Knowing that
he was to be gone for a time,
and having just
entrusted his servants with money
he commanded his servants
to occupy till he returned.
His intent was clear,
the servants knew their master’s will.
The money was a grant,
to be used
in a manner
beneficial to his dominion.
evidence that the grant
was used in a manner
consistent with their Master’s will,
was the approval by the Master
of the increase provided to him
upon his return.
There is a subplot in this parable.
While he was gone
some of the citizens
under his dominion
rebelled against him,
refusing to be ruled
by his authority.
When he returned
these insurgents
were summarily executed.
The servants entrusted
with the grant funds
were called
to give an account
of what they had accomplished
with the money.
Two had performed
in accordance with his will
and were rewarded in accordance with
what they had accomplished.
The third servant
clearly incompetent,
refused to accept
responsibility for his failure
and projected his own incompetency
onto the Master’s will
thereby perceiving and judging
the Master as a wicked man,
and in so doing
revealing the wickedness
of his own heart,
of his own ego
by his accusations.
Knowing full well that
usury was unlawful,
the Master’s sarcastic response
revealed the unreasonableness
of the servants conclusions
about the Master’s nature.
Everything entrusted to the servant
was therefore taken away.
No comments:
Post a Comment