Grace in the Synoptic Teachings of Jesus

Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003): 66–79.

Ken Mulzac

Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies

Grace is generally defined as ÒGodÕs unmerited favor toward humanity and

especially his people, realized through the covenant and fulfilled through Jesus

Christ.Ó

The idea of Òunmerited favorÓ is generally highlighted in the defini-

tions because it is perceived as the Òessence of grace in biblical terms.Ó

For

example, Charles C. Ryrie says it is Òthe unmerited favor of God giving His Son

and all the benefits that result from receiving Him.Ó

It is Òfavor or kindness

shown without regard to the worth of the one who receives it and in spite of

what that person deserves.Ó

The Liberation theologian Gustavo Gutierrez calls

this Ògratuitousness.Ó

The vocabulary denoting grace is quite extensive in the Bible. The primary

Hebrew root (hΩnn) and its derivatives appear about 160 times and generally

point to finding favor from God or from a person.

In concrete pictures, typical

of the OT, it means Òto bend down to,Ó and is suggestive of Òa loving parent

Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, (1987), s.v., ÒGrace.Ó

Horace O. Duke, Where is God When Bad Things Happen? (Mumbai: St. PaulÕs, 1999), 104.

Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe in Jesus Christ (Wheaton:

Victor, 1989), 156.

Ronald F. Youngblood, gen. ed., NelsonÕs New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. (Nashville:

Nelson, 1986), 522.

Gustavo Gutierrez, Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987),

xi.

Willem A. Van Gemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and

Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 2:203.

MULZAC: GRACE IN THE SYNOPTIC TEACHINGS OF JESUS

bending over a suffering child.Ó

It is not an abstract idea since it Òdenotes the

kind turning of one person to another as expressed in an act of assistance.Ó

In the NT the Greek word charis appears 155 times, mostly in the Pauline

literature (110 times),

where it Òis a central concept that most clearly expresses

his understanding of the salvation event.Ó

However, the vocabulary for grace is

amazingly sparse in the Synoptic Gospels. The word does not occur in Matthew

and Mark. In Luke it is found eight times: in 1:30 it points to Mary finding Òfa-

vorÓ with God; in 2:40, 52, it denotes the acceptability of the child Jesus with

God and people; in 4:22 it underscores the charming words Jesus spoke; while

in 6:32, 33, 34 and 17:9 it means Òthanks.Ó

Since grace is Òthe purest expression of GodÕs redemptive loveÓ

and the

biblical record underscores it Òfrom creation to redemption,Ó

it is surprising

that the word is not dripping from the lips of Jesus, the Savior of the world, who

is described as being Òfull of grace and truthÓ (John 1:14). However, although

the ÒGospels rarely use the word Ôgrace,Õ . . . its substance permeates them in the

life and teaching of Jesus.Ó

Indeed, Òthe idea of grace is prominent. Jesus says

that he came to seek and save the lost. Many of his parables teach the doctrine of

grace.Ó

This paper explores the concept of grace in two of JesusÕ parables that place

the emphasis on unmerited favor, not in the typical God-to-Person context, but

in the Person-to-Person context. Indeed, the teaching is decidedly pastoral.

These two are the parables concerning the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) and

the Unmerciful Servant (Matt 18:21-35). They share the following similarities:

1. Both are introduced with an interrogative. They are JesusÕ responses to

questions posed by His listeners. In the first, the query of the expert in the law

Wayne E. Ward, ÒGrace,Ó Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Watson E. Mills (Macon: Mer-

cer UP, 1990), 347.Ward stresses the Òdivine initiative and human helplessnessÓ and indicates the

centrality of grace to the Exodus and the Cross. It is dynamically related to other theological con-

cepts such as covenant, forgiveness, love, and salvation.

Walther Zimmerli, ÒCharis,Ó Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), Gerhard

Friedrich, ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 9:377.

It is especially prevalent in Romans (twenty-four times), 1 and 2 Corinthians (ten and eighteen

times, respectively), and Ephesians (twelve times). Outside of PaulÕs epistles it is found primarily in

Acts (seventeen times), 1 Peter (ten times), and Hebrews (eight times). Related words such as cha-

risma and charizesthai are also chiefly Pauline. See H. -H. Esser, ÒGrace, Spiritual Gifts,Ó New

International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan;

Exeter: Paternoster, 1986), 2:118.

ÒCharis,Ó TDNT (1974), 9:393.

Ward, 347.

Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, s.v. ÒGrace.Ó

Ibid., 437.

J. H. Stringer, ÒGrace, Favour,Ó New Bible Dictionary, 3d. edition, ed. I. H. Marshall, A. R.

Millard, J. I. Packer, and D. J. Wiseman (Downers Grove: InterVarsity; Leicester: Inter-Varsity,

1996), 433.

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

is, ÒWhat must I do to inherit eternal life?Ó

(v. 25) and more specifically,

ÒWho is my neighbor?Ó (v. 29). In the second, Peter inquires, ÒLord, how many

times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?Ó

(v. 21).

2. Both deal with how a person treats another. Hence, they are in the con-

crete context of human behavior.

3. Both are triadic. In the first, the thieves, by having the same intent, are

lumped together as one character; the priest and Levite, since they are both re-

ligious persons, form the second; while the Samaritan is the third.

In the sec-

ond parable, the king is the first character; the unjust servant is the second, while

his colleague is the third.

4. Both deal with characters operating according to similar principles. In

other words, the parables demonstrate similar philosophies of life as illustrated

in the characters. These indicate how people live their lives.

5. Both deal with the idea of mercy. This forms the concluding issue for

both parables.

The Good Samaritan: Grace in the Context of the Enemy

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus.

ÒTeacher,Ó he asked, Òwhat must I do to inherit eternal life?Ó

ÒWhat is written in the Law?Ó he replied. ÒHow do you read

it?Ó

He answered: ÒLove the Lord your God with all your heart and

with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind

and, ÔLove your neighbor as yourself.ÕÓ

ÒYou have answered correctly,Ó Jesus replied. ÒDo this and you

will live.Ó

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, ÒAnd who is

my neighbor?Ó

In reply Jesus said: ÒA man was going down from Jerusalem to

Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of

his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest

happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man,

he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the

place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as

he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took

pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on

oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an

inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins

and gave them to the innkeeper. ÔLook after him,Õ he said, and when I

return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.

All scripture quotations are from the NIV.

While the story is told from the perspective of the injured man, and he is the only person who

appears in all scenes of the parable, he is also the only one who is passive. All other characters are

active. Hence, we do not include the victim as one of the main characters.

MULZAC: GRACE IN THE SYNOPTIC TEACHINGS OF JESUS

ÒWhich of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man

who fell into the hands of robbers?Ó

The expert in the law replied, ÒThe one who had mercy on him.Ó

Jesus told him, ÒGo and do likewise.Ó Luke 10:25-37

The discussion here starts because a lawyer wants to test Jesus. He asks,

ÒWhat must I do to inherit eternal life?Ó (Luke 10:25). It appears that his motive

is negative because the word ekpeirazein (ÒtestÓ) usually has such a connotation

in the NT.

Further, the aorist participle ti poiesas (Òwhat must I do?Ó) Òimplies

that by the performance of one thing eternal life can be secured. What heroic act

must be performed, or what great sacrifice made?Ó

This emphasis on doing

something to gain eternal life points in the direction of merit by human action

and achievement. Jesus directs the lawyerÕs attention, most appropriately, to

what the Law teaches. The man responds by quoting portions of the Law (Deut

6:5 and Lev 19:18, respectively) to show that total love for God and oneÕs

neighbor insures eternal life. Jesus answers with an imperative, ÒTouto poiei,Ó

ÒKeep on doing so and you will liveÓ (v. 28). The implication is that eternal life

cannot be accomplished by merit, that is, from following a set of rules as the

lawyer suggests.

Not grasping the implications of his own words, the lawyer seeks self-

justification by posing another question: ÒWho is my neighbor?Ó (v. 29). The

Jews believed that the neighbor could only be one who belonged to the covenant

community, not an outsider.

Already there is a hint that this definition is too

limited, because the word for neighbor (ho plesion) quoted in Lev19:18 means

more than one who lives nearby or next door, for which ho perioikos would

have been used.

Interestingly, Jesus does not directly answer the lawyerÕs question, ÒWho is

my neighbor?Ó Instead, he turns it around and, by telling the parable,

answers

a different question: ÒWhose neighbor am I?Ó In other words, He teaches how

one ought to behave neighborly. The story may have been Òan account of an

actual occurrenceÓ

and Òis told from the perspective of the needs of the

wounded man.Ó

This man, whose ethnicity is not mentioned

but is generally

Cf. Matt 4:7, Luke 4:12, and 1 Cor 10:9.

Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, New International Commentary on

the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), 313.

The narrow scope of the definition of neighbor may already be noted in Sirach 12:1-4: ÒIf

you do good, know to whom you do it . . . and do not help the sinner.Ó

Cf. Luke 1:58.

For a discussion concerning the classification or categorization of this parable, see John

Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 35B (Dallas: Word, 1993), 590-91.

Glendenhuys, 311. Cf. Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages (Boise: Pacific Press, 1940), 485,

who writes, ÒThis was no imaginary scene, but an actual occurrence, which was known to be exactly

as represented.Ó

Nolland, 591. This is obvious since the wounded man is the only person who remains on the

scene of action throughout the account.

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

understood to be Jewish, was attacked by robbers who terrorized travelers on the

notoriously dangerous road going down from Jerusalem to Jericho.

His des-

perate plight is captured in v. 30b: ÒThey (the thieves) stripped him of his

clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.Ó This verse also intro-

duces us to the first character in the triad. Since the thieves all had the same in-

tention they are grouped together. From their violent and vicious actions against

this unsuspecting man they manifest a certain philosophy of life that says, ÒI will

take what you have.Ó It is their actions, based on such a philosophy of life,

which place the unfortunate victim in a state of emergencyÑindeed, in a life-

and-death situation. His desperate need results directly from their atrocious and

barbarous behavior.

Verses 31 and 32 describe the second character in the triad. Since both

priest and Levite are religious persons, they are grouped together. To JesusÕ lis-

teners, the arrival of the priest would have signaled good fortune for the

wounded man.

If anyone is expected to help a mortally wounded person,

surely it would be one who works on behalf of ÒinjuredÓ people (at least, the

spiritually injured). However, Òthis prime representative of the religion that, in

the person of the lawyer, has just agreed upon the fundamental place of love

hardens his heart and passes by on the other side.Ó

Then along comes a Levite.

As a religious person he would be expected to

help, though that expectation would be lesser than that of the priest. But he too

chooses not to get involved and passes by on the other side. The similar action

of both religious figures demonstrates the same philosophy of life: ÒI will keep

what I have.Ó

There is much discussion about the reason(s) why these two avoided the

wounded man. It has been suggested that they were concerned for their own

safety since the brigands sometimes had one of their own feign misfortune, and

when some unsuspecting person stopped to help, then they would attack him.

He is described simply as anthropos tis, Òa certain person.Ó Nolland, 592, says that even

though the expression appears in the NT only in LukeÕs writings (cf. 12:16; 14:2,16; 15:11; 16:1,19;

Acts 9:33), it may not be distinctively Lukan.

The distance between both cities was about eighteen miles with a drop in elevation of ap-

proximately 3,300 feet or about 1100 meters. Jericho itself is roughly 800 feet (244 meters) below

sea level. Because the focus of the story is on human need, details of geography and so forth are

merely extraneous and therefore distracting.

At that time Jericho was a city of priests, and so it was not uncommon for priests (and

Levites) to be moving between the temple in Jerusalem and their homes in the Òcity of palmsÓ (Judg

3:13).

Nolland, 593.

Of the tribe of Levi, only direct descendants of Aaron could function as priests, charged with

cultic responsibilities such as offering burnt offerings and supervising the people in worship. The

other Levites served as priestly assistants, caring for the tabernacle and temple and performing other

non-priestly duties.

MULZAC: GRACE IN THE SYNOPTIC TEACHINGS OF JESUS

The main reason posited, however, is a cultic one. In describing the priestÕs ac-

tion (and the Levite by extension), Leon Morris says,

Since the man was Ôhalf deadÕ the priest would probably not have

been able to be certain whether he was dead or not without touching

him. But if he touched him and the man was in fact dead, then he

would have incurred the ceremonial defilement that the Law forbade

(Lv. 21:1ff.). He could be sure of retaining his ceremonial purity only

by leaving the man alone . . . He deliberately avoided any possibility

of contact.

Regardless of the reason, we must realize that the focus here is not why the

religious leaders refused to help, but on the fact that they did not help. By telling

the narrative in this way, Jesus masterfully plots the story so as to have a height-

ened effect on the hearers. The role of these two religious personages is to create

hope and then quickly dash it to the ground. To be sure, if these two do not help,

who will? ÒThe needy manÕs situation has now measurably worsened. Nobody

else might come on the scene soon enough.Ó

Further, by bringing together the

priest and Levite, Jesus makes the drama even more intriguing. Certainly the

priest is expected to help; but since he does not, it is not expected that the Levite

will help, as Levites were subordinate to priests. After all, they were relegated to

menial and secondary tasks in the temple. They were of lower rank than priests.

So who then will help the fallen comrade? Will there be some miracle of divine

intervention? Nolland puts it this way:

At this point the story is open to a number of possible developments.

(Is it after all an anti-clerical story, and now an ordinary Israelite will

come along and save the day? Will God intervene with angelic help

and shame the religious figures? Is the story to be a tragedy in which

the injured manÕs demise brings shame upon the covenant commu-

nity?)

Instead, Jesus now introduces the Samaritan. The listeners would have ex-

pected this Samaritan to do nothing for the sufferer. The historic enmity between

Jews and Samaritans was well known. To be called a Samaritan was a deep in-

sult,

and both groups avoided contact with each other as much as possible.

There was much bad blood between them. Tractate m. Seb 8:10 captures the

Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Luke: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale

New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1984), 189.

Touching a corpse defiled a person (cf. Lev 21:1-3; Num 5:2; 19:2-3; Ezek 44:25-27).

Nolland, 594.

Ibid.

When Jesus accused the Jews of refusing to believe in Him and therefore in God, they re-

torted with derision, ÒArenÕt we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?Ó

John 8:48.

Cf. Luke 9:51-56 and John 4:7-9.

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

inherent abhorrence, ÒHe that eats the bread of the Samaritans is like one that

eats the flesh of swine.Ó Furthermore, Samaritans were placed at Òthe lowest

degree of the scale [i.e., of racial purity].Ó

And along with other groups, Sa-

maritans Òshared . . . a hostile attitude toward Jerusalem.Ó

The impact is heightened by JesusÕ use of the contrastive conjunction: ÒBut

a Samaritan . . . came where the man was; and when he saw him he took pity on

himÓ (v. 33). M. J. J. Menken has shown how Jesus deliberately positions the

expression Òhe took pityÓ (esplagchnisthe) in a strategic way so that it explodes

the impact of what He is teaching.

Whereas those who are expected to act with

compassion toward the helpless victim deliberately refuse to do so, the one who

is hated and despised deliberately stoops to help. Furthermore, he risks himself

in doing so. This action defines compassion, Òthat which causes us to identify

with anotherÕs situation such that we are prepared to act for his or her benefit.Ó

The demonstration of such compassion is illustrated in what the Samaritan

does for the injured man. He administers first aid,

provides transportation to a

safe place, pays for the manÕs immediate basic needs, and makes arrangements

for any future attentions he may need. In so doing, the Samaritan demonstrates

his philosophy of life: I will share what I have. It is in this sharing that love is

exemplified. Therefore, the SamaritanÕs philosophy and action in life indicate

that he is fulfilling the ethical demands of the Law, that is, ÒLove your neighbor

as yourselfÓ (Lev19:18). As such, he, an outcast, is closer to eternal life than

those who count themselves as privileged members of the elect community. By

their refusal to act on Òthe ethical demands of their own law,Ó

the priest and

Levite have made themselves the (new?) outcasts. They are far from eternal life.

While the word ÒgraceÓ is not used in the story, the idea of it is quite evi-

dent. From the perspective of the victim, grace is experienced. The sufferer does

not merit favor, especially since Jewish fanaticism would prefer death rather

than receive help from a Samaritan.

But by his very actions this Samaritan

Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social

Conditions During the New Testament Period (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 352.

R. J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered, Growing

Points in Theology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 142.

M. J. J. Menken, ÒThe Position of splagchnizestai and splgachna in the Gospel of Luke,Ó

Novum Testamentum 30 (1988), 111.

Nolland, 594 (emphasis mine).

Oil and wine were used for medicinal purposes in the first century. R. K. Harrison, ÒOil,Ó

New Bible Dictionary, 3d edition, ed. D. R. W. Wood (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1996), 844, says that

oil was a Òpopular unguent application for bruises and wounds.Ó See too A. C. Shultz, ÒWine and

Strong Drink,Ó Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1976), 5:938, who refers to a popular rabbinic saying, ÒWine is the greatest of all medi-

cines; where wine is lacking, there drugs are necessary.Ó

Nolland, 595.

Ibid.

MULZAC: GRACE IN THE SYNOPTIC TEACHINGS OF JESUS

exemplifies graciousness, even in the OT sense of the word. Esser puts it elo-

quently,

The use of the word hen clarifies the meaning of ÒgraceÓ in history

and actions. It denotes the stronger coming to the help of the weaker

who stands in need of help by reason of his circumstances or natural

weakness. He acts by a voluntary decision, though he is moved by the

dependence or request of the weaker party.

In his conclusion to the parable, Jesus then asks the lawyer, ÒWhich of these

three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the rob-

bers?Ó (v. 36).

The answer is obvious. Indeed, ÒThe one who had mercy on

himÓ (v. 37a). Yet, the lawyerÕs answer shows his deep-seated racism. By using

a periphrasis he avoids putting the scornful word ÒSamaritanÓ on his lips and

mutters a non-specific designation, ÒThe one who showed mercy.Ó He denies

ÔidentityÕ to the Samaritan. In this way the Samaritan, though a hero in the story,

remains a non-person, still the object of scorn. But it is precisely the merciful

acts of the Samaritan that give him identity. On JesusÕ lips, he is the real person,

the one who is not hemmed in by narrow boundaries.

According to Jesus, the neighbor is anyone who addresses the needs of the

other. Jesus emphasizes the concrete actions of sympathy, empathy, and com-

passion. This is the essence of grace. It is being neighborly to those in need.

From the perspective of the desperate and disenfranchised, neighborliness is the

choice to share what one has. When one loves God and people, such a choice, as

exemplified in the SamaritanÕs actions, demonstrates graciousness. In short,

there Òis no limit . . . to LoveÕs field of action.Ó

And when Jesus told the law-

yer, ÒGo and do

likewiseÓ (v. 37b), He also addresses the modern reader. We

must be like the Samaritan who Òshows us a compassion unrestricted by na-

tional, racial, or religious barriers.Ó

Philip Yancey records an incident that illustrates the attitude and philosophy

of life of the Samaritan in contemporary society. He wonders aloud, ÒWhat

would a Good Samaritan look like today in urban America?Ó

He answers by

reporting his interview with Louise Adamson, who has dedicated her life to

working with the poor and disenfranchised in Atlanta, Georgia. Her ministry is

Esser, 116 (emphasis mine).

JesusÕ skill in communicating is magnificently demonstrated here. The lawyer is met on his

own grounds. As an expert he must consider if the priest and Levite, though scrupulously adherent to

the Law, really keep the Law. Is their ceremonial and puritanical idealism justified in the situation?

And if so, how could their abject refusal to help a victimized person qualify them as being law-

abiding, since the Law required them to love their neighbor like themselves?

Glendenhuys, 314.

Jesus uses the present tense poiei, Òkeep on doingÓ or Òdo constantlyÓ with the idea of life-

long commitment.

Nolland, 597.

Philip Yancey, Finding God in Unexpected Places (Nashville: Moorings, 1995), 67.

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

called the ÒJericho Road Ministry.Ó She says, ÒHow would anyone go about

scheduling a Jericho Road ministry? You just walk down the road and look for

victims.Ó

The Unmerciful Servant: Grace in the Context of Forgiveness

This parable illustrates grace in the context of forgiveness. It is introduced

by two questions posed by Peter: ÒLord, how many times shall I forgive my

brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?Ó (v. 21). PeterÕs question is

appropriate because Jesus had just been talking about forgiveness (vv. 15-20). In

that discourse, He said nothing about the number of times you should forgive

someone who wrongs you. Hence, PeterÕs queries. It would seem that since

seven represents the perfect number, then seven instances of forgiveness would

be superlative. Jesus answers that one should be willing to forgive seventy-seven

times.

This wide contrast clearly dwarfs PeterÕs assumption and puts the mat-

ter in bold relief. Forgiving someone a mere seven times is not even the mini-

mum. Certainly, what Jesus is teaching is that forgiveness should be limitless,

even infinite. To illustrate this He tells the parable.

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, ÒLord, how many

times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to

seven times?Ó

Jesus answered, ÒI tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven

times.

ÒTherefore the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to

settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man

who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was

not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his chil-

dren and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

ÒThe servant fell on his knees before him. ÔBe patient with me,Õ

he begged, Ôand I will pay back everything.Õ The servantÕs master

took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

ÒBut when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow ser-

vants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to

choke him. Pay back what you owe me!Õ he demanded.

ÒHis fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ÔBe patient

with me, and I will pay you back.Õ

ÒBut he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown

into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw

what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told

their master everything that had happened.

Ibid., 72.

The LXX uses the same expression (hebdomekontakis hepta) in Gen 4:24: ÒIf Cain avenged

seven times then Lamech seventy-seven.Ó See too Robert Hanna, A Grammatical Aid to the Greek

New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 39, who believes that the expression Òactually means

Ô70 times (and) 7,Õ and not Ô70 times 7. . . .Ó The NIV says it may also be interpreted as Òseventy

times seven.Ó This really puts the idea of limitlessness in perspective.

MULZAC: GRACE IN THE SYNOPTIC TEACHINGS OF JESUS

ÒThen the master called the servant in. ÔYou wicked servant,Õ he

said, ÔI canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to.

ShouldnÕt you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on

you?Õ In anger his master turned him over to the jailers until he

should pay back all he owed.

ÒThis is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless

you forgive your brother from your heart.Ó Matt 18:21-35

This is one of the Kingdom parables, since Jesus likens the kingdom to Òa

king who wanted to settle accounts

with his servantsÓ (v. 24). It is closely con-

nected to the same genre of parables in Matt 13 that deal with the Kingdom of

heaven (13:11, 24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47). Kingdom parables often deal with the

actions and behavior of the residents of the Kingdom. This parable is no differ-

ent. This is underlined in that the king is about to settle accounts with some of

his subjects.

The parable is clearly triadic, with the main characters or actors

being the king, the first subject, and the second subject. The first subject appears

in all scenes of the story, which is told from his perspective. The Òstory is con-

cise and artistic,Ó

as seen in its structure depicting a series of encounters or

scenes between the main characters:

Introduction: The king decides to settle accounts with his subjects (v.

23)

I. The king and the first servant (vv. 24-27)

A. The servantÕs huge debt (v. 24)

B. The decision to force payment (v. 25)

C. Plea for mercy (v. 26)

D. The king cancels the debt (v. 27)

II. The first and second servants (vv. 28-30)

A. The servantÕs small debt (v. 28b)

B. Decision to force payment (v. 28c)

C. Plea for mercy (v. 29).

D. Refusal to cancel the debt (v. 30)

III. The king and the first subject (vv. 31-34)

A. The servantsÕ report to the king regarding his first sub-

jectÕs behavior (v. 31)

B. The kingÕs rebuke (vv.32-33)

C. Reversal of the canceled debt (v. 34)

Conclusion: JesusÕ application of the parable (v. 35).

ÒSettling accountsÓ has undertones of judgment. Cf. Luke 16:1-8 and 19:12-27.

Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 270-71,

finds several hints that this parable deals with Gentile characters. However (to get ahead of our-

selves), we must note that the punishment exacted by the first servant for non-payment by the second

follows an OTÑand, hence, JewishÑbackground.

Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8-20: A Commentary, trans. James E. Crouch, ed. Helmut Koester,

Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 468.

For a similar outline see Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, Word Biblical Commentary,

vol. 33B (Dallas: Word, 1995), 536-37.

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

In the first encounter, the servant has an astronomically high debt. The use

of the word daneion (Òloan,Ó a hapax legomenon), together with the extraordi-

narily excessive debt, suggests that the relationship between the king and subject

is that of a royal contract with a tax collector. Hence, these servants should not

be seen as slaves but as officials who managed the administrative affairs of the

state.

The debt is described as murioi (ÒmyriadÓ) which Òis a deliberate hyper-

bole pointing to a debt that was so high that it was practically incalulable.Ó

meant that the servant was absolutely incapable of repaying such a large sum.

Owing to this the king ordered that the servant and his family, together with all

their possessions, be sold as repayment (v. 25). In so doing the sovereign is fol-

lowing a well-established tradition.

It is obvious that even this is meager and

insufficient. The point here is that the servant is not in a position to repay the

debt. Although he has power and influence,

he is in an impossible situation. To

avoid the shame and loss of freedom from being sold into slavery he throws

himself on the mercy of the king. ÒBe patient with me,Ó he begs, Òand I will pay

back everythingÓ (v. 26). Again, even this is insufficient. Further, the plea ap-

proaches even a comical dimension with the promise to repay everything. The

sum is so gargantuan that even if the servant were to repay for several lifetimes

it would be impossible to satisfy the loan. Despite these factors, the king accepts

the plea for mercy. In fact, he goes beyond the manÕs request. Instead of allow-

ing him the opportunity to repay as requested, the king Òtook pity on him, can-

celed the debt and let him goÓ (v. 27).

In short, the record is completely ex-

punged. The servant has nothing to commend him to the monarch, and despite

his best promise it is impossible for him to erase his indebtedness. It is only the

compassion and leniency of the potentate that saves the servant. In short, the

king expresses grace. His philosophy in life is: ÒI will share what I have.Ó And

this motivates the act of grace: unmerited favor to the undeserving. Donald A.

Hagner describes it as such:

Archibald M. Hunter, The Parables Then and Now (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 67.

Hagner, 538. Luz, 471, says, ÒIn Greek murioi is the highest possible number . . . .Ó

Josephus reports that in 4 B.C.E., Archelaus, ethnarch of Judea, Idumea, and Samaria, did not

collect that much money in taxes for all of his territory combined. ÒThe money that came to

Archelaus as yearly tribute from the territory given him to rule amounted to six hundred talents.Ó See

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 17.11.4 (trans. Ralph Marcus, LCL, 8:521). In other words, this servant

owed far more that the GNP of that vast area.

See 2 Kgs 4:1; Neh 5:3-5; Isa 50:1; and Amos 2:6; 8:6.

Robert F. Capon, The Parables of Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 46.

The expression to daneion apheiken auto has the idea of total absolution. Luz, 472-73, high-

lights the effect of such forgiveness, ÒThe slave himself would never have dared to ask for so much.

The amount of the gift is fantastic for both the readers of the gospel and for JesusÕ hearers. Today we

would express it only in the millions, or even billions.Ó

MULZAC: GRACE IN THE SYNOPTIC TEACHINGS OF JESUS

In response to the plea of the servant for clemency in the form of time

to repay the enormous debt, the sovereign responds with nearly uni-

maginable grace in the full dismissal of all indebtedness. It is not dif-

ficult to hear the echo of the gospel of the forgiveness of sins in this

verse.

In the second encounter, the forgiven servant meets a colleague who owes

him a mere one hundred denarii. This is minuscule in comparison to the debt he

himself has owed and from which he has been so recently released. Suddenly he

is enraged and treats his associate with violent hostility,

demanding, ÒPay back

what you owe me!Ó (v. 28). The man offers a plea that is almost identical to the

one made earlier by his assailant, ÒBe patient with me, and I will pay you backÓ

(v. 29). The only difference between both pleas is that the latter omits the word

everything. In short, his debt is so small that it is ridiculous to even suggest that

he needs time to repay everything. That is assumed. This makes the first servant

appear in an even worse light. He promises to repay everything but he is really

unable to do so. And now he refuses to give the same leniency to one who, given

time, can repay more than the everything (100 denarii) that is owed.

He who

has just experienced grace now acts in un-grace. He lives by the philosophy, ÒI

will keep what I have.Ó He has just received forgiveness, but now selfishly keeps

that same gift to himself.

Jesus deliberately contrasts these first two scenes to put the action of grace

into bold relief. This also heightens the impact of the story on the listeners. Let

us note the following contrasts:

Scene 1 (vv. 24-27) Scene 2 (vv. 28-30)

Large debt

Unpayable debt

Promise to repay but really cannot

Response of the king

Philosophy of the king

Undeserving of forgiveness

Mercy

Grace

Small debt

Payable debt

Promise to repay and can

Response of the first servant

Philosophy of the first servant

Deserving of forgiveness

No mercy

Un-grace

The impact on the listener is clear: treating another person without grace,

especially when one has just received grace, indicates hard-heartedness and cold

evil. It betrays an inner inhumanity. Even the ÒminimumÓ of forgiveness is not

Hagner, 539; cf. Luz, 472-73.

According to Hanna, 39, ÒThe imperfect tense is descriptive in epnigen, describing the debtor

as Ôchoking him in his rage.ÕÓ

Hagner, 539, indicates that a denariius was about one dayÕs wages. There were about 6000

denarii to one talent, and the first servant owes about 10,000 talents. In other words, the first servant

is forgiven a debt that is about 600,000 times greater than what he is demanding of his associate.

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

attained. Little wonder that in the third encounter (vv. 32-34), the other servants

report this incident to the king, who immediately summons the unjust servant.

The king reminds the unmerciful servant that he has received grace (v. 32) but

has not shown grace, so he deserves to be characterized as ÒwickedÓ (v. 32a).

This leads to his rhetorical question, ÒShouldnÕt you have had mercy on your

fellow servant just as I had on you?Ó (v. 33). This interrogative places the em-

phasis squarely on treating others as one would like to be treated.

In short, just

as the king willingly gives to the undeserving servant, because of his grace, so

too the unmerciful servant should have been willing to share what he had just

received. Instead, he has refused. In treating his colleague in this way he is de-

stroying the kingdom. To be sure, Òfailure to forgive excludes one from the

kingdom, whose pattern is to forgive.Ó

Such cannot be tolerated. Hence, no

one is saddened when the king rescinds the earlier pardon (v. 34).

In the final verse Jesus points out that the measure by which we forgive

others is the same one the heavenly Father uses when we ask for forgiveness.

The application is poignant. So back to PeterÕs original query concerning the

number of times we should forgive a person who wrongs us. The answer is

found in our reflection on this question: ÒHow many times do we want God to

forgive us?Ó Unlimited. Though undeserving of forgiveness, we would like

grace extended to us time and time again (even seventy times seven). The point

of the parable is Òthat the spirit of genuine forgiveness recognizes no bounda-

ries. It is a state of heart, not a matter of calculation.Ó

Conclusion

Although these two parables do not mention the word grace, they certainly

illustrate the premium placed on grace in the teachings of Jesus. Indeed, true

religion is seen in how we treat each other. Grace enables us to be a neighbor

and help even those who treat us like the enemy. This is what the first parable

teaches. The second teaches us that grace enables us to forgive others even as

we would like to be forgiven by God. In both, it is our concrete actions toward

other human beings that are important. To neglect the fallen and disenfranchised

is to be like the priest and Levite whose religious formalism kept them cold and

detached from serving humanity. To be unforgiving is to be as wicked as the

first servant whose selfishness made him heartless. But to serve humanity and be

Cf. ÒDo to others as you would have them do to youÓ (Luke 6:31). The same is true of for-

giveness. Cf. Matt 6:12, 14-15; Luke 6:37.

Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., ExpositorÕs Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984),

8:406.

This verse is identical in content to v. 30. It signals retributive justice in that exactly the same

punishment that the wicked servant meted out is now measured on him. Since it is impossible for

him to repay the debt, it means that his imprisonment will be permanent.

William Hendrickson, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to

Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), 704.

MULZAC: GRACE IN THE SYNOPTIC TEACHINGS OF JESUS

forgiving are the best illustrations of what it means to have grace. The word

does not need to be on our lips, but its essence must be the guiding principle in

our hearts and must be reflected in our treatment of people.

Kenneth Mulzac has a Ph.D. in Old Testament from the S.D.A. Theological Seminary,

Andrews University, and is a Professor of Old Testament at the Adventist International

Institute of Advanced Studies, located in the Philippines, providing graduate theological

training throughout the Far East. [email protected]