My Thoughts on the Parable of the Ten Pounds
11 And as they heard these things, He added and spake a parable, because He was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. 13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. 15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. 17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. 18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. 19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: 21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. 22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: 23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? 24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) 26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
I remembered the pastor who preached the sermon (forgot his name) mentioned Archelaus, a son of Herod the Great, was mentioned. People probably said that they already heard the incident. Charles H. Spurgeon also mentions this in his sermon "The Servants and the Pounds" mentions this interesting detail I'd like to share:
I confess I never thoroughly saw the meaning of this parable till I was directed by an eminent expositor to a passage in Josephus, which, if it be not the key of it, is a wonderfully close example of a class of facts which, no doubt, often occurred in the Roman empire in our Saviour’s day. Herod, you know, was king over Judaea; but he was only a subordinate king under the Roman emperor. Caesar at Rome made and unmade kings at his pleasure. When Herod died he was followed by his son Archelaus, of whom we read in Matthew’s account of our Lord’s infancy that when Joseph heard that Archelaus was king in Judaea in the room of his father Herod he was afraid to go thither. This Archelaus had no right to the throne till he obtained the sanction of Caesar, and therefore he took ship with certain attendants, and went to Rome, which in those days was a far country, that he might receive the kingdom, and return. While he was on the way his citizens, who hated him, sent an ambassage after him, so has the Revised Version correctly worded it; and this ambassage bore this message to Caesar “We will not that this man reign over us.” The messengers represented to Caesar that Archelaus was not fit to be king of the Jews. Certain of the pleadings are recorded in Josephus, and they show that barristers nineteen hundred years ago pleaded in much the same style as their brethren of to-day. The people were weary of the Herods, and preferred anything to their cruel rule. They even asked that Judaea might become a Roman province, and be joined to Syria, rather than they should remain under the hated yoke of the Idumean tyrants. It is evident that in the case of Archelaus his citizens hated him, and said, “We will not have this man to reign over us.” It pleased Caesar to divide the kingdom, and to put Archelaus on the throne as ethnarch, or a ruler with less power than a king. When he returned he took fierce revenge upon those who had opposed him, and rewarded his faithful adherents most liberally. This story of what had been done thirty years before would, no doubt, rise up in the recollection of the people when Jesus spoke, for Archelaus had built a palace for himself very near to Jericho, and it may be that under the walls of that palace the Saviour used the event as the basis of his parable. Those who lived in our Lord’s day must have understood his allusions to current facts much better than we do who live nineteen centuries later. The providence of God provided that observant Jew, Josephus, to store up much valuable information for us. Read the passage in his history, and you will see that even the details tally with this parable. There is the story.
The Saviour, without excusing Archelaus or commending him in the least degree, simply makes his going to Rome an illustration. Here is a noble personage who is to be a king; but to obtain the throne he must journey to the distant court of a superior power. While he is going, his citizens so hate him that they send an ambassage to oppose his claims; for they will not have him for their king. However, he receives the kingdom, and returns to rule it. When he does so, he rewards those who have been faithful to him, and he punishes with overwhelming destruction those who have tried to prevent his reigning. There is the story: let me further interpret it.
The Saviour likens Himself to a nobleman. He was here on earth a man among men, and truly a nobleman in the midst of his fellow-citizens. It was His to become king, king of all the earth: indeed, He is such by nature and by right, but He must first go, by death, resurrection, and ascension, away to the highest courts, and there from the great Lord of all He must receive for himself a kingdom. It is written, “Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance”; and therefore Jesus must plead His claims before the King, and win His suit. The day is coming when he will return, clothed with glory and honour, to take unto himself his great power and reign; for he must reign till all enemies are put under his feet. When he comes his enemies will be destroyed, and his faithful servants will be abundantly rewarded.
This is pretty much like using the Unjust Judge to portray that we shouldn't faint while we pray. There's no doubt that Archelaus was a wicked man. Yet, Jesus uses this illustration to capture the attention of the audience that people in His day were rejecting the Messiah. Jesus was meant to become the King one of these days but the Jews hated him. Going to Rome was an illustration. Jesus soon went to the Father after His passion. Soon, Jesus will be coming soon to destroy the forces of the Antichrist in the Battle of Armageddon towards the end of the world. Not soon after, Jesus will divide the sheep from the goats in the Valley of Jehoshaphat (Joel 3:2-12, Matthew 25:31-46). It will not be a pretty day for the unsaved and their actions will prove it. After the Tribulation, you can imagine how horrifying it will be to have the blood up to horses' bridles (Revelation 14:20). You can imagine how those who will not have Jesus reign over them in His Millennial Kingdom will either be destroyed in the Battle of Armageddon or in the Judgment of the Nations. Either way, these people will end up in Hell. Eventually, Revelation 20:7-10 also talks about how rebels at the end of the Millennial Kingdom (descendants of the Tribulation saints who aren't saved) will also be destroyed by fire. No rebellion against Jesus will ever succeed.
We can talk about the servants. There are ten servants who each receive ten pounds. It's a contrast to the story of the parable of the talents where each servant got different amounts. Each servant was given one pound each and told them to occupy until they come. I would say this really tends to weed out the fake servants from the real servants. We see that the first two servants came in and gave their results. One managed to double the money while the other managed to make nearly a double. Then a third servant is shown to be a false servant. Now I'd like to use the ESV for clearer rendition of what the wicked servant said:
Then another came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief; 21 for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ 22 He said to him, ‘I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’
This has me thinking that in contrast to Archelaus, it was indeed true that the Herods were a wicked bunch. This was a servant who knew better than to cross his master. However, if we're talking about Jesus, the accusation by this lazy servant would be false. John Gill wrote the following:
because thou art an austere man; cruel and uncompassionate to his servants., and hard to be pleased, than which nothing is more false, since it is evident, that Christ is compassionate both to the bodies and souls of men, is a merciful high priest, and is one that has compassion on the ignorant,a nd them that are out of the way, and cannot but be touched with the feeling of His people's infirmities, and is mild and gentle, in His whole deportment,a nd in all His administrations.
thou takest up that thou layest, not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow; suggesting that He was covetous and of that which did not belong to him, and withheld that was due to his servants and rigorously exacted service that could not be performed; a most iniquitous charge, since none so liberal as He, giving gifts, grace, and glory freely; imposing no grievous commands on men; His yoke being easy, and His burden light, never sending a man to a warfare at his own charge, but always giving grace and strength proportionable to the service he calls to, and rewarding his servants in a most bountiful manner, infinitely beyond their desserts.
We can see this is quite similar to the parable of the talents. Remember when the third servant in the parable of the talents told a similar lie?
Matthew 25:24-25
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
One wicked servant hid the talent under the soil. The other hid it in a napkin used for wrapping up stuff. Both servants are called wicked. In the parable of the talents, the master of the house discovered the ture nature that the third servant was an imposter. Matthew 25:26-40 has the unprofitable servant cast out indicating he was not a true disciple of the master. It seems to me that Jesus was already trying to point out to the other disciples that one of them was a fake servant by the two parables. Both parables also have it said, "Why didn't you put my money in the bank where there's interest?" The fact that the money was hidden underground or in a napkin makes me believe that the unprofitable servant was planning to run away with it. A thief would usually hide the money they intend to steal for personal gain. What the false servant didn't realize was that his master made a surprise return.
The master's words really revealed the problem. The wicked servant condemned himself which I'll render again from the ESV for easier understanding:
22 He said to him, ‘I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?
In short, if the servant knew that his master was a severe man then why didn't he do something productive with the money entrusted? This still has me thinking that this servant was probably trying to run away with that money by his actions by putting it in a linen cloth for buying and selling. In the case of Archelaus, the unprofitable servant really should've known better than to render the money useless. The money could've at least been put in a bank. However, a thief to put the money in a bank would also be very impractical because he would've to make a record. Deuteronomy 23:20 gives permission to the Israelites to charge interest to outsiders at that time. Though the practice of usury was all about charging money with high-interest rates. It was all about taking advantage of the poor rather than rather lending out of compassion. However, this doesn't mean that people should borrow and never return (Psalm 37:21) because it's just as wicked as usury or unjust interest rates. In today's society, interest should only be accumulated if the person doesn't pay on time. The banks would be charging interests to foreigners who loaned and perhaps, that's what he meant he could've collected the money with interest. Though the KJV renders it as usury which is in today's terminology means unjust interest rates.
The lesson would also show that we might be having a false servant in our midst. This also shows the severity of the judgment of God upon the world. I believe the master gave money to reveal the false servant within the midst of the ten. You can see the true, productive servants, have been doing so and returned the money with interest. Any wise servant of money would know better than to let the money sit idle. Today, if you don't know yet how to invest the money in business then why not put it in the bank first? Today, we've got the money market and the stock market, both of which are manageable risks that one needs careful study. I think the true servants did first put the money in the bank before they started investing. They wanted to play it safe because they knew they were handling the master's money. I think they were probably co-depositors or had endorsements of joint accounts. The fake servant though was probably betraying the trust of his boss as a co-depositor by not putting it in the bank. He was most likely a thief by wrapping it in the napkin, planning to run away when the time is right but got caught red-handed in the process.
This also shows the true servants of God will (in some way) use the talent. I was thinking one doubled the money while the other didn't. Obviously, the money that was idle at the hands of the unprofitable servant was given to the best investor, not the second-best investor. Yet, the master still commended the second-best investor. Every Christian has their own strengths and weaknesses. Christians, no matter how weak, will still bear fruit in one way. Christians may not be perfect, they may stumble and fall, but they will still bear fruit. Besides, Christians who may not be bearing fruit for a season can expect chastisement so they will inevitably bear fruit (John 15:1-8).
- Maybe, Some Losses I Have Today is a Punishment for Self-Righteousness
- My Thoughts on 1 Timothy 6:17-19 on Charging Them Who are Rich
- When I Think Material Losses Become God's Great Blessings in Disguise
- Why I Believe It's Okay for Christians to Carefully Participate in the Stock Market But Not Gambling