Luke 12:47-48

Vers. 47 and 48. The Principle. “ And that servant which knew his lord's will, and prepared nothing, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required; and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. ”

Along with the superiority of position described above, the apostles had received a superior degree of knowledge; it is to this new advantage that Luke 12:47 a refers. It is connected with the preceding; for the higher the servant is placed by his master, the fuller are the instructions he receives from him. The same manner of judging will be extended to this other kind of superiority. Ostervald, understanding ἑαυτόν with μὴ ἑτοιμάσας, translates, “who prepared not himself. ” This ellipsis is inadmissible. The meaning is, who prepared not [what was necessary to receive his master according to his wishes]. It is the antithesis of Luke 12:35-37.

The servant whom the master has not initiated so specially into his intentions is nevertheless responsible to a certain extent. For he also has a certain knowledge of his will; comp. the application of this same principle, Romans 2:12.

Ver. 48b . The general maxim on which the whole of the preceding rests. The two parallel propositions are not wholly synonymous. The passive ἐδόθη, was given, simply denotes an assigned position; the middle form, παρέθεντο, men have committed, indicates that the trust was taken by the master as his own interest; the figure is that of a sum deposited. Consequently the first term is properly applied to the apostolic commission, and to the authority with which it is accompanied; the second, to the higher light granted to the apostles.

What is claimed of each is not fruits which do not depend on the labourer, but devotedness to work. Meyer thinks that the more signifies “ more than had been committed to him.” It is more natural to understand: more than will be exacted from others who have received less.

On the subject of the verbs παρέθεντο and αἰτήσουσιν, see Luke 12:20.

Mark has preserved (Mark 13:37), at the close of the parable of the porter, which he alone has, but which refers to the same duty of watchfulness as the two preceding parables in Luke, this final exhortation: “ What I say unto you, I- say unto all, Watch. ” This word corresponds in a striking manner to the meaning of Jesus' answer to Peter in Luke: “All should watch, for all shall share in the Master's personal requital (Luke 12:37); but very specially (περισσότερον, Luke 12:48) ye, my apostles, who have to expect either a greater recompense or a severer punishment.” On this supposition, Luke relates the question of Peter and the indirect answer of Jesus; Mark, a word of Jesus which belonged to His direct answer. How is the relation between the two to be explained? Holtzmann thinks that Luke of himself imagined the question of Peter, founding on this last word of Jesus in Mark. He cannot help confessing, further, that this interpolation has been very skilfully managed by Luke. Such procedure, in reality, would be as ingenious as arbitrary; it is inadmissible. The account of Luke, besides, finds a confirmation in the text of Matthew, in which the interrogative form of the answer of Jesus is preserved exactly as we find it in Luke, and that though Matthew has omitted Peter's question, which alone explains this form. Weizsäcker supposes inversely that the question of Peter in Luke was borrowed by the latter from the interrogative form of the saying of Jesus in Matthew 24:45: “ Who is then the faithful servant...? ” But Mark's account stands to defend that of Luke against this new accusation. For, as we have seen, the last words of the discourse in Mark had no meaning except in reference to Peter's question reported by Luke. Luke's form cannot be derived from Mark without protest from Matthew, nor from Matthew without Mark in his turn protesting. We have evidently, as it were, the pieces of a wheelwork taken down; each evangelist has faithfully preserved to us those of them which an incomplete tradition had transmitted to him. Applied to a written document, this dividing would form a real mutilation; as the result of a circulating tradition, it admits of easy explanation.