Misreading the parable of the minas from the post-Christendom margins

There is a strong dissident view that the nobleman in Jesus’ parable, who gives ten minas to each of his servants to “do business with” before travelling to a far country to receive a kingdom, is an unjust rather than a just “lord” and that his “kingdom” is quite antithetical to the kingdom of God. Lloyd Pietersen makes use of it to illustrate how “readings from the margins completely subvert the natural Christendom reading which is still favoured by commentators”.1

What has especially recommended this line of interpretation is a story in Josephus’ Antiquities. The appointment of Archelaus as king in 4 BC was contested before Augustus by a delegation from Judea, accompanied by a large number of Jews who were living in Rome. The Jews were afraid that Archelaus would follow in the footsteps of his tyrannical father Herod. Justifiably so: before setting out for Rome to have his kingship confirmed by Caesar Archelaus had violently suppressed opposition from the Pharisees, killing three thousand in the temple. To avoid a repeat of Herod’s brutal reign, the Jews asked that:

they might be delivered from kingly and the like forms of government, and might be added to Syria, and be put under the authority of such presidents of theirs as should be sent to them (Jos. Ant. 17:314)

This has led some interpreters to suggest that in the parable Jesus depicts an unjust and oppressive kingdom, in which the “powerful of this world expect their servants to use wealth to gain more wealth for them”,2 and those who refuse to play the capitalist game, who won’t even put the money in the bank to earn interest, inevitably suffer. In other words, the parable is direct social comment. As Keesmaat and Walsh put it:

A crucifixion economics indeed. And this third slave is saying that he won’t play by the rules of this economic game. He names the ruler for the unscrupulous and violent man that he is, he refuses to invest his money in a way that is only concerned about generating more money and he suffers the consequences.3

Critiquing the political and economic injustices of Christendom is no doubt a good thing to do, but does this admittedly intriguing and disorienting reading of the parable really serve the cause?

The parable is connected loosely with the story of Zacchaeus (“As they heard these things…”), which is the story of the salvation of an unrighteous Jew who had defrauded many people, but more importantly with the imminent arrival of Jesus in Jerusalem:

he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately (Lk. 19:11)

The parable is not, in the first place, about economics but about kingship: it answers (in some manner) the question of whether the “kingdom of God was to appear immediately” (Lk. 19:11); the nobleman goes away to receive a kingdom; his suitability for the role is challenged by his citizens, who hated him; the faithful servants are rewarded with delegated authority over cities; the parable concludes with the slaughter of the king’s enemies; and the parable is followed by the account of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem as a Davidic king (Lk. 19:29-40).

In response to Keesmaat and Walsh, Wright argues that the economic reading makes the parable a metonymy rather than a metaphor. I’m not sure that’s quite correct: it makes it rather a literal, if somewhat ironic, comment on an unjust form of kingdom. But I think he is right to say that we do not normally expect the parables to function as moral tales. The parable of the sower is not about farming practice; the parable of the great banquet is not about “social behaviour”; the parable of the unjust steward is not about unjust stewardship; and so on. We expect the parables to point to something other than themselves, in the way of metaphor.

The first servant is told: “Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities” (Lk. 19:17). This recalls the point that Jesus makes to his disciples after he has told the parable of the dishonest manager:

One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much. If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money. (Lk. 16:10–13)

In light of this it seems very unlikely that the first servant in the parable is not held up as a good role model for discipleship. In fact, this paragraph may go some way towards explaining the parable: the first two servants are faithful even perhaps in respect to small material matters, therefore they will be rewarded with authority in the kingdom when eventually it is inaugurated (cf. Lk. 22:28-30).

The nobleman justifies taking the one mina from the third servant and giving it to the man with ten minas with the words “I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away” (19:26). Matthew has this saying in a different context, where it is the disciples who “have” and will receive more, and those who do not receive the word are the ones from whom even what they have will be taken away—if you can disentangle that (Matt. 13:12).

Finally, the destruction of the king’s enemies is echoed in the parable of the wicked tenants: the owner of the vineyard “will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others” (Lk. 20:16).

This leaves us still wondering why the king is presented in such a harsh light, and whether either Jesus or Luke intentionally drew on the parallel with the story of Archelaus. But I see no reason to overturn the more or less traditional view that Jesus is speaking of his own kingship.

How exactly the details are applied is another matter. Judgment on a nation that has rejected Jesus as king is clearly in view and must set the boundaries to the story. The business in which the servants engage is the business of their lord, who will be made king—presumably the continuing work of proclaiming the coming of the kingdom to Israel, casting out demons and healing the sick. When he “comes”, he will pass judgment on his enemies and give his faithful servants the authority to rule. But inevitably some will not be faithful with even with the little that is given to them.

  • 1. L. Pietersen, Reading the Bible After Christendom, loc. 701.
  • 2. L. Pietersen, Reading the Bible After Christendom, loc. 689.
  • 3. S.C. Keesmaat and B.J. Walsh, ‘ “Outside of a Small Circle of Friends” ’, in N. Perrin and R.B. Hays (Eds.), [amazon:978-0830838974:inline], 83, italics removed.
If you enjoyed reading this post, why not share it with associates, friends, and loved ones?
Submitted by Stephen on  Wed, 06/12/2013 - 16:35


A fascsinating conversation.

Regarding v 27: “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

I’ve heard Tom Wright discuss the nature of the “No King But God” (a phrase that I understand he equates to “The Kingdom of God”) movements that occurred both before and after Jesus’ life. One of the things that stands out to me is the stark contrast in the methods of the other movents when compared to Jesus’. It’s my understanding that the No King But God movements were essentially anti-tax riots which sought to forcibly remove the Romans via military uprising. Jesus teaches the beatitudes, which partly seem to be guidelines for surviving the coming wrath of the Romans (AD 70 and other times?). It’s like the message is something akin to, “If you want to ‘be saved’, become a servant to the Romans, don’t fight them. Pray for those (the Romans) who persecute you”, etc.

Given this understanding, does it seem that those slaughtered in the story could represent Israelites who rejected the leader, rather than serve, pray, etc. for him? Could the parable serve as a commentary on the nature of servanthood in Jesus’ Kingdom? Those in the Kingdom of Jesus serve their masters in the way they are commanded. They submit to their rulers and pray for them, because they have faith in a higher king, and membership in a very different kind of kingdom. It is these who are “saved”.

That seems a bit unlikely to me—if I’ve followed you correctly. The enemies are destroyed because they didn’t want the nobleman to reign over them, not because they didn’t want to serve. The wicked tenants are destroyed because they killed the son. The emphasis seems to be on their refusal to accept the status or authority of Jesus. Of course, if they had accepted Jesus’ right to reign over them, they would have had to learn a different kind of subjecthood, corresponding to his very different type of kingship.

It’s possible I didn’t create the most follow-able stream of thought.

If the nobleman represents a Roman-supported ruler, then it seems Jesus could be saying, “Yeah, sometimes you’ll be under oppressive rulers who want riches and will exploit you for those riches. Do their bidding and do it well (investing, etc.). Also, don’t reject their authority (as those who were slaughtered).”

I brought up the Beautitudes because thinking about them in this light seems to fit with what this interpretation of the parable of the minas. Serve and pray for those who persecute you (for the Israelites, the persecutors were the Romans who murdered them and oppressively taxed them) seems to fit philosophically with doing the bidding of the ruler (investing), and not rejecting Rome’s authority as those who would try to rebel by way of force.

The events of AD 70 occurred in response to a revolt, correct? Does it then follow that instruction to be meek peacemakers, and praying for the persecutors would be a way to find life, or “be saved” from destruction at the hands of the Romans?

It seems plausible that if Israel as a nation had adopted this posture of meek servanthood and peacemaking toward Rome, the destruction to come could have been avoided.

Had another thought regarding the parable being a response to the disciples thinking the kingdom was to appear immediately.

Following the interpretation I laid out above, Jesus could be saying, “Yeah, the kingdom is about to appear, but it doesn’t look like those who would refuse to do the bidding of rulers, or reject their authority. It’s a higher kingdom that exists in a different paradigm. The members of this kingdom serve their rulers in the name of God, even when the rulers are unjust, oppressive, etc.”

OK, I see what you’re getting at—Jesus would be saying something like what Paul says in Romans 13:1-7. I could see some point to that because I think that Paul is telling the Roman Christians not to provoke the authorities unnecessarily in the way that the Jews have so often done. I also agree that Jesus teaches non-violence specifically as a response to the eschatological crisis.

But there is still a problem with this particular story and its context. Why does Jesus tell a story about a nobleman who goes away to receive a kingdom to correct the expectation that the kingdom was to appear immediately? You seem to be arguing that kingdom in the parable is Roman rule, but Jesus tells the story as a response to a question about the kingdom of God. And where does the going away come into it?

Does it make sense to say that the disciples think the Kingdom of God (capitalized) is going to immediately appear, and Jesus responds by giving a contrast between a literal, governmental earthly kingdom (lowercased) and the Kingdom?

So the message might be something like, “The Kingdom is coming, but it’s not going to look like earthly kingdoms, in which oppressive noblemen go away to secure their rules and expect their subjects to provide them with more riches. The Kingdom of God has no walls or government. The members of this Kingdom live in all different nations, serving, loving, and being peacemakers with the citizens and leaders. If you try to operate in another way (ie., not investing, or rejecting authority by force), it will end badly for you.”

Perhaps the parable was a re-telling of actual events (as you pointed out in your Josephus quotation), but told with the intent to communicate this message of service and submission to leadership with the hope of “inheriting the Kingdom”.

The most obvious interpretation of the parable is that Jesus wanted those who rejected him, killed.  It fits one of the main themes of the synoptic gospels, and that is “put out for me 100% or expect grave treatment.”

Submitted by Liz Fronduti on  Wed, 07/27/2016 - 13:49

Thanks for a great article. I found your website after reading this parable and feeling deeply unsettled… looking for some additional information to help me interpret what is (like you said) a difficult presentation of the king and his kingdom. Although it’s tempting to explain away some of the hard teachings of Jesus at times, I want to be honest with the text and decipher what He was actually saying in the historical context. Thanks.

Submitted by Franco on  Thu, 02/14/2019 - 17:49

Other than Keesmaat and Walsh, are there other scholars who would point towards a counter-reading of this parable.  Especially since noting the Archelaus comparison in the text, I have a difficult time picturing Jesus purposefully drawing on that analogy to align himself with Archelaus’ methodology rather than critiquing it.  Is it plausible to think that Jesus is directing his dicisples to the idea… “If you head into Jerusalem in open rejection of the kingdoms of this world, you’re going to get slaughtered like every other would be Messiah.  That’s not how we’re going to do this.” ?   

Or maybe,  “That IS how we’re going to do this… we’re heading off to slaughter boys.”