting prophetically, Jesus illustrated that Judah's time had come because, like that fig tree, Judah was bearing no fruit.  The greed and misuse in the temple, in the middle of Jesus' prophetic demonstration with the fig tree, were the core reasons for Judah's destruction.

The cursing of the fig tree and the turning of the tables in the temple, which seem to be unrelated, are very much intwined.

LUKE'S BLIND MAN

As Jesus walked into Jerusalem for his final week, his ministry was coming to it's conclusion.  The blind man symbolized the people whose spiritual eyes had been opened during Jesus' ministry.  They heard how only the poor could enter the kingdom of God and they heard that the rich could enter if they gave everything they had - or in the case of Zaccaeus, the greater portion of everything.

The disciples saw, and they gave up family and possessions.  Zaccaeus saw, and he gave up a huge amount of money.  These disciples' eyes were opened.

The Rich Can Go to Heaven

Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”

Jesus replied, “What is impossible with men is possible with God."

Peter said to him, “We have left all we had to follow you!”

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God  will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life (Luke 18:25-30).”

Here we have the difficulty of the rich getting into the kingdom (the rich young ruler) contrasted with those who do make it.

The disciples gave up family and possessions and bought for themselves a place in eternity.

The story after this passage had to do with Jesus opening the eyes of a blind man.  As my last blog stated, this is a metaphore of what was going on around Jesus.  As the spiritual eyes of people were opened, they gave everything or a good portion of what they had to help the poor.

After the blind man received his sight, Luke turns us to Zaccaeus who gave a good portion of what he had, because he too could see.

Metaphors

There are several metaphors in Luke 16-18, that pass off as simple, but out of context stories in Jesus career.  I don't have the energy to explain all the reasons why I think these stories that come from Jesus' ministry serve as metaphors, but I will give a few.

In the book of John, when Jesus healed the blind man, he stated that he was the light of the world and gave a message on opening people's eyes metaphorically.  Likewise, when he raised Lazarus, he stated that he was the resurrection and the life and gave a message on that.  When he fed the 5,000 he said he was the bread of life, and so on.

In Mark, when the disciples realized that Jesus was the glorious messiah predicted by scripture, their faith could not handle a suffering messiah.  In their belief / unbelief, Jesus healed a man who saw men as trees walking (in other words, he could only partially see) - he needed a second healing to see clearly.  In that same literary context, a man who came to Jesus for healing his son, cried out, "I believe, help my unbelief."  Both of these stories were living metaphores for what the disciples were facing at that time.  It was the disciples who could only partially see.  It was the disciples who believed that Jesus was the Christ, but had a difficult time believing that he woud suffer.  Their faith was mixed up.

Luke also carefully placed his stories and parables for his theological purposes.  After Jesus spoke a parable of the beggar Lazarus, Luke followed it up with Jesus' warning, "Do not offend the least of these...."  The least of these refered to people like Lazarus. 

And in Luke 18, after Jesus recounted the parable of the tax collector who went to the temple to confess, and right after the parable, someone came to Jesus with an infant, who was turned away by the disciples.  Jesus corrected the disciples and said, "Let the children come to me, for of such is the kingdom of God."  That child was a metaphor of the tax collector, who was rejected by the people and the pharisee.

Toward the end of chapter 18, Luke recounted the story of a rich man who would not give away his money to become one of Jesus' disciples. After the rich man rejected the kingdom and before Zachaeus bought himself into it, Luke shared the story of a man whose eyes were opened.  Once again, that story of a man whose eyes were opened was a metaphor of one who could let go of his riches for a better kingdom.

Lest you doubt that the blind receiving their sight was a metaphor, read the verse that preceeded the episode:  The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about (Luke 18:34).  Like the blind man, the disciples could not see at that point of Jesus' ministry.  In fact, they could not see clearly until after Jesus' resurrection.

The Pharisee and the Tax Collector

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.  The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.  I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

(Luke 18:9-14)

Tax Collectors were not allowed to tithe or give testimony in a court of law.  They dishonored their families and people were not allowed to make promises with them

These were Jewish men who bought a contract from Rome that gave the tax-collectors the right to take money from their own people in order to pay for Rome's prosperity.  The Gospels suggest that while they took money from their own people, they took more than was needed in order to further their own self interests.  They were, therefore, probably the most despised people among the Jews.

On the other hand the Pharisee was the ideal religious man.  He kept himself pure, following the Law of Moses (both written and passed down by word of mouth) which fed a world of taboos protecting one's relationship with a holy God who demanded purity.  The Pharisee followed the behavior and the attitude of the Psalmists who warned against keeping company with sinners. 

The Pharisee lived the life he was suppose to live, the tax collector was a corrupt man.

The Pharisee thanked God because he was not a bad person and because he did right things for God and for the poor.  The tax collector had nothing to be proud about and confessed that he was a sinner.

CONCLUSION

This parable prepares us for what is coming.  Jesus had been talking about the poor receiving the kingdom of God and telling his audience that the rich could enter in if they generously gave to those who were entering the kingdom - if they bought friends with the mammon of unrighteousness.

In the coming stories, Jesus will ask a rich man to give everything for the kingdom of God, but he will not be able to.  And in the coming stories, another - a short tax collector will give generously without being compelled.

These two stories coming up will be examples to illustrate everything that Jesus had said about money in the book of Luke.

Who Are the Most Imortant People?

Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come.  It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.  So watch yourselves.

“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.  If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”

(Luke 17:1-4)

In chapter 17, Luke seemingly broke away from the subject of povery and wealth, when he told his disciples that it was imperative to keep from offending the least important people.  But when Jesus said this, he qualified the least important to "these least important," which refers back to Lazarus.  The context here is important, because in the least important people would be people like Lazarus who were no more than simple beggars. They were the ones for whom the kingdom of God was prepared.  They were the ones (like Lazarus) who would be sitting in the highest places in eternity.

So how do we hurt the least imortant?  The rich man ignored Lazarus.  Could this be offensive?  Or could the rich man's arrogance in life's standing be offensive? 

Again, looking at the context, a big part of the solution in keeping from offending the least was to forgive over and over.  Why would anyone need to forgive the least important?  In particular, why would the rich man need to forgive Lazarus during his lifetime?  Was it because Lazarus was poor?  Was it because Lazarus legally sat in front of the rich man's house and that bothered Lazarus because his property value was going down?

Our societies have heaped blame on the poor for their poverty, laziness, crime, violence, and taking advantage of the system (something that every level of society does).  Forgiving the poor for their poverty and for their offenses is an interesting concept.

Forgiveness is letting go, and those feelings that we have about people lower than us need to be let go.  When we forgive, we do not excuse bad behavior by the poor or by the rich, we simply do not let their bad behavior lead us into offending the lower levels of society, by arrogance or neglect.

Finally, Jesus never differenciated between deserving and undeserving poor.  In other words, there were poor who were taking advantage of the system who deserved to be poor (I believe the lame man in John 5 was one), and there were those who were poor because of life situations that went wrong.  Jesus ministered to and gave to both types of poor people.