Unworthy Servants

In Luke 17:7-10, Jesus told a very short parable of a master and his servant. It was a story that everyone who sat around him could easily connect. That is why he introduced it as, 'Will any one of you ... say?' The listeners might have nodded in agreement.
The story is of a person who might have owned a small farm, some sheep and just one servant in charge of all these and his household. Jesus said that when this servant returns from work--may be it ploughing, or tending the sheep--the master will expect him to cook and serve him before he finds sometimes to eat and rest at night. No master will not allow him to take rest when he returns from work. Serving the master is topmost priority. The master will not thank him for the work he done. The servant doesn't expect him to thank him because he has done only what he is supposed to do.
Jesus concluded this short story with an command: 'So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.' (Luke 17:10 ESV).
Jesus was teaching about the relationship between his disciples and God. They should not expect anything from God in return to what they have done for God. They are only following orders and only doing their duties.
The most important lesson here is contrary to the dominant motive of our Christian culture. People follow Christ for favours--healing, prosperity, deliverance. However, the servant here is not expecting any favours from his master but he serves the master because he has received favours from him. Moreover, he is not expecting any more favours than the privilege of serving the master. Serving God for favours and serving God because of the favours are two different things.
The disciples of Christ considered their role as servants of God and Jesus Christ as the most covetable status in the world. There are many metaphors in the Bible that explains the relationship between God and believers--Children of God, friends of Jesus, etc. However, the apostles preferred to describe themselves as 'servants.'
Paul is the one who elaborated the doctrine of adoption that is behind the metaphor of 'children of God.' However, in his epistles he preferred himself to be called, 'servant of Jesus Christ.' John was the beloved disciple of Jesus whom he trusted most, even to entrust his mother's care. However, John preferred to be known as 'servant John.'
The most important observation in this regard is the case of James and Jude. They are considered to be the sons of Jesus' mother Mary. Thus his brothers in his earthly family (Matthew 13:55). However, though they were his brothers and might have spent their childhood and most of their adulthood together they never claimed that status. James would call himself, 'a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ' (James 1:1). Jude would identify him as the brother of James but not of Jesus! He would call him, 'a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James' (Jude 1:1).
Being the servant of God was such a great privilege. The psalmists longed that they would love to dwell in the presence of God even in the capacity of a humble doorkeeper (Ps 84:10).
Jesus' portrayal of the servant is remarkable. No doubt he is the master storyteller. Not a word is found in the mouth of the servant in the story, though some indirect speech is attributed to the master. We get the picture of a silent, uncomplaining, dutiful servant.
The word translated as 'unworthy' or 'unprofitable' has various shades of meaning. It could carry the sense of a person who sold himself into slavery to pay of a financial debt. He owes the master a lot, no claims. There is no better picture than this to represent all of us who are redeemed by Jesus and set free. We are set free to serve God.
The master image suggests that our service to God is a submission to his sovereignty over our lives. Expecting nothing but the opportunity to serve him.

The Eccentric Employer

The behaviour of the main character in the parable we find in Matthew 20:1–16 is certainly eccentric to a large extent. Though this parable is known popularly as the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, I came accross at least one commentator who suggested that this is the Parable of the Eccentric Employer! I think he is right.
On a surface level reading of the parable we find eccentric behaviour of the master of the vineyard. Normally owners of the vineyard will have an estimate of the work-force that they require and employ people accordingly. Why did this man employ everyone whom he could find. Normal daily work hours are from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm. He had employed some people at 6:00 am but still visits the labour market to employ more people every three hours for more times. To add to the argument of eccentricity he employs another batch of workers when there is only one more hour for the bell to go. Not only that, this people employed in the last hour are those left behind. No one employed them--may be they were physically weak, had no skills for the work, or otherwise unemployable. Why did he employ such 'refuse' of the job market?
That is how it is with God. He may appear a bit 'eccentric' to us, who claim to be 'normal.' If God went by the norms and the rules none of us will be found in the Kingdom of God. It is his sheer mercy in going out of the way to find us that we are no the children of God.
There was surprise when the wages were given. First comes those unemployable people who came last to work. Though they came last--may not have done any work at all because by the time they reached the vineyard the bell must have gone--they were the first in the line at the payment counter. When they were given one days full wage (One Denarius) rest were excited. If this master gives away one Denarius for one hour then they will be paid according to the hours they put in. So, the first batch who had worked 12 hours in the scorching sun expected to get 12 Denarius. So, the other batches too. However, all of them were disappointed as they got only one Denarius the wage they had agreed upon. This master is unjust, they rightly concluded. He pays one days full wage to those who worked only an hour. However, the master's argument was valid too. He said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?' (Matthew 20:13-15 ESV).
So, that was the secret motive of the Master. He was not concerned about how much work is done and who does it--skilled, muscular people or useless, sloggy guys. It was his 'generosity' that makes him appear to be 'eccentric.'
That is true! Grace doesn't depend on any merit of those who receive it. It is freely given, generously, lavished on those who doesn't deserve it.
A final observation. After concluding the parable Jesus turned to his disciples and said: 'So the last will be first, and the first last' (Matthew 20:16 ESV). This is the second time that he said this the same day. Earlier in the day the young rich man came to him seeking how to enter eternal life. However, he turned back when he was told that he has to sell all that he has and give to the poor. Then in reply to Peter's question Jesus assured his disciples that those who left their property, famiy and friends for the sake of the Kingdom of God will not be losers but will be gainers. They will receive 'a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life' (Matthew 19:29 ESV). He was saying that those who like to keep their wealth will lose eternal life. However, who would risk what they have in this world for the Kingdom of God/Eternal life will not be losers in any sense of the word. He concluded that conversation also in a sentence identical to the one we find in 20:16 in 19:30. "But many who are first will be last, and the last first."
Was Jesus suggesting that those who entered the rule of God earlier than others has some kind of disadvantage? Or was he suggesting that those who came last to his grace has some undue advantage? A new truth emerges when we compare these two passages. The story of the rich youngman and the parable here. On many counts this man is first--his wealth, his spiritual hunger and his status in the society. However, this world which has accorded him the 'first' position will be superceded by another world to come--the Kingdom of God in its fullness or eternal life. In that world/age he will be last. At the same time, those who are last because they suffered loss for the sake of the world to come will be the foremost in the age to come. Jesus spelt that out clearly in Matthew 19:28. 'Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." There is a certain reversal of the order that is going to happen.
Grace may look a bit 'eccentric' because it doesn't follow our rules. That is why grae is grace, otherwise it would be somthing that we can claim or grab from God.

Re-reading the Good Samaritan

The parable of the “Good Samaritan” is a story that is found only in Luke. It is set within a conversation between Jesus and a scholar in Jewish law. That is why the ESV calls that character a “lawyer.” The lawyer’s question “what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 10:25 ESV). In Judaism attaining “eternal life” is the utmost goal of spiritual life. This question need not be taken as one of the deep spiritual quests because Luke tells us that he was simply trying to “test” Jesus.
However, Jesus did not answer the question directly but shot a question at him so that he had to answer it. The answer is simple, in order to inherit eternal life one has to practice the supreme command to love God and love ones’ neighbour. By the time of Jesus, the Rabbis had agreed that the summary of the Law is the conflation of two commands, one found in Deuteronomy 6:5 and the other one found in Leviticus 19:18. The first one has to do with loving God. The second one has to love one’s neighbour.
That is what the Lawyer recited to Jesus.
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbour as yourself. (Luke 10:27, ESV)
Jesus had affirmed this already in his conversation with another Jewish scholar according to the Gospel of Mark (Mark 12:30). It may look as if the scholar and Jesus have reached a point of agreement but the scholar still insisted knowing who is the neighbour. He was demanding a clear definition of the word “neighbour.” So, he asked Jesus to define who the neighbour is (10:29). There were different interpretations of who the “neighbour” in this command is. However, ancient and modern Rabbis are almost unanimous that the “neighbour” in this command is a fellow Jew.
Jesus told the lawyer the story that we now know as the parable of the Good Samaritan. The story is centred around a man whose identity is not known. All that we are told is that this man took the dangerous road running through the steep wilderness from Jerusalem to Jericho. He was attacked, robbed and wounded and left half-dead by the roadside. A priest and a Levite who came by ignored him. However, a Samaritan whom the Jews consider as an outcast and heretic stopped, gave him the first aid, took him to an inn. He paid an advance to keep this man in the inn and promised to pay the expense in full on his return.
Then Jesus asked the lawyer a question? “Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbour to the man who fell among the robbers?” (Luke 10:36, ESV)
It is important to notice that Jesus did not answer the lawyer’s question, “who is my neighbour?” By asking him this question after telling the story, Jesus was suggesting that he has to answer a different question. That question is not “who is my neighbour” but “am I a neighbour?” It was a subversive question which demanded a new radical approach to the issue at hand.
Through this parable, Jesus was rewriting the Jewish law and its interpretation in one stroke. Jewish scholars interpreted the “neighbour” differently. But there was a consensus in their approach that the definition of the “neighbour” is crucial to its interpretation. However, Jesus questioned the methodology. It is not the definition of the neighbour that matters but being a neighbour when the situation demands!
Jesus thus demands us to re-imagine ourselves in a world full of need, pain, and injustice. That is the world of the man injured in the attack of robbers. If we limit ourselves to loving our neighbours, we will not be able to reach out to him. In other words, we will not ever enter into the world of those who are oppressed, exploited or otherwise disadvantaged. But being a neighbour opens unending opportunities and challenges in a world of pain for us to serve God’s people. That is what Jesus meant by the story of the Good Samaritan.