Luke next developed the idea of faith on the earth that Jesus introduced in verse 8. This whole section clarifies how people become believers. This subject is a fitting conclusion to the part of Luke's Gospel that deals with Jesus' ministry on the way to Jerusalem (9:51-19:27). Essentially this section records Jesus' teaching that salvation and eventual entrance into the kingdom come by God's grace through faith rather than by claims to legal righteousness. The apostle Paul wrote about the process of justification, but Luke's concern was the recipients of it.406
The superficial connection between this pericope and the preceding one is that they both contain parables about prayer. However the more significant link is the people of faith (v. 8). This parable graphically contrasts the rejectors of Jesus' gospel with its receivers. Jesus drew a verbal picture to identify the characteristic traits of two representative groups of Jews.
18:9 This verse sets the stage for the parable that follows (cf. 18:1; 19:11). "And"signals the continuation of immediately preceding lessons and themes for the reader. Obviously Pharisees are the people that Jesus was criticizing in this parable (v. 10), but Luke introduced Jesus' teaching by highlighting the characteristic about the Pharisees that Jesus addressed. This is a characteristic that many more people than the Pharisees possess, including many of Luke's readers. The only alternative to believing in Jesus is trusting in one's own righteousness for acceptance with God. It always results in elevating oneself at the expense of others and looking down on others.
18:10 The Pharisees generally rejected Jesus and His gospel whereas the tax collectors responded positively (cf. 5:12, 27; 7:34, 37; 15:1-2; 16:20). They were at opposite ends of the social and spiritual scales in Judaism. The former were the epitome of righteousness and the latter of unrighteousness. The temple was the customary place of prayer. Since it stood on a hill in Jerusalem, people literally went up to it to pray.
18:11-12 Standing was a normal posture for prayer among the Jews of Jesus' day. It did not in itself reflect the Pharisee's pride (cf. Matt. 6:5). Even though the Pharisee addressed God in prayer, Jesus noted that he was really talking to himself and reviewing his own self-righteousness. He told God what a superior person he was, using the behavior of others as his standard. He took pride in his supposed superior status and the works that he did that separated him from others. The most pious Pharisees fasted twice a week (cf. 5:33).407This Pharisee was also scrupulous about tithing (cf. 11:42).
18:13 "But"introduces the striking contrast between the two individuals. The tax gatherer's geographical distance from the Pharisee symbolized the difference. His unwillingness to lift his eyes, much less his hands, to heaven in prayer pictures his feeling of unworthiness (cf. Ps. 123:1; Mark 6:41; 7:34; John 11:41; 17:1). Beating his chest expressed contrition, which he articulated in his prayer. He did not boast of his own righteousness but pled with God for mercy acknowledging his sin (cf. Ps. 51). He used God as the standard of righteousness and confessed that he fell short. He knew that his only hope was God's mercy.
"This parable is really the parable of the two prayers. In those prayers appear two kinds of hearts, whose contrast is not only seen in the way they make their request, but also in the way they approach God."408
Literally he asked God to be propitious (Gr. hilaskomai) or satisfied. Since Jesus made propitiation (satisfaction) for the sins of humankind on the Cross no one needs to pray this prayer today. However when the tax collector prayed it propitiation through Jesus Christ's blood was not yet available. It is, of course, permissible today to ask God to be merciful to us as sinners, but we need to remember that He has already done that through Jesus Christ. The good news of the gospel is that God is propitious (satisfied; cf. 1 John 2:2).
18:14 Jesus declared the tax collector justified (i.e., declared righteous, a judicial act, not made righteous; cf. Rom. 3:24-25). God declared him righteous because he looked to God for the gift of righteousness rather than claiming to be righteous on his own merit as the Pharisee did.409Jesus repeated the principle that God humbles those who exalt themselves, but He exalts those who humble themselves (cf. 13:30; 14:11). In the context Jesus meant that to be righteous in God's sight one must acknowledge his lack of personal righteousness rather than pretending to have righteousness that he does not have. Justification depends on God's grace, not on human works or merit.
Many modern Christians have heard this parable so often that we immediately associate Pharisees with self-righteous hypocrisy and tax collectors with humble piety. In Jesus' day the Jews viewed them differently. It was the Pharisees who were the models of righteous behavior and the tax collectors who epitomized sinfulness. Therefore this parable undoubtedly had a great impact on the disciples.
Luke included this incident of Jesus receiving children to illustrate the humility that is necessary for someone to receive salvation. The idea of humility is the connecting link with what precedes. Humility is necessary to receive God's grace.
Since 9:50 Luke departed from the general narrative that Matthew and Mark recorded and included much material that does not appear in those Gospels. Here at 18:15 he rejoined the story line of the other Synoptic writers. There is more duplication of incidents in the chapters that follow than we have seen recently.
18:15 The antecedent of "they"(NASB) is the "people"generally (NIV). People brought their infants (Gr. brephe) to Jesus so He would pray for God to bless them (cf. Matt. 19:13). Luke alone used brepheprobably to stress the dependent condition of these children. It was customary for the Jews to bring their small children to rabbis for blessings.410The disciples probably discouraged the parents from doing this because they thought Jesus had more important things to do.
18:16-17 Jesus, however, corrected the disciples and encouraged the parents to continue bringing their children to Him. Jesus had an interest in the children because they illustrated the humility necessary to enter the kingdom. Obviously infants are not humble in the same sense that adults show humility, but infants are humble in the sense of being totally dependent and unable to provide for themselves. They receive rather than provide, and in those qualities they are good examples of humility. Without this sense of being unable to provide for oneself and a willingness to receive from another no adult can enter the kingdom.
Jesus also had an interest in these children for their own sake. As we have seen, one of Luke's characteristic emphases in his Gospel was Jesus' interest in the needy, outcasts, and other types of dependent people (4:18; et al.).
This is another lesson on riches that Luke recorded (cf. 6:24; 8:14; 11:41; 12:13-34; 16), but the context here is instruction on wealth as it pertains to entering into salvation and the kingdom. Someone might conclude from the previous incident that salvation depends only on the proper human attitude. This teaching clarifies that while the correct attitude is crucial, salvation is the work of God for man, not man's work for himself. This is important revelation for unbelievers but also for disciples charged with bearing the gospel message to the ends of the earth.
"The religious leaders have repeatedly been presented as people who exalt themselves (11:43; 14:7-11; 16:15; 18:9-14) and as greedy rich people who neglect the poor (11:39-41: 14:12-14; 16:14, 19-31). However, Jesus has not given up all hope that some of these people will change. This is apparent in the scene in 18:18-27."411
Jesus' passion announcements to His disciples constitute important structural markers in Mark's Gospel. Luke and Matthew did not use them this way. The incident before us was the third passion announcement that Jesus gave beside other allusions to His death that He made (cf. 5:35; 12:50; 13:32; 17:25).
Luke presented this announcement as part of his travel motif that records Jesus moving from Galilee to Jerusalem (9:51-19:27). He played down the amazement and fear of the disciples that Mark stressed here. Instead he focused the reader's attention on the disciples' failure to understand what was going to happen in Jerusalem. There is a continuation of the theme of responding to Jesus' words that precedes. The rich young ruler failed to respond to the good news that Jesus proclaimed. Similarly the disciples, though believing the gospel, failed to respond to the bad news He told them. There is also a continuation of the theme of entering the kingdom. The disciples would enter because they believed in Jesus, but they would have to go through trials and tribulations, as Jesus would, before they did. The death of Jesus provided the basis for God's gracious dealings with believers through His Son (vv. 26-27).
18:31 Luke alone recorded that the things that would happen to Jesus in Jerusalem would be a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (cf. 12:50; 22:37; Acts 13:29). Luke apparently stressed the fact that Jesus' ministry fulfilled prophecy so his readers would have greater confidence in Him (cf. 2:25-38; 22:37).
The Hellenistic mind resisted the idea that a God-man could be truly human. The ancient Greek concept of the gods visiting humankind lay behind this difficulty. Consequently Luke presented much evidence for his Greek readers throughout his Gospel that Jesus was a real man. The Jews on the other hand had difficulty accepting the fact that Jesus was truly God. This accounts for Matthew's stress on Jesus' deity. Throughout church history there have been those who like the Greeks had trouble accepting Jesus' full humanity and others like the Jews who have resisted His full deity.
18:32-33 This was Jesus' first reference to the Gentiles' role in His trial and death. Luke's inclusion of this detail suggests that he did not want his Gentile readers to miss the guilt of Gentiles for Jesus' death. The passive construction pictures Jesus as the victim of Gentile wrath.
"Not one prophet ever said all this, but the prophets together did say all this. Hence, this is a summation."414
18:34 Luke alone repeated three times that the disciples failed to comprehend Jesus' words. He strongly suggested that their failure was due to God's withholding this understanding from them (cf. 24:16, 25-26). The illumination of believers is a necessary work of God's Spirit that is supernatural. The Twelve probably would not believe that such a fate would befall Jesus.
"The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Jesus' suffering and rejection involves the following interrelated defects: (1) a failure to understand God's plan as announced in Scripture, including God's way of working by using human opposition to fulfill the divine purpose; (2) a failure to accept rejection and suffering as a necessary part of discipleship; (3) a failure to reckon with the rejection of Jesus, resulting in premature, overly optimistic expectations for the immediate enjoyment of the messianic salvation; (4) rivalry over rank because of a failure to recognize that only those who devote their lives as servants can be great as Jesus is great."415
Luke's primary purpose for including this incident in his narrative seems to have been to show that God, through Jesus, can give insight to those who humbly call on Him for mercy. Here was another humble outcast similar to the tax collector (cf. v. 13) who experienced salvation because of his faith (v. 42). Jesus not only saved him but also opened his eyes physically and spiritually.
18:35 Luke wrote that Jesus met the blind man as He was approaching Jericho, but Matthew and Mark said that the incident occurred as Jesus was leaving that town (Matt. 20:29; Mark 10:46). There have been many explanations of this apparent contradiction. A summary of the most popular ones that reflect a high view of the biblical text follows.
One view is that there were three separate incidents. Matthew recorded two blind men and Mark said there was one and his name was Bartimaeus. However the similarities between the stories argue for a single incident with Mark and Luke concentrating on the more prominent of the two blind beggars. Another view is that Jesus performed two separate healings, one as He entered Jericho and another as He left. Again the similarities of the descriptions argue for one incident.416A third view is that there was just one incident but it took place in two stages. Jesus met the men as He entered Jericho but healed them as He departed. This is possible, but it seems unlikely in view of the Evangelists' accounts of the incident. A fourth and preferable explanation is that there was one incident that happened as Jesus was leaving old Jericho and entering new Jericho.417The problems with this view are essentially two. There is no evidence that people still inhabited the old town, and it is not certain that the name of the old town was still Jericho.
18:36-37 Luke alone mentioned that it was the noise of the multitude passing him by that led the blind man to ask what was happening. The writer may have done this simply to present a more vigorous scene, or the inclusion may reflect his characteristic interest in the multitudes, or both.
18:38-39 "Son of David"was a messianic title that expressed the man's faith in Jesus as Israel's Messiah (cf. 1:27, 32; 2 Sam. 7:8-16; Isa. 11:1, 10; Jer. 23:5-6; Ezek. 34:23-24). Like the tax collector (v. 13), he called out for mercy without claiming any merit. His insistence reflected his belief that Jesus could help him and his hope that Jesus would help him. Opposition only made him more adamant in his desire.
18:40-43 Jesus evidently asked His question to elicit the blind man's faith. He certainly knew what he wanted. The title "Lord"here obviously reflects more than simple respect. It expressed the man's faith. Jesus' words would have left no doubt that He was responsible for the miracle. He hastened to clarify that the man's faith was the instrumental cause of the healing. Luke stressed this again for his readers' benefit (cf. 7:50; 8:48; 17:19). Divine power was the efficient cause of the healing.
The responses to the instantaneous (1:64; et al.) healing were what they should have been. The man began following Jesus, and he glorified God (cf. v. 23). Likewise the observers' reaction was to praise God. Only Luke recorded the glorifying and praising of God that took place then (cf. 2:20; 5:25; et al.). This reflects his interest in the joyful outcome of salvation (cf. 5:26; 17:18; Acts. 2:47; 3:9).
Luke probably included this incident partially to contrast the faith of the blind man with the unbelief of the religious leaders. Again the humble received salvation while others who failed to realize their need for Jesus' grace did not. The incident would have been a lesson to the disciples as well as the multitudes.
This section in Luke's long narrative of Jesus' ministry as He travelled to Jerusalem (9:51-19:27) is climactic. It is a choice example of Jesus offering salvation to a needy person. Zaccheus accepted Jesus' offer and responded appropriately with joy and the fruits of repentance. He also gave an excellent example of how disciples should use what wealth they have. The section closes with a summary of Jesus' ministry that is really the key verse in this Gospel.
Zaccheus displayed traits of the tax collector in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (18:9-14). They shared the same despised occupation, the same sense of personal need, and the same childlike humility and receptivity toward God. He also resembles the rich young ruler (18:18-23). He, too, had wealth, but his response to Jesus was precisely the opposite of that other rich man. His salvation is a great example of the truth that with God all things are possible (18:25-27). Zaccheus, moreover, demonstrated the same faith in Jesus and consequent insight into his responsibility to follow Jesus and glorify God that the blind man did (18:35-43). His story brings together many themes that Luke interwove in this section in which he stressed the recipients of salvation (18:9-19:27).
"The incident contains several primary Lukan features: the universal appeal of the gospel (vv. 2-4); the ethical problem of wealth (v. 2); the call of a sinner' who was in social disfavor (v. 7); the sense of God's present work (vv. 5, 9); the feeling of urgency (immediately,' speusas, v. 5), of necessity (must,' v. 5), and of joy (v. 6); restitution, with goods distributed to the poor (v. 8); and, above all, salvation (vv. 9-10)."418
19:1 Probably the new Jericho that Herod the Great had built is in view (cf. 18:35). It stood immediately to the south of old Jericho. Jesus was passing through Jericho on his way to Jerusalem and the Cross.
19:2 Luke underlined Zaccheus' occupation and wealth, two things that Jesus had taught His disciple about earlier. Tax collectors represented social outcasts, but they typically responded positively to Jesus' ministry. Zaccheus was a chief tax collector (Gr. architelones), which probably made him the object of special hatred in Jericho. The wealth that he had accumulated through his occupation probably made his neighbors hate him even more. They probably ridiculed him for his name too. It is an abbreviated form of Zechariah, meaning "the righteous one."Tax collectors normally became wealthy by extorting more taxes from their fellow Jews than those that the Jews owed to Rome. Jericho would have been a main tax gathering site since many people who approached Jerusalem and Judea from the east passed through it. Rich people typically did not respond positively to Jesus' ministry. How will Zaccheus respond, as a typical tax collector or as a typical rich man?
19:3-4 Zaccheus' curiosity about Jesus was understandable since one of Jesus' disciples had been a tax collector (5:27-30). Moreover Jesus had a reputation for associating with people in his profession (5:29-30; 7:29, 34; 15:1). Luke's reference to his stature prepares the reader for his climbing a tree to see Jesus (v. 4). It is interesting that Zaccheus did something childlike, namely climbing a tree, since Jesus had formerly commended the tax collector in His parable for childlike faith (18:13). He had also taught the importance of childlike faith (cf. 18:16-17).
"The crowd as physical barrier and Zacchaeus' strange position up in a tree can serve as spatial symbols of his isolation from his community."419
19:5-6 Jesus initiated a relationship with Zaccheus. Since he called him by name He evidently knew about him, though Zaccheus had obviously not seen Jesus formerly. Jesus not only wanted to talk with him but to stay in his house. Jesus spoke as though He felt compelled to do this as is clear from the recurrence of one of Luke's favorite words, "must"(Gr. dei, cf. 4:43; et al.). "Today"further stresses urgency and the fulfillment of God's plan (cf. 2:11; 4:21; 19:9).420This attitude was typical of Jesus who sought out lost people. Zaccheus gladly and obediently responded to Jesus' offer.
". . . the coming of Jesus to share his home is a sign of fellowship and ultimately forgiveness."421
Verse 5 records an instance of divine sovereignty and verse 6 human responsibility.422
19:7 "They"(NASB) were the people in the crowd (v. 3). It was as though Jesus had become the guest of a Mafia godfather (cf. 5:29-30; 15:1-2). However table fellowship implied even more comradeship then than eating in someone else's home today does. Staying in a person's home amounted to sharing in his sins.423
19:8 Zaccheus' stood up to make his promises thus symbolizing their solemnity. He addressed Jesus as "Lord"implying respect and Jesus' deity (cf. v. 9). His statement was a response to Jesus' gracious initiative and the crowd's disapproving reaction. His plan to give half his wealth to the poor and to reimburse generously anyone whom he had cheated testified to the genuineness of his faith in Jesus (v. 9). The Mosaic Law only required adding 20% to the amount due when restitution was necessary (cf. Lev. 5:16; Num. 5:7). These were the signs of true repentance (cf. 3:8; 14:33; 18:22).
"Zacchaeus is an example of radical repentance, not of practical wisdom, and it is assumed that his response will leave him pretty much in the same financial state required of the rich ruler."424
Some commentators believed that the conditional clause "if I have defrauded anyone of anything"should better read "from whomsoever I have wrongfully exacted anything."This translation would indicate that Zaccheus had defrauded people.425However the NASB and NIV translators did not necessarily think that he had. Whichever is the correct translation, it seems clear that the main point is not the extent of Zaccheus' guilt but his attitude toward it.
19:9 Jesus' assessed Zaccheus' promises as an evidence of saving faith. Salvation had come to that house because Zaccheus had exercised saving faith and had thereby proved to be a genuine descendant of Abraham, the spiritual father of all believers.426His faith and works proved that he was a spiritual son of Abraham and not just one of his physical descendants (cf. Gen. 15:6; 22:1-19). Now he could enter the kingdom, not because he was a Jew physically but because he was a believer in Jesus.
"This ["He also is a son of Abraham"] will seem to be an irrelevant remark unless we recognize that the principal tension in the story is caused by the rejection of Zacchaeus by the Jewish community."427
19:10 Jesus summarized the present purpose of the Son of Man's ministry that found fulfillment in Zaccheus' salvation (cf. 1 Tim. 1:15). Jesus had sought out many, especially among the lost sheep of Israel. He had saved those who would accept His gracious offer of salvation. This verse is the key verse in the third Gospel because it expresses concisely the ministry of Jesus as Luke presented it (cf. 4:18-19; 15:5, 9, 24).
"This whole incident is the epitome of the messianic mission described in Luke 4."428
This parable serves in Luke's narrative as a conclusion to the section on salvation's recipients (18:9-19:27). It provides something of a denouement(i.e., a final unravelling of the plot) following the excellent example of Zaccheus' faith and the summary statement describing Jesus' ministry. In this teaching to the people who were observing his meal with the tax collector, Jesus taught several important lessons. He repeated His coming rejection and future return, and He clarified the time when the kingdom would appear. He also explained the duty of His disciples during His absence from the earth. Both the nation of Israel and the disciples had duties to Jesus. This parable summarizes Jesus' teaching on this subject.
The parable also prepared the people for the postponement of the kingdom. Most of the people who believed on Him expected it to arrive when Jesus reached Jerusalem. This teaching should have dispelled those hopes.
This parable is similar to the parable of the talents that Jesus gave later in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 25:14-30). However that one lacks the emphasis on the rejection of Jesus that was appropriate for the mixed audience that Jesus addressed in Zaccheus' house (v. 27).
19:11 The connection between Jesus being almost at Jerusalem and the kingdom appearing immediately implies that the believers in the crowd expected Jesus to begin the kingdom when He arrived there. Jesus had just told Zaccheus that salvation had come to his house that day (v. 9), but salvation would not come to Israel for some time. Even though the Son of Man had come to seek and to save the lost (v. 10), the national deliverance of Israel would have to wait. What follows is another of the many passages in Luke that records Jesus' teaching about the future.
"In 19:11 the disciples are pictured as expecting something that should have been and could have been apart from the rejection of Jesus. But because of this rejection, the messianic kingdom for Israel does not come immediately, as the disciples mistakenly hoped. We see that in Luke-Acts the problem of eschatological delay is intertwined with the problem of Jewish rejection."429
19:12 The nobleman represents Jesus. The distant country to which he went stands for heaven, and the place to which he would return is the earth. Jesus went to heaven to receive the kingdom from His Father. The correctness of these identifications becomes clearer as the parable unfolds.
A situation similar to the one Jesus described had happened not long before Jesus gave this parable, and He may have had it in mind. Herod Archelaus, one of Herod the Great's sons, had visited Rome after his father's death in 4 B.C. to receive Caesar's confirmation to reign over a section of Palestine bestowed on him in his father's will.430
Jesus was announcing a postponement of the kingdom (cf. Acts 1:6-7). Some time would elapse between His ascension and His return. This scenario suggests that the messianic kingdom will not begin until Jesus returns to the earth to rule.
19:13 Before departing the king entrusted ten of his servants (Gr. doulous) with equal responsibility for advancing his interests while he was absent. A mina was a Greek coin worth 100 drachmas or slightly more than three months wages.431In the parable it probably represents the life potential that each servant of Jesus has to invest for His glory. Ten is apparently a round number representing all His servants. Jesus did not mean just the Twelve. He pictured His servants in the role of modern investors who were responsible to increase the amount of money He had entrusted to each during His absence.
In the parable of the talents, each servant received a different sum representing the different gifts and talents that each has compared with the others. In this parable each servant received the same sum representing the one life that each has to invest for the Master.
19:14 The citizens of Herod Archelaus' territory opposed his reign, though his credentials were impeccable. They persuaded Caesar Augustus to give him only half of his father's kingdom and to award him the title ethnarch rather than king.432Similarly the Jews, and particularly their leaders, resisted Jesus' rightful claim to be their King.
19:15 Jesus was speaking of His second coming here. He will return having received authority to reign on earth from His Father (cf. Dan. 7:13-14). After His return and before He begins to reign, He will call His servants to give an accounting of their stewardship. Later New Testament revelation indicates that Christians, believers who have lived between Pentecost and the Rapture, will have to give their accounting at the judgment seat of Christ following the Rapture (1 Cor. 3:10-15; 2 Cor. 5:1-10). Other believers, mainly those who have lived in Old Testament times and the Tribulation, will give their accounting at the judgment in view here that precedes the Millennium. The basis of the judgment is not their saved or lost condition but the profitability of their lives for the Master's benefit.
19:16-17 The first servant reported a 1,000% return on the master's investment. This report earned the master's praise and a great reward. The servant had faithfully fulfilled his responsibility. The master considered what the servant had received in trust as a very little thing. His reward consisted of authority over ten cities in the future and was great compared to what the servant had received to invest. In view of the time of this judgment the reward would apply to the messianic kingdom that would follow and probably eternity after that. Authority to rule groups of other people under the King's authority during the Millennium and throughout eternity was the reward. Throughout history kings have rewarded faithful servants by giving them positions of significant responsibility over others in their kingdoms (cf. Dan. 6:3). Modern government leaders typically do the same thing. The Master's decision reflects the principle that he who is faithful in little will be faithful in much (16:10-12).
19:18-19 The second servant had also been faithful, but he had only earned a 500% return on the master's investment. He did not receive as much commendation as the first servant or as much reward, but his reward was also proportionate to his service. This shows that rewards will vary depending on a servant's effectiveness.
19:20-21 Another servant revealed that he had not earned anything with the master's deposit. Keeping money in a scarf (Gr. soudarion) was a common practice in Jesus' day, but it was unsafe and unproductive.433This person represents someone who does nothing of eternal value with his life. The servant explained that his fear of the master was responsible for his lack of fruit (cf. Matt. 25:25). It was appropriate for him to fear the master since He would eventually bring His servants to account, but the servant's action in view of his fear of the master was improper. He should have gotten busy and served the master since he feared him. His assessment of the master was correct, but it did not have the proper effect on him.
God seeks a disproportionately high return on His investments, so the servant's conservatism was sinful. He appears to have felt that he would receive no reward for his work for the master if he ever returned. He should have taken some risks. Faithful stewardship involves taking calculated risks.434
19:22-23 The master said he would judge the servant on the basis of his own words, namely that the master was an exacting man who demanded much from his servants (v. 21). Rather than commending him the master condemned this servant calling him worthless, that is, unproductive (cf. James 2:14, 16, 20, 26). He had produced nothing of value for the master. The master's character should have moved the servant to productive service rather than passive sloth. Even by depositing his investment in a bank the servant could have earned some interest for the master with little risk. Probably the bank in the parable represents a safe investment with comparatively little risk.
19:24 The bystanders in the parable represent those who assist Jesus in carrying out His will, perhaps angels or other human servants. The unfaithful servant lost even what the master had given him. If the mina each servant received represents his life potential, this servant would lose that. The master gave it instead to the most faithful servant. This seems to mean that God's faithful servants will receive additional opportunities to glorify Him in the next stage of their service as well as authority over others. The next stage of these servants' service will be millennial service in the kingdom. It will be that for Christians as well.
19:25-26 This arrangement appeared unjust to the bystanders. They probably thought the unfaithful servant's mina should have gone to a servant with a smaller reward. They were looking at what was best for the servants. However the master was operating on the principle that faithfulness with little indicates faithfulness in much. Therefore it was to His advantage to give the unfaithful servant's mina to the most faithful servant because he would make the best use of it. The master expressed this truth proverbially (v. 26; 13:12). He was looking at what was best for himself. Obviously what is best for God is more important than what is best for His servants. Still the master's action was also fair to his servants since the servant who glorified the master most received the greatest reward.
Zaccheus, who was listening to this parable, had just promised to give half of his possessions to the poor and to reimburse anyone he had defrauded four-fold (v. 8). Jesus' teaching here would have encouraged him to follow through on his commitment. He would have a great reward, much treasure in heaven, if he so served the Master faithfully.
19:27 The master now dealt with a different group of people. These were the enemies who opposed his rule over them (v. 14), not his servants. They suffered a fate that was typical for such rebels in the ancient world. They correspond to unbelievers in Jesus. They would not only lose a reward but their very lives. Physical death in the parable represents spiritual death in reality.435This judgment will come after Jesus returns and rewards believers at the Second Coming. He will then also slay His enemies (cf. John 5:32; Acts 17:31).
"In Acts 3:13-15 the people of Jerusalem are accused not only of killing Jesus but also of denying him. This repudiation is emphasized in the story of the throne claimant [vv. 14, 27], an addition to the parable of the pounds found only in Luke."436
The teaching of the parable is quite clear. Jesus was not going to begin His reign as Messiah immediately. He was going away and would return later to reign. During His absence His servants, believing disciples, need to invest what God has given them for His glory. He will reward them in proportion to what they have produced for Him. This parable teaches that everyone is accountable to God, and everyone will receive what they deserve from the King. It provided a warning for the unbelievers in Jesus' audience as well as believers in view of the postponement of the kingdom.
This parable clarifies that while salvation and entrance into the kingdom come by faith in Jesus, rewards for service rest on the believer's works. Both salvation and rewards come as a result of God's grace. Christians have consistently confused teaching about salvation and rewards. Salvation does not depend on working for God but resting in what Jesus Christ has done. Rewards do not depend on resting in what Jesus Christ has done but on working for God. It is a misunderstanding of Scriptural revelation to conclude that because God has saved us by His grace we need do nothing but lie back and wait for heaven. Such behavior constitutes irresponsible stewardship that Jesus Christ will punish by withholding a reward. In view of what lies ahead for us we need to be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord knowing that our labor is not in vain in the Lord (1 Cor. 15:58).
"We are all accountable to God for how we conduct our journey through his world. One day he will render judgment. This concept is not popular in some circles today, but it is a biblical concept."437
The parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30) teaches us that God gives everyone a different amount to invest for his glory. Some people have more intelligence or talent or money than others. The parable of the minas teaches that God gives all His servants the same opportunity to invest for His glory. Everyone has only one life. Both believers and unbelievers play a part in both parables. Both parables advocate belief in Jesus, faithfulness, and preparedness, and they both show that God will deal with all people justly, graciously, and generously.
Amillennial and postmillennial interpreters typically view this parable as prefiguring the fall of Jerusalem and its attending massacres.438Posttribulationists view it similarly to pretribulationists.
This parable ends the long part of Luke's Gospel that deals with Jesus' ministry as He travelled to Jerusalem from Galilee (9:51-19:27). Luke's narrative highlighted Jesus' lessons to the multitudes and the disciples in view of His impending passion. This parable also concludes the section dealing with the recipients of salvation stressing their responsibility (18:9-19:27).
