Daily Scripture Readings     

Tuesday (July13, 2010)*

Daily Office Lectionary, The Book of Common Prayer, the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A., 1979; cf. The Revised Common Lectionary (RCL), Abingdon Press, 1992

Daily Lectionary, Book of Common Worship, the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., 1993

Daily Lectionary, Book of Worship Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship, c. 1978 (2002 printing) ‡

http://www.satucket.com/lectionary/index.htm

http://www.pcusa.org/cgi-bin/lectiond.cgi

YOU MAY NEED TO COPY AND PASTE THESE URLs IN YOUR BROWSER

 

‡ Daily Lectionary, Evangelical Lutheran Worship, ELCA, 2006. In the Evangelical Lutheran Worship book of 2006, the Daily Lectionary (pp. 1121-1153) is revised to correlate with the Sunday Lectionary (the Revised Common Lectionary) on the three year cycle: Year A, Year B (now current), Year C. “The readings are chosen so that the days leading up to Sunday (Thursday through Saturday) prepare for the Sunday readings. The days flowing out from Sunday (Monday through Wednesday) reflect upon the Sunday readings” (p. 1121).

Unless otherwise indicated, the scripture texts quoted are from The New Revised Standard Version (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers), 1989.

 

Tuesday

AM Psalm 26, 28

PM Psalm 36, 39

Joshua 2:15‑24

Rom. 11:13‑24

Matt. 25:14‑30

[Conrad Weiser]

http://www.satucket.com/lectionary/conrad_weiser.htm

Psalm 122

Job 5:8‑9, 20‑27; 2 Corinthians 5:16‑20; John 16:33B17:5

Eucharistic Readings:

Isaiah 7:1‑9; Psalm 48;

Matthew 11:20‑24

 

Tuesday

Morning: Psalms 42; 146

Joshua 2:15‑24

Rom. 11:13‑24

Matt. 25:14‑30

Evening: Psalms 102; 133

 

Tuesday

Morning Pss.: 12, 146

Num. 22:21‑38

Rom. 7:1‑12

Matt. 21:23‑32

Evening Pss.: 36, 7

 

 

 

Year C Daily Readings

Psalm 25:11-20

Proverbs 19:1-17

1 John 3:11-17

* Tuesday in the week of the Seventh Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year Two

 

For the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for June 29, 2010, two weeks ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

 

Episcopal and Presbyterian Readings:

 

Joshua 2:15‑24

 

15 Then she let them down by a rope through the window, for her house was on the outer side of the city wall and she resided within the wall itself. 16 She said to them, "Go toward the hill country, so that the pursuers may not come upon you. Hide yourselves there three days, until the pursuers have returned; then afterward you may go your way." 17 The men said to her, "We will be released from this oath that you have made us swear to you 18 if we invade the land and you do not tie this crimson cord in the window through which you let us down, and you do not gather into your house your father and mother, your brothers, and all your family. 19 If any of you go out of the doors of your house into the street, they shall be responsible for their own death, and we shall be innocent; but if a hand is laid upon any who are with you in the house, we shall bear the responsibility for their death. 20 But if you tell this business of ours, then we shall be released from this oath that you made us swear to you." 21 She said, "According to your words, so be it." She sent them away and they departed. Then she tied the crimson cord in the window.

22 They departed and went into the hill country and stayed there three days, until the pursuers returned. The pursuers had searched all along the way and found nothing. 23 Then the two men came down again from the hill country. They crossed over, came to Joshua son of Nun, and told him all that had happened to them. 24 They said to Joshua, "Truly the LORD has given all the land into our hands; moreover all the inhabitants of the land melt in fear before us." (Joshua 2:15-24, NRSV)

 

The following comments are repeated here from July 15, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from July 18, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year Two), when comments were repeated with additions from July 13, 2004, in an email sent July 12, 2004 for July 12-18

 

Rahab helps the spies leave Jericho by letting them down Aby a rope through the window, for her house was on the outer side of the city wall and she resided within the wall itself@ (Josh. 2:15). Rabbi J. H. Hertz quotes Garstang: A >Pressure upon the limited building-space within the original enclosures seems to have become so great that houses had arisen upon the walls themselves . . . and a number of houses leaned against the inner face of the main city-wall= (Garstang)@ (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2nd ed., 24th printing, 1981, p. 636, on Josh. 2:15). The location of her house was beneficial, because the city=s one gate was shut (v. 7). We are reminded of a similar escape from enemies in Damascus by Saul of Tarsus after his conversion and Christian preaching there, when Ahis disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket@ (Acts. 9:25; cf. 2 Cor. 11:32-33). Rahab offers advice to the spies on avoiding their pursuers. AGo toward the hill country,@ she says, Aso that the pursuers may not come upon you. Hide yourselves there three days, until the pursuers have returned; then afterward you may go your way” (Josh. 2:16). According to K. Lawson Younger, Atoward the hill country@ would be Ato the west@ (NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Josh. 2:16). The spies in turn remind her of the condition for protection of her and her family. AWe will be released from this oath that you have made us swear to you,@ they say, Aif we invade the land and you do not tie this crimson cord in the window through which you let us down, and you do not gather into your house your father and mother, your brothers, and all your family@ (vv. 17-18). They add a warning to stay within the house. “If any of you go out of the doors of your house into the street, they shall be responsible for their own death, and we shall be innocent; but if a hand is laid upon any who are with you in the house, we shall bear the responsibility for their death” (v. 19). And the spies add another warning not to betray them. ABut if you tell this business of ours, then we shall be released from this oath that you made us swear to you@ (v. 20). And Rahab agrees with their conditions and does their bidding about the crimson cord. AAccording to your words, so be it,” she says. AThen she tied the crimson cord in the window@ (v. 21). According to Carol Meyers, AThe crimson cord is identified in Jewish tradition with the scarlet thread used to mark the elder of Tamar=s twin sons (Gen. 35:28). Rahab=s family will be spared because the house will be marked by a red cord, just as the Israelites were spared from the plague of the firstborn by marking their homes with red blood (Exod. 12:7, 13)@ (Carol Meyers, The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, p. 467 on Josh. 2:18).

 

As instructed, the spies take evasive action in the hill country, going away from, rather than toward, the Israelite camp. AThey departed and went into the hill country and stayed there three days, until the pursuers returned. The pursuers had searched all along the way and found nothing@ (v. 22). When the pursuers have given up, the spies are able to return to the Israelite camp. AThen the two men came down again from the hill country,@ we are told. AThey crossed over, came to Joshua son of Nun, and told him all that had happened to them@ (v. 23). And their report is simple, but positive. ATruly,@ they say, Athe LORD has given all the land into our hands; moreover all the inhabitants of the land melt in fear before us@ (v. 24). According to Younger, Athe report of the spies to Joshua is based on Rahab=s words. In contrast to the spies of Num. 13, they did not >view the land= as they were told (v. 1). Without Rahab these men would not have returned to give a report on the Canaanite disposition” (op. cit., on vv. 22-24).

 

Romans 11:13‑24

 

13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry 14 in order to make my own people jealous, and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead! 16 If the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; and if the root is holy, then the branches also are holy.

17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember that it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 You will say, ABranches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.@ 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God=s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree. (Romans 11:13-24, NRSV)

 

The following comments are repeated here from April 3, 2009 (Friday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Lent, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from July 15, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from March 30, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Lent, Year One), when comments were combined and revised from July 13, 2004, in an email sent July 12, 2004 for July 12-18, from March 18, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Lent, Year One), and from July 18, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year Two).

 

Paul turns from his discussion of the situation of the Jews to a warning: ANow I am speaking to you Gentiles,” he says (Rom. 11:13a). He claims the right, even the obligation, to address them. “Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry in order to make my own people jealous, and thus to save some of them (tina;V ejx aujtw:n, tinas ex autōn)” (Rom. 11:13b, 14). According to C. K. Barrett, AGentiles might think that a long discussion of the remnant of Israel had little to do with them.” He adds,

 

The drift of his [Paul=s] argument appears to be: I know I am the >Gentile-apostle=, and I know that I am speaking to Gentiles . . . Yet my concern for my fellow-Jews is not derogatory to or inconsistent with my office; in fact, my work among GentilesBbecause it is work among GentilesBis connected with the Jews. The more I make of my Gentile mission the more jealous will the Jews become, and this will lead in the end to what I desireBtheir salvation. (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Harper=s New Testament Commentaries, 1957, on Rom. 11:13-14)

 

According to Ben Witherington III, “v[erse] 14 brings a note of realism. Paul hopes to make his fellow Jews jealous and so save some of them (tina;V ejx aujtw:n, tinas ex autÇn).” Against Käsemann, Witherington adds, “He [Paul] does not expect by himself to bring the fullness of Israel into the Christian faith” (Paul=s Letter to the Romans; A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 2004, p. 268, on Rom. 11:14). But in some sense Paul does expect the conversion of Israel, for he continues: “For if their rejection is the reconciliation (katallaghv, katallag‘) of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead!” (v. 15). Reconciliation (katallaghv, katallag‘)) is defined as Areestablishment of an interrupted or broken relationship, reconciliation . . . which, according to Paul, is brought about by God alone@ Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., 2000, s.v. katallaghv, katallag‘). The Lexicon cites this meaning for this verse (Rom. 11:15) and refers to the related verb in 2 Corinthians 5:19, Athe exchange of hostility for a friendly relationship, reconcile . . .someone tiniv to someone” as an act of God who reconciles “us to himself through Christ” (s.v katallavssw, katallassÇ). Barrett, in reference to Romans 11:15 and “reconciliation,” refers to his earlier discussion:

 

The same truth [i.e., about justification, Rom. 5:9, cf. vv. 1-9] is now differently expressed in an illuminating parallel. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, now that we have been reconciled, shall we be saved by his life [Rom. 5:10, Barrett=s translation]. It is important here to notice the introduction of a new termBreconciliation, and the close parallel between this and justification. The two verses (9 and 10) can be set out in outline as follows:

 

1. Justified                                1. Reconciled

2. Through the death of             2. Through the death of

Christ                                       Christ

3. We shall be saved                 3. We shall be saved.

 

Justification and reconciliation are different metaphors describing the same fact. (op. cit., pp. 107-108 on Rom. 5:9, 10)

 

Continuing in chapter 11, Paul illustrates his point with a metaphor. AIf the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; and if the root is holy, then the branches also are holy@ (11:16). According to John Knox and John Reumann, Paul describes “a converted remnant of Jewish Christians” as the “dough” which is the “first fruits” required by Numbers 15:18‑21, LXX (Greek Translation) (NOAB, 2nd ed. on Rom. 11:13-16), where one of the Greek terms, ajfaivrema (aphairema), means Athat which is taken away as the choice part@ (Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon, new ed., with supplement, 1968, s.v. ajfaivrema, aphairema). Wouldn=t it be great to be called by God “the choice part”? According to the Christian gospel, that=s what we are. “For God so loved the world . . .” (Jn. 3:16). Paul seems to include a larger group when he says, “If the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; and if the root is holy, then the branches also are holy” (v. 16). The “remnant” (9:27-29; 11:1-4) is “the part of the dough offered as first fruits,” which is “holy” and makes “the whole batch” (the whole of Israel) “holy”; and the holy “root” makes “the branches . . . holy” (v. 16).

 

The metaphor changes to the olive tree. Addressing Gentiles, Paul says, “But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the rich root of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches” (vv. 17, 18a). Neil Elliott says that the passive voice in the phrase, “broken off . . . reflects divine action” (NOAB, 3rd ed., augmented, 2007, referring to the phrase in Rom. 11:17, 19, and 20). According to T. W. Manson, “The broken off branches [v. 17] are the Jews who have refused to become a part of the true Israel; the ingrafted shoots of wild olive are Gentile converts to Christianity, who by conversion become part of the true Israel” (Peake=s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted 1972, sec. 824 k, p. 949 on Rom. 11:17). “If you do boast,” says Paul, “remember that it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you” (v. 18). Paul anticipates a Gentile objection and admonishes humility. “You will say, ‘Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.= That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe” (vv. 19-20). The Christian has no right to boast over the Jew, but all are responsible to God. According to Elliott, “The remnant preserved by God (see 9:27-29; 11:1-5), like a portion of dough offered in worship (Num. 15:18-21) or the root of a tree (Jer. 11:16-17), guarantees God=s continuing care for the whole of Israel” (op. cit., on Rom. 11:16). So the tree will live, though it loses “some branches,” and if a “wild olive shoot,” the Gentile Christians [of Rome?] were grafted in the place of the lost branches (v. 17), they must be careful. “For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you” (v. 21). The point is “the kindness and the severity of God”: “Note then the kindness and the severity of God,” says Paul: “severity toward those who have fallen, but God=s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off” (v. 22). If it is possible for Christians to be cut off for failing to “continue in his kindness,” it is also possible for those JewsBcut off branchesBto be restored. “And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again” (v. 23). The point is reinforced by a positive, a fortiori (i.e., ‘all the more=) argument. “For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.” (v. 24). Such restoration of Jews would be no more than God has done for Gentile Christians.

 

 

Matthew 25:14‑30

 

The Parable of the Talents (Lk 19.11‑27)

 

14 AFor 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)

 

The following comments are based on those of December 18, 2009 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year Two), when comments were repeated from July 19, 2009 (the Sunday closest to July 20, Year One), when comments were repeated from July 15, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year Two), when 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).

 

Matthew’s Parable of the Talents (Mt. 25:14-30) is similar to Luke’s Parable of the Ten Pounds (Lk. 19:11-27; cf. Mk. 14:34). These texts are compared in the separate file, Talents-Pounds. While the contexts in Matthew and Mark are similar—at the end of, or following, Jesus’ eschatological speech—Luke’s context is different. According to David L. Tiede, revised by Christopher R. Matthews, “This parable [in Luke] concludes the extended journey to Jerusalem (9:51-19:27) and again corrects misunderstandings about the present reality and future appearance of the kingdom of God (see 17:20-37; 21:7-36; Acts 1:6-7)” (The HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lk. 19:11-27). Matthew’s inclusion of the parable as the second of three that conclude (or follow) the eschatological speech reflects his method of topical arrangement; but Luke’s so-called Travel Narrative (the section mentioned above by Tiede and Matthews), reflects his own “topical arrangement” of sorts—for the travel narrative is mainly parables and teachings of Jesus with incidental narrative notices.

 

Whereas Matthew leads into the parable by reference to the man’s journey, “For it is as if a man (a[nqrwpoV, anthrōpos), going on a journey, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them” (Mt. 25:14; cf. Mk. 13:34a), Luke connects with his context: “As they were listening to this [i.e., Jesus’ conversation with Zacchaeus, Lk. 19:8-10, cf. vv. 1-10], he [Jesus] went on to tell a parable because he was near Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately” (Lk. 19:11). For Matthew’s indefinite “man” (a[nqrwpoV, anthrōpos), Luke has “a nobleman” ( [AnqrwpovV tiV eujgenhvV, Anthrōpos tis eugenēs): “So he [Jesus] said, ‘A nobleman ( [AnqrwpovV tiV eujgenhvV, Anthrōpos tis eugenēs) went to a distant country to get royal power for himself and then return” (Lk. 19:11). As indicated below, some understand this “nobleman” to be a reference to Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great who traveled to Rome to get August Caesar’s approval to rule over Judea.

 

According to Matthew, the “man, going on a journey” (Mt. 25:14), entrusted his property to slaves: “to one he gave five talents (tavlanta, talanta), to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability” (Mt. 25:15); compare Mark’s statement that the man “leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch” (Mk. 13:34b). Mark’s saying does not refer to money entrusted to the slaves. And, as compared to the talents in Matthew’s version, Luke refers to considerably less money entrusted to the slaves—chump change, so to speak, as compared to the money in Matthew’s version. The man who received Afive 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). That would be an almost unimaginable amount, comparable perhaps to the wealth of such moderns as Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. According to J. Andrew Overman, “The servants have the financial ability to manage the master’s wealth” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible [NOAB], 3rd. edition, augmented 2007, on Mt. 25:15). In Luke’s parable, each of the slaves receive one pound (mna:, mna, Lk. 19:13a, cf. vv. 16, 18, 20Bten 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. Luke tells us that the slaves were instructed, “Do business with these [i.e., the pounds] until I come back” (Lk. 19:13b) In Matthew, the instruction to invest and make profit is implied.

 

In Luke’s version, before the report of the Nobleman’s return and the slaves’ success or failure in doing business, Luke says, “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’ ” (Lk. 19:14, cf. v. 27). “When he returned,” adds Luke, “having received royal power,” he summoned the slaves (v. 15a). This secondary theme in Luke’s version of the parable is not found in Matthew’s version. It may be that Jesus presented the parable in different forms on two different occasions. 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 AAnyone in Judaea, on hearing the parable, would immediately remember the historical circumstances on which it was based@ (ibid.). That assessment would of course apply to Luke’s version, not Matthew’s.

 

In both parables, the time comes for the slaves to give an account to their master. In Matthew, this is preceded by a description of the slaves accomplishments: “The one who had received the five talents (tavlanta, talanta) went off at once and traded with them, and made five more talents. In the same way, the one who had the two talents made two more talents. But the one who had received the one talent went off and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money” (Mt. 25:16-18). These amounts reappear in the slaves’ reporting to the master. “After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them” (Mt. 25:19); cf. Luke’s version, “When he [i.e., the nobleman] returned, having received royal power, he ordered these slaves, to whom he had given the money, to be summoned so that he might find out what they had gained by trading” (Lk. 19:15). According to Matthew’s version, “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’ ” (Mt. 25:20). This would represent a 100% increase, another amount equal to a labor’s wages for 75 years (cf. above). While the amounts involved are significantly smaller in Luke’s version, the first slave reports a 1,000 per cent increase. “The first [slave] came forward and said, ‘Lord, your pound has made ten more pounds’ ” Lk. 19:16). According to the amounts given above, this slave turned the equivalent of three months’ wages for a laborer into the wages of thirty months, a significant accomplishment, one might say. In Matthew the first slave is commended. “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’ ” (Mt. 25:21). In Luke’s version, the commendation of the first slave is similar. “He [the nobleman] said to him, ‘Well done, good slave! Because you have been trustworthy in a very small thing, take charge of ten cities” (Lk. 19:17). The parable as such, though based on a historical even (as noted above), would not necessarily have happened. But putting a slave in charge of cities would conceivably be within the purview of a ruler such as Archelaus.

 

In each version, the second slave did well, but not equal to that of the first slave. “And the one with the two talents also came forward,” says Matthew’s version, “saying, ‘Master, you handed over to me two talents; see, I have made two more talents’ ” (Mt. 25:22). In Luke’s version, “Then the second [slave] came, saying, ‘Lord, your pound has made five pounds’ ” (Lk. 19:18). And these are commended in similar terms to the first ones (Mt. 24:23; Lk. 19:19). Although Luke’s version has the nobleman summon ten slaves at the outset (Lk. 19:13), comparable to Matthew’s version, only three report in the accounting. “Then,” says Matthew’s version, “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; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours’ ” (Mt. 25:24-25). According to Luke’s version, “Then the other came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your pound. I wrapped it up in a piece of cloth, for I was afraid of you, because you are a harsh man; you take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow’ ” (Lk. 19:20-21). In both versions, the third slave is roundly condemned for his inaction. “But his master replied, says Matthew’s version, “ ‘You wicked and lazy slave! You knew, did you, that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter? 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’ ” (Mt. 25:26-27). In a similar manner, the nobleman of Luke’s version condemns the third slave. “He said to him, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked slave! You knew, did you, that I was a harsh man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? Why then did you not put my money into the bank? Then when I returned, I could have collected it with interest’ ” (Lk. 19:22-23). While details differ, it is notable that both versions refer to investment with the banks. And instead of reward, these slaves are given punishment. “So take the talent from him,” says the master in Matthew’s version, “and give it to the one with the ten talents” (Mt. 25:28). Compare Luke’s version: “He said to the bystanders, ‘Take the pound from him and give it to the one who has ten pounds’ ” (Lk. 19:24). In both versions, the first slave is credited with having—perhaps maintaining charge of—what has been called the master’s funds. But the point is responsible stewardship, of course. “For to all those who have,” says Jesus in Matthew’s version, “more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away” (Mt. 25:29; cf. 13:12; Mk. 4:25). Luke’s version is similar. “I tell you, to all those who have, more will be given; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away” (Lk. 19:26). A similar saying occurs in the Gospel of Thomas: “Jesus said: He who has (something) in his hand, to him will be given (more); and he who has nothing, from him will be taken even the little which he has” (Gospel of Thomas 41, trans., Bruce M. Metzger). According to Barclay, “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” (op. cit., p. 238). The punishment for the third slave in Matthew’s version appears to represent the final judgment on unbelievers. “As for this worthless slave,” says the master in Matthew, “throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt. 25:30). In Luke’s version, the nobleman, now the ruler, punishes his enemies who attempted to prevent his getting royal power. “But as for these enemies of mine,” he says, “who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence” (Lk. 19:27).

 

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)

 

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 Aclaimed 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: AThe parable of the king and his servants illustrates certain great facts of the Christian life,@ he says, and lists (1) Athe king=s trust@ (2) Athe king=s test@ (3) Athe king=s reward@ (op. cit., p. 237).

 

Eric Franklin, however, has trouble with such an interpretation. According to him, AThe 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, according to Franklin, should the nobleman be understood as representing Christ as in Dale C. Allison, Jr.=s interpretation of the Parable of the Talents. AThat 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.). AThe 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).

 

As noted above, for the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Episcopal Readings in the file for June 29, 2010, two weeks ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

 

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net