Palm Sunday - the rest of the story
Palm Sunday - the rest of the story
returns.
Despite their similarities, this parable is not the same as the parable of the talents that Matthew records (Matt. 25:14–30). Darrell L. Bock outlines
1. The settings are different: Luke has the parable in Jericho, while Matthew has it in Jerusalem.
2. The audiences differ: Luke has the remarks in front of a crowd, while Matthew has it only with disciples.
3. Luke has a number of unique details, including an additional remark in the setting that notes the delay of consummation and a note about the citizens and emissary sent to protest the king’s selection.
4. Matthew has a businessman, while Luke has a king.
5. Matthew has three slaves, Luke ten.
6. Matthew gives the servants property and talents (five, two, and one respectively), while Luke gives each servant one mina.
7. The difference in value between a talent and a mina yields a large sum in Matthew and a small sum in Luke.
8. The rewards in Matthew are the same for each servant, while in Luke they are different. (Luke 9:51–24:53, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996], 1527)
The parable describes three distinct groups: the foes, the faithful servants, and the false servants.
After his death in 4 B.C., Herod’s kingdom was divided among his three sons, and Archelaus was made ruler over Judea. Seeking to intimidate his subjects, he slaughtered three thousand Jews. Not surprisingly, the people hated him, and when he went to Rome to have his rule officially confirmed, they sent a delegation to appeal to Caesar not to make him their ruler. By way of compromise, Augustus granted Archelaus the right to rule, but not to use the title of king until he had gained the favor of the people—which, of course, he never did. Soon, Archelaus’s harsh rule created chaos, and the Romans removed him from power. They replaced him with a series of governors, of which Pilate was the fifth. That incident, with which all Jesus’ hearers were familiar, provided an historical experience to pave the way for this story.
In the allegory of the parable, v. 27 is an allusion to the final judgment, and it corresponds with Jesus’ teaching elsewhere on the subject, especially his oft-repeated reference to the final judgment as the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” of the wicked. It may be, as many commentators suspect, that Luke recalls the words of v. 27 in light of the bloody destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, an event alluded to shortly in 19:43–44. If so, the desolation of Jerusalem, which was “not willing” to receive its Messiah (13:34–35), prefigures the final judgment of the wicked (Mark 13:14–20).
In the allegory of the parable, v. 27 is an allusion to the final judgment, and it corresponds with Jesus’ teaching elsewhere on the subject, especially his oft-repeated reference to the final judgment as the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” of the wicked. It may be, as many commentators suspect, that Luke recalls the words of v. 27 in light of the bloody destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, an event alluded to shortly in 19:43–44. If so, the desolation of Jerusalem, which was “not willing” to receive its Messiah (13:34–35), prefigures the final judgment of the wicked (Mark 13:14–20).