The parable of a king who forgives a slaves debt

Splash

In the streamed program from Bethel UK this weekend, Mark Sanderson relates the parable from Mt 18:23-35 where a master forgives the huge debt of a slave, but when the slave refuses to forgive a small debt owed to himself, the master throws that slave into prison.

Look at the details of this parable.

The master is owed 10,000 talents. This is 10's of millions of dollars, completely unpayable. This represents our sin which we cannot pay for.

The slave begs for more time, so the master "lets the slave off and cancelled his debt" (vs 27). This represents Gods undeserved kindness and forgiveness.

That slave is, in turn, owed 100 talents by a different slave. The slave begs for more time to pay it back, but instead of showing mercy the first slave has the second slave thrown into prison until he can pay the debt. This represent how we should show forgiveness to those who sin against us - being mindful that we have already been forgiven our debt.

Lastly, word gets back to the master about this slaves unforgiving behaviour, so the master lectures him then "With that his master, provoked to wrath, handed him over to the jailers until he repaid all that he owed." (vs 34).

What's the point of the parable? Vs 35 answers that this is how God will deal with each of us.

What is never highlighted although is clear in the parable, is that cancelling a debt, forgiving the slave, is a lie. When something is cancelled it should go. God punishes the slave for doing what he was entitled to do, and the punishment is to repay a debt that was already cancelled. That debt was never cancelled at all.

Maybe the master, unlike the slave, had so much money he could afford to write off such a debt, but once done, how ethical is it to say that it is retrospectively conditional on terms not yet revealed.

I thought it ironic that the GB fit the description of that first slave so thoroughly, demanding more and more from the lowly publishers to the point that some are imprisoned, yet here is Mark Sanderson blindly and guiltily relating this parable, following it up with demands for more effort, money, time, and bible studies.

StephaneLaliberte

Humm, you seem to apply modern concepts to a different time. The king was the king and could change his mind about things he already said. Heck, just for the sake of the argument, lets say the first slave never owed him any monney, ever... as the king, he could still put that slave in jail for life simply "because", i don't know... he didn't like his face.

That being said, if there is one area that the JW do not forgive is when they disfellowship people. They will hold that grudge until you patiently site at the back of their hall for 6+ month, obviously not forgiving freely.

sparrowdown

Good point splash. I always believed the point of the story was the hypocrisy of the first slave. The retraction of "forgiveness" is a punitive flourish the story does not need to get the point across. Also, as you say it means the cancellation of the debt and the forgiveness was not genuine in the first place.

So the Master is just as big a douche as the slave.

stuckinarut2

Very good observation indeed!!

I had never thought of it that way before...but that makes perfect sense!

What it proves is that God's or the GB's "forgivness" and "acceptance " is only CONDITIONAL on doing things their way!

Classic BULLYING tactics!!

PokerPlayerPhil

Was that point driven home by the Watchtower that the "evil slave" had the right to "choke and torment his fellow slave" that caused his fellow slaves "to cry out and run to the King because they were appalled by the slave's wickedness, inhumanity no mercy after shown infinite mercy?

The King had absolute authority unless he were serving another nation, still all his subjects had to obey and this King had the right to recall his debt if he chose!. I can't believe the Watchtower turned a one of the most beautiful illustrations about grace in to a Pharisaical one of counting one's own rights after being saved from certain slavery with his entire family.

How easy to understand, Jesus using a number so large 10,000 Talents "Gazillion Dollars" versus the Slave who owned 100 days wages! Why would the Watchtower consider the needs of some good-for-nothing, cruel and evil slave that had his fellow slave's wife and children sold in to slavery?

Has the Watchtower gone nuts taking what most religious leaders consider one of the most wonderful stories of compassion and forgiveness to personal selfishness, how disgusting and boy are they missing the points of Jesus illustrations once again!

We can get really technical about the Middle Eastern's king and queens rights to cancel and put debt(taxes) to each person. Apparently the King of this story had authority to punish a wicked slave that did not merit debt-forgiveness.

mana11

I wondered if the UK Branch have been gambling assets via hedge funds. We know they attended Hedge fund conferences so maybe they have incurred big losses. Thus feeling the need to applying the parable to themselves as a get out of jail card for their possible abuse of donations.