THE SERVANT ENTRUSTED WITH AUTHORITY (MATTHEW 24:45-51; LUKE 12:42-46)

There are actually five parables in the gospels involving a servant and a master's return.

This particular parable is found in both Matthew and Luke, but for convenience sake, we will follow the account in Luke. There are only minor differences the two versions: (1) The evil servant is assigned to the lot of the hypocrites in Matthew, but with the unbelievers in Luke. This difference is probably due to the different audiences for each Gospel. (2) Matthew adds, “There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” This expression appears six other times in the Gospels, always in the context of the Last Judgment. Weeping is due to everlasting hopelessness; gnashing denotes pain and anger.

Contexts

There is an ABA structure in which two longer parables involving slaves waiting for their master's return bracket a shorter parable of the thief breaking into a house. The first and last parables both contain “Amen, I say to you” followed by a blessing and reward.

The whole context of Chapter 12 involves teachings regarding Christ's Second Coming and the Last Judgment.

The previous verse has Peter asking to whom the parable is addressed, but Jesus doesn't answer except through this current parable. That “heightens the reader's engagement with the relevance and applicability of that material and what follows.” (Snodgrass)

Betz has pointed out the striking parallels between this parable and Psalm 37. There the righteous wait patiently for the LORD, give generously, and shall inherit the land while the wicked abuse others, shall perish, are cut off, and gnash their teeth.

The parable may also refer back to Genesis 39:4-5. The Greek phrase “all that he had” in v. 44 is found in the Septuagint only one other time: Genesis 39:5b. (Pao and Schnabel)

Audience

The liberal view is that this parable was fabricated by the Gospel writers to address the problem of Jesus' delayed return. But the story doesn't put the stress on the delay itself; it is just a detail needed to make the story work.

Albright and Mann speculate that this parable was originally addressed by Jesus to the Jewish leaders of the time warning them of the imminent coming of the Kingdom (with Jesus' death and resurrection). Then the Gospel writers re-applied it to the time of the church until the Second Coming. One of the main reasons they and others think this refers to Christ's first coming is that they appear not to accept the possibility that Christ knew he would be coming again.

They add that the original context may have been addressed to Jews of the time who were not prepared for Jesus' first coming, Jesus' death and resurrection. The signs have already been given so there only remains the timing. “It is Jesus' hearers who will be on trial, not Jesus. Those who have been set over the Lord's household are indeed in a perilous position.”

On the more conservative end of the theological spectrum, dispensational teachers also feel this parable is addressed to the Jews, but for different reasons. Dwight Pentacost: The servants are Jews who will be God's stewards during the Tribulation. J. A. Martin (Bible Knowledge Commentary): This is directed toward Jewish leaders at the time and those at the time of the Second Coming.

Hill feels that the parable was originally addressed to Jewish leaders of the time as well as to the Twelve Apostles.

The parable could apply specifically to Jewish or Christian leaders, but a more general audience is probably in mind. (Snodgrass)

The audience was specifically the Twelve Apostles but also church leaders and all Christians (almost all other commentators). This contains a warning to those in positions of authority in the church that the church is not theirs but belongs to God. (Ellison)

Verse-by verse

verse 42 The sense is “Who then is willing to be a faithful steward?” (Marshall)

A delay in return of the master is part of the story, but it is more about the preparedness once he does return, i.e., the time during the interval. “The focus on faithfulness reminds us again that Christian faith is not about believing certain ideas but about living out convictions over the long haul.” (Snodgrass)

The primary emphasis is on faithfulness and prudence, not on the reward. There is the minor theme of individual faithfulness in light of one's unexpected death. (Fitzmyer)

See 2 Timothy 4:1-5 for spiritual feeding of the flock.

“Will set” suggests position of responsibility in the church after Jesus' departure. (Marshall)

verse 43 “blessed” or “happy” This is a beatitude.

verse 44 is a paraphrase of v. 42.

verse 45 As an example, see the Corinthian church (I Corinthians 11:21). This shows that the parable could be applied to all Christians. Marsha lnotes regarding the phrase, “Now what a man says to himself is often even more important than what he says openly.”

verse 46 “Cut in two” is never used metaphorically. It is only found elsewhere in the Bible for a ritual vow while walking between pieces of animals, but Jeremiah 34:18 takes that as a model for human punishment. This is either an example of hyperbole or fits the historical cruelty shown by some masters toward their slaves.

Susanna and the Elders: “The angel of God is waiting with his sword to split you in two, and so destroy you both.”

“This is the form of execution in Hebrews 11:37 and Luke 19:27. However, the servant is still alive afterward; so 'cut into pieces' may mean “ to punish with the utmost severity.” (as in “I'll tan your hide.”) (Marshall) “Cut to pieces” may also mean cut off from the church (excommunication). (Hill)

verses 47-48 distinguish between unwitting sins and witting sins. (Marshall) There is a distinction between mere folly and outright rebellion.

verse 48 “Does not Christ's promise also imply the assignment of certain specific tasks in the life hereafter, each task a matter of pure delight and satisfaction and each in harmony with the individuality of the person for whom it is marked out?” (Hendricksen)