§48 The Parable of the Ten Minas (Luke 19:11–27)
The Parable of the Ten Minas (or “Pounds”) provides a transition from the visit with Zacchaeus (19:1–10), in which the proper use of wealth was thematic, to the Triumphal Entry (19:28–48), in which Jesus enters Jerusalem as its king. Both aspects of stewardship and kingship are seen in the Parable of the Ten Minas.
The Parable of the Ten Minas bears an uncertain relationship to the similar parable found in Matt. 25:14–30 (cf. also Matt. 25:14 and Mark 13:34 with Luke 19:12–13). In the Matthean version a man gives his slaves (25:14) five, two, and one “talents” (of either silver or gold; 25:15). The slaves entrusted with the five and two talents double their monies (25:16–17), but the slave with the single talent hid it in the ground (25:18). The Master returns, commends the first two slaves, placing them in charge over “many things” (25:19–23), but he condemns the “wicked, lazy slave” (25:26) for squandering his opportunity, takes away his talent (25:28) and consigns him to “outer darkness” (25:30). In the Lucan version a man of noble birth leaves in anticipation of being appointed king. Before leaving, he entrusted ten of his servants with ten minas. While he is gone some of his subjects send a delegation trying to prevent the nobleman from ruling as king. Having returned as king he summoned his servants to determine what they had gained. The first one reported that he had earned ten more minas. The servant is commended and placed in charge of ten cities. The second reported that he had earned five minas. He too is commended and placed in charge of five cities. A third servant reported that he had hidden the mina in a piece of cloth, probably because of his fear of what his master would do to him if he lost it. In anger the newly crowned king takes his mina away from him and gives it to the one who has ten minas. He then orders that his enemies, those who had opposed his kingship, be slain.
As this summary shows, despite their differences (“talents” vs. “minas”; “many things” vs. “cities”), the Matthean and Lucan parables are quite similar. In both versions the faithful servants earn ten times and five times as much as had been entrusted to them. In both versions the wicked servant earns nothing, is condemned for not at least banking his coin, and has his coin taken away and given to the faithful servant who had earned the most.
The major difference between the versions is the Lucan idea of the slaves’ master going away to be made king. The king goes away and is absent for some time, and while he is absent his citizens oppose his sovereignty. When he returns he has his enemies executed. These elements are not echoed in the Matthean version of the parable.
Fitzmyer (pp. 1230–31) thinks that underlying both Gospels is a common parable, with the Matthean form closer to the original form, as it was found in the sayings source. Gundry (pp. 502–3), however, reasons that Luke’s more complicated version is closer to the original. Since it is more likely that Luke would have added the part about the man going away to become king, rather than that Matthew would have dropped it (why should Matthew omit this component?), Fitzmyer’s reconstruction is to be preferred. The distinctive features found in the Lucan version fit the evangelist’s theology. The part about the man of noble birth who is to have himself appointed king but has to go to a distant country (v. 12), and while he is absent is hated by his subjects who do not want him to be their king (v. 14), is intended to explain the delay of Jesus’ expected return and the inauguration of the kingdom of God (v. 11). The kingdom has not yet appeared, for the king (i.e., Jesus) is yet in a distant place. In the meantime his rightful rule as king is being rejected by his own subjects (i.e., unbelieving Jews and, perhaps, other opponents of early Christianity). When the king finally does return, he will not only call his servants to account, he will also condemn those who have rejected his kingship. This Lucan feature was probably derived from another parable about a king whose sovereignty was rejected by some of his subjects (so Ellis, pp. 221–22; Tiede, p. 323). Thus, Luke united the two parables around the theme of judgment and assessment when King Jesus returns to assume his rightful position over Israel. His faithful servants will be rewarded and given positions of authority in the kingdom (see Luke 22:28–30), while his enemies will be destroyed (see Fitzmyer, p. 1233).
According to J. T. Sanders (pp. 208–9; idem, “The Parable of the Pounds and Lucan Anti-Semitism,” TS 42 [1981], pp. 660–68) the Parable of the Ten Minas, the “climax and conclusion” of the Central Section, is meant to justify the slaying of the Jews. He thinks that it represents the clearest expression of anti-Semitism, in that Luke is advancing the idea that all Jews will be destroyed (pp. 61–62, 317; “Pounds,” 667). Although it must be acknowledged that Luke’s version of the parable strongly condemns those who oppose Jesus, we may well wonder if Luke intends his reference to be applied as widely as Sanders has taken it. Are all Jews condemned? Or, are only those who opposed the “king”? The parable says that only those who have opposed the king will be slain (v. 27; cf. Deut. 18:19, quoted in Acts 3:23). And, in light of Acts, the Jews of Jerusalem are given many opportunities to repent (see Tannehill, p. 161; idem, “Israel in Luke–Acts: A Tragic Story,” JBL 104 [1985], pp. 69–85, esp. pp. 81–85). Moreover, to argue that the parable teaches that the king will slay all of his subjects is nonsensical. Who are the good servants (vv. 13, 15b–19)? They are just as Jewish as the subjects who opposed the king. Consequently, there is no justification to distinguish Jews from Gentiles (or Christians). The question of race has nothing to do with the parable.
19:11 / parable: See note on 5:36 above.
near Jerusalem: Jesus is in the vicinity of Jericho (see 19:1 and note on 10:30 above). Jesus still has a long walk ahead of him.
kingdom of God: Luke could be suggesting that those who followed Jesus expected the kingdom of God to appear when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem. If not, then Luke is echoing the popular view that expected the kingdom to appear at any time.
19:12 / a man of noble birth: That is, an aristocrat, one who would have claim to royalty.
went to a distant country: This statement suggests a delay in the nobleman’s return and so corrects the popular belief that the kingdom would appear soon.
to have himself appointed king: This detail in the parable may have been suggested by the experience of Herod the Great, who was successful in his effort to obtain his status from the Romans as “king.” After Herod’s death (4 B.C.) his oldest son Archelaus traveled to Rome in an unsuccessful bid to obtain the title (Josephus, Antiquities 17.206–223; Fitzmyer, p. 1235). Like the “king” in the parable, many of Archelaus’ subjects opposed his bid for the title king (Antiquities 17.299–314).
19:13 / minas: A mina is worth only one sixtieth of a talent. The small amount (twenty to twenty-five dollars according to Fitzmyer, p. 1235), perhaps reflects Luke’s view that although many of those in the church are poor, they are, nevertheless, expected to be good stewards with what they do have.
19:14 / sent a delegation after him: Fitzmyer (p. 1235) notes that this is the very word used by Josephus (Antiquities 17.299–302) in reference to the delegation sent to Rome to oppose Archelaus’ bid to be made king (see note on 19:12 above).
19:17, 19 / The trustworthy servants are placed in charge of ten and five cities, which are part of the nobleman’s new kingdom.
19:21 / a hard man: It would be better to translate “severe” or “strict.” Matthew (25:24) uses the word “hard” (or “merciless”). Since the nobleman is probably meant to represent Jesus, Luke may have chosen a less harsh word.
You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow: This is the reason given for the servant’s fear. The saying has a proverbial ring to it (see Marshall, p. 707; Fitzmyer, p. 1237). Perhaps the servant’s fear lay in his belief that if he made a profit, his master would take it all (since he takes what is not his) and not give him his commission. It is more likely, however, that the servant feared severe punishment should he make a poor investment and lose his mina. The harshness and thievery of the master (or king) should not be allegorized in an attempt to find an application to Jesus.
19:22–23 / Since the wicked servant knew what kind of man his master was, he should have known that he would be very dissatisfied with the return of the mina without any profit. Therefore, the servant’s own words can be used to judge him. According to Deut. 23:19–20, money could be lent at interest to Gentiles but not to fellow Israelites.
19:27 / The king’s enemies (his “subjects” in v. 14) are probably understood by Luke and his readers as the Jews who reject Jesus. Fitzmyer (p. 1238) states: “[Luke] may be hinting at some form of secular destruction of enemies, possibly at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and the slaughter of many of its inhabitants.”