1 Samuel 23:7-18

David Leaves Keilah, to Spare them Saul’s Military Assault

7 Now it was told Saul that David had come to Keilah. And Saul said, "God has given him into my hand; for he has shut himself in by entering a town that has gates and bars." 8 Saul summoned all the people to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men. 9 When David learned that Saul was plotting evil against him, he said to the priest Abiathar, "Bring the ephod here." 10 David said, "O LORD, the God of Israel, your servant has heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account. 11 And now, will Saul come down as your servant has heard? O LORD, the God of Israel, I beseech you, tell your servant." The LORD said, "He will come down." 12 Then David said, "Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?" The LORD said, "They will surrender you." 13 Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, set out and left Keilah; they wandered wherever they could go. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the expedition. 14 David remained in the strongholds in the wilderness, in the hill country of the Wilderness of Ziph. Saul sought him every day, but the LORD did not give him into his hand. (1 Samuel 23:7-14, NRSV)

            Jonathan and David Meet at Horesh in the Wilderness of Ziph

15 David was in the Wilderness of Ziph at Horesh when he learned that Saul had come out to seek his life. 16 Saul's son Jonathan set out and came to David at Horesh; there he strengthened his hand through the LORD. 17 He said to him, "Do not be afraid; for the hand of my father Saul shall not find you; you shall be king over Israel, and I shall be second to you; my father Saul also knows that this is so." 18 Then the two of them made a covenant before the LORD; David remained at Horesh, and Jonathan went home. (1 Samuel 23:15-18, NRSV)

On July 22, 2007 (the Eighth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the Sunday closest to July 20, Year One), comments were repeated with editing and supplement here from July 17, 2005 (the Sunday closest to July 20, Year One); the comments are repeated here:

Yesterday we noted David’s move “into the forest of Hereth” (1 Sam. 22:5) and P. Kyle McCarter Jr.’s suggestion that it “was probably in the vicinity of Keilah” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 1 Sam. 22:5). If so, he is already nearby when he hears of trouble there. People tell David, “The Philistines are fighting against Keilah, and are robbing the threshing floors” (2 Sam. 23:1). Yesterday we also noted that the priest Abiathar, the sole survivor of the massacre, escaped to join David (22:20-23). Before going to Keilah, David “inquired of the LORD”–through Abiathar, the priest--as to whether he should go to Keilah, twice, first as his own inquiry (v. 2), and the second time to put the fears of his men to rest (vv. 3-4), with affirmative answers both times. Steven L. McKenzie says, “This episode illustrates the importance of Abiathar’s ability to divine through the ephod. David’s inquiries require a yes-or-no answer, which could be determined through the ephod (v. 6)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Sam. 23:2-5). Although were not told of the presence of the ephod until 23:6, it may be assumed because Abiathar has joined David (22:20-23). And, the presence of a priest enables David to inquire of the LORD for guidance (23:2, 4, 9-11). “Go and attack the Philistines,” says the LORD, “and save Keilah” (v. 2). Because David’s men are fearful (v. 3), David inquires of the LORD again, and is told, “Yes, go down to Keilah, for I will give the Philistines into your hand” (v. 4). With this assurance and the confidence it provides, David and his men go, fight with the Philistines, bring away their livestock, deal them “a heavy blow,” and rescue “the inhabitants of Keilah” (v. 5). The narrator reminds us that “When Abiathar son of Ahimelech fled to David at Keilah (i.e. “into the forest of Hereth,” as noted above), “he came down with an ephod in his hand” (v. 6).

In today’s reading, we find that Saul learns of David’s presence in Keilah (v. 7a) and believes that he has David trapped. “God has given him into my hand,” says Saul, “for he has shut himself in by entering a town that has gates and bars” (v. 7b). Saul mounts a massive force to attack David. He summons “all the people to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men” (v. 8), but David is informed and summons the priest Abiathar, instructing that he “Bring the ephod here” (v. 9). The ephod (dOpxe, ’ēphōd), says William L. Holladay, is “a priestly garment” (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. dOpxe, ’ēphōd) in “Ex. 28:4 and often,” but the term has another meaning, defined as a “cult object (image?) along with teraphim Ju. 8:27; 17:5, used to obtain oracle 1 Sam. 23:9” (ibid., 2^nd meaning). David addresses the LORD in prayer, describing his situation. “O LORD, the God of Israel, your servant has heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account” (v. 10). His inquiry is in regard to this threatening news. “And now, will Saul come down as your servant has heard? O LORD, the God of Israel, I beseech you, tell your servant” (v. 11a). The LORD’s answer–through Abiathar and the ephod–is affirmative, “He will come down” (v. 11b). David has another question. “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” (v. 12a), and again the answer is affirmative, “They will surrender you” (v. 12b). So David and his men, about six hundred, leave Keilah, wandering “wherever they could go” (v. 13a), and when Saul learns of this “escape” from Keilah, he changes his plans and does not attack Keilah (v. 13b). So “David [remains] in the strongholds in the wilderness, in the hill country of the Wilderness of Ziph” (v. 14a), about twenty miles south by southwest of Bethlehem, and Saul searches for him every day, but in vain, for “the LORD did not give him into his hand (v. 14b).

We are informed of new trouble for David–rather more of the same. “David was in the Wilderness of Ziph at Horesh when he learned that Saul had come out to seek his life” (v. 15). It seems that Jonathan is able to do what his father cannot do, that is, find David in the wilderness. “Saul's son Jonathan set out and came to David at Horesh; there he strengthened his hand through the LORD” (v. 16). Jonathan reassures David: “Do not be afraid; for the hand of my father Saul shall not find you; you shall be king over Israel, and I shall be second to you; my father Saul also knows that this is so” (v. 17), and they make (renew?) “a covenant before the LORD” (v. 18a) before parting again, for “David remained at Horesh, and Jonathan went home” (v. 18b). According to McKenzie, “It is extraordinary and unbelievable that Jonathan would admit that David would be king in his place” (op. cit., on v. 17). But Shimon Bar-Efrat apparently does not find it so extraordinary. “Saul knows,” he says, “that David will be king, and yet he continues pursuing him, driven by jealousy and enmity” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on 1 Sam. 23:17). The “pact (‘berit’ [tyr9B4, b^erîth, ‘covenant’ NRSV] ),” says Bar-Efrat, stipulates “that when David will be king, Jonathan shall rank next to him” (ibid., on v. 18).

Romans 11:33-12:2

Paul Praises God’s Wisdom in Dealing with the Jews

33 O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord?

Or who has been his counselor?"

35 "Or who has given a gift to him,

to receive a gift in return?"

36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen. (Romans 11:33-36, NRSV)

Paul Begins his Appeal to the Romans for Holy Living

12:1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God--what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:1-2, NRSV)

The following comments are based on relevant comments from July 16 and 17, 2008 (Wednesday and Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year Two), when the readings were Romans 11:25-36 and 12:1-8, from July 22, 2007 (the Eighth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the Sunday closest to July 20, Year One), of March 31, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Lent, Year One), and earlier comments as noted there.

Romans, chapters 9-11, present Paul’s agony over the place of “my own people, my kindred according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3), the “Israelites” (v. 4), in God’s plan of salvation. After showing that Abraham’s “true descendants” (v. 7) are so by God’s “mercy” (vv. 15-16), that God has included the Gentiles (vv. 24-26, citing Hos. 2:23; 1:10), that salvation depends on calling “upon the name of the Lord” (10:13, citing Joel 2:32) in confession “that Jesus is Lord” and believing “with the heart” (11:9-10), and considering whether the rejection of Jesus by many Israelites is final (chap. 11) along with many related considerations, Paul breaks out in praise of “the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Rom. 11:33; cf. Isa. 45:15; 55:8). Paul quotes rhetorical questions–statements in effect–from scripture. Robert G. Bratcher presents the quotations as in the following table:

The quotation of Isaiah 40:13 in Romans 11:34 is clearly based on the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew. It’s not so clear in 1 Corinthians 2:16. Influence has been suggested from Jeremiah 23:18, “For who has stood in the council of the LORD / so as to see and to hear his word? / Who has given heed to his word so as to proclaim it?” and from Job 15:8, where Eliphaz asks Job in some derision, “Have you listened in the council of God? / And do you limit wisdom to yourself?” (K. Aland and others, edd., The Greek New Testament, 3^rd ed., 1976, footnote on Rom. 11:34). In the case of Romans 11:35 citing Job 41:11, there is apparently no significant difference between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint translation, but the pronouns differ due to the context. Paul refers to God as “him,” but as the speaker in Job 41:11 God refers to himself with the pronouns “me” and “I.” Elihu’s question to Job, “If you are righteous, what do you give to him [i.e., to God]; / or what does he receive from your hand?” (Job 35:7), is not the source of the quotation, but presents a similar idea (cf. Neil Elliott, NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Rom. 11:35).

Paul’s point is in using the rhetorical questions to express the surpassing wisdom of God, and he follows with the doxology, “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen” (v. 36). So Paul ends with expressions of wonder at God’s grace and providence.

With that, today’s reading brings us to a major juncture in the structure of Romans. Some would call chapters 1 to 8 the doctrinal part and chapters 9 to 11 a kind of parenthesis on the issue of the Jews’ part in the plan of salvation, followed by the practical exhortations and personal plans and greetings that conclude the letter beginning in chapter 12. Ben Witherington III, however, says of chapters 9 to 11, “It is a very serious error indeed to treat these chapters as an afterthought, unrelated discussion, or mere appendix to chs. 1-8. It is nearer to the mark to call it the climax of the theological portion of the letter. It is an argument for the defense of both God and of Israel and as such is meant to refute certain assumptions Gentiles in Rome seem to be making about God and Israel, and about Israel’s future” (Witherington, with Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans; A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 2004, p. 236, on Rom. 9:1-11:36).

In any case, we clearly come here to a new departure, as one might infer from the preceding doxology. And it is generally agreed that chapter 12 of Romans introduces a major turning point in the flow of Paul’s discussion. The conjunction “therefore” (ou\n, oun) links all that precedes, which is mainly theoretical, that is, theological, with what follows: practical advice on Christian living. Because Paul has not yet been to Rome when he writes to the Romans (cf. Rom. 1:10), some have assumed that Romans is more general than most of his other Epistles, and not addressed to specific situations within the community of Christian believers in Rome. It is a summary of Paul’s thought, his “systematic theology,” so to speak. But important parts of the early church’s “rule of faith,” as some call it, or what the first Christians held in common, are lacking in Romans, for example the Lord’s Supper (which Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29; cf. 10:16-21). And so, some, for example, Ben Witherington III (Paul’s Letter to the Romans; A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 2004, pp. 11-16), see Romans as addressed to specific conditions within the Roman church during the early (“good,” or at least not the worst) years of Nero’s reign. The Jews (and Jewish Christians) had been expelled from Rome by Claudius in A.D. 49 (cf. Acts 18:2), but allowed to return by Nero when he succeeded Claudius in A.D. 54). So, some three years later when Paul was writing to them, there was some tension, as Witherington believes, between the Gentile Christian majority and the Jewish Christian minority within the community of Christian believers in Rome. That Romans was written for the purpose of addressing divisions between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians within the Roman Christian community is disputed by Paul J. Achtemeier, Joel B. Green, and Marianne Meye Thompson, because they find the evidence for an expulsion of all the Jews, including Jewish Christians, in A.D. 49, faulty (Introducing the New Testament, 2001, pp. 302-3). But it remains true that later specific advice for these groups to respect each other in the unity of Christian love is anticipated in today’s reading.

Paul advice is “to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship (logikhv latreiva, logikē latreia)” (‘Rom. 12:1). For “spiritual worship,” the Authorized Version (KJV) has “reasonable service” (so also the NKJV). Other translations include “spiritual act of worship” (NIV), “true worship (Today’s NIV [TNIV]), and “spiritual service of worship” (NASB). The term latreiva (latreia) means “in cultic [religious] usage service/worship of God” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [= BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., 2000, s.v. latreiva, latreia). The term logikhv (logikē), the feminine form of logikovV (logikos), modifying the feminine noun latreiva (latreia), “pertains to being carefully thought through, thoughtful [and] logikh; latreiva (logikē latreia) [means] a thoughtful service (in a dedicated spiritual sense) Rom. 12:1) (BDAG, s.v. logikovV, logikos). The Lexicon says the term has been “a favorite expression of philosophers since Aristotle,” but use of the tern in a religious (spiritual) sense is illustrated: “the singing of hymns is the sacred service of a human being, as a logikovV [logikos] = one endowed with reason” (cited from Epictetus 11, 16, 20f), “God places no value on sacrificial animals, but on tou: quvontoV pneu:ma logikovn [tou thyontos pneuma logikon, ‘the logikon spirit of the one offering the sacrifice)’ (ibid.). One conclusion suggests itself from this overlap in translation of the word logikovV (logikos) as “spiritual” and/or “rational.” (Our word “logic” is related to logikovV, logikos.) Our worship should be spiritual and rational, with a proper balance between the two There are, apparently, Christian traditions that emphasize one of these to the neglect of the other. We are asked to live a life that is consecrated to God, a “living sacrifice,” not as an animal slain as a temple sacrifice.

In the continuation, Paul describes the transformation enabled by God’s grace, redemption in Christ, and the gift of the Spirit to Christian believers. “Do not be conformed to this world,” he says, “but be transformed by the renewing of your minds (h JajnakaivnwsiV tou: noovV, hē anakainōsis tou noos), so that you may discern what is the will of God--what is good and acceptable and perfect” (v. 2). The word nou:V (nous, genitive case noovV, noos) can mean “the faculty of intellectual perception–(a) mind, intellect as the side of life contrasted with physical existence, the higher, mental part of a human being that initiates thoughts,” or (b) understanding, mind as faculty of thinking” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. nou:V, nous, meaning no. (1) ). But the meaning suggested for this passage is “way of thinking, mind, attitude, as the sum total of the whole mental and moral state of being . . . as possessed by every person . . . be transformed by the renewal of the mind, which comes about when Christians have their natural nou:V [nous] penetrated and transformed by the Spirit which they receive at baptism” (ibid., meaning no. (2) ). We might add that “baptism” here should primarily refer to spiritual baptism, of which water baptism can be an outward symbol.

In the continuation, Paul spells out consequences for practical Christian living, but the present reading concludes at this point

Matthew 25:14-30

The Parable of the Talents

14 "For it is as if a man, going on a journey, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them; 15 to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 The one who had received the five talents went off at once and traded with them, and made five more talents. 17 In the same way, the one who had the two talents made two more talents. 18 But the one who had received the one talent went off and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money. 19 After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. 20 Then the one who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five more talents, saying, 'Master, you handed over to me five talents; see, I have made five more talents.' 21 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.' 22 And the one with the two talents also came forward, saying, 'Master, you handed over to me two talents; see, I have made two more talents.' 23 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.' 24 Then the one who had received the one talent also came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' 26 But his master replied, 'You wicked and lazy slave! You knew, did you, that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents. 29 For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 30 As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' (Matthew 25:14-30, NRSV)

On July 15, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year Two), comments were repeated from December 21, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year Two), when comments were repeated from July 22, 2007 (the Sunday closest to July 20, Year One), when they were repeated from July 18, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year Two), from July 17, 2005 (the Sunday closest to July 20, Year One), and from December 16, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year Two). They are used again here:

As compared with Matthew’s Parable of the Talents (Mt. 25:14-30), Luke’s Parable of the Ten Pounds might seem to deal in “chump change.” The man who received “five talents” (tavlanta, talanta, Mt. 25:15) received the equivalent of a laborer’s wages for seventy-five years (NRSV, text note f on Mt. 25:14), but each of the slaves in Luke’s parable receive one pound (mna:, mna, Lk. 19:13, cf. vv. 16, 18, 20–ten pounds, one for each of ten slaves). The pound represented about three month’s wages for a laborer (NRSV, text note a on Lk. 19:13). Perhaps the intended audience was a consideration. Luke’s Gospel often makes a special place for marginalized people. Another difference is the setting of the parables; the Parable of the Talents is one of three parables which conclude Matthew’s version of the eschatological speech (Mt. chaps. 24, 25), but Luke sets this parable on the approach to Jerusalem as a “corrective” “because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately” (Lk. 19:11). Again, the “man going on a journey” in Matthew’s version (Mt. 25:14; cf. Mk. 13:34), is “a nobleman [who] went to a distant country to get royal power for himself and then return” in Luke’s version (Lk. 19:12), a feature which leads many commentaries see the parable as based in part on a historical event. The parable adds that he came back “having received royal power” (v. 15) over the protests of the citizens. “But the citizens of his country hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to rule over us’” (v. 14). In the end this king orders the protesters to be slaughtered “in my presence” (v. 27).

This parable is compared with Mark13:34 and Luke 19:11-27 in a separate file, Talents-Pounds. Given the common structure of the situation in Matthew and Luke, there are remarkable similarities. But there are also striking differences, some of which are noted above. In Mark, a man goes “on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work,”.commanding “the doorkeeper to be on the watch” (Mk. 13:34). This leads to the admonition, “Therefore, keep awake–for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn, or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly” (vv. 35-36). But this admonition is not elaborated as a parable comparable to Matthew’s Parable of the Talents or Luke’s Parable of the Pounds. For Matthew and for Mark, these passages essentially close the period of Jesus ministry in Jerusalem before the Passion Narrative. In Matthew, the Parable of the Ten Maidens (Mt. 25:1-13), the Parable of the Talents (vv. 14-30), and the description of the Judgment Scene (vv. 31-46) conclude Jesus’ eschatological speech. Apart from the huge difference in monetary values, the main difference between the parables in Matthew and Luke is the apparent reference to an actual historical situation in Luke’s version.

Dale C. Allison Jr. interprets Matthew’s version of the parable as follows:

Whether or not one uses the word ‘allegory’, [Matthew] 25:14-30 is filled with obvious symbols. The master stands for Jesus, his slaves for the church, whose members have received various responsibilities. The master’s departure represents the departure of the earthly Jesus, and his long absence is the age of the church. His return is the return of the Son of Man. The rewards given to the good slaves stand for heavenly rewards given to the faithful at the great assize, and their joy is that of the messianic banquet. The punishment of the evil slave represents those within the church who, through their sins of omission, condemn themselves to eschatological darkness. Most of this is familiar, but the passage is not otiose. Repetition makes for emphasis. Moreover, new are the notions that Christians have received gifts according to their ability (v. 15) and that it is what they make of those gifts which counts in the end. (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 878, on Mt. 25:14-30)

William Barclay gives the following interpretation of Luke’s version of this parable:

[The parable] tells about a king who went away to receive a kingdom and whose subjects did their best to stop him receiving it. When Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. he left his kingdom divided between Herod Antipas, Herod Philip and Archelaus. That division had to be ratified by the Romans, who were the overlords of Palestine, before it became effective. Archelaus, to whom Judaea had been left, went to Rome to persuade Augustus to allow him to enter into his inheritance, whereupon the Jews sent an embassy of fifty men to Rome to inform Augustus that they did not wish to have him as king. In point of fact, Augustus confirmed him in his inheritance, though without the actual title of king. (The Gospel of Luke, Daily Study Bible, rev. ed., 1975, pp. 236-237, on Lk. 19:11-27)

Barclay adds that “Anyone in Judaea, on hearing the parable, would immediately remember the historical circumstances on which it was based” (ibid.). Scholars differ on whether the Parables of the Talents and the Pounds are two versions of one parable told by Jesus, or different parables from different occasions (cf. I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke, NIGTC, 1978, p. 701, on Lk. 19:11-27). They also differ on the significance. A Jülicher “claimed that the original form of the parable was meant simply to teach a moral lesson about using the gifts which God has given to man” (cited by Marshall, p. 702). Barclay follows a line similar to that: “The parable of the king and his servants illustrates certain great facts of the Christian life,” he says, and lists (1) “the king’s trust” (2) “the king’s test” (3) “the king’s reward” (Barclay, p. 237). Barclay adds that “the parable concludes with one of the inexorable laws of life. To him who has, more will be given; from him who has not, what he has will be taken away” (Barclay, p. 238).

Eric Franklin, however, has trouble with such an interpretation. According to him, “The story line [of Luke’s parable] owes much to the events of 4 B.C. when Archelaus went to Rome to claim his father’s throne and encountered strong resistance” (Eric Franklin, The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 951, on Lk.19:11-27). The fact that Archelaus ruled only Judea, and only until A.D. 5 when he was deposed and replaced by Roman Governors like Pilate, Felix and Festus, is not reflected in the parable. Nor should the nobleman be understood as representing Christ (Franklin) as in Dale C. Allison, Jr.’s interpretation of the Parable of the Talents. “That the nobleman-become-king stands for Jesus is made more unlikely by the third servant’s wholly unflattering description of him (v. 21) as rapacious and a fraudster, an assessment that the king does not deny (v. 22)” (ibid.). “The parable therefore is unlikely to be an allegory,” says Franklin,

but is rather, in the words of Evans (1990), ‘another of the risqué parables . . . in which the central figure is a reprehensible character’. In pointing to the demands made by the manner of the Kingdom’s appearing in Jesus, Luke has used this device, not only in the parable of the dishonest steward (16:1-9), but also, and with a close parallel, in that of the importunate widow (18:1-8), where one is encouraged to pray for its coming, and the friend at midnight (11:5-8) where one is told to ask to live out of its power. (op. cit., p. 952)

William Barclay, in reference to Matthew’s parable, draws certain conclusions:

In this parable Jesus tells us that there can be no religion without adventure. But there is much more to this parable than that.

(I) It tells us that God gives men differing gifts. . . .

(ii) It tells us that the reward of work well done is still more work to do. . . .

(iii) It tells us that the man who is punished is the man who will not try.

(iv) It lays down a rule of life that is universally true. It tells us that to him who has more will be given, and he who has not will lose even what he has. (The Gospel of Matthew, The Daily Study Bible Series, rev. ed., vol. 2, pp. 323-324 on Mt. 25:14-30).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net