Exegesis of

Matthew 24:45-51

By Jeff Scoggins

May 17, 2013

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for

NTST550: Exegesis of the English NT: The Gospel Parables
Exegesis of Matthew 24:45-51
Professor: Robert M. Johnston
Andrews University
Berrien Springs, Michigan
1. Selection

This paper examines Matthew’s account of the parable of the servant in authority or the

faithful and unfaithful servants in Mt 24:45-51. A similar parable occurs also in Lk 12, in

an extended version.

2. Delimitation

For this paper the study will begin with the introductory formula, “Who then is…,” (v.

45) and will end with the application in v. 51.

3. Literary Context

Jesus was speaking to his disciples in private (Mt 24:3).

This parable pairs with Mt 25:1-13. In one the master returns sooner than expected; in the

other he returns later than expected.

Matthew’s version of the parable appears in a section of concentrated eschatological

themes including (in reverse) the parable of the strong man (vs. 42-44), two men in the

field and two women grinding (vs. 40-41), days of Noah (vs. 36-39), recognizing the

seasons (v. 32-35), and so on. All of these parables in Matthew’s context deal with the

end of the world and the parousia. This parable is the second in a series of six illustrating

1
the importance of being ready for the parousia.

The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels asserts that this parable is the Mt. Olivet

discourse on the Wednesday before Jesus’ death.1 “Sayings of Jesus may appear in

different contexts. The Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7) and the Olivet Discourse (Mt 24-

25) gather together teachings which are scattered all around the Gospel of Luke. Some of

these may simply reflect Jesus’ repeated utterances; others no doubt reflect the common

practice of creating composite speeches. Again, no one questioned the integrity of ancient

historians when they utilized a device that modern readers often find artificial. Yet again,

both sermons may be excerpts of a much longer original.” 2

4. Textual Criticism

Only a few minor textual variants in the manuscripts have been identified in the Nestle-

Aland Text. 3 These variants are insignificant and do not seem to affect the translation

much if at all, and therefore likely does not affect the interpretation either.

In v. 45 the word autou is inserted in W, œ, Ï13, Â, lat, and sy. The omission of the

word is supported in å B D L and other fragments and manuscripts.

1
H.W. Hoehner, “Chronology,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, eds. Joel B. Green, Scot
McKnight (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 120.
2
C.L Blomberg, “Gospels (Historical Reliability)” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, eds.
Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 295.
3
Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini and Bruce M. Metzger
in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, Münster. Nestle-Aland, Novum
Testamentum Graece, 27 (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 1993) electronic ed., n.p.

2
In v. 45 the word oi˙ketei÷aß in B L W ∂ œ is replaced with oi˙kiaß (the dwelling itself)

in å and some other fragments and manuscripts.

In v. 46 the words ou¢twß poiouvnta are transposed in W, Â, f, and q. This word order

is supported by å B C D L œ and other manuscripts and fragments.

In v. 48 the word e˙kei√noß is omitted in å°, ©, œ, 0204, pc, sys, sa, and mae.

In v. 48 the words mou oJ ku/rioß in å B and other manuscripts and fragments are

replaced with oJ ku/rioß mou elqein in W, Ï(1).13, Â, latt, sy, mae, and bomss and are

transposed in C D L œ and other minor fragments and manuscripts that differ from the

majority text.

Bruce M. Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament doesn’t list

anything concerning this passage. So it seems one can be fairly certain that this parable

has been retained, for all practical purposes, close to its original reading.

5. Greek Study

A. Key words 4

pisto\ß (v. 45) pertains to being trustworthy and trusted with responsibilities.

4
Definitions from Fredrick William Danker, A Greek - English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000)
electronic ed., n.p.

3
 “Close to this is the “good [aÓgaqe÷] and faithful servant” spoken of in Mt 25:21,

23 (these verses contain the only other reference to pisto/ß, “faithful,” in

Matthew).” 5

fro/nimoß (v. 45) is understanding associated with insight and wisdom. “‘Wise,’

is used elsewhere in Matthew to describe appropriate discipleship in Mt 7:24;

10:16, and most conspicuously in the parable of the ‘wise virgins’ (Mt 25:2, 4, 8,

9).” 6

douvloß (vs. 45, 46, 50) pertains to being under someone’s total control, slavish,

servile, subject. Often slavery was self-imposed for reasons of debt, making it a

socioeconomic situation instead of a more modern status or caste construct.

Slaves often held responsible positions, as is the case in the parable of the servant

in authority. The term slave seems to be interchangeable with the term servant.

See Section 8: Historical and Cultural Analysis for more treatment of slavery.

fro/nimoß (vs. 45) pertains to insight, wisdom, prudence, and sensibility. The

master trusts the slave enough to give him authority.

kate÷sthsen (v. 45, 47) comes from kaqisthmi, which often carries

connotations of honor in giving a person authority, cf. Heb 2:7. This authority is

5
Donald A. Hagner, Word Bible Commentary, 33B (Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed.,
Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1995) 723.
6
Ibid.

4
 not self-possessed but is derived from the authority of the master and the slave

wields his authority only at the master’s pleasure. “The idea of delegated

authority is not uncommon in the Bible (cf. Gen 39:4–5) and is also used by

Matthew in 25:21, 23 in an illustration making a point similar to that of the

present passage (cf. Mark 13:34).” 7

ku/rioß (vs. 45, 46, 48, 50) is the master or lord whose authority, unlike

kaqisthmi, is by virtue of possession. The master owns what he has rather than

being entrusted with it.

oi˙ketei÷aß (v. 45) points specifically to the complement of slave members of a

household, not just to the household in general. It means, “to put someone in

charge of (the slaves in) his household.” 8

kairwˆ◊ (v. 45) refers to a specific period of time as opposed to chronos, which is

the passage of time. The slave was to provide food for the other slaves in a timely

manner at the times food would be expected.

euJrh/sei (v. 46) is to come upon or to discover either accidently or purposefully.

poiouvnta (v. 46) can have multiple nuances most of which have to do with

accomplishing work and carrying out responsibilities.

7
Hagner, Word Bible Commentary, 723.
8
Danker, A Greek - English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,
694.

5
aÓmh\n (v. 47) is translated in English as truly, verily, most assuredly, etc.

According to IVP’s Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, only Matthew uses the

word. Lk 12:44 uses the word aÓlhqw◊ß. “…it is clear that each instance of the

‘Amen, I say to you’ formula was intended to underscore the authority of Jesus to

speak for God, and to emphasize the importance of his words.” 9

uJpa¿rcousin (v. 47) has the basic of idea of coming into being in a prime

fashion. Not just to be but to really be.

katasth/sei (v. 47) is to take someone somewhere, to assign a position of

authority, and to cause someone to experience something. The context of

authority in this parable makes it clear that the preferred definition is assigning a

position of authority. However, the word is related to uJpa¿rcousin, which

conveys the concept that the authority being given in v. 47 is on a higher level

than what was given in v. 45.

kako\ß (v. 48) conveys the idea of evil in the sense of being socially or morally

reprehensible.

kardi÷aˆ (v. 48) is the heart as the central organ of the body but also as the center

of the inner life, awareness, will, decisions, morality, emotion, desire, love,

9
Green, McKnight, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 8.

6
disposition, and the dwelling place of the Spirit of God. We use the term in much

the same way today.

croni÷zei (v. 48) is to stay or to extend a stay beyond the expected time.

a‡rxhtai (v. 49) carries the idea of initiating a style of governing that hadn’t been

in effect prior.

tu/ptein (v. 49) is to strike and/or beat.

sundou/louß (v. 49) refers to either one among others or a subordinate that is

completely obedient to a master or owner.

mequo/ntwn (v. 49) is to drink to the point of intoxication.

hJme÷raˆ (v. 50) refers to day in several ways. 1) The period between sunrise and

sunset, 2) civil or legal day including the night, 3) an appointed time for a special

purpose, and 4) an extended period of time. In this parable the precise meaning of

the word day is most likely purposely non-specific.

prosdokaˆ◊ (v. 50) is to consider and expect something to happen in the future.

w‚raˆ (v. 50) refers to hour in several ways. 1) An undefined period of time in a

7
day, 2) period of time as a division in a day, and 3) a point in time as an occasion

for an event. In the context of this parable likely the general idea of a point in time

as an occasion for an event fits the best.

ouj ginw¿skei (v. 50) by lexical definition is broad. It includes becoming

acquainted with a person, learning and gaining knowledge, grasping significance,

awareness, sexual intercourse, relationship, recognition, and more. The context

makes the usage in v. 50 clear. A fact is simply unknown.

dicotomh/sei (v. 51) is to cut in pieces, cf. Hb 11:37. The only place in the Bible

that this term is employed is in this parable and in Luke’s parallel parable. 10

me÷roß (v. 51) is a part or a share of something as opposed to the whole.

uJpokritw◊n (v. 51) is a play-actor, pretender, and in a pejorative sense a

hypocrite.

qh/sei (v. 51) is 1) to place in a particular location, 2) deposit or lay aside, 3)

assign a task or function, 4) make an arrangement, 5) effect a change in

experience or condition. In this context the last option fits the best.

klauqmo\ß (v. 51) weeping, crying.

10
Hagner, Word Bible Commentary, 724.

8
 brugmo\ß (v. 51) grinding, gnashing.

ojdo/ntwn (v. 51) teeth.

B. Grammar and syntax

In v. 47 uJpa¿rcousin is translated into English as a noun but in the Greek it’s a

participle. If a word were to be invented perhaps it would be something along the

lines of possessify. The idea is that the master causes the slave to become the

possessor of everything that belongs to the master, not just the other slaves.

Matthew’s version differs from Luke’s in that Matthew uses the past tense “put in

charge” and Luke uses the future “will put in charge.”

The verbs in v. 45 are aorist and present tense, but beginning with euJrh/sei (v.

46) all the following verbs are in the future tense, as are the rest of the verbs in the

parable.

C. Translation

V. 46: Who then is the reliable and wise slave who was authorized by the master

over the slaves of the household; the one who should give them the provisions in

due time?

9
 V. 47: Amen, I say to you all that over everything he will put him in charge and

“possessify” him.

V. 48: But if the evil slave says in his heart my master is staying away too long,

V. 49: and begins to rule by beating his fellow slaves, eating and drinking to the

point of intoxication,

V. 50: the master of that slave will come at a day and hour that is not expected,

V. 51: and will cut him to pieces, and his share with the hypocrites will appoint;

there will be weeping and grinding of teeth.

6. Comparison with parallels in other Gospels

Theme: Thematically Luke’s version of the parable in Lk 12:42-48 is nearly identical to

Matthew’s version, except at the end when Luke’s version takes the application in a

different direction. Also Luke’s surrounding context includes a different set of parables,

which necessarily affects the investigation concerning his intent for the parable. If Lk

12:48 were dropped the point of both versions would be close to the same.

Verbage: The two versions of the parable are so close in verbiage that it seems at first

10
glance that both authors must have been referring to the same place and time. However,

the Matthaean account in v. 3 says that Jesus was speaking to his disciples privately while

the Lukan account says that a crowd of people, including his disciples, was listening.

Slave: Matthew used the term douvloß throughout the parable for both the servant in

authority and those over whom he held authority. Luke, on the other hand, in the first

verse used the term oi˙kono/moß “steward” for the servant in authority and oi˙kono/moß

“household servant” for those over whom he held authority. However, Luke switches to

douvloß in v. 43 and uses that term for the rest of the parable.

Craig Blomberg notes, “If Luke were really trying to emphasize anything by the word

steward, surely he would have changed his other references to the slave as well.” 11

However, I’m inclined to arrive at the opposite conclusion and suspect that perhaps the

evangelist used the different terms precisely because he intended a distinction between

the status of a trustworthy steward as opposed to one who becomes a hypocritical slave

through his own unfaithfulness.

Bad: “Matthew’s insertion of kako/ß, “bad,” before douvloß e˙kei√noß, “that servant,”

directs the reader to another contrasting servant rather than, as in Luke, the same servant

who is thought of as entertaining an altogether different train of thought and engaging in

a very different behavior (Luke 12:45). The “bad” servant (kako/ß is used to refer to

11
Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990)
electronic ed., n.p.

11
persons elsewhere in Matthew only in 21:41) begins to act shamefully.” 12

In v. 47 Matthew uses the word aÓmh\n “amen” and Luke the word aÓlhqw◊ß “truly.” The

word amen is used differently in the Gospel than it is used elsewhere in the Bible. In all

but the Gospels the word is always used at the end as a doxology of sorts, while in the

Gospels it is only used at the beginning of an utterance of Jesus. 13 Jeremias took this as

evidence that Jesus created the expression14 and therefore, asserts R. E. Brown, we have

“an authentic reminiscence” of Jesus’ own words. 15 If this is true, it would mean that

Luke redacted his account of Jesus’ words not only here but in other instances as well.

Fellow Slave: Another interesting difference between the parable accounts is that where

Matthew uses the term sundou/louß “fellow slave,” Luke uses the term pai√daß “child”

and then goes on to specify both men and women. pai√daß can mean slave, but given that

Luke used douvloß elsewhere it seems likely that he purposely chose pai√daß in this case.

Application: One of the major differences between the Matthaean and the Lukan

versions of the parable is in the application at the end. Luke’s version in vs. 47-48

expands the application to include not just punishment in general but also degrees of

punishment. Luke does not include the phrase “weeping and gnashing of teeth” and he

adds a distinction between those slaves who acted in ignorance and those who acted in

12
Hagner, Word Bible Commentary, 724.
13
Green, Knight, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 7.
14
Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology (London: SCM, 1971) 35–36.
15
R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, vol. 1 (AB 29; Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1966) 84.

12
rebellion. Those who acted in ignorance receive a less severe punishment, but are still

assigned a place with the unbelievers.

Categories: So essentially Matthew’s account has two categories of slave: faithful and

unfaithful. Luke’s account has three categories of slave: faithful, ignorantly unfaithful,

knowingly unfaithful.

Ending: Finally, Matthew’s parable ends with the destruction of the unfaithful slave,

while Luke ends with the application that much is required from whom much is given.

7. Structural analysis

1. Craig Blomberg classifies this parable a simple three-point parable containing an

authority figure and two subordinates. These are sometimes called monarchic

parables. He considers the three characters to be the master, the faithful servant,

and the unfaithful servant. 16 A. B. Bruce classifies it as a Prophetic/Judicial

Parable. 17

2. Outline

a. The faithful slave (vs. 45-47)

i. Considered responsible (v. 45)

ii. Given charge of the slaves of the household (v. 45)

iii. Charged with providing for them (v. 45)

16
Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, electronic ed., n.p.
17
A. B. Bruce, The Parabolic Teaching of Christ (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1896) 8ff.

13
 iv. Faithful discharge of duties (v. 46)

v. Reward of greater responsibility (v. 47)

b. The unfaithful slave (vs. 48-49)

i. Has trouble at a heart level (v. 48)

ii. Doubts his master (v. 48)

iii. Mistreats his fellow slaves (v. 49)

iv. Takes advantage of position (v. 49)

1. Misusing time (v. 49)

2. Keeping bad company (v. 49)

c. The master (vs. 50-51)

i. Returns unexpectedly (v. 50)

ii. Punishes evil slave (v. 51)

1. Cuts him in pieces (v. 51)

2. Assigns him a share with the hypocrites (v. 51)

d. Description of the share of the hypocrites (v. 51)

3. The parable is a proper narrative parable. It describes a specific situation

happening.

4. It’s difficult to categorize the characters as primary or secondary because each of

them takes center stage at different points in the parable. However, it may be

argued that the unfaithful slave is the primary character because he figures in all

parts of the parable. 1) In part one the description of the faithful slave serves as a

contrast to the unfaithful slave, 2) part two contains the description of the

unfaithful slave himself, and 3) part three is how the master deals with his

14
 unfaithful slave.

8. Historical and cultural analysis

Readiness: According to Robert M. Johnston a partial parallel to this parable is found in

a rabbinic parable. “It is the account of a woman whose husband was a courier and

frequently away. She was always attired in her best and when questioned responded, ‘Is it

not better that he should see me in my glory and not my ugliness?’” (Ecclesiates Rabbah

9:8:1). 18 The point is that one should always be prepared for the coming of the master.

Slavery: According to the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, modern slavery significantly

colors our view of slavery in the first century. Indeed, it positively hinders our achieving

a realistic historical understanding of social-economic life in the Mediterranean world,

and therefore it hinders sound exegesis in parables concerning slaves. Slaves were the

owned property of the master. However, race played no role, education was encouraged,

some slaves owned property and even their own slaves, and most slaves could look

forward to gaining their freedom by age 30. 19

The allegorical use of slavery and the fact that Jesus never explicitly condemned the

institution, illustrates the fact that slavery was simply taken for granted in that period. 20

18
Harvey K. McArther and Robert M. Johnston, They Also Taught in Parables: Rabbinic
Parables From the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House,
1990) 186.
19
David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, vol. 6 (New York: Doubleday,
1992), s. v. “Slavery,” by Muhammad A. Dandamayev 66.
20
David Noel Freedman, ed., Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.

15
9. Intertextuality

Old Testament

There are no direct verbal parallels in the Old Testament to this parable, though, Prov

14:35 comes so close thematically that perhaps a case could be built for allusion. Even

without direct allusion, however, a couple of Old Testament themes would certainly have

reflected upon the parable.

1. 2 Kg 12:15 describes how the builders of the temple were not required to provide

an accounting for what they spent because they dealt faithfully.

2. Eze 34:2 pronounces woe upon shepherds who feed themselves rather than their

flock, which is precisely the responsibility that the unfaithful slave neglected.

New Testament

1. Mt 25:1-13, the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, is a parable that occurs

immediately after the parable of the unfaithful slave and bears directly upon it.

2. In 1 Cor 4:1-2 Paul used the same word used in Luke’s version of the parable,

oi˙kono/moß, when he admonished the Corinthians to be faithful, trustworthy

stewards.

3. In 1 Th 5:7 Paul connects drunkenness with spiritual darkness.

4. In 1 Tim 5:8 Paul connects not providing for others and especially one’s own

Eerdmans Publishing, 2000), s. v. “Slave,” by J. Albert Harrill, electronic ed., n.p.

16
 household as denying the faith and unbelief.

5. In 1 Pet 4:10-11 Peter uses oi˙kono/moß to describe putting to work the gifts of the

Spirit.

10. The Sitz im Leben in which the parable was given

The way that Matthew arranged his writing, this parable, which is part of a longer

narrative of eschatological topics, comes right after Jesus finished his scathing rebukes

directed at the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees in Mt 23. One gets the feeling the

disciples must have been somewhat giddy over what Jesus had just done because of the

way they began to point out the magnificence of the temple and surrounding buildings.

Jesus informed them that all would be demolished, and later they asked Jesus to explain

when this would happen. Thus Jesus launches into his series of eschatological parables

and predictions.

So the Sitz im Leben in which this parable was told included 1) an atmosphere of tension

between Jesus and his opposers that was stretched nearly to breaking point. 2) The

disciples probably felt that something must be going to happen soon, although their

vision of what that would happen was far removed from reality. 3) Jesus was intent on

communicating to his disciples the necessity of loyalty and perseverance in the face of

doubts and disappointments concerning the delay of the parousia.

Also their current understanding of the slave/master relationship would have played into

17
the Sitz im Leben of the time. “Slaves who were managers or stewards were entrusted

with the management of the master’s estate. Such slaves would be in charge even of other

slaves. It was a common practice at the time for the land-owners to be away on business

or in other parts of their estate. A slave who was trusted enough to run the entire

operation during his master’s absence would have been particularly disdained if he

abused the master’s property by abusing fellow slaves, being drunk, or becoming drunk

at his master’s expense.” 21

11. How the evangelist interpreted the parable

The order that Matthew chose to arrange his Gospel provides clues to the points he hoped

to make. “Matthew deviates from strict chronological sequence to a greater degree than

any of the other Gospel writers, his major objective being to develop a concept of the life

and mission of Jesus that will contribute to his primary purpose in writing. He is not the

chronicler, recording events as they transpire, but the historian, reflecting upon the

significance of those events against the larger background of their setting in the history of

the chosen nation.” 22

Matthew’s audience may have been unbelieving Jews whom he hoped to convince to

accept Christ, and believing Jewish Christians whom he hoped to confirm in their faith. 23

21
Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, “Mt. 24:45-51,
Watchful Servants” (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993) electronic ed., n.p.
22
Francis D. Nichol, ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5 (Washington D. C.:
Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1980), 274.
23
Ibid, 273.

18
One of the primary themes of Jesus’ ministry was the life change that would be brought

about in one’s life by becoming a citizen of the kingdom of God. Matthew was convinced

by Jesus and effectively carried on that ministry by recording some of the most powerful

sermons and stories that Jesus told to this effect. The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

cites this parable of the Servant in Authority as an example of how Matthew ties

apocalyptic themes to discipleship. “Matthew characteristically holds out the threat of

eschatological woe for those who are disobedient or refuse to accept Jesus.” 24 It was all

about true discipleship and it will continue to be about discipleship until the parousia.

Continue to be faithful though it seems to tarry, is Matthew’s message.

12. Summary of the parable meaning

The way I understand the parable, it means that every person to one degree or another,

and especially those in spiritual leadership, 25 is called to be a faithful, trustworthy slave

who is waiting expectantly for the return of God our master. Our faithfulness is to be

illustrated by our total obedience to the commands of God. All of God’s commands are

summed up in duologue of Deut 6 to love God and love our neighbor.

If we are faithful and the Lord returns to find us showing our love for him by loving those

given to our care, then the Lord will be pleased and will promote us to even greater honor

and responsibility.

24
Green, McKnight, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 25.
25
Nichol, ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, 505.

19
If, however, we give up on the Lord because of our inner attitude, which is evidenced in

the way we treat those around us, then we will face the wrath of God when he does return.

And the result of our unfaithfulness will be eternal separation of God.

13. History of interpretation 26

Interpretation of the parable of the Servant in Authority is fairly consistent, at least in

modern scholarship. Different classifications of the genre are to be expected, but the final

interpretation of the parable’s meaning nearly always ends in the same place, though

there are exceptions.

The earliest of the expositors like Iranaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine,

etc., either did not comment on the parable of the Servant in Authority or Kissinger did

not include their comments in his book.

The first mention of the parable begins with Alexander Balmain Bruce, but only in so far

as to mention that he categorized the parable among the prophetic or judicial parables.

Rudolf Bultmann, a significant contributor to form criticism, classified the parable, called

the Faithful Servant, among Gleichnisse (similitudes), citing the use of direct speech and

soliloquy as one of the characteristics of similitudes. He states that the original meaning

of such parables “has become irrevocable in the course of the tradition,” and that the

26
This summary is based on Warren S. Kissinger, The Parables of Jesus: A History of
Interpretation and Bibliography (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1979) 69-247.

20
parable of the Faithful Steward is correctly interpreted as a relating to the parousia.

C. H Dodd was particularly interested in the eschatological side of the parables. He held

that the parables were among the most authentic in the Gospel record, but that their

interpretation wasn’t as clear-cut as some supposed. He classified the parable of the

Faithful and Unfaithful Servants as a “Parable of Crisis” and considered it a parallel to

the parable of the Ten Virgins. The entire point of these parables, he said, was to be ready

and awake for the parousia. However, consistent with his idea of realized eschatology, he

proposed that this preparedness is not only for some future event but for events associated

with the ministry of Jesus. These eschatological parables “were intended to enforce his

appeal to men to recognize that the Kingdom of God was present in all it’s momentous

consequences, and that by their conduct in the presence of this tremendous crisis they

would judge themselves and faithful or unfaithful, wise or foolish. When the crisis had

passed, they were adapted by the church to enforce its appeal to men to prepare for the

second and final world-crisis which it believed to be approaching.” (Kissinger, 122)

B. T. D. Smith, a significant contributor to English parable studies, observed that the

parable of the Servant in Authority may have been influenced by the rabbinic “Story of

Ahibar.”

Joachim Jeremias saw the rare influence of Old Testament themes in the parable of the

Servant in Authority. But more than that he saw the influence of the church’s situation, in

that they used these parables, which were originally intended to cause people to see their

21
danger at the moment, to warn people to remain vigilant through the delay of the parousia.

This helped keep the momentum of missionary activity.

T. W. Manson, who was particularly concerned with the classification of parables,

included the Servant in Authority among “ethical-type” parables. Such parables, he held,

are concerned with warning the hearers to make a clear decision concerning their conduct.

They are designed to convict the hearer about the gravity of the situation so that his

response can be appropriate. Ethical parables are supposed to disturb one’s conscience.

Archibald M. Hunter called the Servant in Authority a “Crisis of the Kingdom” parable.

He said that Jesus was urging the people to “discern the signs of the times.” We must be

prepared and ready because the consequences of not being ready are terrible.

The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels says, “The parable of the faithful and the

unfaithful servants (Mt 24:45-51 par. Lk 12:42-46) extols the virtue of the servant who is

doing the Master’s will even when the Master is away, and warns against the servant who

exploits others in the Master’s absence. We need not assume here that the emphasis on

the delay of the Master is interjected into the parable by the church in order to deal with

the problem of Jesus’ delayed return (Jeremias, 55–59; for a contrary view see Marshall,

533–34). Jesus undoubtedly anticipated some interim period before his return when the

disciples would have to operate on their own. The emphasis on faithful service in this

interim and resisting the temptation to turn to selfish goals is consistent with the earlier

22
teaching on service.” 27

Word Bible Commentary presents this entry. “A faithful and wise servant will by his or

her ethical behavior be ready for the coming of the master, the Son of Man, at whatever

time it may occur. The Lord may not come as soon as he is expected—he seems to be

delayed. But that can be no reason to lessen one’s commitment to obeying the teaching he

has given. Only those who remain faithful in their living and obedient to their

commission will be unembarrassed by his sudden coming. Again, the fact of that

coming—not the time of it—is to be foremost in the minds of the disciples. The

knowledge of that fact must govern the lives of the disciples in whatever time they find

themselves.” 28

Craig Blomberg classifies this as a simple three-point parable and assigns it some

allegorical qualities, citing the harsh sentence of being cut in pieces and the use of

“weeping and gnashing of teeth,” which is language used exclusively for punishment in

hell. However, he does not advocate allegorizing all parts of the parable. For instance, the

distribution of food and the type of reward given to a faithful servant and the nature of

the unfaithfulness of the wicked servant serve as examples that fit the times and audience.

“…the motif of the master’s absence seems obviously to point to the delay of the

parousia.” 29

27
Green, McKnight, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 749.
28
Hagner, Word Bible Commentary, 724.
29
Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, electronic ed., n.p.

23
He goes on to say that, “One point per main character again yields the full sense of the

parable: (1) God rewards and punishes people at the final judgment on the basis of their

stewardship of the tasks assigned to them. (2) Faithful stewardship requires perseverance

and consistency, for the end could come at any time. (3) Those who postpone their

responsibilities and do evil in the meantime may sadly discover that it is too late for them

to make amends for their errors. These three points closely correspond to the three main

episodes of the parable (Mt 24:45 par., 46-47 par., and 48-51 par.).” 30

Ellen G. White did not write specifically about this parable in Christ’s Object Lessons.

However, she echoed and alluded to it often when calling people to greater faithfulness

and work for the Lord. “Meat in due season” seems to have been a favorite phrase that

she used often for subjects ranging from diet to dress to entertainment to the publishing

work to witnessing to working with ministers and much more. Clearly she applied the

principles of this parable to whatever modern situations seemed to fit the model.

14. Theological/homiletical interpretation

V. 45: Jesus asks rhetorically, who is the faithful and sensible slave? The Greek word

connotes the idea that this person is considered to be trustworthy by the master. The

master, of course, is God and so naturally everyone who calls himself a disciple would

want to be considered by God to be trustworthy.

30
Ibid.

24
Because God considers us trustworthy he has given us all the care of each other. The

Greek word for household denotes the others in the household, fellow slaves, as v. 49

says. In caring for each other, we are to provide each other’s food at the proper time.

Clearly, the intended care includes more than just food, but food is a sufficient example.

V. 46: The reason God entrusts us with the care of the others around us is because he

isn’t around at the moment, so to speak. In other words, our relationship isn’t as close as

it was designed to be. However, he is expected to return at any time to restore that

relationship. And if we are faithful in caring for those around us as we have been

commanded to do, then we are always prepared to receive our master whenever he should

return.

V. 47: When God does return and see that all has gone well and that we have faithfully

cared for the others around us, then he will reward us with greater responsibility. He will

put us in charge of everything in his domain, not just the few people around us.

“One cannot ignore the fact that some of Jesus’ pronouncements of blessing elsewhere in

the Gospels do set up ethical conditions for blessing. For example, only those who hear

and keep the Word of God are blessed (Lk 11:28; Jn 13:17). Only those servants who are

found watching and doing (Lk 12:37-38, 43; Mt 24:46) and only those who are

compassionate toward the poor and the outcast (Lk 14:14; see Mt 25:34) are blessed.

These other conditional blessings might support interpreting the Matthean Beatitudes as

25
conditional entrance requirements.” 31

V. 48: If, on the other hand, our hearts go bad and we begin to doubt the coming of our

God or we begin to question him or we begin to get ambivalent about the duty with

which he has entrusted us, then we are heading down a dangerous path.

V. 49: This path will bring us to a worse condition than just the neglect of those given to

our care, but it will lead us to downright mistreatment of them as well as mistreatment of

ourselves and the resources God has given us.

V. 50: Eventually, God will return and his return will be unexpected and sudden for

anyone who is unprepared.

V. 51: And God will punish the wicked who did not remain faithful to their duties of

caring for each other. That punishment will be terrible and eternal.

The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels summarizes it well. “Parables about the future

are not intended to satisfy curiosity. They are intended to alter life in the present. By

focusing on judgment and the Master’s return, the focus of these parables is to encourage

faithfulness, wisdom and preparation... Both present and future eschatology have as their

goal right living in the present.” 32

31
Green, McKnight, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 79.
32
Ibid., 600.

26
15. Works used

1. Aland, Barbara; Aland, Kurt; Karavidopoulos, Johannes; Martini, Carlo M.; and
Metzger, Bruce M. in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Institut für Neutestamentliche
Textforschung, Münster. Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27.
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 1993.
2. Blomberg, Craig L. Interpreting the Parables. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1990.
3. Brown, R. E. The Gospel according to John. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966.
4. Bruce, A. B. The Parabolic Teaching of Christ. New York: A. C. Armstrong and
Son, 1896.
5. Danker, Fredrick William. A Greek - English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press, 2000.
6. Freedman, David Noel, ed. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York:
Doubleday, 1992.
7. Freedman, David Noel, ed., Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.
8. Green, Joel B.; McKnight, Scot. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992.
9. Hagner, Donald A. Word Bible Commentary. Accordance/Thomas Nelson
electronic ed. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1995.
10. Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology. London: SCM, 1971.
11. Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.
12. Kissinger, Warren S. The Parables of Jesus: A History of Interpretation and
Bibliography. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1979.
13. McArther, Harvey K. and Johnston, Robert M. They Also Taught in Parables:
Rabbinic Parables From the First Centuries of the Christian Era. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990.
14. Nichol, Francis D. gen. ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary.
Washington D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1980.

27