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.

Managing Conflicts

Last week I read a newspaper report about a man who managed a conflict in his village. The high caste people drove his wife away when she went to draw water from the village well. So this man was determined that he wanted to make sure that this humiliation doesn't happen again. His wife should not be at the mercy of others just because she is from a lower caste. So, he went to the nearby town and bought all the equipment (pick-axe, shovel, etc) for digging a well. The following day on for 41 days he started digging in his  backyard. He had to work as a daily wage labourer to earn his living. So, he put in two hours before going to work and two hours after the work digging his well. Finally on the 41st day, to the amazement of his neighbours who laughed at his project and even his wife he struck water. He has his own well! That is how this guy avoided a conflict and kept his dignity. 

Conflicts happen every day. It may be over houses, water taps, etc. What is important is how we manage the conflicts. An incident from the life of the Bible character Abraham illustrates various important aspects of managing conflicts. In the olden days, shepherds in the dry and arid lands of the Middle East had to depend on rain water stored in small underground tanks or wells with springs. Water was precious. Now as the sheep of Abraham and his nephew Lot grew in numbers, a conflict arose over the rights of wells and pasture lands. Lot's shepherds started fights with the workers of Abraham.
No fight is ever good. So, Abraham called his nephew Lot and put forth a suggestion that they should not stay together, it is time to part. However, the only question was how do they divide the land before them. There is another conflict in the offing, they can argue about it or fight over it. But Abraham left the choice to Lot. He was allowed to make his choice and Abraham decided to move to the place that Lot didn't want to. Evidently, Lot chose the best pasture lands with their abundant supply of water and greenery. Abraham moved away to lands that were not so attractive.

The story goes on to tell us that the place that Lot chose was destroyed by fire and Lot had to leave all his possessions behind. He had to run to the safety of the mountains with his unmarried daughters. He also lost his wife in the run to safety. However, Abraham continued to prosper.

Abraham made that rather disadvantageous choice because he put peace before prosperity. He was willing to be a loser for the sake of peace. He could do that because he believed that he is in the hands of an almighty God. Abraham had moved out of Haran (in the present-day Turkey) to wander about through what is now Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Palestine and Egypt as God led him. No arid place will be arid if God is with him.

He may appear to be a loser, but he was not. Rest of Abraham's journey was not merely looking for pasture for his sheep. He made every step in faith claiming the land for his descendants to come. These descendants are the present Israeli's and Arabs. They came to possess the land as Abraham moved on with a promise of God. We read about it in Genesis 13:17. It happened after Abraham chose to be a loser for the sake of peace and his faith in God. God appeared to him to tell him: ‘Arise, walk through the length and the breadth of the land, for I will give it to you’ (Gen 13:17 ESV). Lot made the 'wise' choice of greener pastures but it lasted only for a few years before they all went up in smoke. But Abraham decided to wander about through not so green land but God compensated for the apparent losses he suffered for the sake of peace. The story of Abraham once again assures us that those who stand for peace are not ultimately losers since God is on their side. That is why the Bible says, 'blessed are the peace-makers.'

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.

My bifocals

I wear bifocals. They are inconvenient in many ways. Being not very patient, I used to run up and down the stairs but I now I don’t. The stairs don’t appear to be the same as they are seen through the bifocals. Experience has taught me to slow down when I approach a step. I learnt that I should not judge reality with my own subjective vision.
Whether it is bifocals or  not, it is important that the glasses are clean. Sometimes, I am so lazy I don’t care to clean my glasses for days at a stretch. Then I wash or wipe it only when the sight is so hazy. A clean pair of glasses is important for clear vision so is clarity in life for judging others. If someone looks not so clean it could be that my view of them is simply hazy.
Whether we wear glasses or not, we don’t have control on our eyes. It is our mind that drives our eyes. Though what we see are accidental, what we gaze upon or doing a double-take is certainly the work of our mind. We can’t blame the glasses for what we chose to delight in seeing.
That is whey Jesus said, "The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light...” (Matthew 6:22). Jesus was certainly talking about the eye that is driven by our minds, not just the organ. It is true that Jesus used a hyperbole in Matthew 18:9: “And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.” Though it is a bit of exaggeration to push a point home, the truth remains. It is better to have an eye that causes us to sin than not having.

Shameless Prayers

T

And he said to them, ‘Which of you who has a friend will go to him at midnight and say to him, “Friend, lend me three loaves, for a friend of mine has arrived on a journey, and I have nothing to set before him’; and he will answer from within, “Do not bother me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed. I cannot get up and give you anything”? I tell you, though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his impudence he will rise and give him whatever he needs. (Luke 11:5-8 ESV)

The story happens in Palestine of the first century. People set out on their journeys early in the morning before the sun rose and rested at noon till late afternoon. Then they plan their afternoon journey in such a way that they could reach a village where they knew someone before is dark. The traveller in this story might have arrived at midnight because he had to walk past many villages where he knew none to reach this distant village where he had a friend. He must have walked past many villages hoping that at his friend’s place he will find some food and a bed to sleep even at midnight.

Midnight was the awkward time to arrive at anyone’s place in those days. Many of us sleep late, maybe after midnight. The reasons that keep us awake late into midnight are many, besides the lack of discipline. Some of us work when our countrymen sleep because we are taking calls from people on the other side of the globe who are still awake. We have artificial lights which make the night appear as day. Modern amenities keep us awake—we watch TV, we can read late into the night, or engage in activities like having a game of badminton the lighted courts or even go for a swim.
However, the ancient man did not have anything like that. The food is cooked and eaten before sunset. Parents will put your children to bed early; there is no TV that they can watch and no books to read. And even if you have there no light! In the Mediterranean world, people went to work early in the morning to avoid the heat of the sun. So, it is you got to get to bed early at night. If you don’t sleep well after a long day’s work then your life next day is spoiled.
The sleeping friend had valid excuses to deny the request. Not one but four excuses.

1. Do not bother me. The night is a time of rest after a day of hard work. ‘Let me sleep, man!’
   
2. The door is now shut. The doors were heavy and opening them takes effort. The wooden latches that keep the doors closed are also heavy and is not easy to move them. They make a screeching sound.
   

Children are with him in bed. In ancient Palestine ordinary people lived in one-room houses. Individual bedrooms were a luxury. If he wakes up and open the door then his movements and the screech of the door will wake the children up. He might have taken a lot of effort to put them to sleep if they wake up they may not go back to sleep easily.
People would cook in the morning and go work to their workshops attached to their houses, fields to markets. They would cook for the day since there were no refrigerators to keep the leftovers and no microwaves for to warm up as we do till eternity. However, it is always possible to have leftovers and bread that may last for one or two days after cooking. That fateful night this host had none when the traveller just called in unexpectedly. To bother someone in such a situation is a really bad thing to do. It is immodesty of the highest order.

Hospitality was one of the highest virtues in the ancient world. First of all, if you find a traveller who arrived in the city and has nowhere to go then the person who found him should take him to his house, offer him food and shelter for the night. In bigger and busy towns a traveller may find an inn where they can get these for payment. Travellers who have friends will straight walk to the homes of their friends.

Making some food for the night for the traveller-guest is not the option. Cooking usually took a lot of time in those days. If he began cooking at midnight, it will be almost dawn when he finished. The host and guest cannot sleep and the guest has to set on his journey before the first rays of sunlight to avoid the terror of the heat. The only option then is to go to their neighbours and borrow some food.

Now, let me try to narrate a contemporary parable. You were in a hurry and did not pack your lunch when you sped off to the office. In your hurry, you also left your wallet with all the money and credit cards. On arrival at the office, you realized that the canteen is closed so that you cannot buy food on credit. You had skipped breakfast as well. You are hungry and is at the point of passing out.
In your desperate situation, you see colleagues in the other cabins opening their lunchboxes. Some have gone out to the fast-food shop across the road and got their sandwiches. There is the smell of food all over the place. Your tummy grumbles. What will you do? Will you walk to the person in the next cabin and ask her to share a bit of her sandwich? If you do so will you get a piece of it? Why do you expect that person to give you that? I am pretty sure that if you asked your friend will certainly give you some food out of her lunchbox. The reason is simple—you are so shameless to ask!
Jesus made the same point when he said, ‘I tell you, though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his impudence’ (Luke 11:8 ESV). The reason for granting is not friendship, that is clear. It was not his persistence since he did not repeat his request. The word translated as ‘impudence’ in ESV is a unique word found here only in the Bible. It means ‘shamelessness’ variously translated as ‘impudence’, ‘importunity’ etc. The word occurs only here in the NT which according to Gringich Lexicon the literal meaning is ‘shamelessness.’ Arland J. Hultgren defines shamelessness as ‘being or acting without sensibility to shame or disgrace.’

It is the shamelessness of the man who approaches a sleeping friend is in focus. This man has no regard for his shame or disgrace. He is not ashamed of bothering a friend. He is not worried about hearing excuses to deny his request. He just approaches him with absolute disregard to all these concerns. What would have happened if the friend did not get up and give him the bread? He will have to return home to face another friend who is hungry and tired. He will lose his face before him. The friend will have to go to bed hungry. That will be the most shameful experience in his life. So, what is better. Tell the visitor there is no bread, have some water and go to bed. Or go and knock at the door of a friend who is likely to have some leftovers? His choices were limited: surrender his dignity before one of them—either the traveller or his friend in the village. He chose the latter, that is the sleeping friend.

Who is the sleeping friend in the parable? The larger context of the parable sheds light on its interpretation. Jesus used the principle of lighter to heavier or simple to complex principle. If earthly friends will budge at the request of a shameless person then how much more will God? God will certainly grant what we ask. The same principle is applied in the saying that follows in 11:13 which reads,

If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!

The friend in the story is God the father. This story is part of a larger unit which begins in 11:2 and ends 11:13. The Jesus taught them to pray to the Father. Then having told this story he assures them that the heavenly father is much better than all earthly fathers. Luke thus suggests to us that this story (which is unique to him) must be read in the light of father-children relationship that we have with God.
The saying in 11:9-10 also provides an interpretation of the parable. It talks about the certainty of the answer. Those who ask will be given, those who knock will find doors opening, those who seek will find what they are seeking. However, it is not a general principle but works only in the framework of the father-child relationship that we have with God. That is what the context of the parable suggests.
So, the point of the parable is clear. In the context of assurance of being heard (11:9-10) and the confidence that heavenly father is always better than earthly father we don’t have to be ashamed. There is no room for shame because there is no room for fear of consequences. Our dignity is also intact since we are asking our father and not a stranger.
The context of the parable also suggests one more thing. Our requests have to fair and reasonable. In the Lord’s prayer, Jesus taught them to pray for ‘daily bread.’ The man who approached his friend at midnight limited his request to ‘three loaves.’ Scholars point out that three loaves (each loaf the size of a man's palm) are just one serving of food. He was asking just for one meal for one person. Nothing more. It is a fair and reasonable request just as ‘daily bread’ is.
The context of the parable also sheds some light on the nature of the shameless behaviour. Shame is a result of sin, doubt, fear, and lack of intimacy. For example, Adam and Eve never felt shame before their sin, they walked even with God without clothes. They were not hiding they were naked. Shame sets in when we lose confidence in each other. For example, littler children run around the house without any clothes but when the doorbell rings they hide behind the doors. Their shame is relative—not ashamed in the presence of their parents. This means that shamelessness stems from a relationship of intimacy. That is why this parable is sandwiched between two mentions of the father in heaven. The prayer is to the father in heaven—our father and later our heavenly father.
So, our prayer must result from our intimacy with the father, an intimacy that leads to confident shamelessness. Our prayers should be confident—whatever is knocked at will be open and asked for will be given and sought after will be found. Our prayers should be fair and reasonable.

Follow me on SpeakingTree on Times of India

Since I am writing on Speaking Tree--the spirituality blogs of the Times of India, this may be updated less frequently. Please follow me to Speaking Tree
www.speakingtree.in