While people were listening to Jesus speak,
he proceeded to tell a parable because he was near Jerusalem
and they thought that the Kingdom of God
would appear there immediately.
The people still did have a clear understanding of what it would mean for the Kingdom to appear. To them things appeared to be accelerating toward a climax, especially given that Jesus had said that "the Kingdom of God is in the midst of you" (see Luke 17:21). Jesus was indeed the true Son of David, the true heir and rightful King of this Kingdom. Would not Jerusalem, the royal city toward which they now drew near, be the place of his enthronement where the Kingdom of God would appear immediately in its final and perfect form?
A nobleman went off to a distant country
to obtain the kingship for himself and then to return.
Jesus was to receive a crown that no human was qualified to bestow. To receive it he had to pass through Jerusalem to the distant country, through death itself, before receiving his crown, revealed in his resurrection and ascension into heaven. The King and his Kingdom were indeed both present among the disciples, but not in their final and fully manifest form. The conquest that the King would bring about in Jerusalem was not immediately to be over occupying Roman military forces, but was rather to be a victory over sin and a conquest of death itself.
He called ten of his servants and gave them ten gold coins
and told them, ‘Engage in trade with these until I return.
But why, if Jesus was meant to be the King, did he not bring about the Kingdom all at once and completely? It was not because he himself had insufficient power to do so, but rather to give space for the special role he had for his servants.
He called ten of his servants and gave them ten gold coins
and told them, ‘Engage in trade with these until I return.’
Jesus himself did all that was necessary to establish the Kingdom. But he desired that those who were to share in it with him would first grow in maturity by responding to his gifts in a way that would mark them out as worthy to be not only citizens, but rulers in that Kingdom. Yet it was not a matter of these servants proving themselves by their own ingenuity our skill in trade. It was rather a matter of trusting that if they put the gifts they were given to work that they would bear fruit.
The first came forward and said,
‘Sir, your gold coin has earned ten additional ones.’
The positive return received by the first and the second seemed to imply that the more they trusted in the gifts of their master the more return they were able to receive. The third was less concerned about the gift and more concerned about consequences. His fear was probably a mixture of self-doubt and misapprehension of the character of the master. But it caused him to smother the potential of that gift which he might at least have invested, with little risk, and received return.
‘Sir, here is your gold coin;
I kept it stored away in a handkerchief,
for I was afraid of you, because you are a demanding man;
The third was misled by his perception of the master. The fact that he was a demanding man who took up what he did not lay down and harvested what he did not plant was the very fact that ensured that the ten gold coins would have brought return of themselves in spite of either the skill or lack thereof on the part of servant. If his fear was something a little more akin to awe he would have remained free to invest the master's wealth, not burdened by the false image of a master who was looking for an excuse to condemn. A servant such as this third one was not yet fit to be given cities to rule for he had not yet learned to be faithful in small things, nor could he so learn while paralyzed with fear. But although the ten coins were taken from him in this instance we may hope that he would yet receive future opportunities to be faithful, now having seen the principle of grace at work wherein the master was worthy of trust in the gifts he gave.
Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king,
bring them here and slay them before me.’”
It was a different story for those who would not accept the Kingship of the King. They too were given ample opportunity to welcome him. Jesus wept over Jerusalem for this very reason, and prayed for their forgiveness. Yet for those who persisted and hardness of heart there was no neutral alternative in which they could remain forever. It would finally have to be either heaven or hell and the King would not force anyone to join him in his heavenly Kingdom. Indeed the principle of the Kingdom was actually an elevation of human cooperation with grace, as we saw with the servants in the parable. Heaven could only truly be a paradise for those who had allowed grace to heal the deformity of their minds and wills that was the result of sin. The ones slain in this parable represented those who were finally only receiving in fullness that choice which was implicitly theirs all along, preferring death, and refusing to come to Jesus to be healed.
yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life (see John 5:40).
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! (see Matthew 23:37)
Our King longs for servants willing to participate in the reign of the Kingdom, which always a matter of service and self-forgetfulness. Let our fear not keep us from this high call we have received. It is by engaging it, first in small things, then larger ones, that we learn to trust it. As we do so our very being itself is reshaped, refashioning us as creatures of worship, creatures who will be at home in the heavenly liturgy.
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty,
who was, and who is, and who is to come.”
No comments:
Post a Comment