Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Monday, March 18, 2013 Read – Luke 19:11-27 Luke tells us one more parable before Jesus makes his way up the mountain and into Jerusalem. This is a parable he shares with Matthew – he found it in his “Q” source. Matthew tells the parable much later in his gospel, at the end of the controversy stories in Jerusalem just prior to the death of Jesus (Matthew 25:14-30). We know Matthew’s version of the parable better because it is much clearer. It is obvious that Luke has been “playing” with this parable and it may be that Luke has edited it to say the opposite of Matthew! If we listen to the way in which Luke tells the story we discover that Luke may not have been approving of the outcome of the parable. Luke has just told us a story about a rich man who is saved. Now, Luke tells us a story about “how the world works” when a rich man entrusts his wealth to others. The rich man in this story is hated by others – only Luke tells us that. Luke sets the context of the story in the near arrival of Jesus in Jerusalem and the expectation that the kingdom of God is soon to arrive too – something that Luke does not fully agree with – the coming of the kingdom of God is far more complicated than simply a victory won by Jesus. We’ll need to wait to talk about that later. For us to fully appreciate Luke’s version of this story we need to hear about an event in history that really caused most Jewish people to be angry. When Herod the Great died he had designated his son, Archelaus, to be his main successor. Josephus tells the story of Archelaus travelling to Rome to receive his kingship upon the death of his father. The people of were so angry with Herod the Great and so fearful that now his son would only continue his oppressive ways that they sent a delegation to Rome to argue before the Emperor that Archelaus should not become king. They succeeded to a point since Archelaus was only given rulership over Judea and his brothers were given rulership over other parts of the country – none was designated king! Antipas, the Herod we know most closely with the story of Jesus was given rulership over Galilee and Philipp was given the lands north of Galilee. There is every reason to believe that the people of Luke’s day remembered these events. And Luke has told this story to remind them of the failed attempt of Archelaus to gain power – only Luke mentions these things in his version of the parable. The “wicked” king comes home. He has entrusted his wealth to others one of whom has multiplied it ten-fold, another five-fold. Actually Luke tells us he had given wealth to ten servants – only three are mentioned in the outcome. The last servant knows just how wicked the king is so, out of fear, he simply kept the wealth and now he is ready to return it – at no loss to the wicked king, but no gain either. He is punished for his prudence and for his fear – and in the end of the story the king is said to put to death those who had opposed his receiving the kingship in the first place. Again, Josephus tells the story of Archelaus crucifying 600 people upon his return. What does all this say about Luke’s use of this parable? Could it be that Luke is not really praising the servants who turned the wealth of the rich king into more wealth? The king does the praising but he is a wicked king! In fact, could it be that Luke is really warning his audience one more time about the threat of wealth – and the awful reality that in this world wealth has power! Wealth can destroy and oppress others. Luke does not end this parable by saying, “Go and do likewise!” Jesus is on his way to face the powers of this world. Jerusalem lies just ahead. Luke has been warning about the threat of wealth and he has just told us a wonderful story of how Jesus can save even a rich man. Could it be that now he once again tells us of the opposite possibility – a rich king who has conniving servants who know “how the world works” and multiply a wicked king’s wealth at the expense of the poor? Could it be that that is why Luke placed this parable here in his gospel? Could it be that our understanding of Matthew’s version of this parable has conditioned us to read Luke’s parable in the wrong way? Something to think about.