The Unforgiving Servant (Matt 18:23-35)
Issues Requiring Attention
1. The relation of the parable to its context.
Jesus addresses his followers who have experienced the kingdom, not Jews in general, and Matthew has framed this section to emphasize what it means to follow Jesus as it relates to sin and forgiveness.
2. How much is intended with 10,000 talents? Is this amount Matthean hyperbole?
The debt is enormous and strains credulity, but parables often contain hyperbole and tend to be pseudo-realistic. The main point is that the debt is so high that no possibility exists of the servant ever paying it. The parable’s intent with the description of the first debt is to achieve maximum effect in underscoring the enormity of the king’s act of forgiveness.
3. What does the parable teach? Is God like or not like the king in the parable?
The problem with this parables is that the king is both very attractive as a magnanimous figure and problematic in that he can renege on his forgiveness
4. Does this parable teach a form of “works righteousness” which argues that one’s forgiveness of others is a precondition for experiencing divine forgiveness? Jesus is not legalistic. He does not promote salvation by works. But he insists that discipleship includes obedience. The indicative of God’s forgiveness precedes the imperative of our response. In Matthew, as elsewhere in both Testaments, the ethic is a responsive ethic, a response to God’s grace and calling.
5. Is God bound by the unlimited forgiveness of vv. 21-22?
The concern of this parable is not about the limit of God’s forgiveness. The concern of the parable is God’s forgiveness and the seriousness of failing to mirror God’s mercy. Mercy is not effectively received unless it is shown, for God’s mercy transforms. If God’s mercy does not take root in the heart, it is not experienced. Forgiveness not shown is forgiveness not known. The forgiveness of God must be replicated in the lives of the forgiven, and the warning is clear. Where forgiveness is not extended, people will be held accountable.
Adapting the Parable:
1. Christian living – rather than insisting on rights – should be a continual dispensing of mercy and forgiveness, mirroring God’s own character and treatment of his people. The NT ethic is a responsive, reflective ethic, one that responds to God’s prior acts of mercy and reflects his actions in human lives.
The Two Debtors (Luke 7:41-43)
Parable Type: This is a double indirect narrative parable that elicits a self-judgment. The analogy sets forth a reality and concludes with a question requiring a decision, which is provided by the Pharisee.
Issues Requiring Attention:
1. Was this parable told in the context of a meal with a Pharisee…?
2. What is the meaning of the parable? Specifically what should we understand takes place in the narrative and in the parable?
a. Nothing sinister should be attached to the fact that a Pharisee invited Jesus for a meal. Explanations that see the Pharisee as deliberately insulting Jesus by not providing the hospitable acts described in vv. 44-46 go too far.
b. Since the woman brought the ointment with her, she almost certainly came with the intent to anoint Jesus’ feet. Her identity is not known.
c. Clearly this parable has correspondences between image and reality: the creditor corresponds to God (or Jesus), debts correspond to sins, canceling of debts to forgiveness of sins, the woman to the debtor who owed more, and Simon to the debtor who owed less.
d. The parable expresses the grace and goodness of God. When it comes to forgiveness, God is like a moneylender who does not care about money.
e. Again, parable interpretation is not about finding correspondences, even when they exist; the issue is how the analogy works.
f. The two points are: God forgives sin freely, and one forgiven more will love more. At least one forgiven more should love more, but gratitude is not automatic, as the parable of the Unforgiving Servant attests.
g. Like many parables, this one ends with a question requiring that the hearer pass judgment. Once the answer is granted, the relevance of the conclusion cannot be evaded. Obviously the person forgiven the greater debt (or at least aware of the greater size of the debt forgiven) should love more – or possibly be more grateful – in return.
3. What is the relation of the woman’s acts and her forgiveness? Did she act because she was forgiven, or was she forgiven because of her acts?
a. Often this is pitched as a disagreement between Catholics and Protestant. The Catholics seeing the woman’s love is as the basis of her forgiveness and the Protestant that the woman’s love stems from her previous forgiveness.
b. Neither Jesus nor the Evangelists were as anxious as we are about avoiding any thought of salvation by works. Other texts display a similar “strangeness”of order or lack of concern about the order of salvation. The merciful receive mercy (Matt. 5:7), those who forgive are forgiven (Matt. 6;12/Luke 11:4), people are told to obey in order to have eternal life (Luke 10:25-28; 18:18-23), and Luke 17:19 the cleansed leper who returns is told that that his faith has saved him….
c. Luke is not posing the theological question of the relation of God’s initiative and human response and that for Luke both are active in reconciliation.
d. Several points can be mentioned that strengthen the case that forgiveness precedes the woman’s love:
1) The logic of the parable assumes that forgiveness comes first and without any reason in the debtor and that love flows from forgiveness
2) Something prior caused the woman’s actions. From the standpoint of the narrative the woman’s actions are a response to Jesus being a friend of sinners (7:34).
3) The statement about forgiveness in vv. 47a, 48 use the perfect tense (have been forgiven), indicating that forgiveness preceded the acts of love.
4. What is the relation of love and faith?
This periscope forces us to bring faith and love closer in relation that we usually do. For us faith is a head matter, whereas love is a heart matter, but Scripture does not know this bifurcation. In this passage love is understood as the expression of faith (Gal 5:6), and properly understood it is difficult to imagine faith that does not involve love. To love God with the whole heart, mind, and strength is not something less than faith, and faith cannot accomplish more. Faith will love, or it is not faith.
Cancellation of debts is pure grace, but it is grace that transforms, creates love and relationship, and requires-even demands- a response. Jesus’ parable and the dialogue accompanying it demonstrate the presence of the kingdom, and forgiveness made available to sinners, and the responsibility that comes with grace.
Adapting the Parable
1. For both this parable and that of the Unforgiving Servant one central focus is response. The kingdom comes with limitless grace in the midst of an evil world, but grace that does not bring forth a response is grace unknown. If we care about what God has done for us, gratitude that responds and acts will be present.
2. Part of that response will be to develop the ability actually to see people. We need to be able to see beyond the obvious and the form of people to see who they actually are, what their needs are, and what their potential is. Only then can the love of God find an avenue through us.
3. The woman in this parable teaches us the importance of emotions, of not taking forgiveness for granted but having some sense of its value. This is what gave her a deep love and commitment to Jesus.
4. Christians do not have the right to reject “outcasts.” Even when rejecting specific actions, Christians must be willing to embrace sinners without affirming actions or events that are clearly wrong. Holiness, at least true holiness, is stronger and more contagious than sin.
5. Forgiveness is without limits but not without responsibility, confession, truth, and even restitution.