Category: The Stories Jesus Told / Parábolas de Jesús para niños mayores
The Stories Jesus Told: The Parable of the Fig Tree
Parábolas de Jesús – El Administrador Injusto
El administrador injusto
La parábola del administrador injusto es una de las más difíciles de entender. Comencemos por el primer versículo de la parábola, que presenta a los dos protagonistas y crea el marco para lo que sucede después.
Había un hombre rico que tenía un mayordomo, y este fue acusado ante él como derrochador de sus bienes. (Lucas 16:1)
La palabra griega traducida aquí como derrochador aparece también en la parábola del padre y sus dos hijos cuando habla de que el menor malgastó sus riquezas en placeres. Aquí se acusa al administrador de malversar la riqueza del propietario.
Entonces lo llamó y le dijo: «¿Qué es esto que oigo acerca de ti? Da cuenta de tu mayordomía, porque ya no podrás más ser mayordomo». (Lucas 16:2)
En la Palestina del siglo I y en otras partes del mundo antiguo había administradores que manejaban los negocios en nombre de los terratenientes. Tenían plena autoridad para actuar en representación del propietario, como si fueran ellos los dueños. Todo contrato firmado por un administrador en nombre del propietario era vinculante para el propietario. Para nombrar a alguien administrador de su negocio, su casa o sus asuntos económicos, era indispensable que el propietario tuviera plena confianza en él. Por lo visto el hombre rico puso una confianza de ese calibre en el administrador, y este lo defraudó. Si bien el hombre rico confiaba explícitamente en el administrador y por tanto no se dio cuenta de que este se estaba aprovechando de él, unas personas de la comunidad lo pusieron en conocimiento de lo que hacía el gerente.
Cuando el propietario lo emplaza, el administrador no dice nada. No se defiende. No pregunta quiénes lo han acusado. No niega nada. Su silencio se interpreta como una admisión de culpabilidad.
El dueño lo despide en el acto y le pide que le entregue los libros de contabilidad. A partir de ese momento el hombre deja de ser administrador y de tener autoridad para hacer negocios en nombre del propietario. En los dos versículos siguientes nos enteramos de los pensamientos que pasan por su mente al examinar sus posibilidades de empleo, mientras se dispone a juntar los libros de contabilidad.
Entonces el mayordomo dijo para sí: «¿Qué haré?, porque mi amo me va a quitar la mayordomía. Cavar, no puedo; mendigar, me da vergüenza». (Lucas 16:3)
Sus perspectivas no son nada buenas. A continuación oímos su siguiente razonamiento.
«Ya sé lo que haré para que, cuando se me quite la mayordomía, me reciban en sus casas». (Lucas 16:4)
Ser recibido en casa de alguien es una expresión: significa conseguir trabajo con otro hacendado. Tiene un plan que le permitirá conseguir posiblemente otro trabajo, aunque se sepa que actuó deshonestamente y lo despidieron.
Seguidamente pone su plan en acción.
Y llamando a cada uno de los deudores de su amo, dijo al primero: «¿Cuánto debes a mi amo?» Él dijo: «Cien barriles de aceite». Le dijo: «Toma tu cuenta, siéntate pronto y escribe cincuenta». Después dijo a otro: «Y tú, ¿cuánto debes?» Este contestó: «Cien medidas de trigo». Él le dijo: «Toma tu cuenta y escribe ochenta». (Lucas 16:5-7)
Ese hecho indica a los oyentes que en ese momento los únicos que saben del despido del administrador son el propio administrador y el amo. Por lo visto los criados del terrateniente todavía no lo saben, pues lo más probable es que el gerente haya mandado a algunos a llamar a los deudores del patrón. Si hubieran sabido que él ya no era el administrador no habrían seguido sus órdenes.
Los deudores tampoco lo saben. Si no, probablemente no habrían respondido a la convocatoria ni acudido a una reunión en privado con él.
No se trata de deudores pobres; son personas que tienen arrendadas grandes extensiones de tierra del hombre rico. Uno tiene arrendado un olivar; otro, un trigal. En aquel tiempo, la gente arrendaba tierras de labranza, huertos y vides para trabajarlos, y a cambio le entregaba al dueño una parte previamente acordada de la cosecha. De esa manera, sin necesidad de labrar él la tierra, recibía una parte de lo que esta producía. Uno de los arrendatarios había acordado que le daría al dueño cien barriles de aceite de oliva después de la cosecha; otro, cien sacos de trigo.
Un barril de aceite, de la palabra hebrea bath, equivalía a 39 litros aproximadamente; así que uno de los deudores se había comprometido a pagar 3.900 litros de aceite de oliva, que es lo que producían unos 150 olivos y que valía unos 1.000 denarios. Un denario equivalía al jornal de un obrero no calificado. Otro deudor se había comprometido a pagar al amo 27 toneladas de trigo después de la cosecha, que es lo que producía un campo de 40 hectáreas. El trigo que le debía valía unos 2.500 denarios.
El administrador injusto reduce en un 50% —500 denarios— la cantidad de aceite adeudada; y recorta en 20% —también 500 denarios— el trigo adeudado. A ambos les da instrucciones para que reescriban las facturas por 500 denarios menos que lo que debían en un principio, lo cual era una suma considerable. Después de estafar al dueño para enriquecerse él, malversa 1.000 denarios, solo que esta vez no lo hace para embolsarse él el dinero, sino para que esos hombres se formen una buena opinión de él y posiblemente le den trabajo cuando se enteren de que ha sido despedido.
Los deudores se marchan felices de que el terrateniente sea tan desprendido y además encantados con el administrador, que deben de pensar que fue quien convenció al dueño para que tuviera un gesto tan generoso.
En cierto modo el administrador ha puesto al propietario en un dilema. Una vez que este se entere de que el administrador ha alterado las cantidades que le deben, legalmente tiene derecho a no reconocer la cifra rebajada y a exigir que se le pague la cantidad original en el tiempo de la cosecha. El administrador ya no trabajaba para él y no tenía autoridad para hacer ese descuento. Por otra parte, si deja sin efecto las facturas enmendadas, toda esa buena impresión que acaba de causar a los arrendatarios se perderá. Y cuando los demás vecinos del pueblo se enteren —e indudablemente se enterarán—, también ellos dejarán de tener un buen concepto de él. El gerente vuelve a robar al propietario, pero es tan astuto que lo hace de una manera que es ventajosa para él mismo y que a la vez beneficia al dueño.
La parábola termina con estas palabras:
Y alabó el amo al mayordomo malo por haber actuado sagazmente. (Lucas 16:8)
Aquí dice claramente que el administrador es malo, de modo que no se puede inferir que el amo lo elogie por ser bueno o justo o por estar arrepentido. El patrón lo aplaude por su astucia; en otras palabras, por su inteligencia y su habilidad en el trato con las personas.
Para captar la intención de esta parábola viene bien entender un poco la personalidad del hombre rico. Si bien algunos comentaristas de la Biblia consideran que en varios aspectos no manifestó una conducta ética, el texto contiene detalles que parecen indicar lo contrario. El primero es que alguien fue a decirle que el administrador lo estafaba. Eso podría dar a entender que el hombre rico no trataba abusivamente a los arrendadores: estos tuvieron la lealtad de avisarle para que pudiera evitar las estafas del administrador.
Otra indicación de la clase de persona que era fue la forma en que trató al administrador aprovechado. Tenía todo el derecho de denunciarlo y hasta de vender a su esposa e hijos como esclavos; pero se limitó a despedirlo.
Probablemente esta parábola hizo sonreír a los primeros que la oyeron, como les pasa hoy a muchos cuando ven una película o leen un libro sobre un ladrón que concibe un plan sumamente ingenioso, complejo y original. Pero también debieron de entender que el propietario era bueno y generoso. En vez de obligar al administrador a pagar por sus fechorías y sufrir el castigo que prescribía la ley, tuvo misericordia y lo salvó juntamente con su familia. Lo hizo por su generosidad, pagando bien cara la libertad del gerente.
Cuando termina la parábola propiamente dicha, Jesús dice algo más a modo de aplicación:
Porque los hijos de este siglo [mundo] son más sagaces en el trato con sus semejantes que los hijos de luz. Y Yo os digo: Ganad amigos por medio de las riquezas injustas, para que cuando estas falten, os reciban en las moradas eternas. (Lucas 16:8-9)
En esta declaración —por cierto, nada fácil de entender— Jesús compara a los hijos de este mundo con los hijos de la luz. Los hijos de este mundo son más astutos que los de la luz en su trato con otras personas de este mundo. Los hijos del mundo, como el administrador, saben desenvolverse sagazmente en el sistema imperante en el mundo. Saben hacer buenos negocios, ganar dinero, adquirir riqueza y tener éxito de acuerdo con los usos y principios del mundo. Se preparan para su futuro terrenal explotando la riqueza material del mundo. Jesús propone otra forma de proceder. Manda a los hijos de la luz que se rijan sagazmente por unos principios distintos, los del reino del Dios, fundados en Su naturaleza amorosa, clemente y generosa. Los hijos de la luz deben actuar como se hace en el reino, de acuerdo con la voluntad de Dios, tratando al prójimo con amor y generosidad a fin de hacerse ricos para con Dios y acumular tesoros en el Cielo.
A los creyentes se los exhorta a usar el dinero y la riqueza de este mundo —llamados «sucio mamón» en algunas traducciones y «riquezas mundanas» en otras— para ganarse amigos en este mundo. En otras palabras, se les manda que hagan buenas acciones con su dinero, que practiquen la generosidad, que compartan, que den a los necesitados, que ayuden a las personas que puedan. Llegará el día en que el dinero perderá todo valor e importancia, el día en que pasemos de esta vida a la otra. Si nos regimos por los principios del reino de Dios, cuando lleguemos al Cielo las personas a las que hayamos ayudado y que hayan muerto antes que nosotros nos recibirán en nuestras moradas eternas.
En esta parábola Jesús a vuelve a poner de manifiesto la naturaleza de Dios, que es misericordioso y generoso como el terrateniente. Señala que los creyentes, los discípulos, deberían aprender algo del administrador injusto. Si bien lo que este hizo estuvo claramente mal, al menos entendió la forma de ser del propietario y actuó en consecuencia. ¡Cuánto más nosotros, los creyentes, deberíamos ser conscientes del carácter amoroso y generoso de Dios y, en base a ese conocimiento, vivir con gran fe en Su amor, misericordia y generosidad! Y al mismo tiempo emular Sus atributos practicando la generosidad y el perdón.
The Stories Jesus Told: The Unjust Steward
The Unjust Steward
The Parable of the Unjust Steward is considered one of the most difficult parables to understand. Let’s begin with the first verse of the parable, which introduces the two main characters and sets the stage for what is to come.
There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man [the manager] was wasting his possessions. (Luke 16:1)
The word used for wasting here is the same Greek word used in the parable of the father and two sons, when speaking about the younger son wasting his wealth on personal pleasures. The manager had been accused of squandering the owner’s wealth.
And he called him and said to him, “What is this that I hear about you? Turn in the account of your management, for you can no longer be manager.” (Luke 16:2)
Managers in first-century Palestine and elsewhere in the ancient world conducted business in the name of property owners. They had full authority to conduct business in the name of the owner, as if they were the owner himself. Any contracts entered into by the manager in the name of the owner were legally binding for the owner. Before appointing someone as the manager of their business, household, and financial affairs, the owner would have to completely trust the person. Apparently the rich man had placed this level of trust in his manager, only to have that trust betrayed. While the rich man explicitly trusted the manager and therefore didn’t realize he was being taken advantage of, others in the community let the owner know what the manager was doing.
When confronted by the owner, the manager says nothing. He doesn’t defend himself. He doesn’t ask who his accusers were. He doesn’t deny it. His silence is taken as an admission of his guilt.
The owner fires him on the spot and instructs him to turn over the financial accounting books. From that point on, the man is no longer the manager and no longer has legal authority to do business in the owner’s stead. In the next two verses we hear the inner thoughts of the manager as he assesses his future employability while going to gather up the finance books.
And the manager said to himself, “What shall I do, since my master is taking the management away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg.” (Luke 16:3)
His prospects don’t seem good. We now hear his next inner thought.
“I have decided what to do, so that when I am removed from management, people may receive me into their houses.” (Luke 16:4)
To receive him “into their house” is an idiom that means getting another job from another landowner. His plan will result in the possibility of getting another job, despite people knowing he was dishonest and was fired from his position.
He then begins to put his plan into action.
So, summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he said to the first, “How much do you owe my master?” He said, “A hundred measures of oil.” He said to him, “Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.” Then he said to another, “And how much do you owe?” He said, “A hundred measures of wheat.” He said to him, “Take your bill, and write eighty.” (Luke 16:5-7)
This act informs the listener that at this point the only people who know the manager has been fired are the owner and the manager himself. Apparently the landowner’s servants don’t yet know, as the manager most likely has ordered some of them to go to the master’s debtors to summon them. If they knew he was no longer the manager, they wouldn’t have followed his orders. The debtors don’t know either, as if they did, they probably wouldn’t have answered his summons and come to a private meeting with him.
These debtors were not poor men; they were renting large tracts of the rich man’s land. One rented an olive orchard and another a wheat field. In those days people would rent and work farmland, orchards, and vineyards, and would pay the owner an agreed-upon amount of the crop. Therefore the owner didn’t have to work the land, but would receive a portion of the produce of the land. One of these men had agreed to give the owner a hundred measures of olive oil from the harvest, another a hundred measures of wheat.
A measure of oil, from the Hebrew word bath, is approximately 39 liters, so one of the debtors had pledged to pay about 3,900 liters, or about 850 gallons of olive oil, which would be the produce of about 150 olive trees and have a value of about 1,000 denarii. One denarius was the equivalent of one day’s wage for an unskilled laborer. Another debtor had pledged to pay the master 27 tons of wheat from the harvest, which would mean a yield from a field of 100 acres. The value of the wheat owed was about 2,500 denarii.
The unjust steward lowered the amount of oil owed by 50 percent, or 500 denarii. He lowered the wheat owed by 20 percent, also 500 denarii. So he instructed each of them to rewrite their bill so that it reflected 500 denarii less than was originally owed, which was a significant amount of money. After having cheated the owner for his own financial advantage, he then cheated him again to the tune of 1,000 denarii, only this time not for his financial advantage but so that these men would think well of him and possibly give him a job once they learned that he had been fired.
The debtors went away happy that the landowner had been so generous, and happy with the manager, who they may credit for being the one who convinced the owner to extend such a generous gesture.
In a sense, the manager has painted the owner into a corner. Once the owner finds out that the manager has changed the amount owed him, he has the legal right to not honor the discounted figure, but rather to demand the full amount be paid at the time of harvest. The manager was no longer working for him and had no legal authority to make such a reduction. However, if he revoked the amended bills, he would lose all of the good will he had just gained with his renters. And as the other members of the village heard about it, which they undoubtedly would, he would also lose their good will. The manager was once again stealing from the owner, yet in his shrewdness doing so in a way that worked to his advantage and benefited the owner.
The story ends with the following:
The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. (Luke 16:8)
It’s clearly stated here that the manager is dishonest, so there is no inference that he is being commended for being good or righteous or repentant. He’s commended by the master for his shrewdness; in other words, his cleverness and craftiness in dealing with people.
To grasp the point being made by the parable, it helps to understand a few things about the character of the rich man. While a few Bible commentators suggest that he was unethical in a number of ways, there are some things within the text that seem to indicate otherwise. The first is that someone came and told him that his manager was cheating him. This could indicate that the wealthy man wasn’t treating his renters unfairly; they were loyal enough to help him avoid being cheated by his manager.
Another indication of the kind of man the owner was is his treatment of the wayward manager. He was well within his rights to prosecute the manager and even to sell his wife and children into slavery. Instead, he just fired him from his job.
This parable probably brought a smile to the original listeners, like a movie or book about a thief whose plan is extremely clever, intricate, and imaginative does to many viewers or readers nowadays. But they would have also gotten the point that the owner was generous and kind. Instead of making the manager pay the price of his wrongdoings through legal punishment, the owner mercifully saved the manager and his family through his generosity, through his paying a very expensive price so the manager could go free.
When the story itself is finished, Jesus says something further by way of application:
For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light. And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings. (Luke 16:8-9)
In this difficult-to-understand statement, Jesus makes a comparison between the sons of this world and the sons of light. The sons of this world deal with others in this world more shrewdly than do the sons of light. The sons of the world, like the manager, know how to wisely work within the world’s system. They know how to make good deals, to make money, to gain wealth, to be successful in accordance with the ways and principles of the world. They use the world’s material wealth to prepare for their earthly future.
Jesus suggests a different way to operate. He tells the sons of light to wisely work according to a different set of principles, the principles of the kingdom of God, based on the loving, generous, and merciful nature of God. The sons of light are to use the ways of the kingdom by operating in accordance with God’s will and acting in love and generosity toward others to become rich toward God, to lay up treasures in heaven.
Believers are told to use the money and wealth of this world—called mammon of unrighteousness in some translations, worldly wealth in others—to make friends in this world. In other words, do good things with your money, be generous, share, give to those in need, help those you can. The time will come when money will no longer have any value or importance, and that time will come when you pass on from this world and enter the next world. If you live according to the principles of God’s kingdom, when you arrive in heaven you will be welcomed into your eternal dwellings by those you have helped and who have passed on before you.
In this parable, Jesus is once again showing the nature of God, who, like the landowner, is merciful and generous. He points out that believers, disciples, should learn something from the unjust steward. While what the unjust steward did was clearly wrong, he at least understood the nature of the owner and acted on that knowledge. How much more should we, as believers, understand the loving and generous nature of God, and with that understanding live our lives with great faith in His love, mercy, and generosity. And at the same time emulate His attributes by being generous and forgiving with others.
Parábolas de Jesús: Calcular Los Gastos
Parábolas de Jesús: Calcular Los Gastos
Jesús relató dos breves pero potentes parábolas, una detrás de la otra, sobre el tema del discipulado y la obligación de pensar detenidamente en lo que cuesta seguirlo a Él.
La primera parábola reza así:
¿Quién de vosotros, queriendo edificar una torre, no se sienta primero y calcula los gastos, a ver si tiene lo que necesita para acabarla? No sea que, después que haya puesto el cimiento, no pueda acabarla y todos los que lo vean comiencen a hacer burla de él, diciendo: «Este hombre comenzó a edificar y no pudo acabar.» (Lucas 14:28-30)
El modo en que empieza la frase, ¿quién de vosotros?, es una pregunta retórica que da por hecho que la respuesta será nadie.
En la parábola que estamos repasando se entiende tácitamente que nadie en su sano juicio construiría un edificio sin calcular antes los gastos y determinar si posee el dinero suficiente para terminarlo.
A lo largo de la Escritura leemos sobre varias torres. Estas al parecer se construían con fines militares:
Voy a apostarme en mi puesto de guardia, voy a instalarme en mi atalaya. (Habacuc 2:1)
El día del Señor de los Ejércitos vendrá contra todo arrogante y altivo, y contra todo el que se ha enaltecido […] contra toda torre alta y contra todo muro fortificado. (Isaías 2:12-15)
Tú has sido mi refugio y torre fuerte delante del enemigo. (Salmo 61:3)
Torre inexpugnable es el nombre del Señor; a ella corren los justos y se ponen a salvo. (Proverbios 18:10)
A veces las torres servían para usos agrícolas:
La había cercado y despedregado y plantado de vides escogidas; había edificado en medio de ella una torre y había hecho también en ella un lagar. (Isaías 5:2)
Entonces comenzó Jesús a decirles por parábolas: «Un hombre plantó una viña, la rodeó con una cerca, cavó un lagar y edificó una torre; luego la arrendó a unos labradores y se fue lejos. (Marcos 12:1)
En el contexto de esta parábola, Jesús muy probablemente se refería a una torre para usos agrícolas. El hacendado tiene buenas intenciones. Edificar una torre le traerá beneficios. Amén de poder resguardar mejor sus cultivos y animales de la acción de ladrones y predadores, se ganará también el respeto de sus vecinos por mejorar su hacienda. Sin embargo, si el hombre es tan desatinado como para no calcular los gastos antes de emprender la construcción de la torre y deducir si tendrá suficientes recursos para terminarla, se lo considerará un insensato y hará el ridículo.
En la cultura de la época era muy importante sentirse honrado; en contraste, la deshonra debía evitarse a toda costa. Una planificación tan mal hecha como aquella tendría como consecuencia que todo el que viera la obra inconclusa se burlaría del hombre señalando su fracaso y su insensatez.
Cuando Jesús dijo que el hombre que no calculó lo que costaría construir su edificio sería objeto de escarnio, por deducción sabemos que perdería su prestigio, sería el hazmerreír del pueblo y haría el ridículo. Jesús espabiló a quienes estaba llamando a seguirle, incitándoles a considerar el compromiso que iban a contraer y lo que implicaría; es decir, a ponderar el costo del discipulado y tomar una decisión prudente y reflexiva para no faltar luego al compromiso contraído.
La parábola análoga a esta dice:
¿O qué rey, al marchar a la guerra contra otro rey, no se sienta primero y considera si puede hacer frente con diez mil al que viene contra él con veinte mil? Y si no puede, cuando el otro está todavía lejos le envía una embajada y le pide condiciones de paz. (Lucas 14:31-32)
Si bien esta segunda parábola expone el mismo argumento que la primera, la decisión del rey pone en riesgo la vida de miles de soldados, así como la suya propia. Es, pues, mucho más lo que está en juego. El hombre que no calcula los gastos que supondrá construir la torre arriesga pasar una vergüenza y quedar en ridículo; en cambio, el rey enfrenta la posibilidad de perder su vida, las de muchos soldados y su reino.
Aunque los riesgos que se corren son mucho mayores en el caso de la segunda parábola, el mismo argumento se pone de manifiesto. El rey debe evaluar la situación. No posee sino la mitad de efectivos militares que su adversario. Para ganar, sus tropas tendrán que ser mucho más diestras que los soldados que enfrentarán. Además tendrán que ser extraordinariamente valientes para enfrentar con confianza a un ejército el doble de grande. Encima el rey deberá analizar si las tropas rivales posiblemente tengan otro tipo de ventajas —familiaridad con el terreno y las condiciones del tiempo, mejores líneas de abastecimiento, una población civil más amigable, etc.— a fin de compensar por la desigualdad numérica. El rey deberá determinar si existen las condiciones para que sus soldados se alcen con la victoria y si vale la pena disputar la batalla.
El rey tendrá que sentarse primero a considerar antes de tomar semejante decisión. El vocablo griego que en esta versión de la Biblia aparece traducido con el verbo considerar, en otras versiones figura como deliberar, calcular, consultar o sentarse con sus consejeros para evaluar. Un líder astuto meditaría él mismo el asunto y escucharía el consejo de otros. Si resulta evidente que el riesgo es demasiado alto y las posibilidades de sufrir una derrota, grandes, lo más sensato sería frenar la escalada bélica mientras el ejército con superioridad de fuerzas está todavía a gran distancia. En ese caso el rey enviaría una delegación al ejército más aventajado para pedirle condiciones de paz.
La primera parábola expresa claramente que quien esté pensando en hacerse discípulo de Cristo debe calcular el costo que ello tendrá, a fin de determinar si posee las condiciones necesarias para ser discípulo. La segunda parábola nos aconseja evaluar las posibilidades de triunfo que tenemos antes de tomar una decisión tan trascendente como comprometernos al discipulado. Las dos parábolas estimulan a la persona que está estudiando la posibilidad de ser discípulo a que juzgue su situación. Así, cuando tome la determinación de seguir a Jesús, lo hará reflexivamente.
Cuando leemos el pasaje en que Jesús llama a Sus primeros discípulos, nos causa impresión que lo dejaran todo para seguirle:
Mientras caminaba junto al mar de Galilea, Jesús vio a dos hermanos: uno era Simón, llamado Pedro, y el otro Andrés. Estaban echando la red al lago, pues eran pescadores. «Vengan, síganme —les dijo Jesús—, y los haré pescadores de hombres». Al instante dejaron las redes y lo siguieron. Más adelante vio a otros dos hermanos: Jacobo y Juan, hijos de Zebedeo, que estaban con su padre en una barca remendando las redes. Jesús los llamó, y dejaron en seguida la barca y a su padre, y lo siguieron. (Mateo 4:18-22)
Aunque lo siguieron al instante apenas los llamó, ese llamado no fue necesariamente el primer encuentro que tuvieron con Él. En el Evangelio de Juan leemos que Andrés, hermano de Simón Pedro, conoció a Jesús y pasó el día con Él. A la mañana siguiente halló a su hermano Pedro y le dijo: «Hemos encontrado al Mesías». (Juan 1:38-42) No hay indicios de que Pedro y Andrés hubieran seguido a Jesús en ese momento. En Lucas leemos que Jesús enseñaba en la ribera del lago Genesaret cuando observó dos barcas cerca de la orilla y a los pescadores en la playa limpiando sus redes. Jesús abordó una de las barcas, que pertenecía a Simón (Pedro). Al terminar su plática, le dijo a Simón que bogara hasta donde el agua fuera más profunda y echará allí la red. Cuando este lo hizo, encerraron una gran cantidad de peces en la red y llamaron a Andrés y Juan, sus compañeros, para que subieran a la barca y los ayudaran. Es en ese momento en que se nos dice que Pedro lo dejó todo y siguió a Jesús. (Lucas 5:1-11)
En otros pasajes del Evangelio vemos ejemplos de cómo Jesús advertía a quienes querían seguirlo, señalando los gastos que implica ser discípulo:
Se le acercó un escriba y le dijo: —Maestro, te seguiré adondequiera que vayas.
Jesús le dijo: —Las zorras tienen guaridas, y las aves del cielo, nidos; pero el Hijo del hombre no tiene donde recostar su cabeza.
Otro de Sus discípulos le dijo: —Señor, permíteme que vaya primero y entierre a mi padre.
Jesús le dijo: —Sígueme; deja que los muertos entierren a sus muertos. (Mateo 8:19-22)
Jesús no pretendía que las masas le siguieran. Buscaba a quienes lo siguieran, no por la aceptación que gozaba entre la gente, por dar de comer a los hambrientos u obrar milagros, sino porque creían profundamente en quién era Él. Les alertó explicándoles que debían afrontar las posibles consecuencias de ser discípulos, pensar en las exigencias que representaría y asegurarse de que entendieran lo que implicaba. Entonces, una vez que se habían percatado de todos los apremios, dificultades y sacrificios que requería, los invitó a tomar la decisión bien fundamentada de seguirlo. No pretendía disuadirlos de optar por el discipulado; más bien los alentaba a considerar detenidamente lo que significaba.
Decidir seguir a Jesús es optar por reestructurar nuestra vida en conjunción con Sus enseñanzas. Significa alterar nuestro modo de pensar, priorizar las cosas en las que invertimos tiempo, energía y dinero. Cambiar nuestras relaciones y modo de interactuar con los demás, teniendo en cuenta que se nos llama a ser menos egocéntricos. Es un llamado a reordenar radicalmente nuestra vida, hasta el punto en que estemos dispuestos a morir por Él si fuese necesario. Es un compromiso para toda la vida, el cual no debemos tomar con ligereza. Así como Jesús lo ilustró en estas parábolas, todo el que se apresta a tomar la decisión de ser Su discípulo debe examinar seriamente lo que ello supone, evaluar las posibles consecuencias que tendrá en su vida y en la vida de sus seres queridos, reconocer las pruebas que acarrea y, entonces, si se siente capaz de ello, tomar de todo corazón la decisión de seguirle.
Stories Jesus Told: Counting the Cost
The Stories Jesus Told: Counting the Cost
Jesus told two short but powerful back-to-back parables regarding discipleship and the need to think carefully about the cost of following Him.
The first parable says:
“Which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’’’ (Luke 14:28-30)
The phrasing beginning with “which of you” is a rhetorical question, which expects the response to be “no one.” The unspoken understanding is that no one with any sense would build a building without first estimating the cost and determining whether they had enough money to complete it.
Throughout Scripture we read of various towers. Some seemed to be built for military purposes:
I will take my stand at my watchpost and station myself on the tower. (Habakkuk 2:1)
For the Lord of hosts has a day against all that is proud and lofty, against all that is lifted up … against every high tower, and against every fortified wall. (Isaiah 2:12-15)
You have been my refuge, a strong tower against the enemy. (Psalm 61:3)
The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous man runs into it and is safe. (Proverbs 18:10)
Sometimes towers were used for agricultural purposes:
He dug it and cleared it of stones, and planted it with choice vines; he built a watchtower in the midst of it, and hewed out a wine vat in it. (Isaiah 5:2)
He began to speak to them in parables. “A man planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a pit for the winepress and built a tower, and leased it to tenants and went into another country.” (Mark 12:1)
In the context of this parable, Jesus was most likely referring to a tower that would be used for agricultural purposes. The landowner has good intentions. Building a tower will be beneficial to him. In addition to being able to better protect his crops or animals from thieves and predators, he will also gain respect from his neighbors for improving his property. However, if such a man is foolish enough to not estimate the costs and calculate whether he has sufficient resources to complete his tower, he will be seen as foolish and suffer ridicule.
In the culture of that time, being held in honor was very important, while shame was to be avoided at all costs. The consequence of such poor planning would be that everyone who saw the uncompleted building would mock the man by pointing out his failure and foolishness.
When Jesus said that the man who didn’t count the cost of constructing his building would be mocked, the inference was that he would lose his prestige, be the town’s laughingstock, and be ridiculed. Jesus was challenging those He was calling to follow Him to consider the commitment they were going to make, and what it actually entailed—to weigh up the cost of discipleship, and to make a wise and well-thought-out decision, rather than a commitment they wouldn’t be able to keep.
The twin to this parable says:
Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. (Luke 14:31-32)
While this second parable makes the same point as the first, the decision of the king risks the lives of ten thousand soldiers, and his own as well, so the stakes are much higher. The man who doesn’t count the cost of the tower only faces shame and ridicule, whereas the king faces the possibility of losing his life, the lives of many soldiers, and his kingdom.
Although the risks are greater in the second parable, the same point is made. The king must wisely assess the situation. He has only half the number of troops as his adversary. In order to win, his troops would need to be much more skilled than the soldiers they would face. They would also have to be extraordinarily brave to confidently face an army twice their size. In addition, he’d also need to consider whether it’s possible that they could have some other kind of advantage—familiarity with the terrain and weather conditions, better supply lines, a more friendly civilian population, etc.—to compensate for the disparity in numbers. The king must decide whether the conditions exist for his soldiers to win the day, and whether this is a battle worth fighting.
The king would need to sit down first and deliberate before making such a decision. The Greek word translated as deliberate in this version of the Bible is translated in other versions as consulteth, decide, take counsel, and sit down with his counselors to discuss. A wise leader would both ponder the matter himself and listen to the counsel of others. If it becomes clear that the risk is too great and the likelihood of defeat is high, then he would be wise to de-escalate the situation while the superior army is still a great distance away. In such a case, the king would send a delegation to the superior army to request terms of peace.
The first parable makes the point that someone considering being a disciple of Jesus should count the cost, to see if they have what it takes to be a disciple. This second parable advises one to consider the chances of success before deciding to make an important decision such as committing to discipleship. These parables both challenge a person who is contemplating discipleship to assess their situation, so that when they make the decision to follow Jesus, they do so having carefully thought it through.
When we read about Jesus calling His first disciples, we are impressed by how they dropped everything and followed Him.
While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Immediately they left their nets and followed him. And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them. Immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him. (Matthew 4:18-22)
While they did immediately follow when He called, this call wasn’t necessarily their first encounter with Him. In the Gospel of John we read that Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, met Jesus and spent the day with Him. The next morning he found his brother Peter, and told him “We have found the Messiah.” (John 1:38-42) There is no Indication that Peter or Andrew followed Jesus at that time. In Luke, we read that Jesus was teaching on the shore of the Lake of Gennesaret when He noticed two boats close to the shore and the fishermen on the shore cleaning their nets. Jesus got into one of the boats, which belonged to Simon (Peter). When He was finished teaching, He told Simon to go out to where the water was deeper and cast his net. When he did, he caught a large number of fish and Asked James and John, his partners, to come into their boat and help. It is at this time that we’re told that Peter left everything and followed Jesus. (Luke 5:1-11)
Elsewhere in the Gospels, we see examples of how Jesus cautioned those who wanted to follow Him by pointing out the cost of discipleship:
A scribe came up and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”
Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.” (Matthew 8:19-22)
Jesus was not seeking for masses to follow Him. He was searching for those who would follow Him, not because of His popularity, feeding the hungry, and doing miracles, but because they deeply believed in who He was. He warned them to face the potential consequences of discipleship, to think about the demands it would make, and to make sure they understood what it required. Then, having considered all the potential challenges, hardships, and sacrifices, He called them to make the informed decision to follow. He wasn’t trying to discourage people from choosing discipleship, but He was encouraging them to thoughtfully consider what it means.
Making the choice to follow Jesus is a choice to restructure our lives in conjunction with His teachings. It means changing the way we think, prioritizing what we give our time, energy, and money to. It changes our relationships and how we interact with others, as we are called to become less self-centered. It’s a call to radically reorder our lives, so much so that we are willing to die for Him if need be. It’s a lifelong commitment, and one that shouldn’t be made lightly. As Jesus illustrated in these parables, anyone making the decision to be a disciple should take a hard look at what it means, assess the potential impact on their life and the lives of their loved ones, recognize the challenges, and then, if they are up for it, wholeheartedly make the decision to follow Him.
Stories Jesus Told: The Great Banquet
The Great Banquet
The setting in which Jesus told the parable of the great banquet was a Sabbath meal that He was eating at the house of a prominent Pharisee. During the meal, He gave some instruction about invitations to banquets, noting that one shouldn’t limit one’s guests to only those who could reciprocate by later inviting the host to a meal. He said:
When you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. (Luke 14:13-14)
Upon hearing this, someone at the table responded:
“Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!” (Luke 14:15)
In saying this, the person at the table was opening the door for Jesus to explain His views about what was known as the “messianic banquet”— the Jewish understanding of what would occur at the end of time.
The book of Isaiah speaks about this banquet:
On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine—the best of meats and the finest of wines. On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove the disgrace of his people from all the earth. The LORD has spoken. (Isaiah 25:6-8)
While this passage refers to all people being at the feast and all people having their tears wiped away, by Jesus’ time the common understanding among the Jewish people was that these verses excluded Gentiles (non-Jews). Jesus, however, had a different view of who would sit at the “messianic table.” Rather than responding as would have been expected, by saying something about keeping the Mosaic law and how the law keepers would sit with the Messiah at the banquet, Jesus told them a story.
“A man once gave a great banquet and invited many. And at the time for the banquet he sent his servant to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’ But they all alike began to make excuses.
The first said to him, ‘I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it. Please have me excused.’ And another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to examine them. Please have me excused.’ And another said, ‘I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.’ (Luke 14:16-20)
In those days, when someone was hosting a banquet, an initial invitation would be given informing those invited as to the day of the feast. At the time of this initial invitation, those invited would say whether they could come or not, and when agreeing to come they were making a commitment.
Everyone listening to the story understood that the refusal to come was a deliberate insult to the host. He was being publicly shamed in the eyes of his village. The excuses given for not honoring their commitment are lame and unacceptable.
The first guest’s excuse is ‘I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it.’ Those listening to the parable know that this is a bold-faced lie. Buying property sight unseen was unheard of.
Another guest gives the excuse that he has bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to examine them. This is another lame excuse. Before purchasing a team of oxen, the buyer would go to the seller’s land, yoke the oxen together, and do some plowing. He would need to test their strength and see if they will plow together, and if not, he wouldn’t buy them.
The third guest says he has married a wife and therefore he can’t come. He’s telling the host that even though the meal is in the late afternoon and he will only be away from home for a few hours and will be back in the arms of his new bride that evening, he won’t come, as other activities have priority to him. He doesn’t even bother to ask to be excused; he simply states that he can’t come. This is extremely rude and offensive.
The beginning of the parable tells us that many were invited to the banquet, and also that they all alike began to make excuses. The three who refused to attend the banquet are representative, and the original listeners would have understood that others who originally committed to coming also made excuses in order to not attend.
When the master of the house recognizes that the guests’ intent is to shame and humiliate him, he justifiably becomes angry. Under the circumstances, he could respond with verbal insults or even threaten some action which would punish those who have attacked his personal honor in public. However, though he is angry, he responds with grace instead of vengeance.
So the servant came and reported these things to his master. Then the master of the house became angry and said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and crippled and blind and lame.’
And the servant said, ‘Sir, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.’ And the master said to the servant, ‘Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.’” (Luke 14:22-24)
The host decides to invite those who could never reciprocate—the poor, maimed, blind, and lame. In framing the parable in this way, Jesus makes reference to the outcasts within Israel, the common people who were gladly receiving His message.
The banquet is not yet full; there is still room for others. The master then instructs him to go beyond the town to find outsiders, those not members of the community, and to compel them to come to the feast.
The idea of “compelling” these folks doesn’t mean that they are being forced to attend. Because of social customs, these outsiders must refuse the unexpected invitation, especially if they are of lower social status than the host. They are not relatives or even neighbors of the host; they are outsiders, and there is no way they can reciprocate, so according to society’s rules, they must refuse. Knowing this, the servant must take each one by the arm and gently guide him along, in order to demonstrate that the invitation is genuine.
The last phrase of the parable, For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet, may have been addressed to the Pharisees Jesus was dining with, rather than being part of the parable. The “you” in “for I tell you” is plural. In the parable, the master of the house was previously speaking to the servant, so if this last line was part of the parable directed to the servant, the “you” would have been singular. Therefore, many commentators agree that Jesus addressed this last line to those He was eating with.
The question put forth in the parable is: who will be present at the banquet? Jesus’ answer was unexpected. The common Jewish belief was that anyone born of a Jewish mother was automatically going to be attending the “messianic banquet” by right of being Jewish. Jesus was making the point that those who assume they will be present at the endtime banquet may very well not be. In reality, attendance at the banquet is based on one’s response to God’s invitation.
Jesus taught this concept throughout the Gospels. He said:
I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. (Matthew 8:11-12)
Many throughout the world take it for granted that they will be in attendance at the banquet, thinking that they have the right beliefs, belong to the right group, do charitable works, are favorably looked upon by others, etc. However, Jesus’ teaching in this parable and elsewhere points out that those who expect to be there aren’t necessarily included, and many who don’t expect it are. We don’t attend the banquet on our terms. The invitation is to all, including the social outcasts and those we may be uncomfortable with.
The message of the kingdom is grace. There is nothing anyone can do to merit the invitation to the banquet. We are simply invited, and must only accept. It is through grace that we are saved. But each one must make the decision of whether to receive grace; of whether they will come to the party or not.
Parábolas de Jesús – El Siervo Obediente
Parábolas de Jesús: El siervo obediente
En el Evangelio de Lucas encontramos varias parábolas que parten con una pregunta cuya respuesta es evidente. La parábola del siervo obediente empieza, no con una, sino con tres preguntas. Dos de ellas piden una respuesta negativa y una ha de suscitar una positiva.
«¿Quién de ustedes tiene un siervo arando o pastoreando ovejas, y cuando regresa del campo, le dice: “Ven enseguida y siéntate a comer”? ¿No le dirá más bien: “Prepárame algo para cenar, y vístete adecuadamente, y sírveme hasta que haya comido y bebido; y después comerás y beberás tú”? ¿Acaso le da las gracias al siervo porque hizo lo que se le ordenó?» (Lucas 17:7-9)
La respuesta a la pregunta inicial habría sido esta: a nadie que estuviera escuchando a Jesús se le habría ocurrido permitir que su siervo —así fuera labrador o pastor de ovejas— volviera de su faena y se sentara a la mesa a darse un banquete. Los roles de señor y siervo estaban muy bien definidos en esos tiempos. Permitir una cosa así hubiera implicado que el siervo tuviera la categoría de un invitado de honor o estuviera en igualdad de condiciones que su maestro. Empezar Su parábola con ese interrogante hubiera picado la curiosidad de los oyentes.
Si bien a nosotros nos resultaría muy severo exigir que un hombre o mujer que ha cumplido una jornada de trabajo vuelva del campo y prepare y cocine una comida, se vista como corresponde para servirla, atienda a su amo y que únicamente después que se haya hecho cargo de todo eso se le permita comer, en la antigüedad ese trato se consideraba normal. A la segunda pregunta, todo el mundo hubiera respondido que indudablemente el siervo habría retornado del campo y procedido a dar de comer a su señor antes de comer él mismo.
En el contexto de la época, nadie que escuchara esta parábola hubiera pretendido que a un sirviente se le diera un trato especial por cumplir con sus deberes. El siervo simplemente estaba cumpliendo con lo que se esperaba de un siervo. El maestro no estaba en deuda con el sirviente por apacentar a las ovejas o arar los campos. Nada fuera de lo común había ocurrido y nadie hubiera pretendido que al siervo se le hubieran concedido privilegios por el solo hecho de hacer su trabajo. El siervo había antepuesto las necesidades de su señor a las suyas.
Reconocía y aceptaba que su principal deber era servir a su maestro. Cuando los que lo escuchaban oyeron la tercera pregunta: ¿acaso le da las gracias al siervo porque hizo lo que se le ordenó?, una vez más habrían respondido: «Por supuesto que no».
La palabra griega traducida por gracias es charis, la misma que en el Nuevo Testamento generalmente se traduce para expresar el concepto de gracia. No obstante, en el Evangelio de Lucas se emplea para comunicar el sentido de reconocimiento o favor; de manera que casi implica recibir una recompensa. La pregunta es pues: ¿Le da el amo reconocimiento o premio al siervo por hacer lo que se le ordenó?
Kenneth Bailey explica:
El amo bien puede expresar su agradecimiento al siervo al final de la jornada laboral con una palabra amable. El tema es mucho más serio que eso. ¿Está el amo en deuda con su siervo por las órdenes cumplidas? Esa es una pregunta que pide una respuesta categóricamente negativa en la parábola.
En ese instante Jesús se dirige a los oyentes, que en el contexto del Evangelio de Lucas son Sus discípulos, y les dice:
«Así también ustedes, cuando hayan hecho todo lo que se les ha ordenado, digan: “Siervos inútiles somos; hemos hecho solo lo que debíamos haber hecho”» (Lucas 17:10)
Aquí la frase «siervos inútiles» —o como figura en otras versiones, «siervos indignos»— también se puede traducir: con los que no se tiene deuda. Dicho de otro modo, se plantea que el amo de siervos o discípulos que hacen lo que se les manda no tiene ninguna deuda con ellos. El amo no adeuda nada a un siervo que simplemente hace lo que se espera de él.
El mensaje, aplicado a los discípulos, expresaba que Dios no está endeudado con quienes le sirven. Dios no adeuda nada a los que le sirven.
Eso no significa que Dios no premia a los que lo aman y le sirven, sino que quienes sirven a Dios no tienen derecho a exigir recompensa. Nuestra relación con Dios no es una en la que nos ganamos, merecemos o negociamos retribuciones. El discípulo es un súbdito que sirve al Señor movido por amor, por deber y por lealtad.
Nuestra salvación es un don que Dios nos concedió; no trabajamos ni hacemos méritos para conseguirlo. El servicio que le prestamos es fruto de nuestra gratitud y amor, como también del deber que tenemos hacia Él por habernos redimido. Cuando hemos cumplido con lo que nos ha ordenado no lo ponemos en un compromiso de que nos debe algo. No debemos mantener un libro de contabilidad mental de todas las cosas que hemos hecho por el Señor con la expectativa de que por ello Dios está en deuda con nosotros.
Eso no significa que no haya recompensa para los que sirven a Dios. Jesús habló de recompensas en numerosas ocasiones.
Cuando tú des limosna, no sepa tu izquierda lo que hace tu derecha, para que sea tu limosna en secreto; y tu Padre, que ve en lo secreto, te recompensará en público. Cuando ores, entra en tu cuarto, cierra la puerta y ora a tu Padre que está en secreto; y tu Padre, que ve en lo secreto, te recompensará en público. (Mateo 6:3-4)
Amen a sus enemigos, y hagan bien, y presten no esperando nada a cambio, y su recompensa será grande, y serán hijos del Altísimo. (Lucas 6:35)
Dichosos ustedes cuando la gente los odie, cuando los expulsen, cuando los insulten y cuando desprecien su nombre como cosa mala, por causa del Hijo del hombre. Alégrense mucho, llénense de gozo en ese día, porque ustedes recibirán un gran premio en el cielo; pues también así maltrataron los antepasados de esa gente a los profetas. (Lucas 6:22-23)
Se nos ha prometido una recompensa, pero nuestra relación con Dios no es cuestión de méritos, negociaciones o de trabajar para conseguirla o ganarla. Como siervos del Señor, trabajamos para Él a fin de cumplir con nuestro deber para con Él. Lo que recibimos de Dios es un regalo que proviene de Su mano, no un pago por los servicios prestados. Por mucho que trabajemos, hagamos o el tiempo que pasemos sirviendo al Señor, bajo ninguna circunstancia Dios se convierte en deudor nuestro. Le servimos porque nos salvó. Le servimos porque estamos agradecidos y lo amamos. Y es que nuestro servicio a Él está motivado por el amor y la gratitud, no por las recompensas que Él nos da.
The Stories Jesus Told – The Obedient Servant
The Parable of the Obedient Servant
In the Gospel of Luke, we find a number of parables which begin with a question to which the answer is obvious. The parable of the obedient servant starts out with not just one question, but three—two of which call for a negative answer and one which would receive a positive reply.
“Will any one of you who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and recline at table’? Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and dress properly, and serve me while I eat and drink, and afterward you will eat and drink’? Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? (Luke 17:7-9)
The response to the opening question would have been that no one listening to Jesus would ever consider having their servant or slave who was a plowman or a sheep herder come in from work and lie down at a banquet table and eat. The traditional roles of master and servant were well defined in those days, and to allow such a thing would have implied that the servant had the status of an honored guest or was equal to the master. Starting His parable with this opener would have piqued the curiosity of those listening.
While to us it sounds quite harsh to make a man or woman who has done a day’s labor come in from the field and be expected to prepare and cook a meal, change into clothes which are proper for serving food, serve the master, and only after all of this is taken care of properly, be allowed to eat, in the ancient world this was considered normal. To the second question, everyone would have answered that of course the servant would come in from the field and proceed to feed the master before eating.
In the context of the time, no one listening to this parable would expect that a servant would be given special treatment for fulfilling his duties. The servant was simply doing what was expected of him as a servant. The master wasn’t indebted to the servant for keeping the sheep or plowing the field. Nothing out of the ordinary had occurred, and no one would expect that the servant would be given privileges for simply doing his job. The servant had put the master’s needs before his own. He acknowledged and accepted that his first duty was to serve the master. When those listening heard the third question, Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? they would again respond with “Of course not.”
The Greek word translated as “thank” is charis, which is usually translated in the New Testament as “grace.” However, in the Gospel of Luke, it is also used to convey the meaning of credit or favor, so that it comes close to implying receiving a reward. So the question is: Does the master give credit or reward to the servant for doing what he was told to do? Kenneth Bailey explains:
The master may well express appreciation to a servant at the end of a day’s work with a friendly word of thanks. The issue is much more serious than this. Is the master indebted to his servant when orders are carried out? This is the question that expects a resoundingly negative answer in the parable.
At this point, Jesus addressed the listeners, who in the context of Luke’s Gospel are His disciples, saying:
“So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’” (Luke 17:10)
Here the phrase “unworthy servants”—or as it is rendered in other translations, “unprofitable servants” —can also be translated as “without need.” In other words, it’s stating that the servants or disciples who do what they are commanded to do are “without need,” meaning that they aren’t owed anything by their master. The master is in no way indebted to the servant for doing what is expected of him.
The message, as applied to the disciples, was that those who serve God do not put God in their debt. God isn’t beholden to those who serve Him.
This doesn’t mean that God doesn’t reward those who love and serve Him, but rather that those who serve God have no right to claim reward. Our relationship with God is not one where we earn, deserve, or bargain for reward. A disciple is a servant who serves the Lord out of love, duty, and loyalty to Him.
Our salvation is a gift bestowed upon us by God; we don’t work for it or earn it. Our service to Him is done out of gratitude and love, as well as out of duty to the one who has redeemed us. When we have done what He has commanded us, we aren’t putting Him in a position where He “owes” us anything. We shouldn’t be keeping a mental ledger of all the things we’ve done for the Lord, with the expectation that because we’re doing them, God is indebted to us.
This doesn’t mean that there is no reward for those who serve God. Jesus spoke of rewards numerous times.
When you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. When you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matthew 6:3-4)
Love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. (Luke 6:35)
Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets. (Luke 6:22-23)
We are promised a reward, but our relationship with God is not a matter of deserving, bargaining for, or working to attain or earn it. As servants of the Lord, we work for Him in order to fulfill our duty to Him. What we receive from God is a gift from His hand, not a payment for services rendered. No matter how hard we work, how much we do, and how long we serve the Lord, under no circumstances do we put God in our debt. We serve Him because He saved us. We serve Him because we are grateful. We serve Him because we love Him. And it’s because our service to Him is motivated by love and gratitude, not reward, that He rewards us.
The Stories Jesus Told – The Unforgiving Servant
In the course of the eighteenth chapter of the book of Matthew, the apostle Peter brought up the topic of forgiveness, asking:
“Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times.” (Matthew 18:21-22)
Some Bible versions translate this as “seventy times seven,” which is also a legitimate way to translate the original Greek. Jesus either said His disciples should forgive someone 77 times or 490 times. In any case, Jesus’ point was that His followers are always meant to forgive others. This conversation is followed by theparable of the unforgiving servant.
The parable starts with:
The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. (Matthew 18:23-24)
This is a fantastical opening because ten thousand talents represented an astronomical amount of money. A talent was a measure of weight used in those days, probably about thirty kilograms (about 66 pounds). When referring to monetary value, it was more specifically a weight of either silver or gold.
If Jesus was referring to talents of silver, one talent would have had the value of about six thousand denarii (a silver coin of the time). One denarius was considered a day’s wage for a laborer. So one talent of silver (six thousand silver coins) was worth about 20 years of work. Ten thousand talents, or sixty million denarii, was clearly an absurdly huge debt.
And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. (Matthew 18:25)
The servant’s inability to repay such an immense loan meant that he and his family were to be sold into slavery until the debt was paid. In 2 Kings we read of an example in biblical times of children being sold until a debt was paid:
The wife of one of the sons of the prophets cried to Elisha, “Your servant my husband is dead, and you know that your servant feared the LORD, but the creditor has come to take my two children to be his slaves.” (2 Kings 4:1)
So the servant fell on his knees, imploring [the king], ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. (Matthew 18:26-27)
The servant was asking for an extension of time so that he could pay the debt, but the king went well beyond the request and completely freed him from having to repay it at all. What an act of magnanimity! He forgave a debt of three hundred thousand kilos of silver. Imagine the shock, relief, and gratitude of the indebted servant.
Jesus continued the story:
But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. (Matthew 18:28-30)
The servant who had been forgiven his own debt—which amounted to sixty million denarii—was owed one hundred denarii by another servant, the equivalent of four months’ wages for a common worker. The ratio between what the servant had owed the king and what the fellow servant owed his coworker was 600,000 to 1.11
The man who had been forgiven the astronomical amount responded not with the compassion which had been showed to him, but with violence and judgment. The indebted servant acted in the same manner as the forgiven servant had, by prostrating himself before the one he was indebted to and begging for patience, while promising to repay the debt. However, the response was the opposite. Instead of giving his fellow servant more time to pay or compassionately cancelling the debt, the unforgiving servant sent the man to jail.
When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. (Matthew 18:31)
While it might have been legitimate at the time to send someone to prison for nonpayment of debts, this act showed a serious lack of compassion under the circumstances. The other servants, appalled at the unforgiving servant’s heartlessness and harshness, informed the master of this injustice.
Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. (Matthew 18:32-34)
The king was rightfully furious, calling the servant wicked. He referred to the huge amount of debt that he had forgiven because the servant had beseeched him for mercy; yet he, who had been forgiven so much, was unwilling to forgive another. Having been shown such abundant mercy, the servant should have done the same for others. But he didn’t, and he was going to be judged for it. This unforgiving servant was condemned until all his debt would be repaid—which, due to the massive amount, meant he would die in prison suffering.
After telling this parable, Jesus addressed the listeners with a deeply unsettling statement:
So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart. (Matthew 18:35)
This parable dramatically portrays how serious it is to not forgive others, and it aligns with Jesus’ teachings about forgiveness elsewhere in the Gospels. When teaching His disciples to pray, He included the phrase:
Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. (Matthew 6:12)
He also taught:
If you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matthew 6:14-15)
This parable puts these teachings into story form in order to help us recognize how important it is to forgive others. It illustrates the necessity of human forgiveness as a condition for divine mercy.
When God passed before Moses on Mount Sinai, He described Himself by saying: “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.” (Exodus 34:6-7) One of God’s attributes is forgiveness, and as Jesus illustrated through this parable, as God’s children we are meant to imitate Him by forgiving others—just as He has forgiven us.
Text adapted from the series “The Stories Jesus Told”