Luke 19:11-27 (NRSV)
As they were listening to this, he went on to tell a
parable, because he was near Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the
kingdom of God was to appear immediately. So he said, “A nobleman went to a
distant country to get royal power for himself and then return. He summoned ten
of his slaves, and gave them ten pounds, and said to them, ‘Do business with
these until I come back.’ 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.’ When
he 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. The first came forward and said, ‘Lord, your pound has made
ten more pounds.’ He said to him, ‘Well done, good slave! Because you have been
trustworthy in a very small thing, take charge of ten cities.’ Then the second
came, saying, ‘Lord, your pound has made five pounds.’ He said to him, ‘And
you, rule over five cities.’ 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.’ 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.’ He said
to the bystanders, ‘Take the pound from him and give it to the one who has ten
pounds.’ (And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten pounds!’) ‘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. But as for these enemies of mine who did not want
me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.’”
This story comes in an interesting place in the Gospel according
to Luke, this is the final story before Jesus makes his triumphant entry into
the Holy City of Jerusalem
And, I believe, Luke placed it here for a very important
reason
As Jesus prepared to enter into Jerusalem --- Luke is asking
us
Which king
are you going to follow?
The
king of our parable --- or Jesus?
This parable sounds familiar because there is the related
parable of the talents that is found in Mathew 25 (the parable of the talents)
But this parable is very different
Matthew's parable is all about Stewardship
Which, of course, is very important
·
especially this time of year as we get ready to
begin our annual stewardship campaign
·
This year's theme is taking our theme from these
past few years of “Through These Doors” and expanding it --- THE DOORS TO OUR
HEARTS
·
You will be hearing more about this in the next
couple of weeks, and we will ask for commitment cards to be turned in on our
Thanksgiving celebration Sunday November 12th
·
But the truth is every Sunday is an opportunity
for us to be good stewards
But, this parable really isn't about financial stewardship
--- This parable is really about a contrast between the Kingdom of God and a
political kingdom
The story in Luke's gospel right before this one is the
story of Zacchaeus
Zacchaeus, that wee little man who
was stealing from all of his neighbors.
But in that story, Jesus goes to the home of the tax collector Zacchaeus
and while there, Jesus declared to Zacchaeus that "today, salvation has
come"
In our parable today, Jesus seems to want to make sure that
we understand, that --- while the kingdom of God is near --- just because Jesus
is getting ready to enter Jerusalem doesn't mean that it is coming immediately
Our parable starts with a noble man traveling to a distant
land . . .
William Barclay writes that everyone, in 1st century Judea
would know that this was referring to Herod Archelaus.
Archelaus --- when his father Herod the Great died --- was
forced to go to Rome to ask Caesar Augustus to grant him his inheritance and
the title of king of Judea
Augustus ultimately grants him the
right to rule Judea but not the title king
We know from the parable of the prodigal son --- that when
Luke tells us that somebody goes off to a "distant land" that nothing
good can come of it
Allan Culpepper in his commentary on Luke writes:
This parable cannot have the same
meaning as the Matthean parable of the talents.
It features not a lesson on responsibility and stewardship but a
portrait of greed and vengeance. The
king is acquisitive. He seeks a royal
title and expects others to multiply his property five and tenfold.
Culpepper goes on to suggest that we have a hard time
understanding this parable because of the social codes invoked by this parable.
We function with an economics of unlimited goods --- we believe
that anyone can rise up starting from nothing and become fabulously wealthy.
If we are just cleaver enough
Ambitious enough
Lucky enough
But in first century Palestine --- nothing could be farther
from reality
It was an economy of limited goods.
There was only so much wealth and property to go around
So if one person acquired more --- somebody had to lose it.
In this month’s Biblical Archeology Review, Richard L. Rohrbaugh
examines the parable and it’s first century setting:
[G]iven the “limited good” outlook
of ancient Mediterranean cultures, seeking “more” was considered morally wrong.
Because the pie was “limited” and already all distributed, anyone getting
“more” meant someone else got less. Thus honorable people did not try to get
more, and those who did were automatically considered thieves: To have gained,
to have accumulated more than one started with, is to have taken the share of
someone else.
The king in our story is greedy --- seeking power --- and
taking whatever property he could.
The Palestinian peasant who would have heard this story
would have identified with the fear that the third servant in the story possessed
--- and with the bystanders protest of this redistribution of wealth.
But this king believed that the rich should get richer and
the poor poorer.
If Zacchaeus, as the chief tax collector, was despised and
hated --- think how much more this greedy and vicious king would have been
hated
Luke seems to place this story right before the entry into
Jerusalem so that we (and the hearer in the 1st century) could clearly
understand the distinction between the kingship of Jesus and that of the common
or typical king of the day.
The kings of the day Lord over their subjects
They were corrupt, greedy and
violent
Jesus seeks justice for his followers
His kingdom is diametrically
opposed to that of the kingdom in this parable
This parable invites us to reflect on what it means to call
Jesus king and Lord.
God's kingdom isn't going to appear immediately --- even
though it is breaking in with the advent of Jesus.
This parable calls for us to have faithful allegiance to a
king whose kingdom is in conflict with the world who seek profit at expense of
the poor.
The protest by the bystanders in verse 25 is a call for
justice --- and an invitation to us to join them in that quest for justice.
When we --- who have access to medical care protest against
the expense of providing it for those that don't --- Jesus is calling out to us
and challenging us
When we --- who have access to food and shelter protest
against the expense of providing it for those that don't --- Jesus is calling
out to us and challenging us
What should we say when regressive taxes are proposed that
protect the assets of the wealthy at the expense of the poor?
Luke ends Jesus journey to Jerusalem right here
The rest of the story is of Jesus entrance into Jerusalem,
his arrest, trial, crucifixion --- and of course --- his victory through the
resurrection.
As we end this journey --- we need to decide where we stand.
Will we be
hailing Jesus as king?
or
Shouting for
his crucifixion?
It all depends on what kind of king you want?
A while ago, someone posted on Facebook about their daughter
not being welcome at a church --- not here.
I think one of the reasons that the church is losing its way
is we have turned Jesus into the king in this parable.
I'll
offer a different reason -- the rise of big government. Hundreds of years of
history have now taught us that the bigger government gets in people's lives,
the more secular society gets and the less people think they need religion and
God. Europe was the cradle of Christianity, and now church attendance is at
dismal lows in countries where government is now here to take care of
everybody's needs. After all, why tithe 10% of your income to a church when 10%
of your income is already taken from you in taxes for social programs? In the
most extreme cases of big government -- socialism and communism -- religion is
all but expunged from culture. This is why I scratch my head at religious
leaders in this country who keep preaching for more and more social programs
and government sponsored income redistribution. Liberalism at its very core is
about replacing faith in God (and faith in family and community) with faith in
government
There may be a kernel of truth to what he writes --- but if
we think that the government was not intrusive in Jesus day they we don't
understand history.
Jesus wasn't calling for government to solve society's
problems.
But he also wasn't telling the rulers that they could ignore
the problems either.
He is calling for us all --- those who rule and those who
don't to seek a better, more just world
It is up to us --- you and I to choose
Which kind of
king will you follow?
What kind of world are we investing in?
Are we the
focal point of that world and how we invest?
Or are we
investing in God’s kingdom
Working to break down the systemic
injustices that exist
Jesus calls us to follow the Prince of peace that Isaiah
speaks of
Not the Prince of Machiavelli
