In a previous post, I asked for reasons why the Parable of the "Faithful and Dsicreet Slave" appears in different contexts in Matthew and Luke, with totally different audiences. The following are some thoughts I would like to share. Nothing I write is set in concrete and I am keen to learn more.
One Parable, two locations.
The Parable of the “FDS” is located in very different contexts by Matthew and Luke. And it does not even appear in Mark.
Matthew provides the Parable as part of the Olivet Discourse, where there was an audience of just four disciples. Although Luke also provides the Olivet Discourse, he places the Parable in a different context, where there is a crowd of thousands.
In Matthew, the question raised referred to the Parousia and the “end of the ages”. In Luke, the Parable is presented as the answer to the question: “are you saying these things to us Disciples or to everyone who is here?”
In Matthew, Jesus says the Parable teaches that when the Master comes, “he will put [the faithful servant] in charge of all his possessions” (Matt 24:47, NIV). If however that servant is not faithful, the returning master will “cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (verse 51, NIV).
When Luke wrote the Parable for his Hellenistic readership, he has Jesus confirming the explanation of the Parable this way: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked” (Luke 12: 48, NIV).
The FDS Parable is not innately eschatological. The requirement for the believer to deliver in accordance with the degree of God’s investment remains true at all times for every believer, not just to the members of the final generation.
Mark’s Gospel was written first, followed by Matthew and then Luke. They were not written to provide a linear narrative of Jesus’ life and ministry, nor were they were eyewitness accounts.
Mark appears to have structured his Gospel to be read in accordance with some of the Jewish festivals. Matthew structured his Gospel so that a teaching could be read at each Jewish festival throughout the full liturgical year:
Block 1 of teaching material. Sermon on the Mount. (Chapters 5 to 7. Concludes with “when Jesus had finished”.)
Block 2 of teaching material. Instructions to the Twelve. (10:5 – 11:1. Concludes with: “when Jesus had finished”.)
Block 3 of teaching material. Common theme of harvest. (13:1 – 53. Concludes with: “when Jesus had finished”.)
Block 4 of teaching material. Preparing the disciples. (18:1 – 19:1. Concludes with: “when Jesus had finished”.)
Block 5 of teaching material. Apocalypse (chapters 24 and 25. Concludes with: “when Jesus had finished”.)
These are the only times Matthew wrote “when Jesus had finished”.
Goulder suggests these teaching blocks relate to the five great celebratory festivals in the Jewish liturgical year: Pentecost, New Year, Tabernacles, Dedication and Passover. He argues that the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke were designed to be a series of Christian “lections” (or gospels) designed to be read in public worship week by week.
Since Mark’s Gospel catered for only part of the Jewish liturgical year, Matthew expanded that work to encompass the whole year. (It was Matthew who introduced the Parable of the “FDS”.)
Luke’s Gospel is structured differently from Matthew’s. (Recall that the “synoptic” Gospels are not literal narratives, but each is structured according to the writer’s purpose.)
Spong suggests:
“The Gospel of Luke was written to illumine the Torah with occasional references to the prophets and the psalms, with a bow to the liturgical year of the Jews and with an attempt to harmonize the texts of Mark and Matthew. But above all, it was to illumine the Torah, to show Jesus as the fulfillment of all that Moses wrote. This was the work of a convert to Judaism. He did his work well, so well indeed that only eyes trained to see things from a Jewish perspective will be able to see the meaning of the gospel that bears the name of Luke.” (Liberating the Gospels, pages 164 – 165).
So, Matthew's and Luke's objectives were quite different. One aligned to the Jewish liturgical year, the other aligned to the Torah. They had different purposes in mind, so Luke took Matthew's Parable and placed it where it best suited his needs and those of a Hellenized audience, rather than a Jewish one.
Doug
One Parable, Two Appearances
by Doug Mason 3 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Doug Mason
-
jeshurun
Hi Doug. You wrote:
<< The FDS Parable is not innately eschatological. The requirement for the believer to deliver in accordance with the degree of God’s investment remains true at all times for every believer, not just to the members of the final generation. >>
What do you mean by the final generation? Christians?
In my Topic Who is the Slave? I wrote:
<< As I have tried to prove in this Topic the Church [Christ’s Body] has nothing to do with the Slave of the end-time, because the Slave is not Christian.
He cannot because at the start of the parousia the Church disappears from the earthly scene by being raptured. >>
What is your view in this respect? -
Pahpa
Doug
Could it be that Jesus used the same parable on more than one occasion?
While it is generally recognized that Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, it must have been for Christian Jewish believers. Just how much these Jewish Christians were following the Jewish customs when it was written. The idea that it was written "in accordance with the Jewish festivals" is pure speculation.
Many modern scholars base their findings on certain assumptions. For example, the theory that Mark was written first and the material was borrowed in Matthew and Luke. This has not been proven. But it is now generally assumed. The traditional views are now mostly ignored even though the traditions came from much earlier times... closer to the actual writings than these modern theories.
So, Christians have to decide what to believe even in regard to scholarship. Since the "higher critics" of the Bible seem to be motivated to destroy faith in the Bible, one is suspect of some their findings.
-
Doug Mason
Jeshurun,
Maybe I should have put quotation marks around "final generation" since I was thinking of the WTS's idea that we are in the last of the last days.
I am no eschatologist and am focused on witnessing to the free gift of salvation offered by God to any who asks.
Prophetic speculation, especially one that includes the application of contemporary history, is to me quite wrong, and history has shown this, over and over.
I employ the WTS's prophetic speculation to destroy its claimed authority and I employ its history of its speculation to show that it is less than honest.
The Disciples and Paul taught that they were living in the "Last Days". The only rapture I know of is that joy in heaven when just a single sinner repents.
Doug