This Sunday’s lectionary reading from Luke offers some serious challenges to our understanding and practice.
The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!” He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.
“Suppose one of you has a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Will he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, ‘Come along now and sit down to eat’? Won’t he rather say, ‘Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink’? Will he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’” (Luke 17.5–10)
The passage contains some basic textual challenges, in that the subject appears to switch suddenly from the question of ‘faith’ to being servants. The parable about servants itself has a sudden switch, in that Jesus begins the story by putting his listeners in the place of the master, but then concludes by putting them in the place of the servant.
But there are wider theological issues too. Only two chapters earlier, we have been told that those who are lost are love and sought after, as a shepherd seeks a sheep, as a woman seeks out her lot coin, and as a father looks and longs for his lost son to return. How, then, are we merely ‘unworthy servants’. Are we not the ones whom Jesus ‘has loved to the end’, for whom Jesus wraps a towel around his waist and stops and is servant to us, as he washes our feet? And how might this read to those who have struggled with self-esteem, for whom God’s affirmation of their value has been the most powerful healing? Should we tell them that, in reality, they are ‘unworthy’?
Part of the answer to this comes from noticing its context in Luke. The journey motif, present since Luke 9.51, has dropped out of view for the last few chapters, and instead there has been a focus on who is in the kingdom. In fact, the journey motif will be revisited in the next verse where, in Luke 17.11, we have a reference to Jesus journeying ‘along the border between Galilee and Samaria’ which (if taken in order) means he hasn’t travelled very far in 9 chapters! So we need to read all this material as reflection on discipleship, and it turns out that the cluster of sayings grouped together here are directed ‘to his disciples’ in Luke 17.1 and then even more specifically to the ‘apostles’ (Luke 17.5), who haven’t been mentioned since returning from their ‘missionary journey’ in Luke 9.10.
So this teaching is directed to those already committed, those on the inside. And it is directed to them in the context of warnings not to be like the Pharisees ‘who loved money’ and status according to Luke (Luke 16.14). In this context, Jesus has just urged his close followers ‘Don’t become a stumbling block’ and ‘Don’t hold on to bitterness and resentment’ but forgive your brother or sister who sins against you and asks for forgiveness. The first is pertinent just now, as I read news that a local clergyman, someone whom I taught in college, has been convicted of defrauding a old woman and conning her into including him in her will before she died, after which he conducted her funeral. The latter is illustrated by the stunning grace shown in a US court room as a man embraces the woman convicted of murdering his brother.
BREAKING: In stunning moment, Botham Jean's brother embraces Amber Guyger after her sentencing for his brother's murder.
"I don't even want you to go to jail. I want the best for you, because I know that's exactly what Botham would want." https://t.co/sWaPUtS0kj pic.twitter.com/xPAIKQLh6z
— ABC News (@ABC) October 2, 2019
No wonder that the Twelve plead with Jesus ‘Increase our faith!’ (or perhaps ‘Give us this kind of faith!’) If not, how can we live to these exacting standards?
Jesus surprising rebuke offers an insight into the issue linking these apparently disparate themes. It is not about you. When you focus on your own needs and agenda, that is when you become a stumbling block. When you focus on your rights and concerns, that is when it is hard to forgive. When you think that ‘faith’ is all about the strength of your inner convictions, that is when you get into trouble. The best analogy I have heard is like a tow rope used by one car to pull another car up a hill. If the second car won’t move, then it is no good attaching a stronger rope; what matters is the vehicle the rope is attached to! In a similar way, it is not the strength of our faith that is the issue; the question is, who is our faith placed in?
It is not clear exactly how common slavery was in first-century Israel. The Talmud does have regulations about the keeping of slaves, but there is a clear concern that Jewish practice should be seen as distinct from wider Roman practice, in part because of Jewish memory of being freed from slavery in the Exodus, and in part because of the humanising regulations in the Torah. (Josephus appears that Jews were obliged to release all slaves after seven years, in line with the teaching in the Torah). Slaves are mentioned quite frequently in the NT, and slavery is assumed as a social phenomenon, but the lack of reference to the slaves of Jews in the gospels is striking. (The man going on a journey has slaves (douloi) in Matt 25.14, but the father of the prodigal has ‘hired hands’ (misthoi) in Luke 15.17.) This story would be much more powerful in the context of Luke’s readers, who it seems are largely gentiles outside of Israel—and it is striking that this is found in Luke alone.
The story envisions a master who has one servant, and that servant is both pastoral and domestic, working in the field as well as the home. Perhaps, though, we should not press the model here too far: Jesus’ points is that (as Luke’s readers know well) being a slave is hard and often thankless work, and the slave does not have rights or privileges.
The story disabuses the disciples of any claims to entitlement based on service (Mikeal Parsons, Paideia, p 253).
The analogy is not surprising, given that Luke frequently uses the slave/master relationship as a teaching point in his account of Jesus’ ministry. And, characteristically, Luke calls Jesus the apostles’ ‘Lord’ in introducing this section (Luke 17.5)
Luke’s audience might also, in the parable, have heard fairly loud echoes of the duties of leaders within the early Christian communities. Ploughing (in 1 Cor 9.10), tending the flock (in 1 Cor 9.7) and serving at the meal table (in 1 Cor 11; compare the debate in Acts 6) were all metaphors for aspects of Christian leadership (Parsons, p 254). This connects Luke’s theology with that of Paul, who consistently describes himself as ‘slave’ of Christ, and defines disciples as those who confess that ‘Jesus is Lord’ (Romans 10.9, 1 Cor 12.3).
But what kind of ‘Lord’ are we ‘slaves’ to? For Paul, he is the ‘Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me’ (Gal 2.20). He is the one who has ‘poured the love of God into our hearts by the Holy Spirit’ (Rom 5.5). He is the one who cried ‘Abba, Father’ to God, and having justified us freely (so that there is no condemnation), gives us his Spirit so that we too might cry out ‘Abba, Father’ as he did (Rom 8.15). He is the one who, on the cross, dealt with our sin and in his resurrection gave us new life, so that in baptism we died to sin and live to him (Rom 6.4). This is no ruthless master!
And it seems that for Paul, knowing the love and kindness of his master is precisely the thing which sets him free to submit to him as ‘slave’. So it must be for us.
Neither Christian discipleship nor Christian ministry are a means to privilege and power. They cannot be a means to prosperity, nor can they justify creating a culture of deference, in which leaders parade around in fine clothes and expect others to bow to them.
If that happens, then we have succumbed to the temptations of the Pharisees, and we are in danger of exploiting our position by taking advantage of others. Worse than that, we have received our reward now and are in danger of forfeiting our reward from God (Matt 6.2, 6.5). And perhaps these things are a sign that we have forgotten the love and grace of God.
It turns out that the call to be humble servants offers just the liberation that we need.
If you enjoyed this article, do share it on social media, possibly using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, would you consider donating £1.20 a month to support the production of this blog?
6 thoughts on “Does Jesus treat us as good-for-nothing slaves?”
Could you clarify your understanding of ‘having justified us freely (so that there is no condemnation)’ and ‘are in danger of forfeiting our reward from God’ and how these two are linked.
Hi Peter. I am just citing here different NT passages!
There does seem to be a tension here between assurance and jeopardy here, but it is one present throughout the New Testament. I explore it here through Andrew Wilson’s book.
Thanks Ian for the link, but Im not at all convinced by Wilson’s understanding, given your summary.
I just dont understand how one can argue that salvation is effectively based both on grace and works. It seems to me NT teaching is clear that salvation is a gift from God, from His grace (unmerited goodness towards us), and achieved not by us but my Christ’s work at the cross, NOT our works in any way. If our sins are truly forgiven because of Jesus’ death and resurrection, then how can we affect that if we have already received that forgiveness? if we already have Christ’s righteousness instead of our own, how could God ever condemn us and remove our salvation? If Paul is really casting serious doubt on some Christians’ salvation, how could he possibly say such things as’And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified’? He even puts glorification in the past tense, such is his assurance of salvation. I know the likes of NT Wright have some odd understanding of justification, but from looking at both sides of the argument, I think he is wrong. And how can the Holy Spirit be a genuine ‘guarantee’ if in the last analysis that guarantee can be broken (by God) and we are condemned?
Given this any talk of loss of ‘rewards’ cannot refer to loss of salvation but something else. Perhaps it will be a loss of responsibility in the renewed earth – heaven is NOT our final destination. Who knows, but it cannot refer to salvation or final condemnation. That just doesnt make sense.
PS sorry Ive gone off topic
“Suppose one of you has a [slave] plowing or looking after the sheep.”
With the audience of the apostles, there must be a certain irony in this. I’m not sure many of them would understand the situation from the personal experience of having charge over a slave. “Oh yes, I would not give my slave thanks for doing what they have been told to do.”
Might this link to Luke 22:24-30 and Mark 10:41-45. Perhaps the apostles were thinking that they would like to be great, therefore have slaves at their bidding. Jesus puts them in their place.
Also, in the parable of the ‘talents’ (Luke 19), we have an indication that the king does thank and reward service.
PC1 raises a vital issue which was and is one of the disagreements at the heart of the Reformation. I believe that Anglican doctrine expressed in Articles 9-18 truly summarises what the Bible says. I wonder if Ian would consider starting a thread to discuss in depth those Articles and their Biblical justification?
Also, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 has something to say about rewards and loss: ‘but he will be saved, yet so as through fire’. I believe those verses apply to all Christians not just to teachers and leaders. In 50 years listening to evangelical sermons I don’t recall that point ever being made.