Faithful and Discreet Slave

(Mat 24:45-47)

 

    When asked about his future presence, Jesus mentioned, besides other elements, the well-known illustration of the Faithful and Discreet Slave. Nobody knows the hour of Jesus' coming. (Mat 24:30, 36) Once present however, he will pronounce two judgments in the following order:

 1. upon those from his house (24:37-25:30) and

 2. upon peoples (25:31-46)

    The illustration of the faithful and discreet slave (Mat 24:45-51) deals with the first judgment:

    "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings. "But if ever that evil slave should say in his heart, 'My master is delaying,' and should start to beat his fellow slaves and should eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards, the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know, and will punish him with the greatest severity and will assign him his part with the hypocrites. There is where [his] weeping and the gnashing of [his] teeth will be.[1]

[1] In Luke 12:42-44 we find the illustration again, almost in the same words. Here the slave is called “steward” and the food, “measure of food supplies”.

 

Purpose of Illustration

    The theme of the illustration is vigilance, and it is directed to all Christians as it can be seen from the words preceding it: “On this account YOU too prove yourselves ready, because at an hour that YOU do not think to be it, the Son of man is coming.” (24:44).[2] The illustration was given as part of the complex answer to the question: "What will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?” Thus it is part of ‘the sign’ and it describes two tendencies that could be observed in the Christian world right before Jesus’ coming.

[2] Luke mentions that at this time Peter asked Jesus: "Lord, are you saying this illustration to us or also to all?" (a previous one on the same subject) Jesus replied giving the illustration of the faithful and discreet steward. In Mark Jesus closes his reply with the words: “But what I say to YOU I say to all, Keep on the watch." (Mar 13:37).

 

Identity of the Slave

1. Derived from the general theme of the illustration:

    The rhetorical formulation [“Who really is the slave…Happy is (he)…[3]”] opens up an opportunity, and at the same time a challenge, for every Christian to be faithful and discreet with regards to the way he waits for Jesus’ return.

2. Derived from the illustration’s details:

    A slave is appointed over the other slaves in the house to distribute their food at the proper time.[4] A similar situation is found in the organization of the Christian congregation. Each Christian is a steward to service the others and he has the responsibility to distribute spiritual food. (1Pet 4:10, 11). Separation between ‘appointed slave’ and ‘the domestics’ is not found outside the illustration, because there is no role given for the latter. (what they should do in order to accomplish their role).[5] In the congregation there was no basis for separating Christians in clergy and laity.

[3] Some have seen in the 'rhetorical' question an allusion to the heated debates that would follow in the Christian world on the theme of slave’s identity. Yet, Jesus didn't have this type of challenge in mind, where Christians from the illustration would have to do something apart from the ones represented by the slave. This singular aspect of the responsibility is seen in the next words: “Happy is that slave”, not ‘happy are those slaves’.

[4] Jesus could simply use any long time administrative task to demonstrate faithfulness, as it can be seen in the other illustrations of the context. But he used one whose application was immediate in the Christian congregation.

[5] In the illustration, “the class” that gives food at the proper time is represented by a person. And those who receive it by group. But a group is already a class, rejecting the claim to two classes.

 

Historical Background

    People both as individuals and as groups have fulfilled the slave role faithfully since the first century, with different levels of authority in the Christian congregation. In time, an elite with reserved attributes has risen.[6] Christianity became divided, fragmented over the centuries, because of internal disagreements and there were rival “slaves” who started and continue to advance the claim to that role, some even in an exclusive way.[7] Jesus spoke also of a wicked slave. The claim of authenticity would only be confirmed however only at the master’s “return”.

    Let a man so appraise us as being subordinates of Christ and stewards of sacred secrets of God. Besides, in this case, what is looked for in stewards is for a man to be found faithful. Now to me it is a very trivial matter that I should be examined by YOU or by a human tribunal. Even I do not examine myself. For I am not conscious of anything against myself. Yet by this I am not proved righteous, but he that examines me is Jehovah. Hence do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring the secret things of darkness to light and make the counsels of the hearts manifest, and then each one will have his praise come to him from God. (1Cor 4:1-5)

[6] There have been and continue to be Christians who prove their authority as a reserved class, by calling attention to the immediate appointment by the master in the first century, the millenary existence of the religious congregation, or by pointing to the abilities in preparing and administering the food. (ordination, theological schools) Others bring as "proof" of authority the direct connection (at the proper time) with the "master" for communication, (only channel, divine leadership, inspiration) which makes the slave an instrument for administering the situation remotely. But this is not what the illustration indicates; the slave has no connection with the master after this one's departure.

[7] They rightly say that the slave appointed by Jesus doesn't fulfill his responsibilities. Theoretically the possibility existed for this one to get sick, die or become unfaithful. In this case another would have replace him. It is worth noting that the master’s recognition, at his return does not confirm the person, but the activity, which suggests that the initial appointing doesn't matter so much in comparison with faithfully fulfilling responsibility. - “Happy is that slave whom his master on arriving finds him doing so [not: that I have appointed]."

 

Wrong Identifications

    The identification of the slave with a singular person or with the Christian congregation as a class raises problems.

    1. The case of a singular person as the slave is disqualified by the length of time since Jesus’ ‘departure’ - longer than the life of any man.

    2. The case of an appointed class in the first century i.e., an elite (clergyman) or the church as a whole, is disqualified by the context. Matthew 24 and 25 show that at Jesus coming there will be two classes or groups of Christians: one vigilant and faithful and the other not. But, in the illustration, the two slaves cannot coexist [at least not as appointed by the master in his house]. The appointed slave is only one and he can prove himself faithful or not.

 

'Faithful and discreet' and 'wicked' Christians

    The slave does not represent a class of people with predefined characteristics that automatically apply to its members, like faithfulness. But the opposite is true. This class (every group and the church as a whole) depends in every moment on the instable elements that compose it: Christians, who prove themselves faithful or not.[8] Instead of naming a class through a few of its representatives, Jesus ‘appoints’ each Christian as a slave with responsibilities in “God’s household” when he gets baptized. (1Tim 3:15) Faithfulness was to be expected of every Christian until Jesus’ coming or until that one individual’s death. (Re 2:10) And it will also be evaluated individually, both for the ones who died and the ones living at his coming. (Re 22:12) When the faithful slave is rewarded and ‘appointed over his belongings’ the meaning is the same: each one individually, not a class through a few representatives. Otherwise, if last members would be unfaithful, no matter how few, Jesus would have to judge the whole class as unfaithful and any one individual member would lose his reward![9]

[8] It is not correct to say "faithful and discreet slave class", but maybe "faithful and discreet Christians' class" illustrated by the slave. This is in order to avoid giving a mystical mark of infallibility to this 'class'. In case of the first wording the stable characteristics of the slave are applied to each member of the class, which is not in accord with reality. According to this rule, the Peter "class" would represent the whole group of impulsive Christians. But these don't make up an organized separate group nor do they continue impulsive all their lives. In the second case, the class is defined on the basis of the common characteristics of its members, which corresponds with the principle of classification of formal logic. Such a view of the term class is in accord with the possibility shown by Jesus in illustration that the faithful slave appointed by him may become unfaithful in time, while more and more Christians lower the standards and give up vigilance, thus changing the general attributes of the class.

[9] Regarding the objection that it is impossible for every individual Christian to be appointed over "all his belongings", with nothing left out, it should be mentioned that the elements in the illustration are not to be mixed with reality. In the illustration we have only one slave rewarded and all belongings together, in reality we have more than one Christian and many abodes alongside Jesus in the Messianic Kingdom. (Comp Re 5:10 where expression "they are to rule as kings over the earth" does not imply a dividing of the earth in territories.)

 

Time of fulfillment

    At his coming Jesus finds the faithful slave “doing so”, namely giving food at the proper time to the body of the slaves in the house. The wicked slave is surprised by Jesus arrival, “on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know” as acting unfaithfully. This means that for both “slaves” the illustration applies during the great tribulation, described at Matthew 24 as preceding Jesus’ coming. As discussed, the principal reference is applied to persons and groups who assume the faithful slave’s role throughout history as they get baptized, because there is a need for them, as others who were doing this either fall asleep in death or are proving unfaithful.[10] The unfaithful ones can of course claim that they continue to fulfill the role of the appointed slave. They could be viewed as a whole organized group. In this case would it be possible to identify the good or genuine slave before the judgment pronounced by Jesus? Hardly! However the characteristics of the two slaves could be noticed inside the Christian world by the spiritually sharp eyes even from the first centuries, maybe right after Jesus ‘departure’. (Compare Re 2:18-20) During the great tribulation, however, their faithfulness or unfaithfulness are so intensely manifested through Christian’s actions that the two “slaves” would be easily identified as two groups of Christians in flagrant opposition and they will become even a ‘sign’ for the imminence of Jesus’ coming.

[10] This doesn't exclude the fact that Jesus' 'departure' has taken place in first century and at the same time, in a special sense, an appointing of the then alive Christians to the status of faithful slave meant to give food at the proper time. (Comp Mat 28:18-20)

 

Why “faithful and discreet”?

    The slave’s faithfulness is towards his master. It’s the initial quality for which he was chosen. It could prove to be genuine or a hypocritical mask. In the good case, the slave doesn’t take advantage of the long time [due to the delay] when he is not verified, in order to enforce his authority over the rest of the slaves and to waste his master’s means for personal interests. He is careful to distribute the food at “the proper time”, which implies conscientiousness and self sacrifice. Discreetness makes him think of the future for his own good and the ones that he serves.[11] He knows that ‘the day and hour of his master’s return’ are unknown, thus he doesn’t speculate on this theme “in his heart.” The wicked slave however is mistaken. He concludes that his master “is delaying” for a while. This allows him to do what he pleases, with the intent to hush up things at the last moment.]12] He is not only revealed as unfaithful and hypocrite, but primarily he shows lack of discreetness. Because of the temptation by power and drunkenness, he can’t recover in time and thus is not found “doing so” with regards to the assignment received, to distribute food.

[11] The wording in Luke "faithful steward, the discreet one" seems to indicate that 'discreetness' was an important plus of the slave that proved faithful.

[12] If Christians would increase their faith and zeal because of supposed nearness of Jesus return or even of an exact date of it, it seems that they would have a motivation problem similar to the wicked slave. The Greek word for "wicked", kakos, means morally bad, as a character.

 

Who is ‘beaten’ and how?

    The one that beats the others is the wicked slave. Since in the illustration there are not two slaves simultaneously present in the house, it is not the good slave that is beaten by the wicked one. But the rest of the slaves in the house of the master, who are in his authority, perhaps starved, exasperated, who beg for their needs. Here we can mention the abusive churches. Because of the difference of authority, the ‘beating’ must have had a legal form. These slaves are in a difficult situation, because of the conflict of loyalty. On the one hand, they need to subject themselves to the appointed slave, to support the official punitive treatment and to eat of what and when they receive, while waiting for the return of their master. On the other hand, they see that the wicked slave betrays the master’s interests whose interests they’re primarily loyal to. Any tentative of correcting the situation, like any non-conformation, could be harshly punished, according to official rules of punishing the slaves. However this is not how the master understood the entrusted authority.[13] (1Pet 5:1-3) The wicked slave claims that in the master’s absence he has legal authority and absolute control. Food is in his hand and he manipulates it as own merit, consolidating his authority.

    Jesus said that no one among the brothers could take the title of teacher, without therefore substituting him himself. (Mt 23:8; Jo 13:13) In the terms of the illustration, the “domestics” are made up of ‘slaves together with him’. There is no difference of status. The master could give any supposed faithful slave the temporary task of distributing food at the proper time.[14] (Lu 11:52) So anyone - individual persons or groups - who appoint themselves as the slave of the illustration in permanent contrast to the ‘master’s belongings’ makes such a substitution, in fact an abuse of authority.[15]

[13] Over the centuries there were numerous cases of Christians who were "punished" in a variety of forms by the ecclesiastic "legal" power, for reasons ranging from the simple possession, reading or translation of the Bible to the promoting of reforming ideas. (Comp Ac 5:28, 38-42) Arguments have been used for the formalizing of punitive measures; more sever than excommunication, like in the case of inquisition.

[14] Perhaps he would normally do this himself. In this case the slave was not irreplaceable, as in the case of a cook specialized in cookery.

[15] The wicked slave was "beating" the other slaves in the house, substituting himself in this regard to the master also. Perhaps he has hardened the house rules or even given new rules, personal, severe, in order to keep the others under control. (Comp Mat 23:3, 4)

 

'Punishment'

    As punishment the master “will punish him with greatest severity [lit: cut him in two] and will assign him his part with the hypocrites. There is where [his] weeping and the gnashing of [his] teeth will be.” Cutting is evidently not literal, because the slave survives this treatment in order to receive ‘his part’ or punishment that the hypocrites receive. “Cutting in two” could represent exposal to the smallest detail of the hypocrite double life and thus shameful demolition of authority he built over others.[16] Later for the ‘weeping and the gnashing of his teeth’ of envy or anger regarding the things lost, will suffer the punishment of the hypocrites, he will be punished together with the ones guilty of duplicity or betrayal.[17] Christians who will be identified as wicked slave will be judged at the second judgment, of the peoples, to literal cutting off from life. (Matt 25:31-46) [18]

[16] In other illustrations at this time the punished slave is thrown "into the darkness outside" (Mat 25:30), in contrast with the light inside the master's house, namely fired from the job and out of the master's house.

[17] In Luke the punishment of the "unfaithful" or "faithless", a synonym for betrayal.

[18] The wicked slave's hypocritical reaction is similar with that of the 'goats', also guilty of duplicity: "If we saw you in person we would have acted differently, but since you left and delayed and only these little brothers of yours were left... we mistreated them." For shared guilt comes shared punishment!

 

sus