Peter’s question in Luke 12:41 is interesting. What motivated him to ask it? He was clearly referring to the parable that comes right before this verse. This is a parable about the coming of the Son of Man who is anticipated but comes at an unexpected hour. The “good slaves” of that parable are rewarded beyond their wildest dreams, the Son of Man humbly girds up his own loins and serves the slaves.
We of course can’t know Peter’s motives, but in the context of Luke’s narrative can we mind- read a bit? Is Peter being a gate keeper? Peter is obviously concerned with his bounded-set categories of “us” disciples and “everyone” Pharisees, teachers of the law. Does Peter wish to presume that by virtue of his status of one of the twelve that his place at the table where the Son of Man will serve him is assured? Is he jealous of his position and anxious about the position of others with respect to him? We see this Peter in John 21:21 where he says “what about him?” with respect to the disciple Jesus loves.
What is troubling of course is that if we are correct on Peter’s motivation, he is showing early signs of exactly the kind of thing that plagued the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. Jesus in 11:37-54 took them to task pretty strongly on that score and then specifically warned his disciples against it in 12:1. The combination of bounded-set thinking and our human nature seems to consistently produce this problem. Peter understand that he, by being one of the twelve has a potentially coveted position and he is intent on preserving it. This draws him into constant evaluation of others as potential allies and threats in his goal of preservation and advancement. His place at the table has set something into motion in his heart that will make it easy to use others and difficult to love them. Peter is perhaps at the brink of having what has been gifted to him become a stumbling block that will in his own mind re-orient heaven and earth, God and the Son of Man included, as lining up for Peter’s exaltation or demise. Is it fair to read all of this into that little question? Perhaps not, but all of this is there for Peter and for every one of us.
For more on bounded-set/centered-set see past blog post and this link.
Where Jesus goes with his response to Peter might initially give great relief to the “centered-set” community. Those who favor the centered-set approach like it because it doesn’t emphasize walls, barriers, labels or boundaries. It is full of human potential and open to the possibility of destiny lying in our own hands. We like to imagine ourselves as good people, that if only given the chance to prove to God and to the world our excellent qualities that by virtue of our moral performance God will usher us to the table and be absolutely delighted to have a servant such as myself.
Jesus tells a very centered-set story here with three different character and three different levels that one can imagine themselves into. It’s important to remember that in the context of the Roman empire to be a slave was not just be a laborer, but rather that slaves were often people of education and talent which were valued for what they could accomplish. In the context of this parable the slaves in question are managers, given responsibility over others in the household. The master of the household will be away for an indeterminate period of time (as in the previous parable) and the slave-managers will be responsible for running things in his absence. How will they perform? Will some suppose the master to be killed on the journey? Will some take advantage of the master’s absence to take advantage and treat the goods of the master (including the other slaves) as his own personal possessions in an irresponsible manner for his own welfare and enjoyment? None of this is of course beyond our imagination. Many of us have worked jobs and seen these dynamics played out. This is also very much in keeping with a good number of Jesus’ other parables.
What we see in the parable is that the good slaves are rewarded, and the bad slaves are punished, severely! Because the picture is so stark I have to talk about the severe punishment. Many who know Jesus by reputation but don’t regularly read what is in the canonical accounts of his words shutter at this. “Cut into pieces?! Really?!”
I think the best treatment of this kind of thing comes from Miroslav Volf in his terrific book Exclusion and Embrace pg. 303-304
From a centered-set perspective we might celebrate that as we might imagine ourselves living into this parable the future is a nice open sheet of paper for us. All of the ways in which God has granted us stewardship over his assets presents us with the opportunity to prove our worth, to impress God with our qualities, to show him and the world what we’re really made of. Surely we wouldn’t perform like those slaves who live as if the master will never return and therefore take liberties with his property. Certainly we wouldn’t be the kinds of managers that would abuse and mistreat others, well perhaps only if they really deserve it. We would be the kind of stewards who would be ever diligent, always doing exactly what the master would want were he present.
When we try to imaginarily live into this little parable we very easily see others living as the evil slaves, using the goods of the master for their own pleasure, often at the expense of the other slaves. We know people like this, and we anxiously await the return of the master so that they get theirs.
There is an important detail in this parable that you may miss. Note in Luke 12:45 the evil slave talks to himself. This is something that Luke does a few times in his gospel at some important points. Look back to Luke 12:17-19. The barn building likewise talks to himself and hatches a plan for his own deliverance. In one of Jesus’ most famous stories a few chapter ahead in Luke 15:17 we find the younger son doing exactly the same thing. This is a little clue as to something deep in the heart of all of these characters. They are all self-salvationists. They are all planning on providing “shalom” for themselves. What is shalom? Shalom is the life you’ve dreamed of in your best dreams, it’s life the way it was supposed to be lived. All of these characters talk to themselves as if the God, the master, or the father is out of reach and not aware of what they are doing with their lives and managing God’s, the master’s or the father’s assets. It is precisely the character that is mentioned in Psalm 14:1 and described in the rest of Psalm 14. Read Psalm 14. This passage could be a sermon on Psalm 14. The fool says in his heart “there is no God, he doesn’t see, I’ll do what works for me and everything will be fine!” The truth is that nothing is fine.
Now I’m going to say something that will really blow your mind. As we’ve been reading this parable from a centered-set approach we have seen the future as a blank sheet of paper waiting to record our terrific performance. Some of us in hearing this have begun to squirm. We’ve seen our performance in managing God’s assets and we’ve lived long enough to realize that a careful accounting upon his return would uncover some things that would not reflect well on us. The Son of Man has been gone OH SO LONG who would fault us for our small indulgences?
If we dig deeper we might begin to discover that if we read this story strictly in terms of an opportunity for our performance we begin to understand Peter’s question. We know there are other managers, and surely God wouldn’t hold us to a perfect standard, all we need to do is to out-perform the other managers and then our indulgences at the expense of the master’s goods would surely be seen in a better light. If God is going to grade on a curve then I’d better keep my friends close and my enemies closer. Suddenly, everyone around us is again either a threat or an ally, people to be used, not loved.
How then can we understand this parable?
Look back to Luke 12:32. It’s the Father’s good pleasure to give us the kingdom, to give us his household. The situation IS NOT that God presents us a test in order to qualify for the kingdom, the kingdom is a gift given out of his generosity.
Remember Peter’s question? Peter’s position of preference in the midst of the bounded-set 12 was not earned. Jesus plucked him off the Sea of Galilee and put him in, plain and simple. We know that many followed Jesus, but Jesus picked 12 to be his official “disciples” Peter’s position in the bounded-set was pure gift. Peter’s impulse to interpret his position in the universe in such a way that he needed to use God and others in order to maintain it, instead of loving God and others, was exactly what he learned in the context of the age of decay, where shalom is grabbed at (and lost) in the relational polarity of “my benefit at your expense.”
Look at the faithful servants of Jesus’ parable. How are they living. They are living “the master’s benefit, the benefit for the servants under me, at my expense.” This is the relational polarity of the Master and the Son of Man, and when the Master returns and sees that his house is being directed EXACTLY how he would do so, he is pleased and gives that slave even more authority, responsibility and therefore honor than he had entrusted to him before. It is a great day for that slave, because in a sense he has become a son or a daughter and not just a tool.
And what of the others? They get exactly what they too have lived. They have been living out “my benefit at your/the master’s/the under-servant’s expense” and that is exactly how the Master treats them. His benefit at their expense. The language here is not just “cutting up” but also “cutting off” and being cast out among the unfaithful. What does that mean? It means that all those who wish to live opposite the relational polarity of the Master get exactly what they have always asked for. They do not have to share the house with the Master who by virtue of his insistent generosity would make them crazy. They get to live just as they have insisted on living in his absence, the only difference is that they no longer have the possessions of the master under their management. All of the good things that really belonged to the Master, and they have used for their illicit abuse of the Master are taken from them, they are left with nothing but themselves and their ability to save themselves.
There is also in this parable a third group that almost passes without notice. These are those who are in ignorance. They have mismanaged the Master’s goods out of ignorance and here we see that the Master, being both wise and generous understands fully they circumstance and adjusts his response to them accordingly.
The wisdom saying that follows in Luke 12:48 simply tells us what we all know to be true. History is consequential. Decisions made today are real and the truth of history is concrete. This tells us clearly that we ought not to be play acting. In a way this verse once again brings us to revisit Jesus’ warning given to the Pharisees, teachers of the law, AND his disciples. This is no religious show, but rather history, despite all of the spinning and deceiving and lying that goes on, ultimately is revelatory and who we are in the dark is who we are in the light. History will finally be ultimately revelatory as Jesus says very clearly in Luke 12:1-3.
Jesus knew full well how we listen to stories. Peter heard the previous parable and immediately wondered “what does this say about me?” Jesus resisted the way in which he was tempted to use his bounded-set position in order to use people out of love for things rather than loving people with the relational polarity of the Master.
What I think we need to do is hear this parable in the light of Luke 12:32. How can these faithful slaves live out the relational polarity of the Master during his long absence? It is because they know Psalm 14 and they know that contrary to appearances he is not absent at all. The kingdom has been given, shalom has been secured, they are in fact living in the pre-echo of the Master’s yet to come presence. Because of this, no matter how many things seem to fall apart in the long wait, the faithful servant is secure that the Master who will return will set all things right and make all of the intervening sadness come untrue.
Ignorance is dispelled by the announcement of the deepest, truest fact: “Do not be afraid little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” Jesus through this parable encourages Peter to stop his silly, self-conscious, insecure game and to simply govern as the Master would, leaning into the pre-echo of the Master’s triumphant return.
Miroslav Volf on God's violence or ours
One could object that it is not worthy of God to wield the sword. Is God not love, long-suffering and all-powerful love? A counter-question could go something like this: Is it not a bit too arrogant to presume that our contemporary sensibilities about what is compatible with God’s love are so much healthier than those of the people of God throughout the whole history of Judaism and Christianity? Recalling my arguments about the self-immunization of the evildoers, one could further argue that in a world of violence it would not be worthy of God not to wield the sword; if God were not angry at injustice and deception and did not make the final end to violence God would not be worthy of our worship. Here, however, I am less interested in arguing that God’s violence is not unworthy of God than in showing that it is beneficial to us. Atlan has rightly drawn our attention to the fact that in a world of violence we are faced with an inescapable alternative: either God’s violence or human violence. Most people who insist on God’s “nonviolence” cannot resist using violence themselves (or tacitly sanctioning its use by others). They deem the talk of God’s judgment irreverent, but think nothing of entrusting judgment into human hands, persuaded presumably that this is less dangerous and more humane than to believe in a God who judges! That we should bring “down the powerful from their thrones” (Luke 1:51-52) seems responsible; that God should do the same, as the song of that revolutionary Virgin explicitly states, seems crude. And so violence thrives, secretly nourished by belief in a God who refuses to wield the sword.
My thesis that the practice of nonviolence requires a belief in divine vengeance will be unpopular with many Christians, especially theologians in the West. To the person who is inclined to dismiss it, I suggest imagining that you are delivering a lecture in a war zone (which is where a paper that underlies this chapter was originally delivered). Among your listeners are people whose cities and villages have been first plundered, then burned and leveled to the ground, whose daughters and sisters have been raped, whose fathers and brothers have had their throats slit. The topic of the lecture: a Christian attitude toward violence. The thesis: we should not retaliate since God is perfect noncoercive love. Soon you would discover that it takes the quiet of a suburban home for the birth of the thesis that human nonviolence corresponds to God’s refusal to judge. In a scorched land, soaked in the blood of the innocent, it will invariably die. And as one watches it die, one will do well to reflect about many other pleasant captivities of the liberal mind.
Exclusion and Embrace by Miroslav Volf pgs. 303-304