-
24th Sunday of Ordinary Time A
Posted on
September 13, 2017 by
David Jackson in
Reflections on Sunday Gospels
INTRODUCTION: We continue to hear this Sunday from Jesus’ discourse on
life in the community of his followers. Last Sunday we heard about the
process of fraternal correction for a person not willing to stop sinning
and not willing to leave the community. This Sunday we hear how to deal
with the person who sins often.
HOMILY:_
In the Gospel of Luke chapter 17:3,4 we find these words: “Be on
your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents,
forgive him. And if he wrongs you seven times in one day and returns to
you seven times saying, ‘I am sorry,’ you should forgive him.” We notice in
today’s Gospel how Matthew has refashioned these ideas. l) He makes the
saying a direct response to Peter’s question: “Lord, how often shall my
brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?”
(Matt. l8:2l). 2) He changes the numbers from the offense and the
repentance to the forgiveness .(Luke l7:4, “If he sins against you seven times in the day,
and turns to you seven times, and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him”
3) He magnifies the forgiveness: “Jesus said to him, ‘I do not say to you
seven times, but seventy times seven'” (Matt. l8:22). Also as we shall see,
the parable itself does not really answer the question of Peter “How often?” but
deals with the precondition (i.e. the quality) of forgiveness rather
than with the number of times (quantity) it must be extended._
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++_
The parable of the Unmerciful or Unforgiving servant can easily be
seen as a little drama in three acts:
Act I. The King and the Servant with the Immense Debt. _
Scene 1: narrative vs. 23-25 _
Scene 2: dialogue vs. 26 _
Scene 3: action vs. 27
_
Act II. The forgiven Servant and the fellow Servant with Debt_
Scene 1: narrative vs. 28a. _
Scene 2: dialogue: vs. 28b-29 _
Scene 3: action vs. 30
_
Act III. Fellow Servants, King, First Servant and Second Servant_
Scene 1: narrative vs. 3l-32a _
Scene 2: dialogue vs. 32b-33 _
Scene 3: action vs. 34 _
MATTHEAN EPILOGUE, vs. 35_
The power of the parable emerges from progressive engagement with
the characters. When the parable begins, our sympathies are with the
first servant. The desire of the king “to settle accounts”_ (cf. Matt. 25:l9)
strikes an ominous note, as
does the description of the servant s being “brought” before
the king. The reason for this threatening situation is held in suspense
until the final words of v. 24, “who owed him ten thousand talents.”
Since the annual income of Herod the Great
was about nine hundred talents and since the taxes for Galilee and Perea
were two hundred talents a year, such a debt would evoke an unbelieving
gasp. The inability to pay is not surprising, and the king’s order of
slavery for the debtor with his family suggests that he is a tyrannical
gentile despot, since by Jewish law only a debtor, and not the family,
could be enslaved for unpaid debts. At this point the sympathy of the
hearers would be toward this servant, since an unpayable debt to a
heartless master is pitiable.
In v. 26 the narrative shifts to dialogue and the sevant makes his
plea: “Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.”
The shock in the first part of the parable comes in the first words
of v. 27. The king, who was
depicted as heartless, is rather a person who takes pity (lit. “has
compassion on him”)and forgives the debt. A reader does
not expect one who was ready to enslave a whole family to be so moved.
The surprising turn of events continues when the king does not heed the
servant’s request for time to pay but forgives the whole debt. The
parable could have ended at this point and it would have been a good
illustration of Matt. 7:7, “Ask, and it will be given you.”
The parable, however moves forward to the second act., where the
major thrust is found. In contrast to his passive earlier state when he
was dragged before the king, the first servant now “goes out” and
chances upon a fellow servant who owes him a hundred denarii. Since one
denarius is the equivalent of a day’s wage the debt is not
inconsequential. Since a talent is the equivalent of fifteen years of
daily wages, the contrast between the debts of the first servant and the
second servant is immense. This second servant now becomes a mirror
image of the first. He too falls on his knees and makes a petition in
the very same words as the first servant. “Have patience with me, and I
will pay you.” The difference is that the terms of his request could be
met, since in time the debt could be repaid. At this point the story
could conclude with the first servant remitting the debt or even
granting the request, and the parable would be a good illustration of
the “golden rule” Matt. 7:12 The opposite occurs, and with a brutality
even greater than he experienced–he seized him by the throat–the first
servant demands payment. The contrast is heightened by the fact that the
words of the pleas of the two servants are almost exactly alike. But
how great the contrast between the different reactions to the pleas. At
this point the sympathy of the readers or hearers of the parable shifts.
The first person with whom we rejoiced earlier now becomes repulsive.
Like the fellow servants of vs. 31 we are shocked at the injustice
(they are greatly distressed.)
The third act begins with the actions of these servants. They do as
we would like to do and go to the king in the hope of redressing the
situation. The king summons the first servant, calls him wicked, and
tells him what exactly happened in the first act. He was forgiven
simply because the king had mercy on him and he should have expressed
this mercy to his fellow servant. In v. 34 there is a tragic irony for
the first servant in that now he will have what he originally requested,
time to pay his debt, only the time will be spent in prison.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But why did the first servant act as he did? The first servant asks
for time to pay an unpayable debt. Instead of asking for mercy he
thinks that the way out of this tragic situation is to restore the order
of justice, of debts to be paid and obligations met. The surprise in
this part is that the king acts out of mercy, not justice. The servant’s
request is in the order of justice; the king operates in the order of
mercy out of compassion.
The second act plays out the servant’s faulty understanding. When
he goes out and hears the request of the second servant, he hears an
echo of his own disposition. He enters again the familiar world of
strict justice. The forgiveness and mercy that he received were
something that simply happened to him, not something that changed his
way of viewing the world. His self understanding remains unaltered by
the gift he received. The master says in effect: Even given your
predisposition to view the world through the eyes of strict justice, you
should have seen that the mercy which was “right” in your case was also
owed to your fellow servant. People are not necessarily changed by
experiences of forgiveness. At the same time, the story makes it clear
that failure to change is not “all right.” This is a warning that unless
the gospel transforms the innermost dispositions of its hearers, they
will act in much the same fashion as the first servant. In this parable
we have spelled out in a story form the challenge of Jesus in Matt. 4:17
Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Behind the image of the king stands the God of Jesus who
summons people to be forgiving because they have experienced
forgiveness.
Jesus is clearly teaching something quite different than people’s
common understanding. This teaching is challenging to the listeners of Matthew’s
Gospel and to us.
If you enjoyed this article please consider sharing it!