Ten Thousand Talents?

Matthew's Interpretation and Redaction of the Parable of the

Unforgiving Servant (Matt 18:23-35)
Author(s): MARTINUS C. DE BOER
Source: The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 2, 50th Anniversary Volume (April,
1988), pp. 214-232
Published by: Catholic Biblical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43719404
Accessed: 04-09-2016 13:35 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Catholic Biblical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ten Thousand Talents?
Matthew's Interpretation and
Redaction of the Parable of the
Unforgiving Servant (Matt 18:23-35)

MĀRTIŅUS C. DE BOER
Princeton Theological Seminary
Princeton, NJ 08542

I. Ten Thousand Talents?

In his famous study of the parables of Jesus, J. Jeremias pointed out

that they often contain "an element of unexpectedness" and that this element
"was intended to indicate where the meaning was to be found."1 To illustrate
this claim, Jeremias appeals to the "fantastic sum" of 10,000 talents (100
million denarii) owed by a servant (< doulos ) to his master ( kyrios ) in the
parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:23-35).2 According to Jere-
mias, "the vastness of the sum is intentional. It is meant to impress upon the
hearers by 'shock tactics' that man cannot pay his debt to God, and it throws
into strong relief the sharp contrast with the fellow servant's trivial debt of
100 denarii" (v 28).3
As Jeremias himself recognizes, however, the extraordinarily large sum
presents considerable difficulties for the inherent plausibility of the parable
story itself. I mention just two items:

1 The Parables of Jesus (2d rev. ed.; New York: Scribneťs, 1972) 30. See also R. W. Funk,
Language, Hermeneutic, and the Word of God . The Problem of Language in the New Testament
and Contemporary Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 160-62.
2 Jeremias, Parables , 30. Relying on information given in Josephus (Ant. 17.11.4 §318),
Jeremias observes that the yearly tribute of Galilee and Perea came to 200 talents in 4 b.c. See
below for other views of the sum. Jeremias (ibid., 210 n. 6) estimates the value of the talent on
the basis of Josephus, Ant. 17.11.5 §323 and 17.8.1 §190.
3 Ibid.

214

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE PARABLE OF THE UNFORGIVING SERVANT 215

(1) In v 25, the master orders that the servant be sold, along with
and children and all his possessions, not as punishment, but as a mea
securing the repayment (< apodothēnai ) of the debt. Jeremias asks: "Does
sale of the family make sense?" He answers: "Since the average valu
slave was about 500 to 2,000 denarii, the amount realized from the sale of
family bore no relation whatever to the monstrous debt of 100 milli
narii." He must then speculate that the master's order was "an expres
his wrath."4 E. Linnemann, in her extensive treatment of this parabl
lows Jeremias, except that she rejects anger as the motivation for the m
order "because the parable does not demand it." She explains that the
simply "demands what at that time was lawful and usual."5 This expla
would hold for a sum recoverable from the sale of the servant and his house-
hold, but not for 100 million denarii. The same point may be made in re-
sponse to J. D. M. Derrett's assertion that the servant and his household
were sold "with a view to payment of some of debt."6 Even if the master were
able to sell the servant and his household at the best possible price (say,
10,000 denarii), the money realized from such a sale would obviously rep-
resent a miniscule amount relative to the total debt.
(2) In v 27, we are told that the master had pity on the servant and,
according to the RSV KJV NEB, and TEV forgave him "the debt." Yet the
Greek word here is daneion, and, as Linnemann remarks, this word "is
rendered as 'loan' by the dictionaries," not as "debt."7 To explain the diffi-
culties this presents, Linnemann appeals to Jeremias's observation that the
Syriac versions render the Greek term with the Syriac equivalent for "debt."
"We may suppose," concludes Jeremias, "that this word was used in the
Aramaic form of our parable and then too narrowly translated by to
daneion"* It is evident, however, that the Syriac rendering is explicable from
an attempt to make sense of the context, just as the English rendering cited
above is, and tells us nothing about the Aramaic original. As Jeremias him-
self writes, loan "does not make sense here."9 Yet the Greek text does in fact

4 Ibid., 211. Evidence for the price of slaves is given in n. 13 and in J. Jeremias, Jerusalem
in the Time of Jesus. An Investigation into Social and Economic Conditions during the New
Testament Period (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) 347. See also C. Spicq, Dieu et l'homme selon
le Nouveau Testament (Paris: Cerf, 1960) 57 n. 5.
5 E. Linnemann, Parables of Jesus. Introduction and Exposition (London: SPCK, 1966)
109 n. 1.
6 Law in the New Testament (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970) 33; emphasis
added. See also his earlier work, "Law in the New Testament: The Parable of the Unmerciful
Servant," Revue Internationale des Droits de l'Antiquité (3d Series) 12 (1965) 3-19.
7 Linnemann, Parables , 175 n. 8. See BAGD, 170; LS J, 369; MM, 136.
8 Jeremias, Parables, 211.
9 Ibid.

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 216 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 50, 1988

say "loan." Derrett observes that daneion "can hardly be a careless slip since
the word is common."10 He thus takes the word to mean "loan," but must
then interpret the release of the servant by the master in v 27a ( apelysen
autori) to include the conversion of the debt to a loan, a loan which the
master then immediately forgives in v 27b (to daneion aphēken autç)'n This
explanation seems forced.
These two items suggest that it is perhaps the amount of the debt in v 24
that needs explanation, and not the reverse, i.e., the master's order in v 25
or the designation of the debt as a loan in v 27.
To be sure, interpreters of the parable have sought in their own way to
provide an adequate explanation. The key to their explanation lies in the
reference to the kyrios of the parable as a basileus at the beginning. Some
time ago, W. Michaelis raised the possibility that in view of the fivefold
designation of the king as kyrios (w 25,27,31,32,34), Matthew is responsible
for labeling him a basileus in the parable introduction.12 D. O. Via rejects
this possibility because, in his view, "the large sum of money probably sug-
gests a royal situation."13 Jeremias and Linnemann reject Michaelis 's sug-
gestion on the same grounds.14 Once the figure of the king is deemed integral
to the parable story, it becomes possible to identify the other characters of
the parable with some degree of specificity: the doulos owing the 10,000
talents is not a common slave, but a high official, a governor or a satrap
subordinate to the king,15 while the syndoulos owing the hundred denarii
(w 28-29,33) is not really a "fellow servant," as the Greek term would sug-
gest, but a lesser official, as are the syndouloi who make the report to the
master in v 31. 16 This identification of the characters in turn allows the large

10 Derrett, Law, 37.

" Ibid., 39-40.
W. Michaelis, Die Gleichnisse Jesu. Eine Einführung (3d ed.; Hamburg: Furche, 1956)
192; see also idem, Das hochzeitliche Kleid. Eine Einführung in die Gleichnisse Jesu über die
rechte Jüngerschaft (Berlin: Furche, 1939) 150-53.
13 The Parables. Their Literary and Existential Dimension (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967)
138 n. 138.
Jeremias, Parables, 28 n. 17; Linnemann, Parables, 108, 175 n. 8.
15 So Jeremias, Parables, 210; Linnemann, Parables, 108, 175 n. 8; Derrett, Law, 36; also,
Via, Parables, 138. For further support, Linnemann ( Parables , 175 n. 9, citing K. H. Rengstorf,
" doulos , ktl.,n TDNT 2 [1964] 261-79), appeals to evidence that (1) suggests the use of the
designation douloi for subordinates of a king (see also Jeremias, Parables, 210; Spicq, Dieu et
l'homme, 55 n. 2; Derrett, Law, 19 n. 3; 33 n. 1); and (2) indicates ( Parables , 175 n. 8) that a king
could be addressed as kyrie, as in Matt 25:37,44.
16 Jeremias, Parables, 211-12; Linnemann, Parables, 109; Derrett, Law, 40-41. Linnemann
and Jeremias seem to draw a distinction between the syndoulos of w 28-29,33 and the syndouloi
of v 31. Both label the former "a minor official" and the latter "high officials." To support the

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE PARABLE OF THE UNFORGIVING SERVANT 217

debt of the unforgiving doulos to become somewhat credible:

placed doulos is a tax-farmer and the debt concerns the taxes h
sible for collecting for his royal master.17
Jeremias nevertheless finally concedes that "the sum exceeds
situation."18 Derrett, however, with an assist from C. Spicq, sum
pressive evidence indicating that the 10,000 talents is not as "f
Jeremias had thought. Particularly pertinent is the account given i
(Ant. 12.4.4 §176) of one Joseph son of Tobias, a tax-farmer, wh
collect taxes totaling 16,000 talents for Coelesyria, Phoenicia,
Samaria on behalf of the Egyptian king Ptolemy Philadelphus.1
This evidence enables Derrett to explain another problematic
the parable: Upon hearing that he was to be sold into slavery
servant begs his master to be patient with him (makrothyměson
and promises that he will repay the whole huge amount (panta a
Because the amount of the debt seems fantastic to him, Jeremia
that "the promise in v 26 is impossible of fufillment."20 Linnemann
that the servant's promise "is only to be regarded as 'a promise give
and need.'"21 For Derrett, however, once the servant is underst
tax-farmer, his promise to pay up the whole amount attains p
"What he was proposing was that the debt should be carried on
to the assessment for the current year. . . . His suggestion was that
should loan him the amount due, the ten thousand talents, and
able to repay the whole, perhaps with interest (this is only vag
at)."22 The king, rather than suffer the loss of such a considerable
along with the proposition implicit in the servant's plea (v 26), conv
debt into a loan (v 27), in the hopes of obtaining it and much m
But this explanation of v 26 entails the forced explanation o
cussed previously. Furthermore, Derrett has difficulty making sens
where the master consigns the unforgiving servant to the torturer
should repay everything which was owed" (v 34). Derrett's surm

last claim, Jeremias ( Parables , 212) appeals to the occurrence of the plural syn
2 Esdr 4:7,9,17,23; 5:3,6; 6:6,13, where it denotes "high officials under the governo
and Syria."
17 Jeremias, Parables, 210; Linnemann, Parables, 108; Derrett, Law, 36. De
40-41) maintains that the syndouloi (including the debtor of 100 denarii) wer
farmers, like the doulos of v 26.
18 Jeremias, Parables, 210.
19 Derrett, Law, 36 n. 3; Spicq, Dieu et l'homme, 54 n. 3.
20 Jeremias, Parables, 211-12.
21 Linnemann, Parables, 109.
22 Derrett, Law, 39.

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 218 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 50, 1988

that the servant's friends, relations, and dependents would rally round and
raise the money23 is unconvincing in view of the size of the debt.
One may wonder further whether the teller of the parable or the hearers
of it would have had a command of the many legal subtleties Derrett must
posit to establish the story's verisimilitude. Derrett himself writes about v 26:
"The proposition is not distinctly uttered, but it lies in the background.
. . ."24 Too much has to be explained by what "lies in the background," or
by what "is only vaguely hinted at." The result is that the plain meaning of
the text is sacrificed. Derrett says that the servant of v 24 "was evidently the
chief minister, because he was interviewed first."25 Verse 24a scarcely sup-
ports the latter claim ("After he had begun reckoning and the indef-
inite characterization of the servant as "one debtor" ( heis opheiletēs) in v 24b
speaks against the former. The servant's only evident distinction at the be-
ginning of the parable is that he owed a large amount of money.26 The plain
sense of the text also suggests that there was no difference in position be-
tween this servant and the syndoulos of w 28-30,33 or the syndouloi of
v 31. 27

It is the thesis of this article that Matthew is responsible for inflating the
amount of the servant's debt (i.e., loan)28 and for introducing other changes

23 Ibid., 43, 47. Both Jeremias ( Parables , 213) and Linnemann ( Parables , 110) are forced
to conclude that "in view of the magnitude of the debt/* the temporal clause in v 34 must signify
unending punishment.
24 Derrett, Law, 39.
Ibid., 36. See n. 15 above.
26 The evidence cited by Linnemann to support the view that the doulos was a highly
placed royal subordinate (n. 15 above) can be used just as well to explain how Matthew could
introduce the lord of the parable as a king in v 23 and yet not feel compelled to use the term
in the remainder of the story. But, in any case, the normal counterpart to doulos is not basileus
but kyrios (see below), and the lord (or master) of a slave need not be a king. It may also be
true that the servant's ability to imprison his fellow servant (v 30) implies wealth and position
(so Michaelis, Gleichnisse, 192-93), but this does not necessitate that his lord be a king.
27 Contra Jeremias, Linnemann, Derrett, and Via (nn. 15 and 16 above). Spicq ( Dieu et
l'homme, 57 n. 4) also discusses the LXX texts marshaled by Jeremias (see n. 16) and points out
that the term syndoulos in 2 Esdras is a translation of the Aramaic kěndtyá, meaning "col-
league, ^ " which is also the evident meaning of the Greek term. He hence argues, quite plausibly,
that the term syndoulos underlines the equality of the "fellow servant" with his creditor, the
unforgiving doulos. Other major treatments of the parable along the lines laid down by Jere-
mias, Linnemann, and Derrett are the following: W. G. Thompson, Matthew's Advice to a
Divided Community Mt. 17,22-18,35 (AnBib 44; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970) 203-25; H.
Weder, Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern . Draditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Analysen
und Interpretationen (FRLANT 120; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 210-18; B. B.
Scott, "The King's Accounting: Matthew 18:23-34," JBL 104 (1985) 429-42.
28 C. F. W. Smith (The Jesus of the Parables [rev. ed.; Philadelphia: United Church, 1975]
91) says: "Some critics think it [the sum] has become multiplied in the course of transmission

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE PARABLE OF THE UNFORGIVING SERVANT 219

in the parable to commend its plausibility, though obviously not

plete success. I shall argue that he has made these changes partl
reason that Jeremias mistakenly attributes to (the historical) J
vastness of the sum ... is meant to impress upon the hearers by
tactics' that man cannot pay his debt to God." In short, Matthew
mias, despite himself) has interpreted the parable allegorically: "B
king," writes Jeremias, "we see God, behind the debtor, the man
allowed to hear the message of forgiveness."29

II. Matthew's Interpretation and Redaction of the Parab

the Unforgiving Servant

A. Verse 35
The parable, found only in the Gospel of Matthew, occurs in the fourth
discourse of Jesus, the one devoted to church discipline and order (chap. 18),
and is, in fact, its conclusion.30 This discourse, given its present literary shape
by the evangelist, has been constructed around three terms evidently desig-
nating various groups in the Matthean community: "child" ( paidion ) in
w 2,3,4,5; "little one" ( mikros ) in w 6,10,14; and "brother" (adelphos) in
w 15 (twice), 21, and 35. The last verse mentioned, v 35, is the "application"
of the parable and functions at the same time as the climax of the chapter,
which thereby ends with a threat: "So also my heavenly Father will do to you
(cf. v 34), if you do not forgive, each his brother, from your heart." The
context, particularly w 15-17, demonstrates that, for Matthew, adelphos
here means "fellow (Matthean) Christian."31

or by the editor." But he gives no names and does not explore the possibility. T. W. Manson ( The
Sayings of Jesus [London: SCM, 1949] 212) mentions the possibility that "the numerical signs
for 10 and 10,000 have been confused, and that originally the debt amounted to 10 talents. . . ."
29 Jeremias, Parables, 211.
30 The other so-called discourses are chaps. 5-7, 10, 13, and 23-25. On the unity of chap.
18 and the question of Matthean redaction, see Thompson, Advice , 203-37; and G. Bornkamm,
"The Authority to 'Bind' and 'Loose* in the Church in Matthew's Gospel: The Problem of
Sources in Matthew's Gospel," The Interpretation of Matthew (Issues in Religion and Theology
3; ed. G. Stanton; Philadelphia: Fortress; London: SCM, 1983) 85-97. Bornkamm labels chap.
18 a "Rule for the Congregation" ( Gemeindeordnung ), as do other exegetes. Aside from 16:18
(Peter the rock of the church), the word ekklēsia occurs only in this chapter (twice in v 17). There
are no other instances anywhere in the Synoptic Gospels.
31 See Jeremias, Parables, 109; J. P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew. Christ, Church, and
Morality in the First Gospel (Theological Inquiries; New York: Paulist, 1979) 134: "It is this
theme of 'brother* which gives the parable its ecclesial interpretation in verse 35." For an
apparently similar use of adelphos , see 5:22-24; 7:3-5; 23:8; 25:40; 28:10.

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 220 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 50, 1988

The parable is presented as part of the answer to Peter's question in v 21:

"Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me,32 and I forgive him? As
many as seven times?" Jesus responds, "Not seven times, but seventy times
seven."33 The parable that follows, as Jeremias observes,34 is not about re-
peated forgiveness, as is the exchange between Peter and Jesus in w 21-22.
While v 35 does not seem to be about repeated forgiveness either, its theme
of forgiving one's "brother" links it to Peter's question in v 21 (and, by
extension, to the openly ecclesiastical instruction of w 15-20).
These considerations, as well as the absence of the term adelphos from
the parable proper, suggest that v 35 has been constructed, or at least shaped,
by the evangelist, as is commonly recognized.35 Conclusive evidence for this
hypothesis is Jesus' reference to God as "my heavenly Father," a Mat-
thean locution.36

32 Observe that v 15 begins, "If your brother sins against you.

3 Bornkamm ("Authority," 88-89) maintains that Matthew has apparently recast a Q
saying (Luke 17:4) in the form of a dialogue to serve as the transition to the parable. Linnemann
(Parables, 105-7) argues that Peter's question finds its answer in v 22 and that Matthew has only
joined the parable to this answer in a rather loose way, with the common Matthean link phrase
dia touto in v 23 (cf. 6:25; 12:27,31; 13:13,52; 14:12; 15:11; 21:43; 23:34; 24:44).
34 Jeremias, Parables, 97.
35 Ibid., 109; Linnemann, Parables, 107.
36 The same expression (ho pater mou ho ouranios ) occurs in Matt 15:13, though there
are also five instances of "your heavenly Father" (5:48; 6:14,26,32; 23:9). In neither Mark nor
Luke is the qualifier ouranios employed to describe God (with the possible exception of a variant
reading for Luke 11:13). For God simply as "my Father," see 11:27 (a counterpart to Luke
10:22); 20:23; 25:34; 26:29,39,42,53. The only other instances are Luke 10:22 (= Matt 11:27);
15:17-18 (the Prodigal Son); 24:49. More important perhaps is the locution "my Father in
heaven," ho pater mou ho en (tois) ouranois, in Matt 7:21; 10:32,33; 12:50; 16:7; 18:10,14,19.
There are no instances of this locution in Mark or Luke. In Matthew 6:9 we find " our Father
in heaven" (the Lord's Prayer). Matthew also favors the construction "your Father in heaven":
5:16; 5:45; 6:1; 7:1 1 (cf. Luke 11:13). Mark has a single instance of this phrasing, in 1 1:25, which,
for some reason, is not found in the Matthean counterpart (though see 6:14). There are no
instances in Luke.
Instances where Matthean redaction of Mark is evident are particularly noteworthy: 12:50
("the will of my Father in heaven" for "the will of God" in Mark 3:35); 15:13 ("my heavenly
Father," in an expansion of Mark 7: 17); 16: 17 ("my Father in heaven," in an expansion of Mark
8:29); 20:23 ("my Father" added to Mark 10:40); 26:29 ("the kingdom of my Father" for "the
kingdom of God" in Mark 14:25); 26:39 ("my Father" for "Abba, Father" in Mark 14:36); 26:42
("my Father" added to Mark 14:39).
Matthean redaction of supposed Q material thereby also comes into focus: 5:48 ("your
heavenly Father" for "your Father" in Luke 6:36); 6:9 ("our Father in heaven" for "Father" in
Luke 11:12); 6:26 ("your heavenly Father" for "God" in Luke 12:24); 6:32 ("your heavenly
Father" for "your Father" in Luke 12:29); 10:32,33 ("my Father in heaven" for "the angels of
God" in Luke 12:8,9); 18:14 ("my Father in heaven" in the conclusion of the parable of the Lost
Sheep, for which Luke 15:7 has a different version). Luke 11:13, the counterpart to Matt 7:11

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE PARABLE OF THE UNFORGIVING SERVANT 221

The parable cum application (v 35) recalls Matthew's version of

Lord's Prayer in 6:9-13, particularly v 12, and its "application" in 6:

Our Father in heaven. . . . Forgive us our debts just as also we forgiv

debtors. ... 37
For if you forgive people (anthrõpois) their trespasses, your heavenly Father
will forgive also you. (cf. Mark 1 1 :25)

Then follows the warning of 6:15, unique to Matthew, whose threatening

tone anticipates that of 18:35: "But if you do not forgive people their tres-
passes, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." In 18:35, however,
the requirement for forgiveness of "debtors" has an ecclesial, rather than a
universal, focus. Furthermore, whereas 6:15 declares what the heavenly Fa-
ther will not do (forgive), 18:35 declares what he will do (condemn) to those
who fail to be forgiving.
By means of v 35, then, Matthew in effect invites his readers or listeners
to interpret the parable allegorically,38 i.e., to regard the kyrios of the parable
as God, the "debtor" of v 24 (the doulos of w 26-28) as a Matthean Christian
to whom the merciful God has, through the atoning death of Christ, granted
"forgiveness of sins" (26:28), 39 and the syndoulos of w 28-30,33 as a Chris-
tian adelphos to whom the Matthean Christian is expected to extend an
analogous forgiveness (cf. 5:48). In addition, the fate of the servant in v 34
is understood as the eternal damnation to be meted out at the final judgment
to Christian "servants" (cf. 24:48-51; 25:29-30) who fail to measure up: "So
my heavenly Father will do to you ..." (cf. 13:39-42,49-50; 22:13; 25:46).
Matthew has, however, prepared the way for this allegorizing interpretation
of the parable, most evidently in v 26.

("your Father in heaven"), reads "the Father from heaven (ex ouranou )," though a variant
reading has "your heavenly Father ( hymõn ho ouranios )."
In sum, we find 17 instances of "my Father," "my heavenly Father," or "my Father in
heaven" in Matthew. The latter two locutions are unique to Matthew and are probably similar
in meaning, though there is a difference of emphasis: the latter underlines the Father's location,
the former the kind of Father he is; cf. 23:9. On the Jewish-Christian cast of these locutions, see
the discussion of G. Schrenk, "pater," TDNT 5 (1967) 979-81.
37 In Matthew, aside from 23:16-18, words from the stem opheil- occur only in 6:12 and
the parable of the Unforgiving Servant: opheiletēs in 6:12; 18:24; opheilē in 18:21; opheilěma
in 6:12; opheilõ in 18:28 (twice), 30, 34 (also 23:16,18). The metaphorical use of these terms in
connection with sin and transgression is probably of Jewish origin (see J. Jeremias, The Prayers
of Jesus [Philadelphia: Fortress, 19671 92) and is a mark of Matthew's milieu; cf. 23:16-18.
38 See Scott, "Accounting," 430 n. 7: "The narrative in Matthew is not itself an allegory
but has been given an allegorical framework through Matthew's redaction."
39 This phrase, among the words spoken by Jesus over the cup at the Last Supper, is
without parallel in Mark's and Luke's accounts.

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 222 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 50, 1988

B. Verse 26
This verse is quite similar in wording to v 29. The latter reads: "So his
fellow servant fell down and was beseeching (parekalei ) him, saying: 'Be
patient with me, and I shall repay you.'" Verse 26 reads: "So the servant fell
down and was worshiping ( prosekynei ) him, saying: 4Be patient with me, and
I shall repay everything to you.'"
The key difference from v 29 is the verb prosekynei instead of parekalei
There are at least three reasons why the verb used in v 26 may be considered
redactional:
(1) As Linnemann observes, "the Greek word ... is in fact usually used
in the sense of the worship of God or gods."40 All the other instances of the
verb in Matthew appear to have this meaning (Jesus as the object of worship
in Matt 2:2,8,11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 28:9,17; God in 4:10; Satan,
by contrast, in 4:9).41 This evidence and the allegorizing interpretation Mat-
thew gives the parable in 18:35 indicate that the instance of the verb in 18:26
also connotes worship.42
(2) In v 32, the kyrios of the parable summons the unforgiving servant
and rebukes him: "Evil servant, I forgave you all that debt, because you
beseeched me." The italicized verb is parakaleõ, the verb used in v 29, but
not in v 26. In the latter, the servant had not been "beseeching" his lord; he
had been "worshiping" him.
(3) The structure of v 26 reflects a Matthean pattern (8:2; 9: 18; 15:25; cf.
20:20): (a) the imperfect prosekynei preceded (b) by the aorist participle of
attendant circumstance (pros)elthõn and followed (c) by the participle legõn
that introduces (d) a request for assistance. There is, however, one key dif-
ference in 18:26: the aorist participle pesõn, not Matthew's characteristic
(pros)elthõn, precedes the main verb.43

40 Linnemann, Parables, 109 n. 1. See BAGD, 716; the first meaning given is "(fall down
and) worship."
41 The verb is important for Matthew: there are 13 instances, but only two in Mark and
three in Luke.
With the possible exception of Rev 3:9, the verb is always used elsewhere in the NT in
connection with supernatural, heavenly, or divine beings; see BAGD, 716-17.
43 In 8:2; 9:18; 15:25, the request is directed to Jesus, who is addressed as kyrie in 8:2 and
15:25, as he is by Peter in 18:21. Thus, until v 35, one receives the impression that the master
of the parable allegorically refers not to God, the heavenly Father, but to Jesus himself, an
impression strengthened by the fact that, according to the majority of textual witnesses (in-
cluding K Z1,/13), the master of the parable is also addressed as kyrie in v 26. The difference may
not be all that significant for Matthew since Jesus is MGod with us" (1:23) and the Son of Man
who effects the final judgment (25:31-46). Matthew also employs a form of the verb (pros)er -
chômai in combination with a form of the verb proskyneõ (not the imperfect) in 2:2,9,1 1; 28:9.
In 2:11, we find both elthontes and pesontes used with the aorist indicative of proskyneõ.

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE PARABLE OF THE UNFORGIVING SERVANT 223

I conclude that Matthew has substituted prosekynei for parek

v 26.
Of course, it might now be objected that prosekynei is in fact appropri-
ate since the kyrios of the parable is a king (v 23), and Hellenistic kings were
often thought to be divine.44 Yet there are good grounds for thinking that the
identification of the master as a king in v 23 is also the work of the evangelist.

C. Verse 23
This verse begins: Dia touto homoiothē hē basileia tõn ouranõn anthrõ -
pç basilei, "Therefore, the kingdom of heaven has been like a person, a
king. ... 'M5 The opening prepositional phrase, dia touto , is a common
Matthean link phrase (cf. 6:25; 12:27,31; 13:13,52; 14:12; 15:11; 21:43;
23:34; 24:44).
It is well known that the phrase "the kingdom of heaven" is peculiar to
the Gospel of Matthew (as opposed to "the kingdom of God" prominent
elsewhere)46 and that a formulation containing that phrase frequently intro-
duces the parables in this Gospel (13:24,31,33,44,45,47; 18:23; 20:1; 22:2;
25: l).47 Three different formulations occur:

(1) homoia estin hē basileia tõn ouranõn in 13:31,33,44,45,47; 20:1 (cf. 1 1:16;
13:52): "the kingdom of heaven is like. ..."
(2) homoiothēsetai hē basileia tõn ouranõn in 25: 1 (cf. 7:24,26): "the kingdom
of heaven shall be like. ..."

The parables of the Weeds among the Wheat (13:24-30) and of the Marriag
Feast (22:1-14) begin, as does the parable of the Unforgiving Servant, wit
the third formulation:

(3) homoiõthe hē basileia tõn ouranõn in 13:24; 18:23; 22:2 (cf. 6:8): "the
kingdom of heaven has been like. ..."

44 That the king of the parable must be a Hellenistic king finds support in the numerous
non- Je wish elements of the parable story, summarized by Linnemann ( Parables , 109 n. g; cf.
Jeremias, Parables , 211-13): "(a) The sale of the wife (Matt. 18.25) was forbidden in Jewish law.
A man could only be liable for his own person and his children, (b) There was no institution
of slavery for debt in Israel, (c) Torture (Matt. 18.34) was not allowed by Jewish law. . . ."
45 D. A. Carson ("The õjioioç Word-Group as Introduction to Some Matthean Parables,"
NTS 31 [1985] 277-82, esp. 278-79) has recently shown that the passive forms of homoioõ are
deponent and mean "is, or become, like," not "to be compared to." He cites Matt 6:8, in addition
to Acts 19:11; Rom 9:29; Heb 2:17.
46 The expression occurs over 30 times in Matthew. There are four instances of the phrase
"the kingdom of God" (12:28; 19:24; 21:31; 21:43), the form common in Mark and Luke.
47 Matt 13:52 may be another instance. Only two parables in Mark and two in Luke are
introduced with comparable formulations (Mark 4:26,30; Luke 13:18,20).

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 224 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 50, 1988

The evangelist seems to favor the first formulation, as its frequency

attests. Matthew first employs it when he is editing Mark's version of the
parable of the Mustard Seed (13:31-32//Mark 4:30-32). The formulation is
absent from Mark 4:30. Yet, it may be noted that Luke's version of this
parable begins in a similar way: "To what is the kingdom of God like ( homoia
estivi) ... ?" (Luke 13:18). Furthermore, in the parable that follows, the
parable of the Leaven (Matt 13:33// Luke 13:20-21), which is absent from
Mark, Luke also employs the phrase homoia estin, as does Matthew. It is
possible, therefore, that the phrasing homoia estin comes from Q and that
Matthew has adopted it to introduce the remaining parables in chap. 13 and
the parable of the Vineyard Workers in 20:1-16 (all unique to Matthew).
This hypothesis finds support in Matt 7:24,26 (apparent Q material),
where the Lucan counterparts (6:48,49) employ the phrase homoios estin in
two brief parables, but Matthew does not. Indeed, he employs the future
indicative passive homoiõthêsetai in 7:24,26, which also occurs in the intro-
duction to the parable of the Ten Maidens in 25:1-13, part of Jesus' closing
eschatological discourse. It thus seems as if the second formulation (see
above) is peculiarly Matthean and indicative of his orientation toward the
final judgment.48

That leaves the third formulation, which has no counterpart in Mark or

Luke. Since all three parables beginning with the aorist indicative passive
homoiõthê are unique to Matthew, it is not possible to determine with cer-
titude whether this formulation is from the evangelist or from the tradition
accessible to him. The aorist indicative seems problematic because it stands
in tension with Matthew's seeming predilection for the future indicative,
pointed out above.49 Yet, the verb homoioõ occurs more frequently in Mat-
thew than in Mark or Luke, and only he among the evangelists employs the

48 The future passive used in 25:1 suggests that the future passives in 7:24,26 are not
simply "logical" futures. The immediate context (7:21-23) also indicates that Matthew has his
eye on the last judgment.
49 There have been various attempts to account for this aorist. There seem to be two
options, one grammatical and the other theological. M. Zerwick, e.g., labels it a "gnomic" aorist
( Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples [Rome: Biblical Institute, 1963] #256). D. Hill thinks
it reflects "the Semitic perfect expressing a general truth" {The Gospel of Matthew [NCB; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981] 231). J. D. Kingsbury, on the other hand, thinks Matthew employs the
aorist passive "to indicate that the Kingdom of Heaven, from his vantage point, is a present
reality and already has a certain history behind it" {The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13: A
Study in Redaction-Criticism [London: SPCK; Richmond: John Knox, 1969] 67). Carson qual-
ifies Kingsbury's view, arguing that Matthew "uses the aorist to affirm that Jesus claims the
kingdom has already dawned in his own mission, and therefore failure to recognize it in Jesus '
day was already a mark of spiritual hardness" ("Word-Group," 281; emphasis original).

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE PARABLE OF THE UNFORGIVING SERVANT 225

passive form,50 including an aorist passive, albeit subjunctive, in

dently Matthean). Furthermore, the aorist indicative is consistent
thew's allegorical understanding of the parabolic action in each of
parables, i.e., they each refer (at least in part) to events that, from M
standpoint, have happened: the Matthean community has become
mixtum (Weeds among the Wheat);51 God has extended his forgiv
to believers in the work of Christ (Unforgiving Servant);52 Chris
responded to the divine invitation (Marriage Feast).53 It should o
surprise that at the end of each parable Matthew directs the attentio
readers to the final reckoning that is evidently so important fo
13:30; 18:35; 22:11-14). In contrast, he employs the future tense
troduction to the parable of the Ten Maidens (25: 1-13) because all
that parable portrays, though told in the past tense, is allegorica
stood to refer to the future return of Jesus.54
I thus think it likely that the introduction to the parable of the Unfor-
giving Servant is redactional, though it is impossible to be sure. (Unfortu-
nately, Matthew fails to use any one of the three formulations in his
redaction of two Marcan parables, the Sower in 13:3-9 and the Wicked
Tenants in 21:33-41.)
We may now turn to the expression anthrõpç basilei, literally, "to a
person, a king. ... "To evaluate it we may refer to the parable of the
Marriage Feast (22:1-14), which also begins homoiothē hē basileia tön ou-
ranõn anthrõpç basilei (22:1). This parable is a different version of the par-
able of the Great Supper, found in Luke (14:15-24). The Lucan version
begins simply with the phrase anthrõpos tis, "a certain person," and then

50 Carson, "Word-Group," 278.

51 The interpretation of this parable provided by the Matthean Jesus in 13:36-42 proves
this.
52 See the discussion of v 35 in II. A above.
53 Matt 22:8 is a clear allusion to a past event, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the whole
parable through v 10 is an allegory of salvation history up to Matthew's own time. The re-
maining verses (11-14) are a Matthean addition to the parable (as a comparison with Luke's
parable of the Great Supper indicates) that alludes to the future judgment, e.g., "the weeping
and gnashing of teeth" (see next note).
54 I am thus inclined to agree more with Kingsbury ( Parables , 67) than with Carson
("Word-Group," 277-82; see n. 49 above). Carson's attempt to differentiate sharply Matthew's
use of homoia estin from the two passive forms is less than convincing. He argues that the first
{homoia estin ) is "conceptual," whereas the other two are temporal /eschatological. The parables
of the Weeds among the Wheat (13:24-30) and the Net (13:47-48) both receive interpretations
in Matthew (13:36-43,49) that are quite similar in wording (the close of the age, angels, the
furnace of fire, weeping and the gnashing of teeth), yet one parable begins with homoiothē, the
other with homoia estin. It would seem that the latter formulation is quite general and can
incorporate the temporal/ eschatological motifs of the other two formulations.

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 226 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 50, 1988

continues by referring to him as a kyrios (w 21,22,23) and as an oikodespotēs

(v 21) with a subordinate doulos (w 17,21,22,23). Matthew has a king (w
2,7,11,13) with subordinate douloi (w 3,4,6,8,10).
Jeremias maintains that Matthew has "drastically edited" this parable,
making it into an allegory of salvation history (as he has the parable of the
Wicked Tenants which precedes it). The change of the kyrios to basileus ,
Jeremias argues, is one feature of Matthew's allegorizing reappropriation of
the parable. He notes that rabbinic parables show a similar tendency to insert
the metaphor of God as king (derived from the OT) as they are passed down
in the tradition.55 What prevents Jeremias from appraising the parable of the
Unforgiving Servant in the same way and from adopting the compelling
argument of Michaelis (viz., that in the view of the fivefold reference to the
king as a kyrios , Matthew is responsible for introducing him as a basileus in
v 23) is, as we have seen, the large sum of 10,000 talents in v 24.56
The term basileus in 18:23 is suspect for other reasons as well. The
juxtaposition of the two nouns, anthrõpos basileus , is curious. One explan-
ation is to regard anthrõpos as equivalent to the indefinite pronominal ad-
jective tis.51 Another is to deem it pleonastic.58 However that may be, the
second noun is clearly in apposition with the first. Furthermore, this con-
struction is almost exclusively Matthean59 and is largely confined to the
parable introductions: 13:45 (merchant); 20:1 and 21:33 (householder);60
18:23 and 22:2 (king).61 It is noteworthy that the construction cuts across
different introductory formulations: "the kingdom of heaven is like ..." in
1 3:45; 20: 1 ; "the kingdom of heaven has been like ..." in 1 8:23 and 22:2; and

55 Jeremias, Parables, 28, 101, 102 n. 59.

56 Ibid., 28 n. 17.
57 So N. Turner in J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol. Ill: Syntax
by N. lUrner (Edinburgh: Clark, 1963) 195; W. F. Howard in J. H. Moulton and W. E Howard,
A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. II: Accidence and Word- Formation (Edinburgh:
Clark, 1929; repr. 1979) 433. The nouns anēr and gyně can also be used in this way. See, e.g.,
Matt 15:22 ("a woman, a Canaanite") and Luke 4:24 ("a woman, a widow").
58 So BAGD, 69.
The only genuine parallel, outside of Matthew's special material, is the Q text found
in Matt 11:19 and Luke 7:24, where the apposition is rhetorical: MBehold, a man ( anthrõpos ),
a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and of sinners."
60 Matt 13:52 may perhaps be listed here as well.
61 See also 13:28. In 21:33, the two nouns are not actually adjacent: anthrõpos en
oikodespotēs, hostis . . . which can be translated, "there was a person, a householder, who. . . . "
In all instances, except 13:28 and 21:33, the pattern is homoia/os (13:45,52; 20:1) or homoiõthê
(18:23; 22:2) + the dative anthrõpç + another noun in the dative. Another pattern, found in Luke
as well as in Matthew, is homoia/os + anthrõpç + dative participle (Matt 13:24; Luke 6:49;
12:36; cf. Matt 12:10). A similar pattern occurs in Matt 7:24,26: homoiõthêsetai +
andri + adjective.

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE PARABLE OF THE UNFORGIVING SERVANT 227

the simple "there was a person, a householder, who ..." in 21:33. I

it is a Matthean pattern to specify the ambiguous anthrõpos at the beg
of parables with an appositional noun. Thus, as we have just seen, in con
to Luke who begins the parable of the Great Supper (14:15-24) wi
anthrõpos ,62 Matthew begins the parable of the Marriage Feast (
with anthrõpos basileus (incorporated into his favored "datival" p
introduction). Similarly, and more clearly, in the parable of the
Tenants (Matt 21:33-46// Mark 12:l-12//Luke 20:9-19), Matthew re
thrõpos ēn oikodespotēs hostis ephyteusen ampelõna, "there was a
a householder, who planted a vineyard," for Mark's simple ampelõna
pos ephyteusen, "a person planted a vineyard" (similarly Luke, thou
a slightly different word order).

The significance of this pattern for understanding Matthew's re

of the parable of the Unforgiving Servant is readily apparent: it increa
likelihood that he is responsible for inserting the reference to the king
the parable introduction.

The various arguments pursued above with respect to v 23 indica

the pre-Matthean form of the parable may have begun, "A person (
pos ) wanted to settle accounts with his servants" (or some such), a
that Matthew has rewritten as follows: "The kingdom of heaven has
like a person, a king , who wanted to settle accounts with his serva

D. Verse 24

We now return to the matter of the 10,000 talents in v 24, and we may
begin with the observation that the word talanton occurs in only one
other passage in the NT: the parable of the Talents in Matt 25:16-28. This
parable is another version of the parable of the Pounds (mnas) found in
Luke 19:1 1-27. The Matthean version tells the story of an anthrõpos 63 who,
upon leaving home, entrusts one servant with five talents, another with two,
and yet a third with one. In the Lucan version, the man entrusts ten servants
with a pound each. Whereas a talent was worth 10,000 denarii, a pound was
worth about 100 denarii.64 Yet Matthew as well as Luke reports that the
amount entrusted to each servant was small (Matt 25:21,23; Luke 19: 17). But

62 Luke's pattern is to modify anthrõpos with tis, as in 10:30; 15:4,11; 16:1.

63 In this case, Matthew does not supply a specifying noun in apposition, perhaps because
the immediate context (the parable of the Ten Maidens that precedes) has made it plain that
Jesus himself is meant.
64 See Jeremias, Parables, 61; see also n. 2 above.

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 228 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 50, 1988

not even one talent can be considered a small amount (cf. Matt 20:13, where
one denarius was the daily wage for a laborer). Jeremias concludes: "Mat-
thew has immensely magnified the amounts."65
If such embellishment of the figures can be attributed to Matthew in the
parable of the Talents, the possibility that he has also embellished the
amount of the servant's debt in the parable of the Unforgiving Servant is
strengthened. As we have seen in the introduction to this article, the internal
coherence of the parable story demands a more reasonable sum. It is, of
course, impossible to be certain of the pre-Matthean amount, but we may
hazard a guess of 10,000 denarii , rather than 10,000 talents. Matthew would
have had to change only one word to achieve his "fantastic" (Jeremias) figure
of 10,000 talents.66 In any event, the sum of 10,000 denarii would be con-
sistent with the other elements of the parable story. It is conceivable as a loan
(v 27). The master of the parable could reasonably hope to recover such a
loan, or a good portion of it, from the sale of the servant and his household
(v 25), since, according to Jeremias, "the average value of a slave was about
500 to 2,000 denarii" (see above). Similarly, he could hope to recover this
amount from the servant's relatives and friends (as Derrett suggests) upon
throwing the servant into prison "until he should repay everything that was
owed" (v 34). Furthermore, the sum of 10,000 denarii is large enough to
make the servant's difficulty in paying up plausible (v 26a), yet small enough
to make his plea for patience and his promise to repay the whole amount
credible (v 26b). And finally, the sum is substantial enough to provide an
appropriate dramatic contrast with the still much smaller though hardly
trivial sum owed by the fellow servant in v 28.67
Matthew has raised the amount not simply because he wanted "to im-
press upon the hearers by "shock tactics' that man cannot pay his debt to
God," as Jeremias claims, but primarily because the extraordinarily large
sum underscores the depth of God's mercy, disclosed in the work of Jesus,
to the supplicant and properly worshipful "debtor" (v 26).

III. Conclusions

A. Matthew's Interpretation and Redaction of the Parable

(1) Verse 35, the parable's "application," has been shaped, perhaps con-
structed, by Matthew. This verse makes plain that Matthew understands the

65 Ibid., 28, 60 n. 41.

66 In making this change, Matthew juxtaposes the highest numeral (10,000) with the
highest currency unit of the day (talent). See ibid., 210.
67 If the average daily wage of a laborer was a mere one denarius (Matt 20: 13), the fellow
servant's debt of 100 denarii can hardly be considered MtriviaT (Jeremias). Outside of the
contrast established by the parable story, the amount of the debt is considerable and the ser-
vant's unforgiving attitude normal.

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE PARABLE OF THE UNFORGIVING SERVANT 229

parable in an allegorical manner. He regards the kyrios of the par

God, the heavenly Father; the "debtor" of v 24 (the servant of w 2
a Matthean Christian to whom the merciful God has, through the
death of Christ, granted "forgiveness of sins" (26:28); the fellow se
w 28-30,33 as a Christian adelphos to whom the Matthean Chr
expected to extend an analogous forgiveness; and the fate of the ser
v 34 as the eternal damnation to be meted out at the final judgm
Christian "servants" who fail to measure up (see Section II. A).
(2) In v 26, Matthew has substituted the verb prosekynei, "wa
shiping," for parekalei, "was beseeching," to encourage the allegorizing
pretation that clearly emerges in v 35. Indeed, this change represen
toward making the parable story itself into an allegory (see Sectio
(3) Matthew has rewritten the introduction to the parable. In partic
he has identified the anthrõpos with whom the pre-Matthean form
parable began with a basileus , a king, a common metaphor for G
Section II. C).
(4) He has inflated the amount of the servant's debt in v 24 from a
smaller amount (perhaps 10,000 denarii) to 10,000 talents to undersc
depth of God's mercy to the sinner who is unable to rectify his or
tionship to God (see Section II. D).
Matthew may well be responsible for other changes, particular
stylistic nature,68 but these four are the important ones.69 It is be
these changes that, as Jeremias writes, "the parable implies its in
tation,"70 viz., the allegorizing interpretation Jeremias, like Matth
self, gives to the parable.

B. The Pre-Matthean Form of the Parable

The pre-Matthean form of the parable, which approximates t
matic structure and content of the parable Jesus told more close
Matthew's redacted version, may have read as follows:71

68 See Thompson, Advice, 208-21; Weder, Gleichnisse, 210-12.

69 Weder ( Gleichnisse , 210-18) goes much further, arguing that the original parab
at v 30, that w 32-34 are pre-Matthean additions reworked by Matthew, and that
entirely Matthean construction. Weder fails to be convincing in large part because
either as an original part of the parable story or as a pre-Matthean expansion, w
sought to prove is Matthean redaction (the amount of the servant's debt, the figure of
and the verb prosekynei ).
70 Jeremias, Parables, 213.
71 For the structure which follows, see Thompson, Advice, 210. Similar attempts a
by F. H. Breukelman, "Eine Erklärung des Gleichnisses vom Schalksknecht (Matth. 18,
Parrhesia. Karl Barth zum achtzigsten Geburtstag (ed. E. Busch, J. Fangmeier, and
Zurich: E VA-Verlag, 1966) 262-63; J. D. Crossan, In Parables. The Challenge of the

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 230 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 50, 1988

THE SITUATION

A person wished to settle accounts with his servants.

SCENE I

a. After he had begun reckoning, one debtor of 10,000 denarii was brough
to him. And because he was unable to pay up, the master commanded him t
be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and the sum to be repai
b. So the servant fell down and was beseeching him, saying, "Be patient wit
me, and I shall repay you everything."
c. And the master of that servant was moved to pity and released him an
forgave him the loan.

SCENE II

a. That servant went out and found one of his fellow servants, who owed hi
100 denarii, and he grabbed and choked him, saying, "Pay up what you ow
b. So his fellow servant fell down and was beseeching him, saying, "Be patie
with me, and I shall repay you."
c. He did not wish to do so, but went and threw him into prison, until h
should pay up what was owed.
SCENE III

a. When his fellow servants saw what had happened, they were gre
shocked and went and reported to their master all that had happened.
b. Then his master summoned him and said to him, "Evil servant, I fo
you all that debt, since you beseeched me. Was it not necessary also for yo
have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?"
c. And his master became angry and handed him over to the jailers un
should pay up all what was owed.

C. The Meaning of the Pre-Matthean and Matthean Forms of the

Parable

The reconstructed pre-Matthean form of the parable, which approxi-

mates in its structure and content the parable Jesus told, depicts the familiar
world of masters and slaves, of debts and obligations to repay, i.e., of legal
rights and claims.72 Yet something unfamiliar intrudes upon this familiar

Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1973) 108; Scott, "Accounting," 433-34. The version that
follows is based on Matthew's text, the only changes being those for which I have argued in this
essay. As I have noted previously, there may be other redactional changes introduced by Mat-
thew, but none, as far I have been able to determine, affects the meaning or the structure of the
pre-Matthean parable story.
72 Linnemann, Parables, 111-13. For parables as stories from everyday life that are meta-
phorically revelatory of God's new world, shocking to the imagination, world-shattering, and
creative of new meaning and apprehension, see Crossan, Parables , 82; Funk, Language, 133-61;

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE PARABLE OF THE UNFORGIVING SERVANT 231

world, an unexpected act of mercy: the master of the parable forg

servant the considerable loan that he was obligated to repay. This
mercy, and not the amount of the debt, is the "element of unexpec
(Jeremias) in the parable story, the arresting "twist" in the n
(Scene I).
The key to the revelatory and world-shattering effect this "twist"
have had on its initial hearers is to recognize that the action of the
toward his debtor (in Scene II) is quite legal and normal in the "real
The servant is entirely within his legal rights; his action is a matter of
And yet, the initial hearers would immediately have recognized, as
tener still does, that the action of the servant is, in Linnemann's
"reprehensible."73 It is shown to be reprehensible by dramatic contrast
the new and unfamiliar world of mercy and forgiveness, a world that g
to another what he or she has no legal right to demand or expect (
This world has broken in upon the familiar world of legal rights and cl
unmasking the brutality that lies underneath attempts to secure le
rights and claims over against another (Scene II).
The two worlds are mutally exclusive and antithetical. As Linne
observes, the master's act of mercy does not represent simply a tem
and unrepeatable "exception" to the world of legal rights and claims
entirely different world, a new order. It is in fact the new age, "the k
of God," that invades and shatters the old one.
The parable makes this new world plausible, understandable, a
able, and real: "I forgave you all that debt, since you beseeched me
not necessary also for you ... ?" (Scene III b). The parable thereby r
the listener, granting the apprehension of a new and life-giving reality
exerts a claim of its own, the claim of life-giving truth. Finally, the pa
discloses that the person who rejects the new order puts himself back "
order of claims which will [now] isolate and crush him,"74 leaving him
off than before (Scene III c).
Matthew, with his allegorizing appropriation of the parable, has
much misinterpreted the parable as given it a christological sharpen
means of v 35, and the changes introduced into w 23,24, and 26, h
the message that the failure to live according to the world of mercy
itively disclosed and mediated through the work of Jesus himself, conf
the believer with the horror of the divine displeasure. To stray fr

A. Wilder, Jesus' Parables and the War of Myths. Essays on Imagination in the
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 71-87; and C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom
New York: Scribner's, 1961) 5-8.
73 Linnemann, Parables , 143.
Via, Parables, 143.

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 232 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 50, 1988

sphere of God's great mercy back into the sphere of hard-hearted refusal to
grant forgiveness even to fellow Christians is to risk not simply the earthly
torment of v 34 but also, and more horribly, the eternal hell to which v 35
points. In short, Matthew underscores, perhaps somewhat heavy-handedly,
the implicit concern of the original parable, viz., that the conflict between the
world of forgiving mercy extended to others and that of legal rights de-
manded for oneself is a matter of life and death.

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 13:35:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms