In his well known book The Parables of the Kingdom C. H. Dodd writes:
I have failed to find any specific link between this parable (Mt. xviii. 23-35) and the idea of the kingdom of God, apart from the general notion of judgement. I suspect that in this case the formula has become conventional.(1)
Since he wrote many other scholars have expressed similar doubts. I, however, wish to argue that this parable was indeed intended to demonstrate a Christian perspective on the kingdom of God.
Compared to some this parable is quite complex. There are two main characters: the king and his servant. The servant owes the king a ridiculously large sum of money but on being threatened with slavery the servant begged the king for time to pay. The king quite unexpectedly released the servant and forgave the debt. This servant in turn was owed a trifling sum by a fellow servant and he too begged for time to pay but this plea was ignored and he was put in prison. Yet more servants enter the scene they in disapproval of the action told the king who angrily summoned the servant and, telling him that he too should have shown mercy, handed him over to the torturers till he should pay.
Taking the parable at face value there is only one possible interpretation: the servant is justifiably punished because he did not have mercy and with various modifications this is the most commonly accepted interpretation. Faced with such a conflicting idea we must make sure that this interpretation truly represents Christian teaching, whether from Jesus or from the author of Matthew. If this is indeed the teaching of this parable a Christian could, and perhaps should, raise the objection that as Jesus has just advocated unlimited forgiveness where is this being demonstrated in this parable? Why does the king not give the debtor another chance after he has pointed out his error.? On this basis perhaps we could perhaps question whether this parable was originally addressed to Christians at all. It would seem more likely that it was, for whatever reason, addressed to people who had no doubts at all that the king was justified in giving such punishment to the debtor.
Parables were frequently used in dialogue and arguments with opponents in order to win agreement. E. Linnemann explains that someone using a parable "wants to affect the other, to win his agreement, to influence his judgement in a particular direction, to force him to a decision, to convince him or prevail upon him."(2) If this parable was addressed to Christians, particularly in the context as given, is it likely that they would have been easily persuaded that the king was right to punish the debtor in such a radical manner for what amounts to one mistake? It does not seem likely.
If the purpose of a parable is to win agreement and it is addressed to opponents we must consider what they are being asked to agree with. The parable appears to have two points of agreement: firstly that the debtor should have shown mercy and secondly that the king was right to punish him for not showing mercy. Put in this manner it is clear that it is only the seriousness of the topic that detracts from the ironical nature of this parable: it verges on the comical but is truly tragic. The parable highlights the inherent tension in a religious belief which insists that a merciful, loving God metes out horrendous punishment. Thus it addresses the underlying issue of the philosophy that maintains that sins or sinners must be punished and other related questions of who really deserves such punishment and why. As the immediate context of the parable and the more general teaching of the church maintains sins are forgiven we may assume that the parable is addressed to those who think sins should be punished in order to somehow convince them that sins may be forgiven and that people should have mercy. So the parable has led the opponents to agree that lack of mercy is wrong but at this point the argument has not been won for the opponents still believe that punishment is deserved. So if the parable is to have the desired effect it must prove in some way that the opponents are in fact wrong.
Now there is a classic parable in the Old Testament which may be relevant:. Nathan's parable in 2 Sam. 12 where, having got David to agree that the man in the parable he has just told deserved punishment, Nathan points out that David has in fact just condemned himself. It seems possible that our parable might have a similar function. So we could assume that it was addressed to people who were or had acted in a comparable way to the unforgiving debtor.It is reasonable to assume that the readers would not identify themselves in any way shape or form with the unforgiving servant unless they had this pointed out to them. Thus they probably believe that they are passing judgement on someone they would quite readily punish in this manner. When a parable is used in this way it is usually based upon a concrete historical background. Thus Nathan's parable referred to David and Bathsheba.
At this point, therefore, it is necessary to establish at least theoretically the identity of the opponents. All we know from the parable itself is that they agree that punishment is necessary. But there are further clues. The parable has as its reference the Kingdom of Heaven and if addressed to opponents this suggests they are seeking a kingdom in which unmerciful servants of the king get punished.
Now the kingdom of God was a central part of Jesus' teaching but it is possible that he was driven, at least in part, to teach about the kingdom in order to counteract other conflicting viewpoints circulating at the time. Without getting too involved in the details of precise identification we may assume that the desire for such a kingdom was the aim of at least some Pharisees, Zealots or the group which Josephus refers to as the fourth philosophy. In this context I think we must consider the kingdom to be the ideal or political kingdom ofIsrael. Josephus describes the fourth philosophy as having as its motto God's rule alone. If this is the case then the king in the parable will be identified by the opponents as God. The fourth philosophy also objected strongly to foreign rule and paying taxes. With the mention of debts etc. the readers would certainly have Roman rule in mind. It is possible that they would associate the unforgiving debtor with someone sent by Rome to rule Judea and who demanded taxes from the Jews. There may be someone specific in mind or it may have been understood as a general analogy.
J. Jeremias has furnished us with a wealth of background information to this parable, drawing attention not only to quasi political role of the 'servants' as officials but also to Jewish laws concerning debts. He suggests that "Jewish law only permitted the sale of an Israelite in the case of theft, if the thief could not restore what he had stolen; the sale of a wife was absolutely forbidden under Jewish jurisdiction; hence the king and his 'servants' are represented as Gentiles."(3) He may be right but W. O. E. Oesterley reminds us that according to another Jewish law a man and his family might be sold into slavery but that "the harshness of this law was mitigated by that of the year of Jubilee when the debtor was granted liberty again (Lev. xxv. 40,41)". (4)That this problem was an issue around the first century is demonstrated by the fact Josephus mentions how annoyed the Jews were about Herod's 'innovations' in expelling thieves from the country which Josephus argues was against the traditions which permitted debtors to be released after six years.(5)
To add further a further complication Oesterly also points out that however harsh it seems the 'unjust' servant was acting quite legally under Roman Law. He writes, "to clutch a debtor by the collar of his toga, and to drag him, with the sensation of being throttled, to prison (obtrecto collo aliquem rapere, Livius iv. 53) was legal custom. "(6) It is probably impossible to determine quite which laws were being used at the time given the various opinions on the matter but the 'details' of the parable do seem to suggest that political arguments over Jewish versus Roman Law were also in the background.
The situation in Israel was difficult; the Jewish people had their own laws but they were also under Roman rule and, in some areas, Roman law naturally took precedence. It is possible that the 'unforgiving' servant was in fact collecting Roman taxes under Roman law and could not under the circumstances be 'merciful'. We might even speculate that he was a 'convert' to Judaism and thus had recently been released from the 'debt' of being a 'Gentile sinner'. But some Jews would not appreciate this excuse for they believed that everyone who lived in the land which God had given to the Jews should live and abide by Jewish law without exception, and collecting taxes for foreign rulers was not compatible with this.
So given this as a background so far as the opponents were concerned this parable may well describe the kingdom of God. The enemies of God's rule (gentiles and tax collectors for Rome) who do not keep God's law will be themselves cast into prison to be tortured forever. The opponents are blinded by their own perspective. They have only one view of the kingdom and interpret the parable from their own viewpoint, but in doing so they condemn themselves.
In order to facilitate this condemnation the parable must obviously have an alternative interpretation - the Christian interpretation which opposes this anti Roman viewpoint and I suspect the clue to this interpretation is to be found in the enigmatic exchange between Peter and Jesus which precedes the parable.
Lord, how often shall 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 times seven."
A typical Rabbinic midrash would take a word or phrase from different parts of the Scriptures and attempt to find a connection to offer a new interpretation or insight. The numbers referred to in this saying offer a perfect opportunity for this type of exegesis. It seems possible that this parable may have been ultimately derived from some such midrash and that the saying is far more closely connected to the parable than is usually acknowledged.
Many have suggested that the numbers refer to Gen. 4.24, "If Cain is avenged sevenfold truly Lamech seventy seven fold." In so far as the Genesis verse illustrates measureless blood revenge this idea is attractive as Jesus' words imply a counter to this in equally measureless forgiveness. However, this does not in itself offer a solution to the parable so more is needed. We have already mentioned the sabbatical and Jubilee year in relation to debts and it is possible the numbers have some connection with these. The sabbatical year was apparently practised in the first century, at least with regard to agriculture, but there is no evidence that the Jubilee ever was. There is, however, some reason to believe it was or had become an eschatological symbol by this time. (7) The Jubilee, however, was 49 years and the figure mentioned in the saying was 490 and this figure plays a role in Daniel 9.24:
Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.[or one]
Given the general climate of messianic speculation at the time it would seem likely that this verse may have been understood to refer to the preparation for the expected kingdom of God.
If there is an allusion to Daniel then we are being transported back to the time of the Babylonian exile. The exile itself was widely interpreted to have been a punishment for sin. This sin may even be the huge debt of the parable which was owed and in reality could never be repaid. But if Daniel is in mind then the 490 years may in fact be understood as a period given in which tomake amends and depending on what dates were believed to be involved the time was now up or very imminent.
The 490 years of Daniel seem to begin with the issuing of the decree to return and rebuild Jerusalem The edict to rebuild Jerusalem was given by Cyrus. Cyrus wrote an edict in which he not only ordered the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 6.1-5) but also gave permission to the returning Jews to bring back the Temple vessels which the Babylonian king had taken and placed in the Babylonian Temple (Ezra 1.7). He even defrayed the costs of this from the royal treasury. Cyrus is highlighted by virtually all ancient sources as an ideal monarch (e.g., Herodotus and Cicero). He introduced a new philosophy in kingship by allowing subjugated peoples to preserve their customs and institutions. He restored worship in Babylon, Assyria and Jerusalem and was acclaimed by the various peoples as working directly under the influence of their specific gods. Isaiah extolled Cyrus as the chosen and anointed (messiah) of Yahweh (Is. 41.25, 45.1). So with Isaiah claiming that Cyrus was working on behalf of the Lord we may discern that Cyrus' edict may represent the king's forgiveness in the parable to absolve the debt owed.
When the exiles returned and the people of the land who had not been taken and neighbours offered to assist in the rebuilding but this offer was rebuffed. (Ezra 4.1-3). Thus the returnees, the leaders, showed no forgiveness and in fact if anything seemed more antagonistic to the various groups than before. Here then we may find the unjust servant. Ezra 4.6 contains an enigmatic reference to an accusation made against Jerusalem at the beginning of the reign of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) which might refer to the other servants who complained. But it is difficult to be precise in the allegorical connotations as the parable is complicated by its dual aspect.
Returning to the parable we may see the irony of it. The parable itself simply tells a story of a servant who having experienced grace himself does not extend it to his fellow servants. In terms of the kingdom of God it exposes those who claim to be working towards the kingdom as wrong in at least one part of their understanding. Part of the claim these Zealots were making was that 'no foreigner shall be king', which was without doubt grounded in Dt. 17.15, but it was by virtue of Cyrus, the foreign king anointed by God, that the exiles were 'forgiven' and returned to Judea. It is these returned exiles who seem to have developed the exclusiveness of the Jews even further. Those who agreed with the parable would have to accept that God does work through foreign kings not only to punish, which was widely accepted, but in forgiveness also.
So returning to the first century this argument, if correct, offers the possibility that Roman rule is not necessarily opposed to God's rule. The Romans, like Cyrus, permitted people to keep their customs and religion as long as it did not cause problems, which in the case of the Jews it unfortunately did. Thus Cyrus' example of kingship may be held as good policy appropriate to the kingdom of God. The king was no convert to Judaism but nevertheless reinstated various peoples in their homeland giving them the resources to re-establish their cult. Thus by analogy the foreign king who appreciates his subjects rights to religious freedom is probably considered to be part of the kingdom of God. Correspondingly the stewards of the foreign king must also treat their fellow men with equal respect even if of a different race or religion.
Given this interpretation of the parable it is possible that it was originally used by Jesus in dialogue with opponents debating the Kingdom of God. If Jesus used the parable in such a debate he may not only have tried to demonstrate that foreign rule was not necessarily opposed to God's 'kingdom' but also the vast difference between God's kingdom and a 'political' kingdom. The huge variation in the sums involved may have been intended to illustrate the unbreachable gulf between 'sin' and human 'debt or crime'. Speech about God or his 'kingdom' is metaphorical and while use of human terms may help to explain our understanding the analogies always necessarily fall short. Perhaps the vast difference in the sums was also intended to demonstrate the impossibility of paying back a 'debt' to God at all, especially with money or its equivalent. Humanity can only operate within the limits of what is possible and so just as God forgives sins so one can show mercy to one's fellow men when they cannot afford to pay. On the other hand one can and should pay back a debt to another person.
In this respect the parable is similar to the sentiment behind 'render unto Caesar' and among the political issues it raises is that of the conflict seen between Jewish law and Roman civil law. This issue would have been especially important while the Romans ruled for just as the Greeks are known for their 'culture' the Romans are known for their law and justice. The Romans were the lawgivers par excellence which would naturally bring them into conflict with Judaism which believed it had the only God given law. The difference between them was that the Romans attempted to overcome the problems of conflicting laws in nations they had conquered by the law of nations but the Jews would never compromise.
The problem had to be addressed and it appears that Jesus attempted to do so by attempting to point out the distinction between 'religious' and 'civil' life and law and thus between God's kingdom and a political one. The Jubilee law was intended to alleviate suffering and demonstrate how the Jewish people should show mercy as God had shown them mercy. Thus this was truly a religious law to encourage justice tempered with mercy. Religious laws were not intended to be used to claim exemption from repaying debts or taxes to Rome. Similarly the first commandment was not intended to furnish a reason for not paying taxes to a foreign king.
Matthew seems to have been aware of the original context and therefore gives a clue to its interpretation albeit a rather obscure one. It is possible, therefore, that he has adapted the parable to suit the situation after the destruction of the Temple in part as an explanation why this occurred.
Matthew's readers are painfully aware of the fact that the Romans have destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. With the destruction of the Temple came the end of the Temple cult which was primarily concerned with reparation to God for sins. It would have been easy for Christians, or anyone for that matter, to say that the Temple was destroyed because God was angry with the Jews and they were being punished for their sins. But it is quite remarkable that this sentiment is never expressed in early Christian writings. This surely is added proof of their conviction that God is merciful and forgives rather than punishes. Some Jews no doubt continued to believe that this was indeed the problem and that it was the sinners amongst them, possibly Christians, who had ultimately caused this terrible wrath to fall upon them. If Matthew has such people in view when he writes he is probably aware that they will only be convinced by using their own type of argument which is based on just deserts.
The problem of the destruction of Jerusalem also seems to be addressed in the parable of the wedding feast in Matt. 22 where most scholars are agreed that 22.7 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. In both cases the 'punishment' is seen to be a result of attitudes towards other people. In the first the lack of mercy of the servant is the problem and in the second the feeble excuses, which were tantamount to an insult, for not attending the wedding. Whether or not these should be classified as sins is debatable but either way the outcome is the same. The Romans destroyed Jerusalem because some, by no means all, Jews would not acknowledge Roman laws nor Rome as their ruler and thereby alienated the Jewish nation and people in the eyes of Rome. From Rome's point of view it was purely political. The theological angle is that they brought the destruction upon themselves by their attitude towards other humans. If this is divine punishment so be it.
Notes
1.C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (Nisbet,1935 rev. ed.,1958), 33. (Back)
2.E. Linnemann, Parables of Jesus: Introduction and Exposition, (SPCK, 1966),19.(Back)
3.J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (SCM, 3rd rev. ed., 1972), 211.(Back)
4.W.O.E Oesterley, The Gospel Parables in the Light of their Jewish Background, (SPCK, 1936), 95.(Back)
5.Josephus, Ant., 16.1. 1 - 5. But note Josephus' attitude when the Roman procurator Albinus did, for whatever reason, release all the prisoners. He says, "the prisons were indeed emptied, but the country was filled with robbers." Ant. 20.9.5 (215).If the 'tradition' was operated in the manner Josephus suggested earlier then surely this would have been a regular occurrence and this particular occasion would need no comment.(Back)
6.op. cit., 97, citing Bugge, Die Haupt-Parabeln Jesu, 248, (1903).(Back)
7. See for example, "Shared Intertextual Interpretations in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament", in M.E. Stone and E.G. Chazon, eds., Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 May, 1996 (Studies in the Texts of the Desert of Judah 28; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 35-57 in particular section D. on Isaiah 61 and Lev. 25 in 11Q13 and Luke 4.39. This article is also available at the Orion Center's internet site. (Back)
Feedback is very Welcome
If you would like to send me a message you can do so via form below. Using the form does not reveal your email address so if you want a reply please include your name and email address in the message.